[macintologist]

The gist of this post is: I'm glad he was president, but now it's time for him to go.
-------

As a liberal, this is how I reflect on the George W. Bush presidency.

I'm not a Bush hater like a lot of the people on this board I supported the Iraq war for humanitarian reasons and also the war in Afghanistan.

I know that lots of people say that Bush stole the 2000 election but I think it's better that he was president than Gore. He was meant to be president in time for September 11. His administration was just the kind we needed to initially combat terror and to set a new American anti-terror policy. They didn't waver in their determination to fight terror in the remote parts of the world and as a result Al Qaeda has been severely weakened and America is safer.

But now it's time for him to go. Our relationship with the rest of the world will remain low until there's a new president. We have lost a lot of credibility in the world. There are lost jobs, tax cuts to the rich, social programs are cut, etc etc.

We need a president who can better work with the UN and other organizations to take over Iraq. I think a democrat would do a much better job at this. At the time when the situation of our country was desperate, we needed an arrogant yet unwavered administration to fight terrorism. Now that it is not the time anymore, we need a Democrat to fix up our country and restore our credibility in the world.

Thank you Pres. Bush for your service to our country, but now you must carry on doing other things and allow someone else to take over your job.

Edit: It's kind of like when Churchill was voted out by the British people even though he was a great wartime leader. The people then wanted a more peacetime, economically-driven PM.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by macintologist:
... There are lost jobs, tax cuts to the rich, social programs are cut, etc etc...

What social programs have been cut?

... Thank you Pres. Bush for your service to our country, but now you must carry on doing other things and allow someone else to take over your job...

Thank you for such a civil post. I don't agree with it but you are much more reasonable than most of the president's critics.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by macintologist:

But now it's time for him to go. Our relationship with the rest of the world will remain low until there's a new president.

That right there will be the reason given by terrorists for the next attack.

It will also be the reason why nobody wants to aid us in another military campaign in the future.

That's the scairy part.

Britian is feeling the shockwaves. Do you think the next prime minister will sacrifice their career knowing that if the US made it up (again), he looses his job and reputation? I highly doubt it. Nothing for them to gain by going in. Much to loose.

Same with other countries.

That creeps me out. The fact that the US is so vulnerable, yet we are being told it's getting better... when everyone else tells us "watch out".


The international community voiced concerns pre-9/11 that the US was at risk. For several years. And we were told by our government that they were full of S---.

Now again, the International community is talking. Their reputation is much better than the Bush admin's. I'll believe them.


Couldn't care who the next president is. Republican, Democrat, Independant, Cowboy Neil. Doesn't matter. I just want someone who will fix the serious problem we have on an international level.


Until we have true allies that trust us again, and until Nations feel that they are in control of their own borders, to deal with their issues as they feel will be most effective... we are at greater risk.

The US can't police the world alone. The world is more than capable. Unless we *start* working with the rest of the world. We are alone.

That's a really scairy thing in this "global community".

[macintologist]

What I like about Clark is that he has all the NATO/European connections from his time as Supreme Commander. With his respect in Europe, he'll be in a much better position to garner support for a worldwide effort to commit troops to Iraq. We can't be supplying 80% of the troops. That's just not what we should be doing. The UN has a good peacekeeping and humanitarian record, although I still think the Security Council is filled with idiots

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by macintologist:
What I like about Clark is that he has all the NATO/European connections from his time as Supreme Commander. With his respect in Europe, he'll be in a much better position to garner support for a worldwide effort to commit troops to Iraq. We can't be supplying 80% of the troops. That's just not what we should be doing. The UN has a good peacekeeping and humanitarian record, although I still think the Security Council is filled with idiots

Clark is an idiot.

[Saddam H.]

Originally posted by macintologist:
What I like about Clark is that he has all the NATO/European connections from his time as Supreme Commander. With his respect in Europe, he'll be in a much better position to garner support for a worldwide effort to commit troops to Iraq. We can't be supplying 80% of the troops. That's just not what we should be doing. The UN has a good peacekeeping and humanitarian record, although I still think the Security Council is filled with idiots

Clark ordered an attack against the Russian forces that swept in and took over the airfield at the close of the Kosovo conflict. Thank goodness that the Brit commander on the ground chose to ignore that one. Like he said, he wasn't about to start WW3.

