Bush's Resume

Re: Wow

No, the ability to answer a question intelligently is the sign of a good president, speaker, lecturer, teacher, whatever. How else do we know if they actually understand what is happening in the world, if they can't answer the question?

When Bush is trying to answer questions you can the smell circuits overheating. During one speech after 9/11 he had the misfortune of following Powell at a press conference. Bush stammered, stuttered, mis-quoted things that Powell had just said and generally looked completely lost. He hasn't gotten any better.

 

Re: Wow

No that's your simplification. The ability to think on one's feet, and to articulate answers to complex questions is key. Clinton could do it. Bush cannot. Even when Bush means well he puts his foot in his mouth, as when he said, "Americans don't like dead people on their TV's. I don't like dead people on my TV." Good Lord.

Ah, is that what you always say? That's a pretty bigoted view. I won't take it personally. It's no wonder you see Bush as a great leader, because he is so quick to go to war. That's what the military trains you to do, so that's how you see every problem. You might want to step back from your military training and try looking through new lenses. Not everything can be resolved by dropping bombs. Can you envision great leadership that doesn't involve fighting? The fact that we keep geting into these messes might be reason to suspect it's not working.

Good for you. I have given speeches, and they are difficult, but this is not me or you, this is the president we're talking about. I expect a certain level of competence, and it would be nice not to be embarassed for a change.

 

I looked at this post last night when there were no responses. I didn't post then because I knew it would become a flame war.

I realize that there is an off topic category but should it not be in some way related to distance learning?

I voted for President Bush, I am glad he won, I will vote for him again this year.

Safety is my prime concern, the safety of my family and my country. The economy, the price of gas, jobs- they are all secondary concerns. And of no concern if I am not safe.

President Bush is making sure our nation is safe. National defense is a core function of government. I am glad the administration is focused on core functions. When we are again free of threats from other parts of the world we will be able to concern ouselves with minutae.

I don't feel that Kerry will stick to the core functions of government, and I'm not sure I can feel safe with Kerry as president.

 

Reading what you want to again tom57

Where in all of my writings have I said Bush is a great leader? Find one piece of my writings that says that. I have, and will say again, he is not the brainless, buffoon, warmonger that many of you on this board say he is. Great is yet to be proven. I, also, said Clinton wasn't even close to great. Not even close, just lucky and slick.

We tried to soft shoe the Islamic issue for over 25 years. Your a little young to realize that I guess but this problem is not one of a couple of years making. If you don't realize it you are either blind, naive or both. Clinton, for all of his faults, busted his butt to get an agreement with Arafat on Palestine and the Israeli prime minister gave up so much he was voted out. What did Arafat do? Backed off and started Intifada.

I said the average civilian wouldn't recognize leadership. That means some do and but a lot don't. Look up the word bigot. A bigot believes something without proof. I have spent more years as a civilian than I did in the military and I can vouch for what I say with experience. And my years in the military were mostly spent overseas so I have a little experience with how other people in the world experience and view things. However, you have never spent one day in the military and speak about what the military trains me to do like you know anything about it. DON"T YOU DARE TELL ME WE THINK OF NOTHING BUT FIGHTING!!! Especially, if you will remember, it was the generals in the Pentagon who first disagreed with Rumsfeld on the Iraq situation and have been accused by civilians of being casualty averse so don't you dare sit there and tell me what you think the military thinks about this. Unlike your comfortable civilian butt it is the military fighting and dying over there instead of sitting comfortable in your house enjoying the benefits their sacrifice brings. If anyone is a bigot it is you.

Clinton rarely articulated answers to complex questions. What Clinton was an expert at was answering a complex question with a stock answer or an evasion. His interview when he confessed, sort of, to the Monica Lewinsky thing was a masterful performence of it. Remember the definition of sex thing and the what "is' "is"? I watched him do it and was amazed at how good he was. With 10 years in politics, I have a lot of experience at watching people BS. Some really good politicos stink at public speaking and some not so good ones are master orators.

You really need to work on your written communications skills before you say what people are saying. And touch up your knowledge of past and present world affairs before you come on this board and present yourself an expert and label people buffoons.

PS, your George Bush anagrams were so mature.

