Can't support Bush anymore

[MethodMan]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to 12volt_man again.

​

 

[whatbogsends]

So then why was it true when the Democrats said it?

It wasn't true. But making an incorrect/misleading statement is not the same as launching a war based on an incorrect/misleading statement.

The burden of proof is significantly higher when we engage in action which results in the loss of life.

That's not entirely true.

First of all, it was not a "war of aggression".

Second, there was supporting evidence, plus justification outside of the presence of WMDs. But, of course, this is all beside the point.

Once again, he is being condemned for pursuing war, and you completely ignore the fact that every democrat in Congress urged him to do it.

Wrong. What was the supporting evidence? The false Niger claims about Iraq trying to obtain Uranium? The "stockpiles" of WMD that Rumsfeld assured us "we know where they are"?

What was the justification outside of WMD? Regime change? Regime change, in of itself, is an illegal reason for war according to international law.

Being a state sponsor of terror? Saddam's "links to terror" have been dubious, at best. Unlike our good ol' buddies Saudi Arabia, who have their fingerprints all over 9/11.

When exactly did "every democrat in Congress" urge Bush to invade Iraq?

Do you believe that the Democrats in Congress had confidence in this intelligence when they urged President Bush to act or when they voted to authorize the use of force?

The Congressional authorization for use of force - you again use the term "urged", show me where they "urged" Bush to act - was done in a manner which stipulated that the use of force would be warranted in response to a threat. They left the ultimate decision of whether or not Iraq was a threat in the hands of George Bush. They didn't vote to act. They voted to give Bush the authority to act. Bush ultimately made the decision to use force. There was, however, little to none real evidence of Saddam posing a threat with WMDs.

I don't believe that this is true. If it were, then you would be criticizing Congressional Democrats who authorized the use of war in this case.

I already explained this above. While i don't place a lot of respect to those in Congress who voted for the resolution, they don't have the final accountability in this issue.

So, how is he supposed to prepare for something that he doesn't have the authority to act on in the first place?

You're sure he doesn't have any authority to put measures in place for disaster recovery? What does Bush actually mean when he says he's making it safer for Americans?

 

[blueapplepaste]

Best non-answer I have seen in a long time.

??? Did you read what I wrote?

He asked what would I have liked for Bush to do. And I responded saying that he needed to be a better leader and not come off as so cold and uncaring. He needed to be like he was after 9/11. He was acting like a great President then. With Katrina he failed miserably as president.

 

[MethodMan]

??? Did you read what I wrote?

He asked what would I have liked for Bush to do. And I responded saying that he needed to be a better leader and not come off as so cold and uncaring. He needed to be like he was after 9/11. He was acting like a great President then. With Katrina he failed miserably as president.

I read it. When asked for specifics, you went on to potificate generalities. Ever consider running for office?

 

[12volt_man]

Let's be honest. Everyone screwed up royally. Local, state, and, yes, the federal government under Bush. I'll admit, as far as prevention and that stuff there's not much he could have done.

No, you very clearly said that you blamed him for his inaction.

If you're going to blame him for not doing anything, then you need to explain to us what you believe he should have done, given the legal restraints that he's under.

How he took forever to even view the damage,

You do understand that there were saftey issues at stake, don't you?

How soon after the hurricane do you believe that he should have viewed the damage? Why do you believe that he is obligated to view the damage in the first place?

and his comment about Trent Lott's house was plain stupid.

Why? If he has a friend who is affected by the hurricane, why is it unreasonable to relate his friend's story?

Is Trent Lott less deserving of our sympathies because he's wealthy?

He came across as not caring and uninterested in the people's suffering.

Why should I blame him for your perception?

You're lying to yourself if you can't admit that.

I don't believe that and you haven't given me any reason to change my mind.

You can put blame at the mayor and governor (which they rightly deserve)

If they deserve it, then why aren't Democrats willing to criticize them? Why, instead of criticizing them for something that you admit that they deserve, do you Democrats blame someone who wasn't responsible in the first place?

but in a time of crisis such as this, people look to their President for reassurance and leadership. In both of these Bush failed miserably.

So, why is President Bush responsible because some people misunderstand the nature and role of the presidency?

That Bush was missing, instead we got some apathetic cold hearted person. That's what he could have done better.

What has he done that was apathetic? What has he done that was cold hearted?

 

[blueapplepaste]

So, how is he supposed to prepare for something that he doesn't have the authority to act on in the first place?

He's prided himself and his government on being prepared for a disaster. So is he lying to us when he said that the government was better prepared when, infact according too you, he doesn't even have that authority?

 

[12volt_man]

??? Did you read what I wrote?

He asked what would I have liked for Bush to do.

Yes I did and you avoided the question.

