The Unfeeling President

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Mike Albrecht, Sep 27, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Mike Albrecht

    Mike Albrecht New Member

  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I totally agree!

    Fifteen billion dollars to combat AIDS in Africa is unfeeling!
     
  3. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    And $100 billion down the sinkhole of Iraq!

    Good article, and I agree with it. Doctorow mentions Eisenhower, who knew full well the horrors of war. He saw it only as a last resort, because he had seen the realities of it - the death and the suffering.

    Bush undervalues the horror of it, because he didn't experience Viet Nam. Moreover, he doesn't want the American people to experience the horrors of this war. He wants to deny that there are coffins arriving each day. Witness that the "liberal" media has declared a virtual moratorium on disturbing news of Iraq. Propoganda is the first line of defense. When spin fails, the next step is censorship. That's what we have now.

    If Bush is reelected, it will probably be due, in no small part, to the commonly held perception that since his Administration screwed everything up, they are the ones best able to get us out of it. Given Bush's stubborness, this probably isn't true, yet the perception remains.

    We all want to fix our own problems, and when the problems are severe enough, we don't want anyone else to know the details. I have no doubt that Bush and his cronies have a much better idea than anyone else on this planet just how screwed up Iraq is. They have a very big vested interest in keeping that information as private as possible.
     
  4. Abbacabba

    Abbacabba New Member

    I must admit that war is not something to jump into without trying other more peaceful routes first, but for all the screaming and protesting about the US dead, what of the thousands and thousands that died under the rule of Sadam Hussian?

    Where was your moral outrage in 88 when Hussian bombed the Kurds?

    In that one move he killed ~5000 and affected ~10,000 mroe people with chemical weapons.

    Thats just a small fraction of the people he slaughtered, and I don't remember the national outcry to stop those deaths.

    Those who also say we should have gone through the UN... We did and so did many other member nations. How many times did the UN threaten Iraq? How many times did they do anything to actually enforce those threats? What makes anyone believe they would have acted differently in the future?



    While Kerry does have some service ~3 mo. from what he describes. What will you say if someone with one year of service runs against him if he wins this year?

    Will you say that Mr.X clearly knows war better because he served afew months longer?

    What about all the support vets. give Bush? I'm sure a good number of those saw much more action than Kerry. Shouldn't we listen to their feelings and thoughs on war insted of Kerry?



    I will admit that I think Bush went to war for many reasons, and yes I do believe oil and economic factors played into the desicion.

    But I still believe the country of Iraq will be better off because of our involvment regardless of the true motives behind our actions.
     
  5. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    You're right, there wasn't much outrage from the general public over Saddam. In many liberal circles there was, however, including outrage over the US sanctions that also "killed" a lot of innocent people. There is no doubt that Iraq has been mismanaged from the start.

    However, your question could just as easily be asked of Bush. Why, suddenly, was Iraq on the map? He extols the vanquish of Saddam, yet one gets the idea that it's a complete misdirection. In other words, we don't have Osama, and the connection between Iraq and 9/11 doesn't exist, but hey Saddam was bad and it's a good thing we got rid of him. This is probably true, though it's hard to measure the benefit amidst the chaos. But the point is, if getting Saddam was the issue, then it would have been a good thing, one supposes, two years ago, three years ago etc.

    Moreover, if, as it appears, that Bush was hell bent on invading Iraq, then he owed the people (and especially the military) a comprehensive, well-thought -out plan for the invasion AND the aftermath. Military firepower took care of the first part. The second part is MUCH more difficult, and the smartest and most experienced experts (including some Generals) were saying just that. Bush has failed miserably on that front.

    He owes the public an explanation of his plan for the future, and promises about how the military will, and will not, be involved. At the very least, he owes the public an uncensored view of what's really happening there, instead of censored views that imply failure and mismanagement, as well as his disingenuous promises that he has "made the right decision for America."
     
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Yes, no more rape and torture rooms, no more gassing of Kurds, including women and children, no more rape of children in front of their fathers, no more mass graves, etc.

    By the way, what I have just stated is not "right-winged" propaganda. Amnesty International and a host of other organizations labeled "left-winged," have stated these facts and have verified them.

    I actually don't know why those of us who support the President (even though many of us don't agree with all his policies) bother to respond to absurdities. Bush is in the White House and will be back for four more years.

    All the criticism and condemnation is moot. He's in, we win! There is nothing that can change that, Praise the Lord!
     
  7. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    You seem to be implying that Bush was unaware of the difficulties involved. To refresh your recollection, I clearly remember Bush saying that the aftermath would be very difficult and time-consuming while the "firepower" and U.S. euphoria were still underway--he was adamant about it. And at the time, the primary reaction from the left was that Bush was spinning this, playing down expectations so that he would look like a hero when reality bettered expectations. Why revise history here?--Bush never said the aftermath would be easy.
     
  8. I don't think the point of this post is that he was "unaware of the difficulties involved". It is more to the fact that Bush doesn't care, doesn't have the capacity for true human empathy, and is only concerned about feathering his own nest, and the nests of his corporate sponsors. Sure, he puts on a good show - the evidence is that a whole lot of people think he is genuine. But I believe that history will be the judge of this presidency, and it will be far from kind.
     
  9. mrw142

    mrw142 New Member

    Carl, I love you, but you're just too cynical on this guy. As for history judging Presidents, It depends on who writes the history--but I'd be astonished if W didn't fare well, at least vis-a-vis his predecessor.

    Anyway, I'm afraid we'll have to wait until we're quite old to find out.
     
  10. GinaStarr

    GinaStarr New Member

  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I've already stated those who are responsible for the brutality at Abu Ghraib should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

    Secondly, most of the articles you cite say "reported" abuse; nothing concrete.

