Bush and the Geneva Convention

[Perilscope]

Originally Posted by SkvyWvr

Why are you not mentioning the dramatic drop in gas prices in the last few weeks. I know, it's Clinton's administration that should recieve the praise for that, right.

huh! for that its neither Bush or Clinton, but in part because this year hurricanes have been quite quiet down south.

[August]

Originally Posted by Perilscope

huh! for that its neither Bush or Clinton, but in part because this year hurricanes have been quite quiet down south.

Yeah, but for the past 6 years the Democrats have been saying Bush is responsible for high gas prices. It stands to reason that if he's responsible then he's responsible for them lowering as well, no?

[Perilscope]

Originally Posted by August

Yeah, but for the past 6 years the Democrats have been saying Bush is responsible for high gas prices. It stands to reason that if he's responsible then he's responsible for them lowering as well, no?

Don't forget what I wrote, I said "in part". Doesn't mean it's all because this year hurricanes have been quiet, but "in part". In addition, the OECD and OPEC did is part too, which the USA isn't member of the latter, thus no power on the price they export to us, sadly.

Another "in part", the fact that the Iranian nuclear crisis as calmed down, them(Iran) they are part of the OPEC, in other words, Iran holds heavy cards when it comes to the worlds oil price, believe it or not, or like it or not.

Therefore, many "in parts" make up for the oil prices you see lately, even here in Canada the price as dropped. My point is, it's not only a single leader who will decide on the oil price. Sure, Bush can help is country by doing this and that, but not by much, it is only another "in part" that helps.

[August]

Originally Posted by Perilscope

Don't forget what I wrote, I said "in part". Doesn't mean it's all because this year hurricanes have been quiet, but "in part". In addition, the OECD and OPEC did is part too, which the USA isn't member of the latter, thus no power on the price they export to us, sadly.

Another "in part", the fact that the Iranian nuclear crisis as calmed down, them(Iran) they are part of the OPEC, in other words, Iran holds heavy cards when it comes to the worlds oil price, believe it or not, or like it or not.

Therefore, many "in parts" make up for the oil prices you see lately, even here in Canada the price as dropped. My point is, it's not only a single leader who will decide on the oil price. Sure, Bush can help is country by doing this and that, but not by much, it is only another "in part" that helps.

I understand all that. My post was a tounge in cheek reference to the blame Bush for everything crowd.

[SkvyWvr]

Originally Posted by Perilscope

huh! for that its neither Bush or Clinton, but in part because this year hurricanes have been quite quiet down south.

Exactly, but if the season had been bad, and the prices continued climbing, Bush would have been blamed.

[SkvyWvr]

Originally Posted by Perilscope

Don't forget what I wrote, I said "in part". Doesn't mean it's all because this year hurricanes have been quiet, but "in part". In addition, the OECD and OPEC did is part too, which the USA isn't member of the latter, thus no power on the price they export to us, sadly.

Another "in part", the fact that the Iranian nuclear crisis as calmed down, them(Iran) they are part of the OPEC, in other words, Iran holds heavy cards when it comes to the worlds oil price, believe it or not, or like it or not.

Therefore, many "in parts" make up for the oil prices you see lately, even here in Canada the price as dropped. My point is, it's not only a single leader who will decide on the oil price. Sure, Bush can help is country by doing this and that, but not by much, it is only another "in part" that helps.

That is also my point but others, whom I responded to, seem to think differently

[SkvyWvr]

Originally Posted by August

I understand all that. My post was a tounge in cheek reference to the blame Bush for everything crowd.

Oh. I forgot to mention Plutos expulsion from the solar system. That had to be because of Bush.

[Perilscope]

Originally Posted by August

I understand all that. My post was a tounge in cheek reference to the blame Bush for everything crowd.

I hate Bush myself, but I understand too much how government works to blame only him, or not to blame at all if not necessary. The whole cabinet takes decisions, not only him. Bush isn't that clever, but he isn't that stupid, or else he would have failed school altogether and never would have had the chance for presidency.

Many people in this forum, and elsewhere, blame everything on Bush and "blindly". Some hate America, thus blame Bush, some hate is face, so Bush is to blame, and some others simply doesn't understand nothing at all, thus blame Bush.

In all history all presidents and in any country have taken sh*t from left and right, even the dam Iranian president is hated by his own people to a certain point. Nobody will ever escape that.

