SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Bush Administration's Job

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Bush Administration's Job (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=105916)

Abysmal & impeachable.

We have a president who called for a return of integrity to office presiding over the most corrupt administration since the Harding & Grant administrations.

We have the "business" president who turned budget surpluses into raging deficits financed by a possible future adversary.

We have a "war & security" president who was so focused on regime change in Iraq that he

1. Ignored the warnings on al qaeda and an attack here and failed to prevent the attack that occured on his watch.

2. Failed to finish the job in securing Afghanistan before ginning up his war of choice in Iraq and failed to send enough troops to secure order in either place. So now we have a civil war in Iraq and a resurgent Taliban with safe havens in Pakistan and billions in opium smuggling money to finance their offensives.

3. Ignores the fact that 92% of US casualties in Iraq are from the Sunni insurgency and rattles sabres at Iran while building forces for an attack on that country.

4. Has not secured this nation's borders because his corporate friends want cheap labor.

We have an "oil" president totally in thrall to the Saudi royal family and his oil company friends to the point of allowing them to formulate national energy policy with the VP and blocks any attempt to shine a light of inquiry on those meetings.

We have a "regular guy" president who only cares about tax cuts for his wealthy friends while gutting the social safety net and killing the middle class of this country.

We have an "ownership" president who has never taken responsibility for any of his myriad of mistakes.

We have a "freedom" president who has systematically deconstructed the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the pursuit of the so-called "unitary executive" ammassing for himself dictatorial powers. Simultaneously, he has caused to be appointed to key positions as U.S. Attorneys political hacks who owe their loyalty to his regime, not the constitution they are sworn to uphold. Now under US law, the president can declare anybody anywhere at any time an "enemy combatant", citizen or not, and confine & torture them with no redress or right of appeal. He can declare martial law at his whim, nationalize National guard troops from any state without permission from that state's governor and send them to other states under federal control without the permission of the destination's governor.

We have a "defense" president who has systematically run our Army & Marines into the ground and now seems intent on doing the same with the Navy & Air Force in Iran. At the same time, he hires mercenary armies from Blackwater, CACI, SAIC and their ilk to patrol US disaster areas, seizing legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens.

What this president has done is to strengthen, at every opportunity, corporate and executive government power in secret and lie and smear any and all who oppose his efforts. What is acheived with this concentration of corporate/government power?
From my readings, that is the classic definition of Fascism.

Have you considered going to work for the New York Times, Ishmael?

Isn't this a great country we live in?

Only 90 mintues till happy hour ... :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ishmael

Abysmal & impeachable.

We have a president who called for a return of integrity to office presiding over the most corrupt administration since the Harding & Grant administrations.

More corrupt than Nixon? Right...:roll:

Quote:

We have the "business" president who turned budget surpluses into raging deficits financed by a possible future adversary.

Who? What "future Advesary?"

Quote:

We have a "war & security" president who was so focused on regime change in Iraq that he

1. Ignored the warnings on al qaeda and an attack here and failed to prevent the attack that occured on his watch.

All the information he got was that there was an impending attack by al-queda. It didn't describe in detail exactly how.

Quote:

2. Failed to finish the job in securing Afghanistan before ginning up his war of choice in Iraq and failed to send enough troops to secure order in either place. So now we have a civil war in Iraq and a resurgent Taliban with safe havens in Pakistan and billions in opium smuggling money to finance their offensives.

Quote:

3. Ignores the fact that 92% of US casualties in Iraq are from the Sunni insurgency and rattles sabres at Iran while building forces for an attack on that country.

We are NOT building forces to ATTACK Iran. It is a defensive force, almost exclusively naval forces. Bush is not going to attack anything when he knows he has less than two years left in office.

Quote:

4. Has not secured this nation's borders because his corporate friends want cheap labor.

At least he did SOMETHING about it.