 

After eight years of the previous administration your words have profound significance, BLD.

 

Hitler was also an excellent extemporaneous speaker, as were Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc..... Of course, they also knew how to compartmentalize their lives, i.e., a fabricated persona for public view, the real persona in private. But, as is always the case, the real persona makes its way to the public arena...............

 

Hey folks - get a clue! Its a JOKE!

Clinton was a Joke
Both Bushes were jokes
Reagan was even a bigger joke!



Hey Tom: fellow Oaktown resident. Still living in the other city by the bay? Cool place - loved it - grew up in Upper Eastmont.

 

Elect Mr. Engineer for President in 2004. He will make a great addition to the above list.

 

Re: Reading what you want to again tom57

Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You can vouch for your claim? Really? You have talked to how many civilians about their views/definitions of leadership. And how exactly did you determine that the average civilian wouldn't recognize it if it hit him on the head? Because they, in general, don't agree with you? Just like I don't agree with you, and you respond by telling me "Don't you dare....blah blah.... ".Your claim is nonsense. What's more your words give the impression that your military training somehow makes you a better judge of what goes on internationally and politically. More nonsense.

You write: "Unlike your comfortable civilian butt it is the military fighting and dying over there instead of sitting comfortable in your house enjoying the benefits their sacrifice brings. If anyone is a bigot it is you."
This pretty much says it all. Can you engage in debate without resorting to high school-style attacks? Of course your invective is filled with all sorts of assumptions. You assume I am a civilian, and that I sit around on my butt in relative comfort , and, tacitly, that somehow I don't appreciate that men and women are dying over there. Believe me I appreciate it, and it is one of the things that enrages me about this war. Bush lied about the motive for war. His boneheaded plan is no plan at all (We will turn over Iraq on June 30 to whom? What are we up to $120 billion now?) And the sons and daughters of our country are paying the price for his missteps. This from a president who has absolutely no qualifications to be president, and now it shows, in the worst possible way. So don't YOU tell me about your half-assed analysis of MY situation, and about the way I should be feeling, and about the way the world actually is (according to you). Each of us has our opinion. I respect your right to yours, despite the fact I disagree with it wholeheartedly.

I will acknowledge that my assertion about the military was poorly worded, and for that I apologize. What I meant to say was that, in my opinion, the military is too quick to look for military solutions. Unfortunately, presidents are also too quick to resort to military solutions. In the case of Iraq, it seems a very blunt instrument, when a much finer one is needed.

I have never presented myself as "an expert." Nor did I label you a "buffoon." Those are your interpretations, apparently. Do my words make me SOUND expert, and make you FEEL like a buffoon ? Nevertheless, thanks for the advice about my writing skills. That's a first.

 

Yep, still in Oakland. Laurel District, so not far from your old digs. I love it. Land of liberals.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Remember something. We all have the right to choose. We all have the right to an opinion. Our ancestors helped to give us that right. I am a Democrat. I will stay a Democrat. You must feel which party is right for you. Which you feel most in common and in touch with. I respect everyone's right to an opinion. Remember...we are all the SAME side here. Just my two cents. There are good Democrats and Republicans. If not, our country would be a goner for sure.

 

Re: Re: Reading what you want to again tom57

I have been on active duty for nearly 18 years. If you do the math, you'll see that I was on active duty during Operation Just Cause, both Gulf Wars, Kosovo, and other military operations. I have been directly involved in none of these. I left Panama barely 12 hours before the first troops dropped in. So far, I have missed them all. Some might say I have been in the right place at the right time, others might say I have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Personally, I'm not sure which is right myself. Your opinon notwithstanding, I know soldiers. Many of them are ambivilant about fighting. Still, all but a few go when called. That's why we call it duty.

I have an experience that might be interesting to you. During the First Gulf War, I was stationed at a base in San Antonio, Texas. The call came out for volunteers to go to Iraq. Many voluteered. A few days later, I was having lunch with the Battalion Command Sergeant Major. He said he wanted to talk to each of the voluteers, one-on-one before he sent any of them to the fighting. He related to me that he volunteered to go to Vietnam when the call went out, and that he would never do such a thing again. He wanted the would-be volunteers to know that before they went. Does this change your opinion of the military?

