PDA

View Full Version : Why is Bush a bad president?


JediKnight707
08-13-2007, 01:28 PM
I've always wondered why people think that Bush is a bad president. I was too young to really care about any of this in his first term, and I'm just curious why everyone seems to hate him.

For the record, I'm not a Bush supporter/hater. I don't know anything about what he's done to lean towards one way or another.

So where does the hatred come from?

Weave
08-13-2007, 02:13 PM
Well... the first and foremost reason is that the Electoral College saved his butt in his first term because Al Gore outright spanked his @$$ in the popular vote. So essentially, a lot of people believe him to be a cheat...
Second, teachers hate him mostly because he refuses to increase their income and wages... which was something that his wife had worked on in Texas for a number of years.
Third, many people view him as overly religious. Stem cell research, abortion, etc...
Fourth, Many believe that he's stayed in Iraq for much too long without a good exuse...

Okay... Suddam's dead... so why are we there now? Globalization of American culture and National Interests.
We want a share in the Iraqi government... we want to influence the way they do things... and we want a share in the Oil.

Last... hehehe... I think it's time for a Visas quote.

"Politics is filled with people who react."
Bush IS someone who reacts.
Plus... the rest of the world hates him and he's run up an even bigger national debt.
During his presidency, the economy has also suffered greatly compared to Clinton's presidency.

EDIT: Oh... and in addition to the teacher thing... there are VERY few teachers who support his "No Child Left Behind".
It's mostly a waste of time and a waste of money and it doesn't address why our educational system is weakening.

Ghost Down
08-13-2007, 02:13 PM
Because American's like to blame someone for their mistakes :xp:

- Ghost Down

JediAthos
08-13-2007, 02:16 PM
I think that with most people it stems toward his current foreign policy and the way he has handled or perhaps mishandled the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. His first term actually went fairly and many cited his handling of the 9/11 attacks as the reason he was reelected. Well that and there are some who would classify his opponenet as an idiot.

He has also made inaccurate statements to the public regarding intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq as well as the man tends not to sound too intelligent when he speaks period.

So, those are some of the most common reasons you will hear I think.

Weave
08-13-2007, 02:16 PM
@ Ghost Down

That's pretty true as well...
:lol:
The people of our American society are EXTREAMLY apathetic... at least from what I've seen...

JediMaster12
08-13-2007, 04:59 PM
Pretty much what was said above. To be honest I thought some of his reasons were a bunch of bull. To be honest even though I am not avid coverer of the war, I found myself lost in a web of confusion. I knew why we were going into Afghanistan but then to turn around and go into Iraq? That really had me going 'what in the world?'

Then again this is coming from someone who doesn't really trust the govt. His latest creation of warrantless wiretapping really has my buttons pushed. Come on people, he can now hear what you are saying about him...

Totenkopf
08-13-2007, 06:00 PM
One of Bush's big problems is that he's repeating Johnson's guns 'n butter approach to government, but is borrowing heavily to do so. Still, it's Congress that controls the budget, not the president (just ask the various departments that are forced by congress to allocate their budgets for specific projects). Then there's the manner in which he's handled the border issue. Couple this with the left's paranoia about how Bush "beat them" at their own game in 2000/2004 (and their pathological hatred of any politician that isn't a secular/progressive dem) and you begin to see where all the hate comes from. It also doesn't help him that his public speaking skills are virtually nonexistent.

John Galt
08-13-2007, 07:34 PM
Frankly, I think Bush has done more to undermine the sanctity of the Constitution than any president in the last 150 years. The only President to have taken such sweeping "emergency" powers was Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, but Bush doesn't seem content with what powers his congress-on-a-leash has given him.

Honestly, he had a few shining moments, like right after 9/11, but the passage of the Patriot Act (what a beautiful euphemism that name is...) started his administration on the road downhill.

Iraq, which we basically invaded because Bush thought god told him to, has become a quagmire and a money pit, and we still haven't found any WMD's either (I'm not talkin' empty anthrax shells, the rhetoric implied nukes).

SilentScope001
08-13-2007, 08:01 PM
"Uh. I like Bush.

Well, he promised never to get us into forigen adventures in that one debate with Al Gore. He seen the effects of the wars in Somaila and Serbia, and vowed never to waste our money that would be better spent helping America, paying off the national debt, granting tax cuts, and defending against nuclear missles. For example, unlike our current President, George W. Bush would have NEVER bombed Iraq or Afghanistan, wasting our resources in far off lands. He would instead resort to diplomacy, special operations, and all that good stuff to make sure we never get stuck in a quamire fighting against people who hate us."---Silentscope001, Kavar's Corner, 2000

To be fair, I think this is a pretty biased thread. Not that I care about Bush or anything, but there are 30% of Americans who do approve of Bush. IMHO, I think, in the end, Bush lost his popularity due to Iraq. A Democratic friend of mine actually said to me, "I'm glad Bush invaded Iraq." Why? Because eventually, America would have gone to Iraq anyway, with all this speculation of Iraq having WMDs (even Clinton believed it), and the lobby against Iraq. And eventually, when America did invade Iraq, it would have turned into the quamire it did today. Had the Democrats invaded Iraq, then the Republicans would sweep into power, and Al Gore would be seen as a bad president.

And to you guys shouting about how the electroal college put Bush into power, remember that if John Kerry won 300,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won power with only 48% of the Popular Vote.

Tysyacha
08-13-2007, 08:40 PM
Yay! I finally get to educate a member of Generation Next! :)

As was mentioned earlier, it all started in the year 2000 when America's Electoral College and the Supreme Court declared Bush to be the winner of the election. In many people's eyes, this was seen as fraudulent. Therefore, they view Bush as a cheat. I personally voted for Gore in my very first presidential election, but that's beside the point. Regardless, the 2000 elections got the Bush hateball rolling.