Quote:

We have an "oil" president totally in thrall to the Saudi royal family and his oil company friends to the point of allowing them to formulate national energy policy with the VP and blocks any attempt to shine a light of inquiry on those meetings.

Says who?

Quote:

We have a "regular guy" president who only cares about tax cuts for his wealthy friends while gutting the social safety net and killing the middle class of this country.

I've got PLENTY of tax cuts. I'm middle class.

Quote:

We have an "ownership" president who has never taken responsibility for any of his myriad of mistakes.

Such as? And even then, I can say the same for many of presidents.

Quote:

We have a "freedom" president who has systematically deconstructed the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the pursuit of the so-called "unitary executive" ammassing for himself dictatorial powers.

Last time I checked, (which happened to be yestarday), That was the ACLU.

Quote:

...Now under US law, the president can declare anybody anywhere at any time an "enemy combatant", citizen or not, and confine & torture them with no redress or right of appeal. He can declare martial law at his whim, nationalize National guard troops from any state without permission from that state's governor and send them to other states under federal control without the permission of the destination's governor.

Quote:

We have a "defense" president who has systematically run our Army & Marines into the ground and now seems intent on doing the same with the Navy & Air Force in Iran.

Run the military into the ground? He's trying to INCREASE defense spending by the billion! That's funding for technology for the troops, not against them.

Quote:

At the same time, he hires mercenary armies from Blackwater, CACI, SAIC and their ilk to patrol US disaster areas, seizing legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens.

Quote:

What this president has done is to strengthen, at every opportunity, corporate and executive government power in secret and lie and smear any and all who oppose his efforts. What is acheived with this concentration of corporate/government power?

What corporate power? You DO know that there is a left run congress right now, right?

Quote:

From my readings, that is the classic definition of Fascism.

That's nice.

:dead: :dead:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ishmael

this is 99% B.S., Im sorry for being so blunt, but this crap is not the truth! Bush has for one cut the deficit almost in half, cut taxes equally for EVERYONE, not secured the nations borders? didn't you hear about the multi-billion dollar fence he is building, didn't you hear about the big budget increases for border patrol agents?, And as for corruption and morral character... don't you remember Bill Clinton, and his monica lewinsky afair????, Ignored terrorist threats?, I didn't hear any of our dems in the house or senate foreseeing a terrorist attack in the near future! You really need to stay off of the far-left blogs and start really reasearching these things, and facsism, how can you possibly compare our current president to fascist dictators? And he dosen't wipe out anyone who is against him, look at our last election. A bunch of Dems just got voted into the Senate, is he killing them like Hitler would've done with his opposers?, no!, he is trying to work coopertively with them to come up with sensible solutions to this country's problems. Oh, come on, its just ridicules, i never thought anyone could believe any of these acusations, but I am obviously proved wrong.

P.S. If anyone thinks I am coming across as making personal attacks on this guy, then I am very sorry, but I am just trying to make a point, If it comes across as personal mudslinging, It wasn't meant to.

Agree with ASWnut101,

Exactly couldn't be more right. I am very flustered with this crap about bush lying and such... :roll:

Quote:

Originally Posted by loynokid

this is 99% B.S., Im sorry for being so blunt, but this crap is not the truth! Bush has for one cut the deficit almost in half, cut taxes equally for EVERYONE,

Hmm. You're wrong there.
Budget surplus/deficit of the US
1992 - $290 billion deficit
2000 - $236 billion surplus [+ $526 billion]
2005 - $319 billion deficit [- $555 billion]
However, I think the usefulness of the deficit in a political argument is negligible. Borrowing is not always evil, and a surplus is certainly not always benficial. It depends on the economic environment of the time. And granted, Dubya may pull a trillion dollars out of a hat before '08.

You are half right on the tax cuts. As far as I remember, there were many more tax cuts for the rich, and fewer (but larger) cuts for the poor.

Quote:

Ignored terrorist threats?, I didn't hear any of our dems in the house or senate foreseeing a terrorist attack in the near future!

