| President Bush's accomplishments |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 05.09.04 (6:54 pm) Yes, there has definatly been a lot of shoddy workmanship. Great essay! posted by: Shark99 (reply) post date: 05.09.04 (7:03 pm) You might not be old enough to consider the historical implications, but you are certainly old enough to write a great blog. I like your workmanship! Keep it up! posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.09.04 (7:49 pm) Reply to: RedTigress There certainly has. Thanks. :) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.09.04 (7:50 pm) Reply to: Shark99 Thank you, and I will try and keep it up... we'll see. ;) posted by: WhyNot (reply) post date: 05.09.04 (10:28 pm) Very well put together, Dragon. Just a point, though: "I won't go so far as to say that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq" He did. That was in fact one the arguments he used to justify over-riding the UN, dismiss the Hans Blix team as irrelevant, and drum up the hype and support to wage war on Iraq: he not only claimed he KNEW Iraq had WMDs, he kept saying he knew where they were. And with such convinction that even here in Europe, many ppl wondered if it might not be the case - although many others wondered why he didn't tell the Hans Blix team where these WMDs were. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.10.04 (2:15 pm) I don't think most democrats would say that he stole the election because he lost the popular vote. They'd say he stole it because he lost Florida in a fair count, and Bush supporters point to every set of numbers except the one that neither Bush nor Gore sought but was indeed most relevant: a complete recount. Democrats will also argue that Bush stole the election because of all the people who were disenfranchised by the system and denied the opportunity to vote. And there's no question that it was biased against ethnic groups that don't traditionally vote Republican. But Bush didn't care how people intended to vote, or that most people nationwide, or even most people who intended to vote in Florida didn't want him. Both sides played games. Neither should have. I agree with almost all of the rest of your essay, except on Saddam's capture. The fact that he was hiding alone in a ditch with a revolver showed more clearly than anything that he did not have WMD's. If he did, what could he possibly have been saving them for that was more important? But Bush captured him and ducked the question. The WMD search went on. Of course, no list of accomplishments is complete without covering the economy. We have his big lie about tax cuts. As sales tax, property taxes, and all sorts of other taxes and fees go up around the country, he is still saying how taxes were cut even though it's not true -- they were just redistributed so that the middle class and below no pays more of it -- and the resulting school closings and fire station closings and so forth are still a significant problem. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 05.10.04 (3:02 pm) In 2000, I supported Bush over Gore. I found Bush attractive because he talked about cutting spending and not engaging in "nation building." Now the only thing I like about him is that he is a huge baseball fan. posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 05.10.04 (3:59 pm) I am a democrat, but I supported Bush as well, for two reasons. One, because as an educator, I felt a changing of the guard *might* help plug a few holes in the sinking ship, so to speak. However, I couldn't have been more wrong. The only thing Bush has managed to do for education is to create a lot more hoops, a lot more paperwork, and a whole lot less funding. And #2... I think I was just ready for a president who could keep his *johnson* in his pants. I'll be voting democrat this time around. And finally, I agree with the others.... yours is one of the best blogs around. posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 05.11.04 (9:26 am) "Bush reacted to the terrorist attacks with resolve, sought to unite America in a trying time, and showed an unwavering sense of leadership." I couldn't disagree more with this statement. The way I view it, the way I analysed and wrote about it, Bush used the attacks to scare Americans into submission. (Compare his 9/11 speeches with the speeches of FDR after Pearl Harbor.) The language he used was the language of an aggressor, not a leader. I'm not sure I agree with Saddam's capture as being this great and glorious event that we should all praise and hail to the chief and all that crap. Okay, yes, there are reports of him leading a somewhat brutal dictatorship. But what about the good stuff he did? The liberating of women? The building of schools? He was not this purely evil man that many Americans portray him as being. (But it's a lot easier for us to accept going to war against someone if they are portrayed that way.) Bush has led a presidency filled with deceipt and lies. Sure, he didn't have sex with some intern (that we know of). Whooptie-doo. Good for him. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.11.04 (11:43 am) Reply to: therealspartacus007 You made the mistake of confusing what he said with what he meant. It was clear from the platform he was adopting and from his history where he was headed. There were no surprises at all. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.11.04 (11:49 am) Reply to: jbfs Saddam may have done some good things, but that does not mean that he was not an evil man. The bad things he did are so much worse than what most people ever talk about that it's hard to get a good picture of how bad this man was. To be sure, some people in history have a mix of good and bad. Washington was a slave owner and didn't come to terms with the problem until late in his life. Columbus was far more brutal and murderous than Saddam, and yet some still honor him and lie about him in history books. We have a problem in American society. If we glorify somebody, we cannot discuss his faults, and if we fault somebody, we cannot discuss his accomplishments. Overall, Washington was a good man, Saddam was a bad man, and Columbus was evil beyond belief. But our history books are not looking for balance. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 05.11.04 (12:23 pm) Reply to: jbfs Immediatly after the 2001 attacks, Bush did a good job, although his presence on television that day potrayed a scared, bewildered President, an image that the already panicked America did not need to see. He correctly gave the Taliban a long waiting period, invaded with a global coalition and actually did a decent job of rallying the support of the Afghanistan civilians, at least at first. Those few months were Bush's shining moments, if even on just one issue that anyone else would have done anyway. He's the worst President in over a century and a half, so on the rare occasions I find something good about him, I have to take full advantage. As for Hussein, its pretty hard to be ALL evil- to use the famous quote about Mussolini, "at least he made the trains run on time," but even compared to other modern dictators, Saddam is clearly one of the most evil men in the world. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 05.11.04 (12:28 pm) Reply to: mblog I agree, our culture does cast historical figures into the demon-or-saint molds. Saying this, I would agree that Columbus was a pretty evil guy, but when placed into cultural context, he was only really evil, not incredibly evil. He is usually praised for his courage and trust in science, and until recently his dark side was whitewashed. Although he was not the cross between Gallileo and George Washington many seem to think he was, Columbus was no Hitler/Hussein either- you can't blame him for what Cortez and those that followed Columbus did. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.11.04 (2:07 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Based on the accounts of Columbus' children, I'd say that the picture looks pretty grim. I recently read a book called "Lies my teacher told me : everything your American history textbook got wrong" and it has a pretty good section on Columbus. You might want to check it out. posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 05.11.04 (7:46 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 first, read this: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16220 second, tell me how Bush was such a great president. From what I've seen and read and studied, he did no more than scare a nation into believing that he was their only hope for survival. Sure, this shows up favorably in the polls as Americans supporting Bush, but it was not done in a particularly good way, as is shown by his support sliding in the polls. I'll be honest. It'll be very hard for you to convince me that any of his war efforts made him any better. We created armies. We alienated people. We suffered blowback. And then Bush decided that bombing the hell out of a country already impoverished by years of war and conflict. I read reports that said something like the following: "An american helicopter successfully struck with a missile a vehicle that was possibly carrying a person suspected of being a member of Al-Qaeda." Uhhhhhhhhh..... right. How are these shining moments for Bush? posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 05.11.04 (7:50 pm) Reply to: mblog My problem with labelling him as an immensely evil (Hitler-level evil) person is that I have never read or seen any concrete evidence that he is such a horrible person. There are plenty of people who talk about the bad things he did. Plenty of rumors and hearsay. But, rumors and hearsay mean little to me. Anything published by the American media (especially information gleaned from intelligence agencies) since ohhhhh about the 80's, I have a hard time viewing without seeing strong biases. If you have information, concrete information, I would love to read it. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 05.11.04 (8:27 pm) Reply to: jbfs I never said he was such a great president. In fact, I said he is the worst one since Van Buren. PAY ATTENTION! posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 05.12.04 (4:37 am) Reply to: therealspartacus007 It's all about context. you said he did a good job. (perhaps I was a bit hyperbolic in saying "great.) Note that everything after my requesting you tell me how he was so great relates rather exactly to the actions that you felt he did a good job on. Try reading EVERYTHING before yelling at me next time please. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 05.12.04 (10:19 am) Reply to: jbfs The first couple months concentrated on outing the Taliban, which had protected and funded Al-Qaeda. After that, he has handled Afghanistan very badly. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.12.04 (1:47 pm) Reply to: jbfs I wouldn't label him Hitler level either. But when the number of firsthand accounts of abuse gets so high, I have a hard time believing that they are not true. Sometimes, people or groups have a vested interest in lying. But when a person leads a country, the most sensible explanation for discontent is mistreatment, and it makes little sense for Iraqis to tell lies against Saddam unless he did genuinely bad things. That's very different from believing the accounts of one group against another or one nation against another. posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 05.12.04 (3:05 pm) Reply to: mblog given that there are a number of first-hand accounts of his being not-a-good-guy. Is the number any greater per capita than what you could potentially get from american citizens regarding our government? (and I mean of incidents on the same level). I'm not trying to be a tinfoil hat wearer here, but there are some very shady things that our government does, especially now with the various anti-terrorism acts in place. posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 05.12.04 (3:08 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 We'll ignore for the time being that the United States created the Taliban... how does GWB sending military forces to out a group of people who had some connections with al-qaeda make him a good president? (To make a reference to the article I referred to earlier, it seems a lot like saying that because your abusive husband went out and beat up one of his friends for touching you, he's a good guy...) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.12.04 (5:10 pm) Reply to: WhyNot Well, I agree with you, whynot, but what I meant to say is that I won't take the extreme stance that Bush made up accounts of WMD in Iraq. There certainly were none to be found and it was an unexcusable mistake that Bush made in declaring war on a country based on false premises, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as to whether he knowingly lied about there being WMD. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.12.04 (5:31 pm) Reply to: mblog The election of 2000 demonstrated the flaws in our system. I agree that the way Bush entered office was not at all in agreement with the standards of a democratic system. And it really bothers me that nothing has been done to change it. I'm not really sure how we disagree on the issue of Saddam's capture. I think that it's a good thing he's out of power, and that's about it. I don't think it in any way makes the war in Iraq justified or gives Bush credibility. And you're absolutely right that economic matters are important in evaluating a presidency, this was just a quick glance at a few major issues. And I was trying to be positive. ;) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.12.04 (5:36 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 "Now the only thing I like about him is that he is a huge baseball fan." And I don't even like baseball. I guess that's another strike against Bush for me. ;) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.12.04 (5:39 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Personally, I don't see anyone in the government doing much good for education. And thank you so much for the compliment, you're the coolest. :) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.12.04 (6:16 pm) Reply to: jbfs In regard to Bush's handling of the 9/11 matter, I wasn't overly specific on my opinion because I wanted to say something positive about the guy. The main point I can think of is that I don't know how else it could have been better handled and I can't imagine another person as president doing a better job than Bush did. I don't think Bush did an exceptional job of dealing with the attacks, but his handling of the matter was acceptible, to me. And I didn't say the capture of Saddam was a great and glorious thing, I said that it was a good thing. And the only remotely positive thing about the war in Iraq. I'd like to at least try and give Bush some credit every once in a while, but I don't think he deserves much, if any. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.14.04 (10:52 am) Reply to: jbfs I don't know how the numbers compare, but to the extent that our leaders do something reprehensible, they should be thrown out of office. We don't officially have rape rooms or torture, and if they become public knowledge, we investigate and admit that they are wrong. In the last election, Saddam got 100% of the vote. There's no question that he ruled with an iron fist and did not tolerate truth. In our society, we may not know of everything that goes wrong behind the scenes, but we do allow people to speak freely and the percentage of evil deeds that become public knowledge is much higher. Under Saddam, he was comfortable that everything he was doing was justifiable. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.14.04 (10:54 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 I don't think we disagree on Saddam being out of office as something good. I think that the way you worded it, implying to me that the event of the capture itself was the positive, was the point I did not agree with. But it seems clear that you were not looking at it in that narrow sense but in the broader sense of him being out of power. posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 05.17.04 (2:13 pm) Reply to: mblog It's too bad good ol' Rummy was tied to the prisoner abuses in Iraq... and the blatant disregard for the Geneva convention with the Afghani detainees... I would say that "the percentage of evil deeds that become public knowledge is much higher" is an inherently baseless claim. You make a lot of valid points, but when you say stuff like this, it's hard to give you the benefit of the doubt on other marginal points you make. But let's just go with an admittedly unfairly generalized view of America. Europeans came over and maliciously and violently took land from the native peoples. They then enslaved large numbers of people and brought them over to America and forced them into inhumane working conditions and treated them as pieces of equipment moreso than as people. Years later, these people were finally freed of the enslavement only to be subjected to many years of abuse and degredation--too much of which still exists. But Americans don't stop there. Corporate America in its greed exports its work to less industrialized nations to abuse workers in sweatshops all to lower their bottom line and increase profits. We have funded organizations with less than ideal goals to deal with other organizations and governments which we were more afraid of. We have imprisoned an entire nationality of people because they are possibly connected to attacks on our country. We have trained militaries and militias in acts of terrorism, in geneva-convention violating interrogation processes, and other activities resulting in some of the most brutal slaughters in central america. We have reduced civil liberties under the pretense of national security. I could go on, but I think you understand my point. We don't exactly have a very good track record going for us. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.18.04 (10:41 am) Reply to: jbfs I agree with most of what you say about our history, but it supports my view and not yours. It shows that in an open society, everything you discussed is out there and is readily available, and it's also not something the we as a society condone. That's very different from Saddam's regime. But even if we were worse, it would not make Saddam acceptable and there is no reason to defend him. If you are against inherently baseless claims, then the information about Saddam's actions is out there. If you want to refute them, show some evidence. Otherwise, your statements are the ones that are inherently baseless. posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 05.18.04 (1:35 pm) Reply to: mblog First off, I'm not entirely sure how blatant, in-your-face badness is any less bad than behind-closed-doors badness. Also, just because information is available, doesn't mean that it's out in the open. (To look at sci-fi, consider the rezoning/demolition information in H2G2. This information was readily available to all sentient beings, yet the Earthlings were unaware of its existence and therefore the Vogons destroyed the planet anyway.) How many people know about the School of the Americas? How many people know what the PATRIOT Act allows the government to do? This information is publically available. Is it out in the open? Not particularly. At least not without a lot of pro-government spin. As you're thinking about this, ask yourself, how many people in Australia know about these things? Singapore? Bangladesh? Hong Kong? I don't know how many people under Saddam's control knew what he did. I don't know what he did, and I've found it very difficult to find non-pro-America-Saddam-is-the-next-Hitler information on him. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I believe the man to be a saint. He invaded Kuwait. He used horrific weapons in various wars. Anyway... My claims are by far not baseless. I do believe I maid reference to the information I received as being hearsay and rumor. (That could and probably does mean that I've been a little out of touch. Which is one of the reasons that I ask people to provide me with information.) Anyway, in summary, I don't think knowing about an evil deed makes it any less evil. I don't think Saddam is a great man, but I also don't think he is the purely evil man that many make him out to be. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.21.04 (11:58 am) Yay, comments are back!! Now I can post again. ;) I'd just like to say that I love the fact that not a single person who has commented on this post, as far as I know, supports Bush as President (with the possible exception of Republican RedTigress, who still agrees he's done a bad job). We all basically agree, believe it or not. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.21.04 (11:58 am) Reply to: jbfs Would you want Saddam to be your dictator? ;) |
|