For that single order, I label Clark an idiot for all eternity.

I seriously doubt Clark has connections in Europe that he wouldn't otherwise have as President.

[itai195]

Originally posted by macintologist:
What I like about Clark is that he has all the NATO/European connections from his time as Supreme Commander. With his respect in Europe, he'll be in a much better position to garner support for a worldwide effort to commit troops to Iraq. We can't be supplying 80% of the troops. That's just not what we should be doing. The UN has a good peacekeeping and humanitarian record, although I still think the Security Council is filled with idiots

I want to like Clark, really, but come on... he's a dweeb.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Clark is an idiot.

You're just anti-Clark, and a Clark-hater.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Clark is an idiot.

Are you 12 years old?

Come on idiot. Even GG Allin could come up with a reply more constructive than that.

Yeah and Rhodes Scholars are generally idiots.

Oh and... Bush is a filthy wanker.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You're just anti-Clark, and a Clark-hater.

I'm certain he is a very fine General,
but he would make a very bad specific
president.

I don't hate him, he's just an idiot.

(i.e., Waco)

[daimoni]

Originally posted by macintologist:
I know that lots of people say that Bush stole the 2000 election but I think it's better that he was president than Gore. He was meant to be president in time for September 11.

Wait a sec.

The whole election fraud/traitorous bloodless coup thing (which shocked the entire free world) didn't really matter because he was 'meant' to be president in time for some future event?!?

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I'm certain he is a very fine General,
but he would make a very bad specific
president.

I don't hate him, he's just an idiot.

(i.e., Waco)

for example is e.g. not i.e.

i.e. = that is / in other words etc.

What was Clark's role in Waco?

[zigzag]

I've never hated Bush either - life is too short. I didn't vote for him - he seemed too unseasoned and inarticulate - but I've never complained about the election result. I thought he'd be fiscally responsible and socially moderate. Unfortunately, he's proving to be fiscally irresponsible and socially conservative-to-reactionary, which means that I not only have little reason to vote for him, but a lot of reasons to vote against him.

I've commended his decisiveness in foreign policy matters, even when I've been uncertain about the decisions themselves. Leaders have to make very difficult decisions and take risks and you have to allow for that even when you disagree. I don't think his motives are sinister. I felt he was disingenuous about the WMD threat, but I was willing to write it off as normal political hyperbole because I felt there were a variety of good reasons for forcibly deposing Saddam. The problem is that even though I knew the administration was gilding the lily, I figured they had reasonably good intelligence and a sound plan. I hope they prove me wrong but at this point it appears that they had neither. For me, it's not so much a matter of ideology as a matter of competence.

The alternative, which will probably be Kerry, isn't exactly inspiring. He's a predictable Washington pol who will always remind us of Lurch. But he's been around and I have no reason to think he wouldn't make an at least competent President who would off-set a Republican Congress and be less reactionary on social issues.

edit: I forgot to mention the Supreme Court. The prospect of reactionary court appointees alone is enough to make me vote against Bush. I had expected him to be more moderate but such is not the case.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
for example is e.g. not i.e.

i.e. = that is / in other words etc.

What was Clark's role in Waco?

Thanks for the correction of my grammar

Look it up on GOOGLE.

Here is one random link I found:

http://www.counterpunch.org/waco.html

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Thanks for the correction of my grammar

Look it up on GOOGLE.

Here is one random link I found:

http://www.counterpunch.org/waco.html

A-ha. Seems rather well-documented. Screwed that up didn't he? That should automatically disqualify him from holding public office.

Clark isn't a dweeb. He is an enemy of the people. Oh well, what's new. I haven't heard anyone ask him abou this. I heard his rationalizations for Kosovo but...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I'm certain he is a very fine General,
but he would make a very bad specific
president.

I don't hate him, he's just an idiot.

(i.e., Waco)

I was making an ironic parallel, that apparently went over your head.

[swrate]

Clark? no idea, but if he did that mistake then i doubt he will be elected, even if he converted to a peacenick
The test linked here once, connected me with Kucini?. I was surprised to see, how different some of his answers were from mine.