 

[12volt_man]

He's prided himself and his government on being prepared for a disaster.

When?

So is he lying to us when he said that the government was better prepared when, infact according too you, he doesn't even have that authority?

When did he say that the government was prepared for a hurricane?

 

[parousia70]

Care to share some source material for that little spout off? I've never heard anything even remotely like that.

Little spout off...... hehehe... that's cute.

Source Material?
Sure thang fella...

Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a centralised and largely secular state.


Now, when the Shia religious parties get their way, it will be a decentralised state with a pronounced Islamic identity. The draft of the new constitution describes Islam as "a main source" of legislation and stipulates that no law may contradict Islamic principles.

From http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45984

On Aug. 23, President Bush said, "The fact that Iraq will have a democratic constitution that honors women's rights, the rights of minorities, is, is going to be an important change in the, in the broader Middle East." (New York Times)

Sadly, this ancient nation appears to have traded one secular dictator for a whole set of even worse oppressors – hundreds, if not thousands of Islamic mullahs who may soon be empowered to overrule virtually any democratic freedom, thwart any democratic law, supplanting them with harsh Sharia law – laws that, frankly, throw human rights for women back into the Stone Age.

If this happens, President Bush's naive statement may go down in history along side Neville Chamberlain's infamous assurances that Hitler was a man of peace.

If Sharia law becomes the governing doctrine of Iraq, a fair question might be: "When did you stop beating your wives?" The answer: "I never stopped. Sharia law forbids me to stop beating them."

The NY Times reports:

With religious Shiite parties poised to take power in the new constitutional assembly, leading Shiite clerics are pushing for Islam to be recognized as the guiding principle of the new constitution.

Exactly how Islamic to make the document is the subject of debate.

At the very least, the clerics say, the constitution should ensure that legal measures overseeing personal matters like marriage, divorce and family inheritance fall under Shariah, or Koranic law.
...
"The constitution is the most dangerous document in the country and the most important one affecting the future of the country," said Alaadeen Muhammad al-Hakim, a son of and spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Said al-Hakim, one of the most senior Shiite clerics in Iraq. "It should be written extremely carefully."
...
The clerics generally agree that the constitution must ensure that no laws passed by the state contradict a basic understanding of Shariah as laid out in the Koran. Women should not be treated as the equals of men in matters of marriage, divorce and family inheritance, they say. Nor should men be prevented from having multiple wives, they add.


SO, IS THIS THE NOBLE PURPOSE FOR WHICH U.S. CITIZENS PAID HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS? IS THIS THE HIGH CALLING FOR WHICH OUR SOLDIERS DIED? SIMPLY TO GIVE MUSLIM MEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BRUISE ARMS?

The American public paying (to the tune of $200B+) to establish Iraq as an Islamic Republic, along with officially sanctioned polygamy.

Now that is Priceless!

 

[I <3 Abraham]

One can only hope.



False premise. You post this in order to make it appear that they cannot make ends meet bacause of the failure of President Bush's policies, but you neglect to show a connection.

That someone has trouble making ends meet does not correlate to failure by President Bush.

You see, this is the problem, YOU make the specific claims then say WE have the burden of proof to disprove them. Let's start with some links to support your argument, then we can work from there. On to the line by line.

Could you please explain to us what happens when profits go up?

The company's income statement records an increase in revenues versus expenses over the prior fiscal year, what do YOU think happens?

And what do you believe that this shows?

It shows what DOESN'T happen when profits go up, workers wages DO NOT go up (trickle doesn't happen basically is the point)

You're joking, right? Do you even know what the CPI is?

The CPI is a aggregation of a number of different necessary products the demand for which is easily traceable. The rise in prices, demand staying the same, is called "inflation".

Based on what?

Based on the fact that inflation has sped up and workers wages have not recovered from the post 9-11 slump...seems pretty easy to understand.

No I didn't.

In the words of Aqua Teen Hunger Force 'You so freakin' did!'

agree. A booming economy, near record low unemployment, a sucessful war on terrorism.

Yeah, who'd want to support that?

However, while unemployment may be down now, the poverty level has increased.



Which is offset by falling unemployment and rising median income.



I believe that it's very bright and rosy.

This is one of the problems of the left. They can never build on a positive. They must find a negative and tear down. This is why liberalism will never be successful.

This is your only actual argument, the rest is is just intentional recondition.

 

[12volt_man]

It wasn't true.

So then, why are you not calling them to account?

But making an incorrect/misleading statement is not the same as launching a war based on an incorrect/misleading statement.

The burden of proof is significantly higher when we engage in action which results in the loss of life.

But these are the people who authorized him to go to war. Why do you blame President Bush, but ignore the people on your side of the aisle who gave him the authority to go?

When exactly did "every democrat in Congress" urge Bush to invade Iraq?