I don't think the House & Senate get the same intelligence briefings that the Prez does. Expecting them to have access to the same information is a little disingenuous. Anyone know this one?

Quote:

You really need to stay off of the far-left blogs and start really reasearching these things, and facsism, how can you possibly compare our current president to fascist dictators? And he dosen't wipe out anyone who is against him, look at our last election. A bunch of Dems just got voted into the Senate, is he killing them like Hitler would've done with his opposers?, no!, he is trying to work coopertively with them to come up with sensible solutions to this country's problems. Oh, come on, its just ridicules, i never thought anyone could believe any of these acusations, but I am obviously proved wrong.

hmm, fascism is almost never used to describe a fascist, more to denigrate an enemy. Much in the same way that liberals are labelled communists by some, conservatives get called fascists. It helps no-one and stifles debate.
GW Bush displays authoritarianism rather than fascism, if you ask me. Rendition, unchallenged detention, warrantless surveillance, attempts to redefine torture, all hallmark the Immovable State rather than the Glorified State

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Now this much I would have to agree with, it does certainly stifle debate and gets us no where.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geetrue

Have you considered going to work for the New York Times, Ishmael?

Isn't this a great country we live in?

Only 90 mintues till happy hour ... :lol:

Lol... :lol::lol::lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ishmael

Abysmal & impeachable.

We have a president who called for a return of integrity to office presiding over the most corrupt administration since the Harding & Grant administrations.

More corrupt than Nixon? Right...:roll:

Look at who was in Nixon & Ford's administrations: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kissinger. They were all there. A reminder, Grant, Harding & Nixon were Republican administrations. Also the latest development of US Attorneys being fired for no reason. Here's a link to that story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-b...l_b_42591.html

Quote:

We have the "business" president who turned budget surpluses into raging deficits financed by a possible future adversary.

Who? What "future Advesary?"

China, the ones who own our debt and fired a shot across our bows by dropping their stock exchange by 10% and Wall St. drops 400 points in a day.

Quote:

All the information he got was that there was an impending attack by al-queda. It didn't describe in detail exactly how.

Wrong again. We know that Ramzi Yuseff planned using hijacked airplanes back in the mid-90's. We also know about the Presidential Daily Briefing from Aug. 2001 saying bin-laden determined to attack in US.

Quote:

Then why are there not any news reports from Afghanistan of "Attacks on US troops?" All we have there are SOF forces backed by mobilized units of Marines (Using mainly helicopters) and the Air Force. The SOF teams are working with the new Afghani government and ex-northern alliance forces to defeat the A-Q. And what do you suggest we do with Pakistan?

It's wintertime so the Pushtuns are marshalling their forces for the spring offensive. Also the recent carbombing during Cheney's visit and the car bombing in Kabul where film was seized that showed US troops firing indescriminately into crowds and traffic in the aftermath. Re: Pakistan: We're in a real bind there. But if I was going to support an attack on nuclear facilities, Pakistan's would be at the top of my list coinciding with incursions of US & NATO forces into Waziristan to stop the Pushtun threat on both sides of the border.

Quote:

3. Ignores the fact that 92% of US casualties in Iraq are from the Sunni insurgency and rattles sabres at Iran while building forces for an attack on that country.

We are NOT building forces to ATTACK Iran. It is a defensive force, almost exclusively naval forces. Bush is not going to attack anything when he knows he has less than two years left in office.

Give it a few months. Read this interview by a Lt. col. who was in the Pentagon's Ofice of Special Plans:
http://www.truthdig.com/interview/it...war_with_iran/

Quote:

4. Has not secured this nation's borders because his corporate friends want cheap labor.

At least he did SOMETHING about it.

Ahh. Buy he hasn't. Are our borders, ports & chemical plants more secure now? The answer is No. Read this transcript of an interview with Michael Scheur, former head of the now-defunct Bin-Laden unit at CIA:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17240518/

Quote:

Says who?