    Third, your sources, with the exception of MSN News, are far left.

    Fourth, what I posted about Hussein's brutality was verified even by far left organizations such as Amnesty International.

    Finally, what you cite, if true, are crimes commited by renegade soldiers. Hussein's torture and brutality were government sanctioned actions.

    In every war from time immemorial, renegade soldiers commited atrocities. Even during the Civil War in America, there were reports of Northern soldiers raping women and children.

    This was not government sanctioned brutality, however.

    You need to learn how to distinguish between the atrocities commited by renegades and those commited by governments.

    Reports of rape by American G.I.'s in Bosnia are on record. Yet, Clinton was not responsbile for those rapes nor was the American government anymore than Bush and the American government are responsbile for atrocities commited by renegade G.I.'s in Iraq. :rolleyes:



     
  12. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Jimmy,

    Yes, instead we've got suicide bombers, and a hornet's nest of terrorists. Do you believe that Bush really invaded Iraq to free the Kurds? Is that really high on his list of objectives? And yours?

    Bush has stated it clearly. His goal is to democratize the Middle East, in the name of HIS God. This is what they want, damn it, whether he has to cram it down their throats, or bomb the hell out of them.

    Let the whole world be Christian capitalists. Hallelujah! The first thing we need to do, after we build our military bases there, is put up some churches, Christian of course. And then we need to get a television in to every household.

    Mission accomplished. The idea that we are there to finally free the Kurd's and liberate them from Saddam is one of the biggest red herrings around. If that were true, we would have done it about twenty years ago.
     
  13. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    That's why he declared "mission accomplished" after the fall of Baghdad? And in the debate he implies that he was fooled by the Iraqi's laying down their weapons, but then returning to fight later. And this caught him off guard? Iraq is chaos. Insider reports confirm this (whether liberal or conservative press).

    Bush told the America people, "This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing."

    Now after a huge error of judgement he has crammed Iraq down our throats, a move that has little or nothing to with September 11. Now he whines, "But it's hard work..." He reminds me of a ten-year-old complaining about doing his chores.
     
  14. Kit

    Kit New Member

    I read the article at the link above. But it helps to look at the actions of the author, E.L. Doctorow, rather than just take at face value his article in the opinion section of The East Hampton Star.

    E.L. Doctorow was the 2004 invited commencement speaker at Hofstra University. What's notable about that speech is that he used the occasion not to focus on the students or even the commencement itself, but as a platform to lambast G. W. Bush. He went into excruciating detail about how he thinks the President is a "story teller"who repeatedly lied in order to start a war he wanted just because it was what he wanted. As a result, E.L. Doctorow was nearly booed off the stage by some of the students while many others sat looking bewildered at the speaker's chosen subject. Students' family members who attended the graduation weren't any happier with the speech. The only positive response Doctorow drew was from some faculty members who gave him a standing ovation for the political opinions he spouted at that commencement speech.

    E.L. Doctorow is a talented fiction writer, and he is certainly entitled to his opinions and has a right to publicly express those opinions. But to use a commencement speech as a platform to air his personal political opinions is just wrong. Commencement speeches are supposed to focus on the students, their accomplishment in graduation, and their look toward the future. It's not supposed to be a venue for an invited speaker to focus narrowly on himself and his own personal political opinions.

    For what Hofstra got, they didn't need to go to the trouble of inviting a celebrated writer with such a long and successful career who could (and should) have focused on their graduating students and had something of value to say to help them focus on their graduation and their future. They could have simply invited Michael Moore.

    Kit
     
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Hi Tom,

    I just now saw this. I don't think Bush ever said "Mission Accomplished." That was on the ship, deck (I don't remember.), etc., and was put there by the service members.

    While Hussein was in power Christian churches existed in Iraq. As a matter of fact, former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz is a Christian and his wife attended Christian services every Sunday.

    I don't support turning Iraq into a Chrisitan nation. I respect all religious faiths and think God speaks to His children regardless of whether they are Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, etc. Certainly God spoke to His creation before Judaism and Christianity were established.

    Sometimes people who are left of center peg all those right of center as "hard right," "fanatics," etc. Many of us who are either center or right of center are not fanatics, hard rightists, etc. Most of us are in the center with beliefs that range from right of center to left of center, like me.

    Always good to talk to you, Tom. You are a good man with deep, heart-felt convictions. I admire that. At least you don't, dare I say it, "flip flop." Ha!

    I admire anyone with strongly held convictions. That's why I liked both McCain and Bradley in 2000. They were solid in their convictions and really believed what they espoused. They are not idealogues, they are pragmatists.

    Take care my friend!
     
  16. GinaStarr

    GinaStarr New Member

    Rightbackatcha.

    The purpose of my post was to point out that by "going into" Iraq we did not eliminate rape and torture rooms categorically. I have done quite a bit of reading on a program with the name of “copper green”, and related topics to feel very comfortable with my belief the (insert derogatory epithet here) heading up our government were complicit in the atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib and other locations.

    If I was not cramming for the GRE I’d have much more time to devote to expounding my absolute disregard and disgust for Bush and his cronies.

    Gina


    The Road to Abu Ghraib, a report published by Human Rights Watch. www.hrw.org
     
  17. True - the White House created the sign at the Navy's request. I suspect that it appealed to Bush, but there's no proof there obviously.

    However, to paraphrase "Mission Accomplished", Bush HAS said it at least once, reported by USA Today 6/5/03:

    "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished," he said. Despite growing doubts at home and abroad, he reiterated that troops would find weapons of mass destruction, which were his rationale for striking first at Iraq.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-06-05-bush-qatar_x.htm

    Cheers,
    Mark
     

Share This Page