Then came September 11th. Bush did an excellent job at first of telling us to quit playing the "blame game" and pointing fingers at each other ("The World Trade Center buildings weren't secure enough! The emergency personnel didn't react fast enough!, etc.), and he also shifted the blame where it belonged: to al-Qaeda and Afghanistan. I supported Bush during our invasion of Afghanistan, because Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were the masterminds behind 9/11 and they needed to be brought to justice.

By the way, we still haven't found bin Laden; thus, we haven't captured or killed him. We have captured and killed several other members of al-Qaeda, however, on the plus side. We drove the Taliban out of power as well, though they are making a comeback.

Then President Bush, for reasons unknown to me, turned his sights on Iraq after two fruitless years of searching for bin Laden. He said that Saddam Hussein was developing WMD's, or Weapons of Mass Destruction, which we have not found significant amounts of in order to declare this to be a fact. If Saddam was indeed developing WMD's, he was an imminent threat to us, and thus we had to go to war.

Only one problem, though--Saddam is dead, we still haven't found the mother lode of WMD's, and we're still in Iraq. Why, I wonder? There is an Iraqi government in place, with a Constitution, and there is an Iraqi army being trained right now. We've done all we've set out to accomplish, and now the Iraqi government needs to learn how to stand on its own and fight the insurgency on its own terms. We're not there to babysit. I still don't get why we don't pull our troops out of there, but, oh, well...

And the Patriot Act. This legalizes warrantless wiretapping and the like. Supposedly, it's to be used only to eavesdrop on potential terrorists, but what if the definitions of "terrorist" and "potential terrorist" become so weak and watered down that they coudl apply to any one of us under certain vague circumstances? On "3", shall we?

One, two, three: "1984!!!!"

So that's why some people hate Bush. Oh, and the economy, too. It's kind of flagging, despite the Dow Jones Industrials hitting the big 14,000 a little bit ago.

JoeDoe 2.0
08-13-2007, 09:21 PM
I agree with the opinions that he had been explained above. I also think Bush is a not a good president because he made the wrong call when he decided upon himself to send the Army to Afghanistan and also for not having a plan for the retrieval of the troops. For him, its only a mistake, but for the soldiers its a live or die situation.

And I think he went to for for the oil.

Achilles
08-13-2007, 09:52 PM
but what if the definitions of "terrorist" and "potential terrorist" become so weak and watered down that they coudl apply to any one of us under certain vague circumstances? You mean like what's spelled out in the Military Commissions Act?

Tysyacha
08-13-2007, 09:54 PM
Uh...yeah! Could I see a link to that, or is there a link to that anywhere? *furtive look*

MdKnightR
08-13-2007, 09:59 PM
Second, teachers hate him mostly because he refuses to increase their income and wages...


That's not really why we teachers tend to dislike him. Its his "No Child Left Behind" fiasco that has ruffled our feathers. But, for the record, I think the guy gets a bum rap. Is he a great president....no. Is he the worst president....I would deny that as well. My vote for the worst president is William Howard Taft and best president is Teddy Roosevelt.

SilentScope001
08-13-2007, 10:09 PM
Yay! I finally get to educate a member of Generation Next!

Just so you know, I wanted to vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but am not in any way a Bush loyalist. I do dislike Bush, but for different reasons, and he is not a bad President. As Midnight said, calling the President you hate as "bad" does a disservice to the word "bad".

1) The Electoral College exist because the Founding Fathers hated democracy. They didn't want a mob to elect a dictator, after all. So instead, the states would choose delegates who would easily vote for who should become President. It was a good idea, but it failed. So I like the Electoral College. Still, there was a time when I did think that Gore should have won the Popular Vote, but in the end, in 2004, Bush won, for real, with the popular vote (and Kerry almost wining the electoral voting), cementing the greatest irony.

2) Endless recounts are fun. While I am a Bush supporter, I wanted the recounts. But in the end, when will the recounts end? What if the orignal count said Al Gore won? Then Bush would call for a recount. When Bush wins in the recount, Al Gore would call for a recount. So on and so forth. There has to be an end. Besides, the whole election in Flordia was near-on inaccurate anyway...since the margin of error is FAR higher than the 300 votes that seperate between Bush and Al Gore, it is impossible to figure out who would have really won. So, better to flip a coin?

3) I'm not like most Americans, but I'm personally somewhat against the Afghanistan War as well. Not that I saw it as bad, it may have been necessary, but I am against it because it would lead to a quamire...like right now. We are fighting an insurgency, defending warlords, letting the drug trade go on, and overall, um, nothing really is accomplished. I'm not calling for a withdrawal, I'm just stating that there was a possibility of failure, and that's why I am opposed to it.

4) The Iraq Lobby, led by Iraqi exiles led to this. Oil plays a huge role in politics, but it is also the rumors of WMDs, the fact that Iraq was a regional power in the 1980's and 1990's, and overall general paranoia led to this war. President Clinton, who I mentioned in that false quote, actually bombed Iraq during his last days as President. He bombed Sudan as well as Afghanistan, to stop terrorists, or to stop the production of chemical weapons, or whatever. I think it was inevitlbe that America would have had tensions with Iraq and gone off to war. But that's my view, maybe a secret nudge would have just had Saddam Hussien killed off and then a civil war occuring in Iraq.

5) The Patroit Act is 1984sque, but the problem is that the majority of Americans want it. We can't violate Democracy.