Look Here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111501842.html

and here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer...field-pr.shtml

Quote:

We have a "regular guy" president who only cares about tax cuts for his wealthy friends while gutting the social safety net and killing the middle class of this country.

I've got PLENTY of tax cuts. I'm middle class.

I would remind you that this is the first time in the history of the republic that a taxcut was passed during wartime. What happened to shared sacrifices for victory?

Quote:

We have an "ownership" president who has never taken responsibility for any of his myriad of mistakes.

Such as? And even then, I can say the same for many of presidents.

True, many presidents like Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson & both Bushes have failed to take responsibility for thier actions & pardoned wrongdoers. the difference is that, in this instance, blood & treasure were lost.

Quote:

We have a "freedom" president who has systematically deconstructed the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the pursuit of the so-called "unitary executive" ammassing for himself dictatorial powers.

Last time I checked, (which happened to be yestarday), That was the ACLU.

I refer not to just the Patriot Act but also to the Military Commissions Act. I also refer to the Attorney General of the United States redefining torture and claiming habeas corpus is not an inalienable right.

Quote:

It was called the "Homeland Security Act." It does NOT allow him to declare any random person a terrorist. He can only do so to take action after enough intercepted communications can be collected that the person can be determined to be a ginuine threat to the US.

No, but the Military Commissions Act does. It & the companion riders passed in the emergency military funding bills allows him to activate the National guard in one state bypassing local authorities and deploy them to other states without permission of local authorities. Besides, who determines who is a genuine threat to the US? The President.

Quote:

We have a "defense" president who has systematically run our Army & Marines into the ground and now seems intent on doing the same with the Navy & Air Force in Iran.

Run the military into the ground? He's trying to INCREASE defense spending by the billion! That's funding for technology for the troops, not against them.

Look at the Pentagon's own estimates of troop strength & readiness if you don't believe me. Or just go to Walter Reed. Why then are we still not getting proper armor for our troops and equipment in Iraq after 5 years? Why is the Bush admin. so dead-set against Murtha's plan to ensure troops deploying receive adequate training in occupation & urban counter-insurgency warfare?

Quote:

At the same time, he hires mercenary armies from Blackwater, CACI, SAIC and their ilk to patrol US disaster areas, seizing legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens.

The siezing of firearms was ordered by Ray Negan. And what is so wrong with Private Operatives? They allow the troops to focus more on one thing, and not what they PO's are defending. P.S.: The siezing of firearms was conducted by the Police of New Orleans.

I have a problem with private mercenary armies operating under contract to anybody. If you believe in law & order, then officers of the court and law are duly sworn to protect the constitution. Private armies owe their only alleigance to the people that pay them.

Quote:

What corporate power? You DO know that there is a left run congress right now, right?

How about the aforementioned energy task force meetings? How about a prescription drug plan written by the pharmaceutical corporations? the bankruptcy bill written by credit card corporations? The incredible waste & fraud in Iraqi reconstruction by Halliburton, Parsons, Bechtel et al? Read Seymour Hersh's latest piece in the New Yorker that alleges that reconstruction money is funding Sunni extremist groups like al-qaeda to counter Hezbollah.

Quote:

From my readings, that is the classic definition of Fascism.

That's nice.

:dead: :dead:

Of course, none of this is new. It was all written up back in the 90's by the Project For a New American Century called "Clean Break. a New Strategy for Securing the Realm".

Here's the link:
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

Notice who was involved in formulating this plan & see where they are now.

I apologize for the lateness of my response but have been out of town for the past week. Also please note that wherever I can, I post links to articles buttressing my points.