Let's start with the man your party nominated forvice president in 2000:

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the convincing call to action against Iraq that President Bush issued yesterday at the United Nations to discuss the unique dangers created by Saddam Hussein's regime and to argue that it is imperative that the international community, led by the United States of America, mobilize now to eliminate those dangers.

On September 11, 2001, a foreboding new chapter in American history began. On that day, our Government was reawakened in this new century to its oldest and most solemn responsibility: protecting the lives and liberty of the American people.

As we survey the landscape of threats to our security in the years ahead, the greatest are terrorists--al-Qaida and rogue regimes such as Saddam Hussein's.

Saddam hates America and Americans and is working furiously to accumulate deadly weapons of mass destruction and the missiles, planes, and unmanned aerial vehicles to use in attacking distant targets.

Every day Saddam remains in power is a day of danger for the Iraqi people, for Iraq's neighbors, for the American people, and for the world. As long as Saddam remains in power, there will be no genuine security and no lasting peace in the Middle East, among the Arab nations or among the Arabs, Israelis, and Christians who live there.

The threat Saddam poses has been articulated so often that some may have grown numb to the reality of his brutality. But after September 11, we must reacquaint ourselves with him because if we do not understand and act, his next victims, like Osama bin Laden's, could be innocent Americans. - Joe Leiberman

The Congressional authorization for use of force - you again use the term "urged", show me where they "urged" Bush to act - was done in a manner which stipulated that the use of force would be warranted in response to a threat. They left the ultimate decision of whether or not Iraq was a threat in the hands of George Bush. They didn't vote to act. They voted to give Bush the authority to act. Bush ultimately made the decision to use force. There was, however, little to none real evidence of Saddam posing a threat with WMDs.

So then, why did so many Democrats say that Iraq was a threat and why are you not willing to hold them to the same standard that you hold President Bush to?

I already explained this above. While i don't place a lot of respect to those in Congress who voted for the resolution, they don't have the final accountability in this issue.

In other words, you refuse to hold Democrats to the same standard that you hold President Bush to.

Just as I said. Hypocrisy.

You're sure he doesn't have any authority to put measures in place for disaster recovery?

I do not see where in the Constitution the president of the United States is given this authority.

What does Bush actually mean when he says he's making it safer for Americans?

I don't know. What context did he say this in?

 

[blueapplepaste]

No, you very clearly said that you blamed him for his inaction.

I did? I don't think so, I blame him for his inaction afterwards not leading up to.

You do understand that there were saftey issues at stake, don't you?

Were there not safety issues at ground zero when he was there right after 9/11? Then he seemed determined and acted like a leader; not so in LA. He was no where to be seen.

Why? If he has a friend who is affected by the hurricane, why is it unreasonable to relate his friend's story?

What about the other 250,000+ people who he didn't relate to. By talking about Trent Lott's house it makes him seem like an elitist and ignoring of the thousands of others.

Is Trent Lott less deserving of our sympathies because he's wealthy?

Are the poor less deserving of Bush's sypmathies because they're poor?

If they deserve it, then why aren't Democrats willing to criticize them? Why, instead of criticizing them for something that you admit that they deserve, do you Democrats blame someone who wasn't responsible in the first place?

Hello? I am a democrat who's criticizing them. They do deserve a lot of the blame, but so does Bush. I'll admit that the Dems are wrong when they try to put all the blame on Bush, but Repubs are also wrong when they won't put any on him.

So, why is President Bush responsible because some people misunderstand the nature and role of the presidency?

The role of the Presidency is to be a leader. Bush and his supporters tout this as being one of his strong points. That he's a leader. And after 9/11 I'd certainly agree. He was a great leader who was able to rally the country behind him and into recovery after that tragedy. But now that he's failed as a leader after Katrina, it suddenly is no longer his role? Non sense. What America, and especially the people affected by Katrina, needed was a leader. President Bush failed at this.

 

[AirPo]

So then, why did so many Democrats say that Iraq was a threat

Because they, like so many other americans, believed the lies that Bush was telling.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

After many, many weeks of debating in my mind, I've come to a conclusion about our President: he stinks. Sorry to everyone that I voted for the guy. Politics aside, you just needed to watch Bush when he first hit the ground in Mississippi all 'ums' and 'uhs' to see the guy just isn't leadership material. But its not just that, that was just the straw that broke the camels back. His slander of the Minutemen, super-failure to do anything about our fuel crisis, endorsing renewal of the Patriot Act.......the list goes on. (Iraq isn't really that big a sore point for me, but thats for another topic.) As a Republican who voted for Bush, I feel obligated to continue to support the person I elected, but as a man, I have to call a spade a spade, swallow the pride and agree with what so many -even, God forgive me, Michael Moore-have said: Bush is the wrong man to be President. Now, I'll take all the 'I told you so's' from the Dems and the Left, I've made my bed and I will lie in it so fire away. Voting for Bush was a foolish move on my part, but I'd be even more of a fool if I kept supporting him. The writings on the wall with Bush, how ironic so many of the predominantly Chrisitian GOP can't read it. Just how far into hell are you people going to follow this guy?