Our civil liberties has been violated day after day...Google collecting private information, spyware placed on our computer, security cameras are everywhere...We are losing our ability to move around in private. Before 9/11 even occured, there was the "secret testinomy". The government could deport people by presenting evidence, but because that evidence is very secret, the government doesn't need to actually show the evidence to the defendant. Immigration groups was trying to get rid of the law...and then 9/11 happened.

It is common. We're losing our rights. But it is all being done for our safety. "Those who give up a bit of their freedom for security deserve neither," said Ben Franklin. Bad news Ben, just because you don't deserve it doesn't mean we won't get it anyway. And besides, if we are going to lose our freedoms eventually, we might as well get prepared to live in 1984 than resist futiely.

Don't forget, in the end, Democrats voted for the Bill as well as Republicans. The American people want 1984. Why not?

6) The economy isn't really flagging until now. Before, Bush was presiding over an economic boom, altough there was unemployment and discontent. I subscribe under the economic theory that the President has little, if anything, to do with economy. That means Bush never caused the boom nor the bust (his tax cuts may have something to do with it, but I oppose it nevertheless).

The Feds loosened up interest rates (the rates by which banks borrow from the Feds to fill up their reserve), thereby causing the housing market boom, which helped the economy. This interst rates also cause businesses to borrow money as well, and with more borrowed money comes more investment and more economic progress. Then the Feds was worried of the economy growing TOO FAST, causing huge inflation. Inflation is bad, without price stablity, our money would be worthless. So they raised interest rates to try and make the economy grow slower and maybe even suffer from higher unemployment, to stop inflation rates from going up (See, economy is the dismal science!). This was pretty unpopular with the Stock Market. However, at the same time, demand in the housing market begin to go off, and now the defaults are coming in, causing for many mortages to foreclose, and soon loaning companies are begining to shut down, meaning that now even businesses fear losing capital to invest. So, now the economy is in big trouble. The Feds hope that this is a soft landing, as they throw money at loaning banks to hopefully save them from doomsday.

Bush had nothing to do with that.

Achilles
08-13-2007, 10:31 PM
Uh...yeah! Could I see a link to that, or is there a link to that anywhere? *furtive look*Google much? :xp:
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006)
The Act has also been denounced by critics who assert that its wording makes possible the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President.Oh and before I forget, let's not forget the prodigious use of signing statements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_%28United_States%29#Controversy_ over_George_W._Bush.27s_use_of_signing_statements) .

urluckyday
08-14-2007, 12:57 AM
By the way Jediknight707, if you use anybody (here or anywhere else...including news sources) to tell you why Bush is a "bad" president, all you will get is non-reliable biased answers, so you're best bet is to just listen to the news, and decide for yourself if he really is a "bad" president at all...believe me...no one here or anywhere else can give you a straight answer because "bad" is in the opinion of a person, and bad to one person, is good to another...

JediMaster12
08-14-2007, 01:44 PM
He seen the effects of the wars in Somaila and Serbia, and vowed never to waste our money that would be better spent helping America, paying off the national debt, granting tax cuts, and defending against nuclear missles.Well that's one promise he broke considering that the national deficit is four times than what it was when Reagan started all of his spending. Also add that the majority is owned by China.

By the way, we still haven't found bin Laden; Maybe we already did and they are waiting until the right moment like they did with Suddaam. :D

...the Founding Fathers hated democracy...Poor choice in words since they did believe in that concept. They were fearful of the new nation becoming like England so when they wrote the Articles of Confederation, it was not effective because each state had its own say and the federal govt couldn't raise money for things like the navy. So they had the convention in Philly to write the Constitution which implemented the checks and balances system. They didn't hate democracy kid but they had Ben Martin's words in mind. I mean the ones where he says, "Please, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away. A legislation can trample a man's rights as easily as the king can."

The Patroit Act is 1984sque, but the problem is that the majority of Americans want it. We can't violate Democracy.
Actually it is more remeniscent of the Japanese internment in 44.' The major difference is that our detainees in Getmo have no right to habeas corpus which the Japanese did. It also gives the govt right to see if the little old ladies down the street are really terrorists because they disagree with the bill.

"Those who give up a bit of their freedom for security deserve neither," said Ben Franklin. Bad news Ben, just because you don't deserve it doesn't mean we won't get it anyway. And besides, if we are going to lose our freedoms eventually, we might as well get prepared to live in 1984 than resist futiely.
Deserve is not the same as getting. Franklin had the right idea. What he was talking of was of people not willing to take a chance for something worth fighting for like freedom. What the founding fathers did was considered treason. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor that they would fight for independence. It is not a little thing to want freedom. Unfortunately ever since Nixon, we have gotten into the habit of letting the govt do whatever they want. Nixon wasn't the first, he was just the first to be uncovered. We are heading to a 1984 because we are letting it.

Rebuilding America's Defenses (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

Jawajedi
08-14-2007, 01:49 PM
bush is just a complete idiot

JediMaster12
08-14-2007, 03:49 PM
^^^Do you offer any proof as to why? Saying a comment like that with no reasons behind it is the equivalent of spam kid.

Right now there are a lot of people unhappy with Bush. Some say it is because of the war and others say it is policies. Why do you think you don't like him?

Son of Skywalker15
08-14-2007, 03:55 PM
bush is just a complete idiot

Where's your proof? I don't like when people say Bush, or anyone for that matter, is anything ( positive or negative) without proof. I don't like everything Bush has done, but that doesn't mean I "hate" him.

So where does the hatred come from?