I suppose that the military does look for "military" solutions. What solutions would you expect them to look for? I wonder, though, is peacekeeping, such as what's beeing done in Bosnia a military, or a non-military solution? If it's non-military, do we have the wrong people there? If it's military, than you might have to adjust your opinion on what a military solution is.

Finally, opinion lies at the root of all bigotry. Simply qualifying your statement about the military as opinion does not mean it's not bigoted. I hope that you can assimilate some of the information I presented here and arrive at a more well informed, less bigoted, opinion about the military.

 

Tom57

I think the joke on Bush's resume is hillarious.

Nevertheless I sympathize with this man. I think he had to deal with a very difficult time, the first attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, and the very first one in continental US ever (isn't it right?).

Nowadays citizens in the world perceive the source of legitimacy for armed actions to be in the UN, a representation of all governments of the world. I think he acted correctly with Afghanistan (no diplomacy could have ever gotten those results) and I think he did the right thing in Iraq as well. I'd like to remind some of you that when the Iraqi issue was discussed, nobody doubted about them possessing WMD. Nor the French, nor the Germans, nor the Chinese nor those other hostile nations. The only actual discrepancy was how to get those weapons under control. As far as I remember they tried for years to conduct inspections, and there was no Iraqi cooperation. They felt protected by both French and Russians, the ones profiting from the food for oil programs, and they accused the US and its allies of espionage. I honestly think they didn't leave Mr. Bush other option than to find those WMD the old fashion way. I always preferred to believe Mr. Powell than some shady Iraqi Information Minister.

I think he could have shown much more interest in the Middle East conflict by pressing both sides. The EU and Russia don’t have the political power to do so. Only America could. That’s one of the things I see he didn’t do well in foreign policy. Lately I don’t follow much American internal affairs so I have no elements to express an opinion.


Just my two cents



Cordial greetings to all.



PS Tom57, don't take that individual too seriously. He is unable to conduct a normal adult discussion.

 

However, it is a function of each state's popular vote. The winner of each state tends to get all of its electoral votes. That is what happened in 2000. Therefore, it seems that only those who are uneducated about our system would make claims that Bush stole the election.

The whole point of the electoral college is to ensure that the national popular vote, which might be swayed by our largest states (in turn, neglecting our smallest states) does not mandate the direction of our country. Otherwise...we would use a popular vote.

Guess what.....BUSH WON EVERY STATE FROM WHICH HE RECEIVED ELECTORAL VOTES.

Sorry

 

Well said Rich

This will be a tight election - the electorate is more divided than in 2000. The Democratic and Republican bases are fairly solid and the last poll I saw was that there is only a 4% undecided group. That's almost equal to the margin of error of most polls.

Bush continues to govern from the Right and can't understand why he is seen as a polarizing figure. I agree with Rich, if Clinton had governed from the Left he wouldn't have been re-elected.

 

If Bush does win in November, it will probably be with the slimest of margins. Much like 2000, no one with any real conscience is running. Your choices were Gore and Bush? Is that really a choice?

Today we have Kerry and Bush - two ultimate insiders. The thing I liked about Clinton was his ability to speak, even under fire (a gift that has eluded Bush Jr). Both Willie and GW are bad liars though.

Personally I voted for McCain in 2000. Not because of his service in Vietnam because that is not important to me. It was because of his leadership skills, his ablity to work with both the right and the left (also a gift Clinton had, and Bush will never have), and his ablity to say it like it is. (I am even a Libertarian).

We need a viable third choice - but who? A centralist is always good - but someone who understand or has the ablity to appoint someone who understands both foreign and domestic policy.

Just my two...

 

Re: Re: Re: Reading what you want to again tom57

It doesn't change my opinion. I appreciate the fact that there are thoughtful people in the military who don't take the decision to fight lightly. There are those like Colin Powell, who apparently recommended against military action in Iraq. My real beef is with Bush, who seems to have made up his mind to go to war, despite many counter opinions (like Powell's). It appears that Cheney is trying to make up for not taking out Hussein in the Gulf War. It seems to be a terrible reason to risk the lives of our military personnel.