There are times to rightfully blame, and there are times to rightfully acclaim. The problem is that the good deeds one makes are never remembered and the bad ones remembered. Shame on humans.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by SkvyWvr

Oh. I forgot to mention Plutos expulsion from the solar system. That had to be because of Bush.

Was it Harry S. Truman who was famous for having a sign on his desk reading "The buck stops here."?

When has GWB ever taken responsibility for any of the catastrophes that have occured on his watch? On 9/11 he sat in a classroom reading My Pet Goat while the country was under attack yet came out of it as a hero with US support at an all time high across the world, a unified house and senate, and a 90% approval rating; 6 years later his approval rating has been stuck in the toilet, partisanship, bickering, nationalism, and hatred toward the US are at levels never known before - and yet you don't think he has anything to do with that?

Whose decision was it to, solely, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, to invade Iraq even though there was only a slim majority of support for it at home (and only after a 6 months systematicly and continually linking Iraq to 9/11, which we know is false, and claiming Iraq was an "eminent threat" to the US which we know is false, and that the US would be greeted as liberators, which we know is false) and overwhelming opposition to it abroad.

Then there's Katrina and "you're doing a heckuva job Brownie"; Brownie being the former Horse Commissioner that Bush put in charge of FEMA and who was obviously in way over his head when called on to perform the job Bush had appointed him to do.

That's just two classic examples of collosal screwups that Bush's fingerprints are all over - one would usually be enough for a person with any sense of decency and integrity to admit to himself that he is in over his head, and resign and let someone competent take over. But Bush doesn't even admit mistakes, he just ignores them or passes the buck.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by scandium

....That's just two classic examples of collosal screwups that Bush's fingerprints are all over - one would usually be enough for a person with any sense of decency and integrity to admit to himself that he is in over his head, and resign and let someone competent take over. ...

Hi there! Satan here, just wanted to say keep up the good work.

[August]

Originally Posted by Perilscope

I hate Bush myself, but I understand too much how government works to blame only him, or not to blame at all if not necessary. The whole cabinet takes decisions, not only him. Bush isn't that clever, but he isn't that stupid, or else he would have failed school altogether and never would have had the chance for presidency.

Many people in this forum, and elsewhere, blame everything on Bush and "blindly". Some hate America, thus blame Bush, some hate is face, so Bush is to blame, and some others simply doesn't understand nothing at all, thus blame Bush.

In all history all presidents and in any country have taken sh*t from left and right, even the dam Iranian president is hated by his own people to a certain point. Nobody will ever escape that.

There are times to rightfully blame, and there are times to rightfully acclaim. The problem is that the good deeds one makes are never remembered and the bad ones remembered. Shame on humans.

I agree. Some people, either through ignorance, simple mindedness or ulterior motive will attempt to pin their hatred upon the shoulders of one single man. "The Buck Stops Here"... yeah right, at the desk of the ultimate scapegoat.

What they fail to realize (or refuse to) is that in any organization the size of the US Federal government, anything the President does, or doesn't do, is the product of the input and guidance, and all too often down right sabotage of hundreds if not thousands of people both in and out of immediately recognizable positions of governmental power.

Now a peculiarity of the US Presidency is the constitutionalized two 4 year term limitiation in office. I think it's hard for people from parlimentary nations to understand the full ramifications of this. Practically from the moment a US President wins re-election his power begins to wane. A countdown begins to the day when he no longer will have the power to sign or veto bills, appoint or fire officals ect and when he no longer stands on "the Bully Pulpit" as one of my favorite presidents once termed it. Because of this during his second term he finds it increasingly difficult to persuade anyone to further his agenda and also increasingly finds them more and more often willing to "toss him under the bus" if it suits their own political futures.

As this process plays out with ever increasing effect his thoughts and efforts turn to his legacy. Not the legacy of tomorrow but the one of years, decades and centuries in the future. You have to remember that after leaving office a Presidents career, especially his policial career, is for all intents and purposes over. He goes into the unescapable retirement of "elder statesmanhood". Overqualified to do anything beyond speaking tours and writing books. His legacy is all he really has.

I disagree with you however about good deeds not being recognized. They eventually do but only when enough time has passed so that future generations have the ability to see their true long term effect.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Hi there! Satan here, just wanted to say keep up the good work.