Ignorance. I remember when Bush was running for his second term I was listening to the radio when I heard a segment where a reporter went to the street of NY and asked questions about the election. When asked, one person actually agreed that the Kerry was running with a man named Stu-pid. Yes, the reporter was trying to trick the person and it worker. I feel people shouldn't listen to news alone, but rather, listen to the news and research. Nothing is truly unbiased, and finding it out by your self is the best way to go.

mimartin
08-14-2007, 04:08 PM
Where's your proof?

I don't believe President Bush is a complete idiot, but this video does not support that belief.
Bush 9/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drp-irFmH4U&mode=related&search=)

Is he a great president....no. Is he the worst president....I would deny that as well. My vote for the worst president is William Howard Taft and best president is
Completely agree with everthing MdKnightR wrote except the best president. So I'll go with Washington there, at least he started the 2 term only for the President until FDR went around it.

Son of Skywalker15
08-14-2007, 04:24 PM
I don't believe President Bush is a complete idiot, but this video does not support that belief.

I've known of what happen when Bush first heard of the news since '01. I don't know what people expected. He had to keep calm, and he couldn't personally go down to the Twin Towers themselves and help dig. I think he did what he could do with what time he had and the shock factor. I couldn't had done any better, and I was in NY when it happened!

mimartin
08-14-2007, 04:35 PM
I've known of what happen when Bush first heard of the news since '01. I don't know what people expected. He had to keep calm, and he couldn't personally go down to the Twin Towers themselves and help dig. I think he did what he could do with what time he had and the shock factor. I couldn't had done any better, and I was in NY when it happened!

First and foremost I expect the President of the United States to act like the Commander and Chief of the most powerful country on the planet. Yes you are correct he needed to keep calm, but he could have done that and still excused himself from the classroom in an orderly matter. The President needed to be in communication with his commanders not setting in a classroom listening to children read. What if there had been more hijacked planes in the air? Who do you suppose has to give the order that allows the military to open fire on an unarmed commercial airline?

I'm not saying I would have done better, honestly Id done much worst and wed probably be in the midst of World War III by now. But Im not now nor will I ever be the President.

Son of Skywalker15
08-14-2007, 04:48 PM
but he could have done that and still excused himself from the classroom in an orderly matter. The President needed to be in communication with his commanders not setting in a classroom listen to children read. What if there had been more hijacked planes in the air? Who do you suppose has to give the order that allows the military to open fire on an unarmed commercial airline?

I was led to believe he was updated on what was going on, and he knew that there were no other planes. I could be wrong about that though. You're right though, he did need to at least be in communication with the Pentagon. It's been so long since I've heard what happen, but I still say I couldn't do any better, but like you said, we aren't the Commander In Chiefs of the USA.

Achilles
08-14-2007, 05:01 PM
The well-known footage of Bush being notified in the classroom actually shows him being told about the 2nd plane (he had been notified of the first before entering the classroom, although it is believed that he was under the impression that it was an accident). There is footage of Bush stating that he actually saw the first plane hit on television, however this is impossible since only the second plane was caught by any of the news broadcasts.

Son of Skywalker15
08-14-2007, 05:46 PM
he had been notified of the first before entering the classroom, although it is believed that he was under the impression that it was an accident

I remember being under that impression until about 5 that day. In fact, when I first heard it I knew it was an attack and I told the girl who told me that. I had a bad feeling about it, and when I learned two were there I knew it. Not all broadcasts were of the second plane, because the teachers in my school ( which was north of NYC.) saw the first plane crash. They then saw the second one also.

Arcesious
08-14-2007, 07:28 PM
You guys didn't see bush's recent speech about What's REALLY going on in the middle east did you? It explains everything, and proves that he is actually a much better president than you give him credit for. It was like two or three weeks ago. man, i wish i knew were i coudl find it so i could post it here. I only saw it at the halfway poitn, but it sure explained a lot for me. Sure, he's after the oil, but that's because the congress actually made the decision to go to iraq. ihe supported it, and wnated to also liberate the iraqis and such, but then the congress chanmged their decision, and wanted to pull out of iraq due to ecomomic failure comeing up because of costs for funding the war. They then blamed bush for ordering the war on iraq, and that's when BNush became the next most hated persident ever. A lot of peopel seem to have missed that speech though.

Son of Skywalker15
08-14-2007, 07:31 PM
It explains everything, and proves that he is actually a much better president than you give him credit for.

I think he's handled the middle east wonderfully. It's other, domestic things I don't agree with him on. He's one of the better Presidents of the last 40 years. ( Regan being my favorite.)

Arcesious
08-14-2007, 07:39 PM
What domestic problems? please elaborate.

Achilles
08-14-2007, 07:55 PM
Not all broadcasts were of the second plane, because the teachers in my school ( which was north of NYC.) saw the first plane crash.Really? How? The only way that would be possible is if the media had been alerted to a crash and had a camera there to catch it before it happened.

This isn't to deny that there is footage of the first crash. A documentary team working on a movie about NY firefighters happened to catch it, but that footage wasn't known about until the next day.

You guys didn't see bush's recent speech about What's REALLY going on in the middle east did you? It explains everything, Yes, I saw that one too and I agree. Here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=oHVgEgOAVZY) is the clip for anyone else that wants to see it.

Son of Skywalker15
08-14-2007, 07:55 PM
Mostly Illegal Immigration. I don't agree that they should have so much amnesty; there has to be limits because we can't just let them come in and just break our laws.

Totenkopf
08-15-2007, 01:14 AM
Really? How? The only way that would be possible is if the media had been alerted to a crash and had a camera there to catch it before it happened.

Huh? The media are the only ones in NYC w/cameras?!? Are they not known to buy footage (or at least gain access to) in order to get a scoop?