Now I am truly sorry that you don't like it that I consider Bush, Cheney and the restof the Trotskyites liars but look at what they said & compare their words with their actions. The conclusion should be inescapable. So I will wait patiently for you to answer my responses. I sincerely hope I am proved wrong about my opinions. However, I have seen nothing that changes my opinions about them yet. If you do answer my responses, please include links to relevant facts to back your arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ishmael

Here's the link:
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

I've never heard of the IASPS until now. Don't recognize any of these names, either. I hope to read the article and comment later today. Dentist appointment coming up. :88)

I voted that he is doing very poorly at fighting terrorism.

There is zero chance of winning this war. None. Never was, never will be. It doesn't matter who is in charge. Why? Firstly because by its very definition it will never work. You can't fight a war against a technique. By fighting a literal war against it you focus so much attention onto terrorism that end up doing exactly what the enemy wants you to do - giving them publicity and instilling fear. You achieve their goals.

Every terrorist killed becomes a martyr and every civilian wrongly arrested, tortured or killed provides 10 new recruits. How many civilians have died from TWOT? When fought directly it is a like a Medusa's head. When you start turning your back on the fundamental corner stones of your society in order to fight it then you have truly lost for the terrorists have managed to destroy the most important concepts of liberty that you are trying to defend. Things like the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, extra-judicial killings, torture and imprisonment without charge are not the acts practised by a free country; these are the signs of tyranny. It also removes any credibility the United States and its allies may have had when they wage for under the guise of "creating freedom".

So how do you fight terrorism?

1. The answer is superior intelligence gathering and good old fashioned police work. Once you find them, you give them a fair trial like any other criminal. There's no need to make a big deal out of it, just keep plugging away in the background and their attacks will be kept to a minimum.

2. Before you go to war you learn about your enemy and why he fights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tsu

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperilled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperilled in every single battle.

You need to understand why normal people decide to join and fight for these fanatical organisations. You can bet your butt that they don't do it because "they hate freedom". As a hint you might want to consider the targets the 9/11 hijackers selected. They didn't attack the statue of liberty now did they?

3. You keep it in perspective. Even including the tragic events of 9/11, you are very unlikely to be killed by a terrorist attack. The chances for an American are about 1 in 8,000,000. You are more likely to be killed by a firearm during a legal intervention (1 in 1,000,000) or by a swarm of bees (1 in 5,000,000). Driving in your car offers you a 1 in 6,000 chance of death and even using stairs gives you 1 in 180,000. For those of you here who lived during the cold war you may remember how everyday we lived with the threat that some moron at a big desk in US or Russia might press that button and END ALL LIFE ON EARTH! Now THAT, is a threat. Have a look on google video for a movie called Threads for a lesson on how dire that threat truly was. Yet we survived without allowing the government to know our library borrowing habits, read out mail, listen to our telephone conversations (without a warrant) or imprison us indefinitely without charge or trial.

In summary: GWB on TWOT - Five Thumbs down :down::down::down::down::down:. He's created many, many more terrorists and in the process set up the machinery of a dictatorship in the what was previously one of the world's greatest democracies.
________
Gizele

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRONxMortlock

I voted that he is doing very poorly at fighting terrorism.

There is zero chance of winning this war. None. Never was, never will be. It doesn't matter ...
(...)
...machinery of a dictatorship in the what was previously one of the world's greatest democracies.

It seems I got a double...!? :lol:

I agree on all, have said the same many times before.

Having skimmed this thread very quickly, I apologise if this has been mentioned before:

The actual question is a moot one - seeing as you cannot wage war on an abstract concept, or in this case a noun.

Bull****-bingo 1 - Bush 0 :lol:

What about a US led 'war on similes' or metaphores? Perhaps no such a good idea, if we get rid of them how will politicians couch unfavourable actions using evasive, suitably innert description fit for public consumption? :hmm:

In reality has the Bush administration removed the threat of terrorist activity from the world stage? No; if anything some aspects of the problem have undoubtedly been exacerbated by an as yet undefined quantity- suffice to say an unpopular war on two fronts with questionable means and motives is no good thing for public oppinon at home or hearts and minds overseas.
From their own borders? Perhaps for the time being.