On the Bush admin policies, pro or con, etc

I think the poll would be a bit more useful if it gave time frames.

For example:

"Over the next 1-3 years..."
"Over the next 4-10 years..."
"Over the next 11-15 years..."
"Over the next 16-20 years..."
"Over the next 20+ years..."

I would answer them this way:
Yes (definitely)
Yes (with rare lulls)
Yes (but increasing lulls)
No (but with frequent violent peaks)
No (with decreasingly frequent violent peaks)
No (except for spasmodic, uncoordinated acts)

I agree with the 2001 assessment that this is a long war that wil require a heavy military price but will also require an increasing attention to diplomatic and economic engagement. The next president will find that he must actively pursue terrorists everywhere or we will be fighting them in Topeka.

Also, the hang-up on Bush makes it a pretty circumscribed, less meaningful pool. Why not just ask "Who hates Bush: How and why?" Cut to the chase.

Bot

Orwell writ large. Who or what are we at 'war' with? Perpetual reliance upon military 'solutions' to wage your 'war', virtually guarantee terrorist reprisals in perpetuity. Oh, and then there's also the guaranteed commensurate diminishment of civil liberties in the process of waging your 'war'--read: the 'war' on drugs.

To quote Mr. Bush before the Iraq war, at the UN Security Council, "we want a straight up and down vote, let the chips fall where they may". Unlike Mr. Bush, I will not pretend I never said it and block the vote instead.

Its a pretty black and white question.

Howdy All,
It won't eliminate but will slow it down.

__________________
Frank X. Morris
17 Kia Niro
08 Jeep Wrangler 4 door unlimited

you mean increase, right? lol

__________________
72 W114/M130

RedMeat cartoon

Without a crystal ball as good as Botnst's, I would be hard pressed to understand how repeating the Iraq folly periodically, and repeatedly solidifying the rest of the world's suspicions and fears about the United States so they hate us even more, is going to eventually calm everyone down and rid the world of terrorists. Unless the plan, of course, is to kill everyone but Americans and the people in the countries we control directly.

Fighting terror around the world is a very necessary mission for our survival. Carrying out that fight by LYING about WMD to the rest of the world to get them on your side, then trying to bully them into siding with you, then failing that, flipping the bird to the rest of the world and going it alone, is probably not the wisest pattern to repeat. Given George W. Bush's propensity for believing his own BS and never admitting he personally has made an error means, according to what I see in my smaller, less capable, shorter-term, crystal ball, we are likely to do it over and over. Meaning we will continue to make things worse.

The idea that the reason people object to Mr. Bush's policies is because they hate him sounds like something Mr. Bush might be thinking. It gets the idea of the policies being at fault off the table without addressing the issue of the thought behind the policies, ever. I have said quite often, I would probably like sitting down and shooting the ***** with him over a beer. I think he is probably like many of my buddies that I will drink with - none of them are qualified to be the President either. I don't hate him as a person, I just resent what he has done to America by electing to impose poorly prepared plans and policies, rather than lead us somewhere better than we were.

Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

Ned a consult? I'm your man.

"Lying" ... Define lie. Then prove it. Oh wait, haven't we tried this before?

Same damned carousel. Don't you tire of going rand and round and round and round.....


B

Botnst,

I am perfectly content with a definition of lying that encompasses the following:

1. Making statements to leave a false impression that you actually know something when you should have said you heard from others and have not checked the facts your self.
2. Making statements to achieve an end result costing lives of Americans, our allies and enemies and civilians in a foreign land, that are not supported by facts you are actually sure of yourself, but that you present as though they were.

And, I am perfectly content to issue a guilty verdict to President Bush on the WMD argument he used to get the support he needed to take the country to war in Iraq.

The fact that you, and some others, insist on parsing words and definitions to point out there theoretically could be another explanation is ok, it is your opinion and you have the right to express it. The apparent "round and round" issue comes from the fact that not everyone agrees with you, or your logic for dismissing the notion that Bush lied. He is the Commander in Chief, and he needs to have a better reason for making the decision to kill several thousand people than "I heard Saddam had WMD from someone that should have known." Along with the power that comes with the "Commander in Chief" title comes the responsibility to act with knowledge and facts, not innuendo or nuanced claims of threats that need to be countered.

O.J. Simpson made it clear the legal definitions of evidence and the array of possible interpretations of data are not always compatible or easily accounted for in all cases. In this case, George W. Bush is clearly and logically a liar. However, I concede you bring up an argument that gives pause, for a moment. But it reminds me of the famous, (and winning, I acknowledge) sound bite, "If the glove don't fit you must acquit," from the OJ trial. Sounds great, actually probably unforgettable, but we know what the evidence said in spite of the jury's determination.

Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

Good old Howard Dean, God bless him, was the only pol at the time who proclaimed, loud and clear, that the Iraq war had not made us safer. On the contrary, it presented middle eastern terrorists with a slew of targets close by. And of course, it gave those moderate Arabs less reason to question the methods of Al Quaeda and other jihadist groups.

I would argue that the Bush administration approach, in general, has made us less secure, and will make us even more vulnerable in the foreseeable future. After 9/11, the attack on Afghanistan made some sense, though in the main it was heavy handed. The idea should have been to root out the culprits, rather than carpet bomb that miserable place into oblivion.

The results were mixed. While some Al Quaeda and Taliban honchos were killed or captured, Bin Laden still roams free; Al Quaeda and the Taliban have regrouped; and the Iraq occupation has been a recruiting bonanza for radical Islamists everywhere. Throw in the mix the prisoner abuse scandal, and you have the Ugly American reprised.

Joe B.

...deceit is a first cousin to the lie. Whether the Bush administration chose the former or the latter, they relied upon a dishonest presentation of facts and theories in order to drum up public and political support for a rush to an ultimately unnecessary attack, invasion and occupation of another sovereign nation. History will not look kindly upon their use of hype and deception a la "Remember the Maine" and Gulf of Tonkin.

Well that's one way to look at it. here's another: Both sides have said the same dang things ad nauseum. The chances of persuasion, absent any new facts, are nil.

When it comes around for another redundant repeat of the same thing over again another time using the same tired arguments (from all sides) I say, "BOHICA"!

Bot

Yes, but your arguments seem more based on denial than anything else at this point, which is what people do when the truth of matters become clear to everyone but themselves. On Friday, when Moore's film is released, your gong to have all the new material you can handle.

How on earth can you give anything that comes out of Mooooooooores mouth credit when it's been proven time and time again its mostly well done lies and facts are rare. In the same breath you make a comment that the world tribune lacks credibility.

1. I believe that terrorism from those abroad will diminish because of his policies. However, I can see an uprising domestically if the oppression of civil liberties keeps chugging down this path.

2. We have found WMD's, the UN has admitted that he had WMD's and was shipping them off to other countries before and during the war.

3. Citing Michael Moore and expecting us to take you seriously is like Bush citing Barney the Dinosaur as a source and him expecting the same. My ass is a more credible source of information than MM.

4. Wether Bush was lying or not at the time, going to Iraq was finishing up 12 year old business. I defy you to tell me that the UN would have been more effective in putting SoDamned Insane in his place, especially with the UN being in SH's pocket.

__________________
http://comp.uark.edu/~dmgill/signature.jpg