If, as it appears, there are higher-ups in the military (Powell and certain Generals) who were ambivalent about the war in Iraq, I would expect them to have the guts to stand up for those convictions. But since this sort of thing is "their job" it's sort of like, "oh well, I guess we're off to war."

Who's going to stand up?

My beef has been primarily with Bush and those high enough in the military to have control over decisions. I have not intended to make sweeping statements about everyone in the military (although some on this thread have appeared to do just that about "civilians".). You cite a personal example of one compassionate officer in the military. Does this surprise me? Of course not. Does it change my "opinion" that MANY (not all) in the military tend to see conflicts and their possible resolution in terms of military action? No. You seem to be saying that there exist people in the military who have feelings and compassion and sensitivity. Let's hope so. It's like Niebuhr's "Moral Man and Immoral Society." As an example, Dow Chemical had lots of employees with warm loving families. They paid their taxes. They took care of their dogs. They helped their neighbors. They went to funerals, paid their respects. We can assume they did all the things that good people do. It didn't stop the company from dumping tons and tons of poisonous chemicals into the environment.

Who's going to stand up?

Your point about opinion and bigotry is well taken. It applies equally as well, however, to others on this thread who have made similarly "bigoted" statements about us "civilians" and what we just don't get because we (they assume) have never served in the military.

Pig-headedness and personal vendettas are poor reasons to go to war. The decision for conflict is so loaded that it demands a clear, justified, and well-thought-out plan. It appears that Bush and Cheney have failed miserably at this. Of course, as things get worse, the standard reaction of Bush supporters has been, essentially, "more firepower", "more killing". "We need to show them who's boss". And then there's the outrage at the horrendous tactics of terrorists (such as the desecration of bodies). "Gosh, they're just not killing people fairly - like we do." Is it surprising that terrorists who don't have the military hardware we do would resort to these tactics? Of course not. And please don't construe this to mean that I am in favor of these activities, for god's sake. It's just that it's not surprising, and a very rational outcome of the entire conflict.

My own (bigoted) opinion.

 

Tom57, answer the question

Have you or have you not served in the military? Answer the question. If you have not, you were in fact making an opinion based on something you know nothing about and that is a classic sign of bigotry. You know, kind of like people who make blanket statements about "those people" whom they don't even know. Kind of like your outrageous statements about Bush when you know nothing more than what you hear from the press. Fact is, Bush is just as qualified to be president as many others in the past have been. He is far more educated than most so I guess we should label the likes of Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan idiots because they do not have the proper amount of education. Have mistakes been made by the current administration? Yes, but by no means does it call for the screed being put out by some.

You stated that the military resorted to military solutions. I hate to point out the blinding obvious but our military is civilian led. For us to show up, a military solution has already been called for by some non-military person. It is patently ridiculous to accuse the military of resorting to military solutions. They ARE the military solution. Your accusations were incorrect, out of line, and indeed bigoted. Period.

I said most people would not recognize leadership if it hit them over the head because most people do not realize that true leadership means making unpopular decisions for the common good. Clinton, the great waffler, went around making everybody feel good but he accomplished nothing and passed very little agenda of his own devising. He was a promiser of everything to everybody and a reactor to other peoples initiatives and that is not a leader. Guess what, while I am now an active republican, I voted for Bill Clinton in '92 because I believed his crap about being a moderate. I, at that time, was an independent social moderate, fiscal conservative that voted for the man or woman who best met my views. Clinton lost my vote with his waffling here, waffling there and complete and total inability to accomplish anything.

Look at where you work or play on a daily basis and listen to what people beef about. If you truly listen you will realize it is true. For example: Where I work we have a union that will defend a deadbeats right to his/her job to death. Never mind the fact that their slacking forces everyone around them to work harder or leaves another deserving person w/o a job. They fight for it on principal because he is a "union brother/sister". Then the deadbeat gets the same promotions and pay raises as the good worker because that is also based on seniority. In politics, everyone has an agenda they will push to the exclusion of everything else. Regardless if their viewpoint harms someone else as well. Some people hate chemical fertilizer and insist we should use "natural" substitutes despite the fact that almost all recent contaminated food cases involved unwashed foods having "natural" fertilizer residue on it. Worse, natural fertilizers are huge foulers of our waterways. These are not black and white issues but that is how most people view every issue when the truth is somewhere in the middle. Is this all of the people? No but it is of most.