Well maybe not quite, but consider this:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15035936/site/newsweek/

Selective Intelligence

Sept. 27, 2006 - The White House’s release of a dire National Intelligence Estimate on global terrorism has illustrated once again how easy it is to publicly misrepresent intelligence-community findings—especially when almost all of the key documents remained shrouded in secrecy.

Only two days ago, while attempting to knock down stories by The New York Times and other publications about the NIE, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow insisted to reporters that the document’s conclusions were entirely consistent with the public statements of the president and other Bush administration officials.

..

But the actual wording of the NIE contains sobering conclusions that, in tone and substance, are very different from what Bush and other administration officials have recently been saying about the government’s progress in the war on terror. Even more potentially problematic for the White House, intelligence-community officials say, there are at least two more secret studies underway that are likely to undercut the administration’s public positions on sensitive national-security issues.

The NIE, which is supposed to reflect the consensus judgment of the U.S. intelligence community, states that the global jihadist movement “is spreading and adapting to counter-terrorism efforts”; that the number of jihadists are “increasing in both number and geographic dispersion,” and that the war in Iraq had become “the cause celebre” for jihadis around the world, “breeding a deep resentment of U.S involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.”

The first two paragraphs are just another example of an ongoing pattern of deception, intelligence manipulation, secrecy, and distortion by the current U.S. gov't to fix the facts around their agenda. The last paragraph, however, is especially damning because it illustrates in black and white that yet again the experts are right, have been right all along, and that the Bush admin efforts to win the "war on terror" are not only completely ineffective, they are actually fueling resentment toward the US and creating ever ripening conditions for terrorism to flourish and spread.

And that has consequences for all of us, not just the U.S., since the U.S. is not the only country to have to deal with the consequences. Which is why I'm so vocally critical of Bush and the sycophantic idiots he surrounds himself with - if U.S. policies only affected the U.S. then while I might be sympathetic, I probably wouldn't really care... however in a globalized world like this one where the U.S. dollar is the standard currency of the world and where the U.S. military has a presence in every corner and policies for every hemisphere, then your actions have profound effects for all of us, not just Americans.

*shrug* however little your vote is worth in this day and age of Diebold paperless electronic voting, the rest of us can only criticize... and wait for 2008 and hope that sanity in foreign policy returns.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by scandium

Well maybe not quite, but consider this:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15035936/site/newsweek/

Selective Intelligence - how ironic a title.

Level headed people out there, consider this instead:

Yes, Our Iraq Policy Has Helped al Qaeda Recruit..........Especially when it was Clinton’s Iraq policy.

Most important snippet:

If we’re to be honest, however, it would be preposterous to claim that anything President Clinton did — in Iraq or anyplace else — “caused” jihadist terrorism. Just as it is inane to argue now that our current Iraq policy is the “cause.”

Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, jihadism is attractive to tens of millions of people in what is called the Muslim world. Out of a total population of about 1.3 billion, that may not be a very high percentage (although I daresay it is higher than we like to think). But it is the ideology that attracts recruits. Grievances are just rhetoric. If the bin Ladens did not have Iraq, or the Palestinians, or Lebanon, or Pope Benedict, or cartoons, or flushed Korans, or Dutch movies, or the Crusades, they’d figure out something else to beat the drums over. Or they’d make something up — there being lots of license to improvise when one purports to be executing Allah’s will.

It is bad enough when the Muslim charlatans opportunistically use American policies they don’t like for militant propaganda purposes. It is reprehensible when American politicians do it.

But, please, read it all. Some common sense, sorely lacking worldwide in this day and age.

[ReallyDedPoet]

You can tell the November US elections are drawing close. The Republicans trying to blame Clinton is a joke, just a distraction and political ploy leading to November.

If Clinton was such a concern regarding IRAQ, why are we only hearing about it now. Again the November elections.

[bradclark1]

Yes, Our Iraq Policy Has Helped al Qaeda Recruit …
Especially when it was Clinton’s Iraq policy.

Oh please!!! When was al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded?

As far as the rest. What are we prepared to pay? We will be there a hundred years from now still fighting the terrorists. What have we accomplished in five years?
Just to hold we need to start executing suspected terrorists. The problem with that is that the "civilized" world doesn't have the stomach for it. Thats what the other arab states do because it's the only thing that works for the present goverments to stay in power. Kill those against you or be killed themselves. It's the law of the land.