Son of Skywalker15
08-15-2007, 10:14 AM
Really? How? The only way that would be possible is if the media had been alerted to a crash and had a camera there to catch it before it happened.

Two of my teachers had a son and a daughter working near the Twin Towers on the day; My 8th grade teacher's husband works at Yankee Stadium and was driving by to say hello to his son when it happened. Both survived, and he saw it and video tapped it. I forgot to mention that they only saw the second on on TV, but they saw both crashes. They are millions of people in the city, and that means millions of cell phones taking videos/pictures of what happened.

Are they not known to buy footage (or at least gain access to) in order to get a scoop?

Exactly. Like I said, millions of people were in the city that day and most if not all had cell phones on them to catch what happened.

Arcesious
08-15-2007, 10:19 AM
Whjat's the big deal about two plane crashes and one wasn't caught on tape? i don't nbelieve it to be a governemtn conperacy. I do feel for the people who last many people in thos eplane crashes, but i don't see the relevance of talking about the 9/11 attacks when we were suposed to be tlking about international issues and leadership.

Obss Damell
08-15-2007, 10:34 AM
ive seen an ad on the discovery channel, with 2 American soldiers
saying: ''were not here for peace. were her for the oil''

mimartin
08-15-2007, 11:30 AM
Huh? The media are the only ones in NYC w/cameras?!? Are they not known to buy footage (or at least gain access to) in order to get a scoop?

Yes and they did.

See the rest of Achilles post.
This isn't to deny that there is footage of the first crash. A documentary team working on a movie about NY firefighters happened to catch it, but that footage wasn't known about until the next day.

Im not saying there isnt more footage or speaking to Achilles views. I just dont remember seeing any other footage of the first tower being hit the morning of the attacks. I believe it would have taken time to get the footage, view the footage to ensure content and get it on the air during the attacks. Remember they would also have to satisfy the owner of said footage monetary concerns before getting their hands on their scoop.

Achilles
08-15-2007, 12:59 PM
They are millions of people in the city, and that means millions of cell phones taking videos/pictures of what happened. No doubt, but that is not the same thing as seeing it broadcast on tv. :)

There were no broadcasts of the first plane hitting the first tower because the footage was not immediately available.

Whjat's the big deal about two plane crashes and one wasn't caught on tape? i don't nbelieve it to be a governemtn conperacy. I do feel for the people who last many people in thos eplane crashes, but i don't see the relevance of talking about the 9/11 attacks when we were suposed to be tlking about international issues and leadership. The relevance is that Bush lied. He claimed to have seen footage that no one knew existed until the following day. So he either lied about seeing it, or he did see it via another source that no one else had which would mean that he had foreknowledge of the event and lied about not knowing.

EDIT:
Here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html) is the white house transcript of Bush making the statement (emphasis mine):
Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack." Here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Y2jMcpF4rw) is the audio (with commentary at the end) if you want to hear him speak the words.
End edit.

i've seen an ad on the discovery channel, with 2 American soldiers saying: ''were not here for peace. were her for the oil'' In all fairness, that is their opinion. I'm not saying that I disagree with it, but there are lots of others that hold contradictory viewpoints.

The point is that if our objective was to end tyranny and bring peace and democracy, then we should be just as involved in Darfur as we are in Iraq. But Iraq just happens to be oil-rich (moreso than Sudan, which isn't even in the top 20) and considered by many military policy think-tanks to be key to influencing the middle-east.

The fact is that N.Korea, Iraq, and Iran were all identified as threats by PNAC in September 2000. A year later we have 9/11 and then 18 months later we're at war with Iraq under the pretenses of terrorism. How convenient.

tk102
08-15-2007, 03:03 PM
Sidenote...
Exactly. Like I said, millions of people were in the city that day and most if not all had cell phones on them to catch what happened.

We're talking about 2001 right? Camera phones weren't even introduced into North America commercially until 2002.

Dagobahn Eagle
08-15-2007, 03:27 PM
All quotes here are from SilentScope001

5) The Patroit Act is 1984sque, but the problem is that the majority of Americans want it.Prove it. I've been looking for 2007 polls and found none.

We can't violate Democracy.The only problem with this statement is it's meaningless as you support the PATRIOT ACT.

Our civil liberties has been violated day after day...Google collecting private information, spyware placed on our computer, security cameras are everywhere...We are losing our ability to move around in private.I don't believe any of those are violations of your rights. Except perhaps programs collecting private information when you use them. Cameras certainly are not a violation of any right, least of all the right of privacy, since they're... in public. Where people can see you. When a random passer-by looks at you, is that a violation of your right of privacy, too?

Before 9/11 even occured, there was the "secret testinomy". The government could deport people by presenting evidence, but because that evidence is very secret, the government doesn't need to actually show the evidence to the defendant. Immigration groups was trying to get rid of the law...and then 9/11 happened.Appeal to (quite a frightening) tradition.

It is common. We're losing our rights. But it is all being done for our safety. Prove it. The burden is on you.

And even if it was done for our safety, I'd still be against it, as [cue Abe quote]...;)

"Those who give up a bit of their freedom for security deserve neither," said Ben Franklin. Bad news Ben, just because you don't deserve it doesn't mean we won't get it anyway.Actually, as if it matters, his full quote was that "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both".

And besides, if we are going to lose our freedoms eventually, we might as well get prepared to live in 1984 than resist futiely.I'm deadly honest when I say you're scaring me big time.