Never the less, I agree, time for bush to go, he has painted US grey

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I was making an ironic parallel, that apparently went over your head.

That's what I just love about your types. You
speak around people.

Besides, I thought I had you on ignore?
Hmmmmm. *clique*.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
That's what I just love about your types. You
speak around people.

Besides, I thought I had you on ignore?
Hmmmmm. *clique*.

thanks. this post made me laugh, for some reason.

I guess I have to watch that "speak around people" tendency I have.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I've never hated Bush either - life is too short. I didn't vote for him - he seemed too unseasoned and inarticulate - but I've never complained about the election result. I thought he'd be fiscally responsible and socially moderate. Unfortunately, he's proving to be fiscally irresponsible and socially conservative-to-reactionary, which means that I not only have little reason to vote for him, but a lot of reasons to vote against him.

I agree 100% with your post. I'm in the same boat -- I voted for the other guy, but accepted the result once things got settled. And I generally agree with his more important foreign policy decisions, although I wish he made them for different reasons (and didn't ailenate a good part of the world in the process).

His domestic policy decisions are another matter entirely. He is running the country like a rich kid who's never had to pay a bill in his life. He's pushing through scads of tax cuts, which I wouldn't have had a problem with if he scaled back his spending plans. But not only is he still spending lots of money, he's also pushed forward programs (No Child Left Behind comes to mind) which have lofty expectations for individual states but are not completely funded by the federal governments, insuring that many states will face their own fiscal problems in the future. He's simply promised more than we all can afford.

The funny thing is, when I mentioned this "rich kid who never lacked for money and never had to pay a bill in his life" theory to some of my Conservative co-workers, they simply couldn't comprehend it, especially as compared to Bill Clinton. To them, GWB was a self-made man who just happened to make good use of his connections, and Bill Clinton was the smooth-talking Rhodes Scholar who never had a hard life, and spent their money with reckless abandon. Which makes absolutely no sense to me. Now, I don't consider Clinton to be some kind of saint, but as I understand it he didn't quite have it easy early in his life.

And it's part of the reason why I think this coming election is going to be nastier than the last one. Because the country is more polarized, not less. I think there might be two or three states close enough to recount this time, and if that happens, the election may just be thrown to Congress... Since I believe each state's congressional delegation gets 1 vote in that case, I would think that would seal the election for Bush, no matter what the votes say, as he has more support in more of the less populated states.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
The funny thing is, when I mentioned this "rich kid who never lacked for money and never had to pay a bill in his life" theory to some of my Conservative co-workers, they simply couldn't comprehend it, especially as compared to Bill Clinton. To them, GWB was a self-made man who just happened to make good use of his connections, and Bill Clinton was the smooth-talking Rhodes Scholar who never had a hard life, and spent their money with reckless abandon. Which makes absolutely no sense to me. Now, I don't consider Clinton to be some kind of saint, but as I understand it he didn't quite have it easy early in his life.

Bush is no more self-made than Prince Charles, but he's good at projecting a down-to-earth, anti-intellectual, entrepreneurial persona, which is mother's milk to like-minded conservatives. They don't resent his privileges and connections - they envy and admire them. Who wouldn't want a family friend to buy you a baseball team? I'd take it.

Clinton grew up lower middle-class and was more self-made, but in an intellectual/academic context rather than a business context, which obviously doesn't count for much with your co-workers, who perceive intellectuals, with some justification, as softies who are out of touch with reality. It's a real cultural divide.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by zigzag:

You nailed it Zig.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Bush is no more self-made than Prince Charles, but he's good at projecting a down-to-earth, anti-intellectual, entrepreneurial persona, which is mother's milk to like-minded conservatives. They don't resent his privileges and connections - they envy and admire them. Who wouldn't want a family friend to buy you a baseball team? I'd take it.

Clinton grew up lower middle-class and was more self-made, but in an intellectual/academic context rather than a business context, which obviously doesn't count for much with your co-workers, who perceive intellectuals, with some justification, as softies who are out of touch with reality. It's a real cultural divide.

Thanks, Zig. I hadn't had the time to look at this thread since I last posted here, and when I come back to it, I find this gem. It explains a lot.