BTW, taking down the Elephant icon. Posted this here instead of the GOP forums so non-Repubs could respond if they wanted too without worrying about being reported. I also encourage other Bush supporters to seriously re-think their position and ask themselves if they are just letting pride keep them hanging on. What's he doing thats so great, show me just one thing that he has done that is worthy of the deep devotion and defense he gets? Not being a liberal or a Democrat doesn't seem to quite cut it anymore.

It's okay. I made the same mistake, too. It just took you one more election than me to realize it.

 

[draper]

I forgive you for voting for him.

 

[12volt_man]

You see, this is the problem, YOU make the specific claims then say WE have the burden of proof to disprove them.

I don't believe that I said anything about burden of proof.

The company's income statement records an increase in revenues versus expenses over the prior fiscal year, what do YOU think happens?

And what do you think the company does with these revenues?

It shows what DOESN'T happen when profits go up, workers wages DO NOT go up (trickle doesn't happen basically is the point)

Again, you fail to show the correlation between one and the other.

The CPI is a aggregation of a number of different necessary products the demand for which is easily traceable. The rise in prices, demand staying the same, is called "inflation".

I didn't didn't ask you if you could define it, I asked you if you knew what it is.


Based on the fact that inflation has sped up and workers wages have not recovered from the post 9-11 slump...seems pretty easy to understand.

In the words of Aqua Teen Hunger Force 'You so freakin' did!'

Then you shouldn't have a problem showing us where I said this.

Fortunately for me, I don't get my political information from cartoons.

This is your only actual argument,

How ironic that you claim this to be my "only actual argument" and yet, the only point that you refuse to respond to.

 

[christalee4]

I think the special Kool Aid has worn off for Soupy.

Now that you have seen the light, be welcome and let's all work together to make this country a better place again.

 

[parousia70]

If you're going to blame him for not doing anything, then you need to explain to us what you believe he should have done, given the legal restraints that he's under.

Clearly, He should have implimented the DHS National Response Plan (NRP) that he himself comissioned by Presidential Directive HSPD-5 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030228-9.html
and his administration, by signature of each cabnet level secretary, formally adopted as policy in December of Last year.

The NRP directs FEMA to act on its own authority to quickly provide assistance and conduct emergency operations following a major catastrophe, pre-empting state and local authorities if necessary. In the case of "catastrophic events," such as what occurred in New Orleans, it calls for heightened and "proactive" federal involvement to manage the disaster. Catastrophic events are defined as incidents that immediately outstrip the resources of state and local governments. FEMA viewed a major hurricane strike in New Orleans as a "catastrophic" event when it proposed studies to formulate a disaster relief plan. According to the NRP, "catastrophic events," such as what occurred in New Orleans, call for heightened and "proactive" federal involvement to manage the disaster. The response plan listed "guiding principles" to govern the response to these major events. The "Guiding Principles for Proactive Federal Response" make clear that, in these "catastrophic" cases, the federal government will operate independently to provide assistance, rather than simply supporting or cajoling state authorities:

• The primary mission is to save lives; protect critical infrastructure, property, and the environment; contain the event; and preserve national security.
• Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of catastrophic magnitude.
• Identified Federal response resources will deploy and begin necessary operations as required to commence life-safety activities.
• Notification and full coordination with States will occur, but the coordination process must not delay or impede the rapid deployment and use of critical resources. States are urged to notify and coordinate with local governments regarding a proactive Federal response.
• State and local governments are encouraged to conduct collaborative planning with the Federal Government as a part of "steady-state" preparedness for catastrophic incidents."

The NRP also says that, when responding to a catastrophic incident, the federal government should start emergency operations even in the absence of clear assessment of the situation. "A detailed and credible common operating picture may not be achievable for 24 to 48 hours (or longer) after the incident," the NRP's "Catastrophic Annex" states. "As a result, response activities must begin without the benefit of a detailed or complete situation and critical needs assessment."

Bush should have taken immediate steps to insure FEMA implimented the NRP.
He failed to do so, and as he rightly stated, he is fully responsible for that failure.

 

[12volt_man]

Because they, like so many other americans, believed the lies that Bush was telling.

Two problems with this.

The first is that, in most cases, they made their arguments before President Bush made his.

The second is that they got their information from the same place.

 

[MORE85]

Rich Ppl Make Alot Of Money When A Republican's In Charge.