Don't forget, in the end, Democrats voted for the Bill as well as Republicans.And this matters why? I'm neither not a Democrat, not the slightest bit swayed by your statement that a second party supported the PATRIOT ACT. Violation of the Constitution and basic rights by popular demand is even worse than violations that are opposed heavily, as the former demonstrates a situation in which people have lost their will to 'breathe free'. Which is downright spooky.

The American people want 1984. Why not?Because a society conforming to the dystopian views of 1984 is not a society I want to live in.

Son of Skywalker15
08-15-2007, 03:38 PM
No doubt, but that is not the same thing as seeing it broadcast on tv.


Very true. I'm sure that they was other means of seeing the first plane; people were there, and someone had to have something on them to record them, at least one would think...



We're talking about 2001 right? Camera phones weren't even introduced into North America commercially until 2002.

That's probably true. I'm just going by what my teacher told me around 4 years after the fact. I'm still sure a tourist or someone had a camera or video recorder on them when it happening. Or, I'd tend to think so because of how many I see when I go into the city.


Prove it. I've been looking for 2007 polls and found none.

I haven't found a poll, but I'm going to say how I feel about the Patriot Act. Bottom line is I don't mind it. I doubt anyone of us here chatting on this forum has been touched by it. No, I can't prove it, but unless you're someone who has been in jail for terrorist related actions this thing isn't (shouldn't) be touching you. I find nothing wrong with wanting to check up on ex-criminals or convicted terrorist, but I really want to know that's who we're checking out. No doubt we are, but I just want to make sure, you know?

mimartin
08-15-2007, 04:36 PM
I doubt anyone of us here chatting on this forum has been touched by it.
I have, I am on the watch list when flying, because I have a common first name and sir name. They will not remove me from the list either since my name is the same as someone else that they say should be on the list. When we suspend due process and our fundamental beliefs in fairness we are all touched by it. I am not saying that safety should not out weight those rights, Im saying fear should not be the driving force behind our laws.

Dagobahn Eagle
08-15-2007, 05:11 PM
Doesn't matter if you've been affected personally or not. Injustice is injustice. I won't support an initiative that goes against my morals just because it doesn't harm me.

Totenkopf
08-15-2007, 05:15 PM
Yes and they did.

I was merely speaking to the contention that "the only way" was a poorly conceived and unreasonable statement, not questioning anyones grasp of how things actually happened.

I recall hearing that Ted Kennedy was also on that list (initially), so at least it's not just the "little guy". Kinda makes you wonder how exactly they draw up the list in the first place. There are a lot of people with common names in this country.

Son of Skywalker15
08-15-2007, 05:57 PM
Doesn't matter if you've been affected personally or not. Injustice is injustice. I won't support an initiative that goes against my morals just because it doesn't harm me.

I'm not an immoral man (I'm not accusing you of saying I am either.) But I do feel that I'd rather have myself, yourself, and every American looked after. We can't pretend that there is no threat, and we have to stop denying that even the littlest threat can't hurt us; it can. I'd much rather be safe then sorry. I don't feel my rights are being hurt, and I don't feel it's immoral to stop people who want to kill me, you, and our families. I understand that it's the principal of it, but I don't think this is an act or principal thing. ( If that makes any sense.) I'd feel safer knowing I was being watched; I know I didn't do anything wrong, and now I know those guys will protect me.

Achilles
08-15-2007, 07:18 PM
Very true. I'm sure that they was other means of seeing the first plane; people were there, and someone had to have something on them to record them, at least one would think... No one had any reason to be filming the first tower when the plane struck. Lots of cameras were on the towers after the first plane struck, therefore lots of cameras caught live footage of the second plane hitting the second tower.

The plane traveled at several hundred miles an hour and even though some people were likely to have camcorders running for various reasons, it would take them some time to determine were the sound was coming from, spot the plane, and then track it as it hit the building. The footage that we do have only exists because of sheer luck. If we had other footage, I'm sure that it would have been brought forward by now.

The point is that no one saw live footage of the first plane strike. I'm sure that once the Nauday brothers made their tape available, every station ran it. But that wasn't until September 12th. :)

I'm not an immoral man (I'm not accusing you of saying I am either.) But I do feel that I'd rather have myself, yourself, and every American looked after. We can't pretend that there is no threat, and we have to stop denying that even the littlest threat can't hurt us; it can. I'd much rather be safe then sorry. I don't feel my rights are being hurt, and I don't feel it's immoral to stop people who want to kill me, you, and our families. I understand that it's the principal of it, but I don't think this is an act or principal thing. ( If that makes any sense.) I'd feel safer knowing I was being watched; I know I didn't do anything wrong, and now I know those guys will protect me. With much respect, I wonder if you would feel the same if you were one of the ones whose rights have been infringed, or if you understood how these rules affect you in ways that you might not consider now, or if you had knowledge of how similar tactics have been used in other places and times to achieve results that were not benevolent.

I think it's admirable that you want to be trusting of our goverment, but our founding fathers believed that those in power should never be completely trusted. Our rights were intended to be inalieable and the Patriot Act and its ilk fly directly in the face of this.

Son of Skywalker15
08-15-2007, 08:00 PM
No one had any reason to be filming the first tower when the plane struck. Lots of cameras were on the towers after the first plane struck, therefore lots of cameras caught live footage of the second plane hitting the second tower.

Well, I'll take your word for it because you have provided proof. I guess mu old teacher meant that her son and husband saw it happen, not her and the other teachers. But, that doesn't matter. It's done, over. What matters now is how the people who did it are dealt with from here on.

Achilles
08-15-2007, 08:11 PM
What matters now is how the people who did it are dealt with from here on. I disagree on the basis of the point that I initially raised: Bush lied. I think that still needs to be addressed/acknowledged.