Since most Americans do not watch or read the news they have to get their political information from scuttlebutt among their friends or from partisan literature desseminated to them by a partisan agency wanting to sway opinion their way. This is not my opinion but is a statistical fact. Failing to obtain all of the facts is not the sign of a leader. No, but it is of most and that is just what I said.

 

No that's not right,

Middle East terrorists attacked and attempted to bring down the WTC in 1993.

 

Re: Tom57, answer the question

Chris,

Have I or have I not served in the military? Troubling isn’t it? If I have, you might have to give my views more weight. If I haven’t, you are ready to write off everything I’ve said. It doesn’t really matter, because both assumptions on your part are wrong. Serving in the military doesn’t give me (or you) any special insight into world affairs (necessarily). This doesn’t mean, of course, that one who has served couldn’t be a highly informed individual on these matters, only that serving in the military doesn’t give one any special skills per se. Conversely, not having served doesn’t negate one’s views. Are only those who served qualified to comment on anything to do with the military? That would be ridiculous in this matter as well as any other.

Your “blindingly obvious” point about the civilian led military is just that, I agree. As I’ve stated over and over, my main beef is with civilian #1: George Bush. Yes, I agree, for the military to show up means that a military solution has already been asked for. That’s what I disagree with – Bush’s boneheaded decision to discount what smarter people were telling him, and to defy Congress and members of his own cabinet, and push through on war. If we are to believe Woodward, he didn’t even tell his Secretary of State for heaven’s sake. I know I know, Woodward is just a liberal shill (despite the fact that he wrote a largely flattering view of Bush after 9/11).

One of your criteria for leadership seems to be an absence of waffling. In that respect, George Bush knows how to bang a drum, so he certainly qualifies under your stringent qualifications. To me his absence of waffling amounts to the height of arrogance and irresponsibility. And now we find ourselves in exactly the position that many warned of at the start of the war (all liberals, I know, but perhaps that’s what you find most maddening.)

You write: “Look at where you work or play on a daily basis and listen to what people beef about. If you truly listen you will realize it is true.”

Realize that what is true? You go on to generalize about unions. Is your pejorative example meant as a commentary on all union participants, or are these just exceptions? Are you condemning unions based on either view? I also work with unions in my job. I fully agree that there are EXCEPTIONS that exactly match your description. However, you seem to want to paint a larger picture based on an isolated aspect that irritates you, just as you do with your blanket statements about civilians, when perhaps it’s just those civilians who hold similar views to mine that you react strongly to. In these ways, you commit exactly the same offense you accuse me of.

More of the same with your example on fertilizers. Are you using that example to excuse major corporations that knowingly pollute the environment? I’m constantly amazed by the tendency of people to use counter examples that are, at best, relatively rare and isolated, and then use these to extrapolate their arguments about larger issues. Because natural fertilizers can screw up the environment we should just let anyone pollute anywhere and anytime they want? And do you think that serious environmentalists would condone polluting substances because they contain the word “natural?” Especially when “natural” these days means anything that doesn’t require a cyclotron to produce.

Finally, you write: "Since most Americans do not watch or read the news they have to get their political information from scuttlebutt among their friends or from partisan literature desseminated to them by a partisan agency wanting to sway opinion their way. This is not my opinion but is a statistical fact. Failing to obtain all of the facts is not the sign of a leader. No, but it is of most and that is just what I said.”

I’m not sure I get your point here, but I agree totally that most Americans are not critical thinkers when it comes to the news. Unfortunately, Bush is not what I would call a critical thinker either, and he certainly moved forward without having all the facts. More accurately, he had the facts and chose to ignore them. But what the hell, Bush and Cheney got their war. Halliburton got umpteen millions. Everything will be ok if the Saudi’s manipulate oil prices. And don’t we all feel safer with a bunch of clowns in the White House?

And as Woody Allen says in Annie Hall, “Right, I’m a bigot, but for the left.” (Ok now let's hear the tirade about Woody Allen. And make sure you equate him with all liberals in the process.)

Tom (a left-leaning bigot)