SilentScope001
08-15-2007, 08:26 PM
To defend myself:

The only problem with this statement is it's meaningless as you support the PATRIOT ACT.

Don't put words in my mouth. Please.

I hate lots of stuff that America is doing, including the Patroit Act, but it doesn't matter what I think. It matters what other people think, and so why should I go out and oppose those people?

Prove it. I've been looking for 2007 polls and found none.

It is due to the fact of "security, security, security" chant I hear all the time that I make the conclusion that people want it. Not to mention the repeated polls that really matter, the Senate and House of Rep. polls. If the people hate it, they would vote for politicans, and the politicans would vote against it. The fact is, that doesn't happen.

I don't believe any of those are violations of your rights. Except perhaps programs collecting private information when you use them. Cameras certainly are not a violation of any right, least of all the right of privacy, since they're... in public. Where people can see you. When a random passer-by looks at you, is that a violation of your right of privacy, too?

And that's the problem! People like you are going out, okay with some taking away of pirvacy. I could easily point to you as the reason we are heading towards a dystopia, but I won't, because you want limits. But pretty soon, we'll get used to the limits, and we'll see the PATROIT ACT as legit...and some brand new act as evil.

To explain. Our definitions of privacy has changed for a long time. Security cameras exist so that we feel a culture of fear. I shouldn't have to walk around and have this "viewscreen" indicating that at any given moment, in any public place, someone may be watching me...that's part of the 1984 criqitue, you know? The constant surviallance. Worse in Great Britian as well.

Prove it. The burden is on you.

If people are able to be watched, the government can capture them. Hence, being done for our safety.


And even if it was done for our safety, I'd still be against it, as [cue Abe quote]...;)

And Abe was willing to ban freedom of speech and Habeus Corpus to stop the Copperfielders. He may be the protecter of the Union, but certantilly not a protector of civil liberties.

I'm deadly honest when I say you're scaring me big time.

...

Because a society conforming to the dystopian views of 1984 is not a society I want to live in.

*sigh*

I'm trying to save myself, first and foremost. For years, the ACLU is complaining we are going down the wrong path. I agree. The ACLU wants to resist. But, well, we can't exactly do anything to stop the trend, if people want it. So I don't want to go and fight and fight until 1984 does come and then disapper forever.

I want to live. I want to survive. I want a high quality of life. Is that something to blame me for, to blame me for being honest? Fact is, I'm not going to die just because an ideology that I do like gets wiped out on the national stage. I'm not going to risk everything just so that I can be 'free' in the depths of the graves. I have to stay alive, maybe to resist, maybe to help out those who still alive, or maybe because I have only one life, and I might as well live that life until it gets taken from me eventually. But I have to stay alive, and that why I need to know how to live in 1984.

Plus, I have to protect myself, as this is how evolution designed me to, in order to pervail under all cirmustances. If I go and just jump off a building when 1984 comes around, I am violating the Laws of Nature, going against who I am.

And this matters why? I'm neither not a Democrat, not the slightest bit swayed by your statement that a second party supported the PATRIOT ACT. Violation of the Constitution and basic rights by popular demand is even worse than violations that are opposed heavily, as the former demonstrates a situation in which people have lost their will to 'breathe free'. Which is downright spooky.

The Democratic Party (~40%) and the Republican Party (~30%) compose about 70% of Americans' view, maybe more. Add in the Indepedents who are leaning towards Republican or Democrat, and you can see that the majority of Americans authorize this.

This is a democracy, this is not going to be a dictatorship where a small minority gets to impose what they feel about the world upon everyone else. If that happens, it could be even worse than the constant surviallnce.

Son of Skywalker15
08-15-2007, 08:46 PM
I disagree on the basis of the point that I initially raised: Bush lied. I think that still needs to be addressed/acknowledged.

Yes, it should. But I don't think it will be, and if it is, I don't think it will change much at this point in time. Sadly, people lie and aren't picked up on it at all, and yet we're holding onto a lie that's 6 years old.

Achilles
08-15-2007, 11:13 PM
Yes, it should. But I don't think it will be, and if it is, I don't think it will change much at this point in time. Sadly, people lie and aren't picked up on it at all, and yet we're holding onto a lie that's 6 years old. I think you might be missing the point though: what else has he lied about?

Once someone has shown a disposition toward dishonesty, you have to question the veracity of everything else they say. For instance, his repeated statements that Iraq is key to the war on terror even though several members of his administration helped to craft a 90-page document which stated that Iraq was key to American imperialism one year prior to 9-11. Food for thought.

Son of Skywalker15
08-15-2007, 11:17 PM
I think you might be missing the point though: what else has he lied about?

No, no I got what you were saying. I was talking about that instance. I don't think we should trust many people, but our President is one person we should. Everyone lies no matter how big or small, but you're right, it's just interesting what else he may have lied about. I trust him because most of what he says is true, but I always have parts to disagree with him about, as I'm sure you do also.

Point Man
08-15-2007, 11:23 PM
My biggest beef with Bush is that I believe he puts his loyalty to friends above the good of the nation. Rumsfeld was a liability to our efforts in Iraq, but he did not sack him until much too late.

Achilles
08-15-2007, 11:26 PM
I don't think we should trust many people, but our President is one person we should. Why?
This isn't a monarchy. Bush wasn't appointed by the grace of god. Our leaders are human and corruptible. If they lie, and are caught lying, they should not be trusted. Where does accountability fit into your worldview?

Son of Skywalker15
08-16-2007, 12:10 AM
Personally? I don't trust our politicans and our leaders as much as I'd like to( if at all). They are mere humans like us, and like us can lie and be tempted. I have some faith in Bush, and hopefully he'll be able to make good on any lies he has said. So, yes, Bush ( and other leaders) should be held accountable for their lies and how they deal with them.

By the way, this is great talking with you. Normally people don't bother to ask my opinion, they just think of what mine is and bash it. You don't, and that it is very respectable.

JediMaster12
08-16-2007, 05:43 PM
Kal Onasi: That is the point of Kavar's corner and part of the rules concerning debate. If it were mindless bashing, it would be considered flaming and against the rules. Here in Kavar's corner, we listen. We don't have to necessarily agree with it but we will listen.

Don't put words in my mouth. Please. He only was taking what you said. Don't get bent out of shape. Sometimes your own wording puts the wrong idea in.

It is due to the fact of "security, security, security" chant I hear all the time that I make the conclusion that people want it. Is that truly the majority or is it the minority? I can tell you for certain that at least in my neighborhood there are some things about security that we wouldn't agree on. It could be that the minority with the greatest chance of being heard is screaming it.

To explain. Our definitions of privacy has changed for a long time. Security cameras exist so that we feel a culture of fear. I shouldn't have to walk around and have this "viewscreen" indicating that at any given moment, in any public place, someone may be watching me...that's part of the 1984 criqitue, you know? The constant surviallance. Worse in Great Britian as well.Aren't you becoming a little paranoid? Some measure of security is necessary because we are a culture that prizes possessions and we do what it takes to protect them. For some it is money, for others it may be something priceless like a painting or rare jewelry. For those things, we employ security measures to protect them whether it is a security vault or survelliance cameras. Another thing, are survelliance cameras really a bad thing? After all we use them in convenience stores and they have helped catch the bad guys who robbed the store. Makes me wish that the restaurant I worked at had a camera when we got robbed.
I do think that there has to be limitations on it though. The warrantless wiretapping that just got passed is something that I don't agree with. We have the privacy rights for a reason and we squabbled to get them when the points came up in trial cases before the Supreme Court. If we truly valued privacy, then we would protest against it. I know it has already been signed and all but we still have the rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution one of them being freedom of speech.

SilentScope001
08-16-2007, 06:57 PM
He only was taking what you said. Don't get bent out of shape. Sometimes your own wording puts the wrong idea in.

Okay, yeah. Sorry for the, um, confusion that I make via my statements. I'd probraly be best off backing away from what I said.

Son of Skywalker15
08-16-2007, 07:22 PM
Kal Onasi: That is the point of Kavar's corner and part of the rules concerning debate. If it were mindless bashing, it would be considered flaming and against the rules. Here in Kavar's corner, we listen. We don't have to necessarily agree with it but we will listen.

I'm well aware of that. Just because it's the point, it doesn't mean people abide by it and always do it. If that were the case we wouldn't need laws and rules ;)

Obss Damell
08-17-2007, 04:56 AM
The point is that if our objective was to end tyranny and bring peace and democracy, then we should be just as involved in Darfur as we are in Iraq. But Iraq just happens to be oil-rich (moreso than Sudan, which isn't even in the top 20) and considered by many military policy think-tanks to be key to influencing the middle-east.

The fact is that N.Korea, Iraq, and Iran were all identified as threats by PNAC in September 2000. A year later we have 9/11 and then 18 months later we're at war with Iraq under the pretenses of terrorism. How convenient.

amen to that!

PoiuyWired
08-22-2007, 04:08 PM
Nope I am definitely not a Bush supporter, but here is my 2 cents.

Well, a few things of note:

1) If we are trying to end Tyrany in some other countries, mind as well do in in the ones we can benefit from.

2) I can see fighting back(or even revenge) is justified, but extending the said actions to entities weakly related to the incident is going a bit too far.

3) Dying for the freedom of your own country is one thing, doing so for some other dude's country is a whole different thing. Doing it for profit(not your own) is just a bad thing.

4) Starting a war on more than one front is not a good idea either.

5) Sometimes money can be better spend internally, there are lots of things that needs fixing.

6) Maybe there is a time to pull out and let people dealt with their own problem, we have certainly done enough. And while unfortunate, getting into a civil war between people-with-religious-sects-as-an-excuse is never a good idea. Especially true when both sides considers your viewpoint to be "evil".

Rogue Warrior
09-18-2007, 07:34 AM
Iraq. His steadfast determination to attack Iraq no matter what has earned him and his country great resentment.

JediMaster12
09-18-2007, 06:19 PM
Tyranny as defined by Webster-Merriam is an oppressive power exerted by government; a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force. Full definition here (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tyranny).

That I'll give that Saddaam was a tyrant but is anyone else who doesn't agree with our ideas of western civilization called a tyrant?

Rogue Warrior
09-23-2007, 04:29 AM
That would depend on what qualifications you would feel make a tyrant. Gassing of the Kurds for example, or Palestinian children being used as suicide bombers.

Totenkopf
09-23-2007, 03:44 PM
Tyranny as defined by Webster-Merriam is an oppressive power exerted by government; a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force. Full definition here (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tyranny).

That I'll give that Saddaam was a tyrant but is anyone else who doesn't agree with our ideas of western civilization called a tyrant?


Ideals might be a better word. There are no doubt a lot of ideas w/in the span of western civilization" that could probably be labeled as repugnant.

As to Bush, I think he's failed the country in many ways. The border policies of this government (though I don't think Gore/Kerry would have differed that greatly in the end) are detrimental to the nation. He's still trying to fight this war on the "cheap" and he's not vetoed almost anything in his whole tenure so far either. It's in some ways like Johnson's guns'n butter approach.