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
| Problems with Bush and his administration |
| 07.10.04 (8:16 pm) [edit] |
|
Perhaps I am exaggerating, but it seems as though there is a new issue that comes to light daily negatively portraying President Bush's Administration. Some may be fabricated, distorted, or entirely untrue, but given so many negatives, it is hard for even the top spinsters to turn it all into a positive. A few examples: * The Pentagon acknowledged today that some of President Bush's [url=http://www.columbiatribune.co...]Guard records were destroyed.[/url] This muddles the issue of whether Bush served during 1972-73, while he was concurrently working on a political campaign in Alabama. Now, the positive spin could be that just because the documents that would prove the issue were destroyed, it does not definitely show that he did not serve. Negative/reality: Bush's military record is doubtful. * [url=http://www.buzzflash.com/cont...]Ken Lay[/url]/Enron scandal: It is well known that former Enron CEO, Ken Lay, and President Bush had/have a close, personal relationship. Lay, a supporter/contributor ("During his political career, the president accepted more than $600,000 from Enron, its employees and their relatives."http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5403912) to Bush, has been indicted on charges of fraud. The connection between the two Texans is at best symbolic of the influence of corporations in politics, and at worst, a firm indictment of the Bush Administration's lax policies against corporate fraud. Positive spin: Lay's indictment is proof of the Administration's intolerance of corporate abuses. Negative/reality: Bush has ties to big corporate donors, affecting political actions. * Halliburton and Dick Cheney: "While Vice President Cheney served as chairman and chief executive of Halliburton, the company acquired two subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., which had signed contracts to sell oil production equipment to Iraq under the oil-for-food program for more than $73 million. The military investigated Halliburton and found that it overcharged for gas it imported into Iraq from Kuwait by as much as $61 million. In March 2003, the Pentagon announced it would withhold nearly $300 million in payments to Halliburton due to the company's overcharging on food contracts. "Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company disagreed with the decision and hoped to persuade the Pentagon to drop its plans."' (taken from http://www.democrats.org/spec...) Positive spin: Cheney's involvement with Halliburton does not necessarily include any wrongdoings. Just because a person is associated with something, does not mean that they are entirely responsible for it. Negative/reality: Vice President Cheney is the former chairman and chief executive of a company responsible for wrongdoings. And, lastly in this [i][b]brief[/i][/b] list of Bush Administration controversies, the misled war in Iraq. This is obviouisly debatable, as it has been the topic of many many debates since its onset, but the war in Iraq was based on flawed intelligence, was unnecessary, and was a mistake. The first of those statements, that it was based on flawed intelligence, cannot reasonably be argued against, particularly with the recent [url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO...]report[/url] from the Senate Intelligence Committee stating precisely that. Prewar intelligence that claimed Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction was the basis for Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Had the intelligence been correct, the war still would have been unnecessary. Saddam did not pose an immediate threat and did not warrant an invasion. The war in Iraq was not urgent, and it was a mistake. Obviously, the removal of Saddam from power is a good thing, few would dispute that. However, the ramifications from leading America in the direction of an Imperialistic nation unconcerned with appealing to the conventions of world politics (ie, circumventing the UN) are damaging. The view of America as portrayed in the Middle East is increasingly negative. Though this has been the case for years, it is more so because of Iraq. Enough ramble, onto the analysis: Positive spin: Hussein, a brutal dictator, is now out of power and Iraq will be built into a democracy where freedom is valued. Negative/reality: Though the above is actually good, the ends do not justify the means. The war in Iraq was an unjustified war and, as such, should not be celebrated. |
posted by: WinstonSmith (reply)
post date: 07.10.04 (5:50 pm)
Isn't it funny how people decry the crimes/lies/atrocities of Bush as being perhaps "fabricated, distorted or entirely untrue" (even when there is cold, hard evidence in front of our eyes to substantiate Bush/Cheney's lies/crimes/atrocities)... But boy when anyone has a criticism to lodge against Kerry/Edwards, no nuance there: no "fabricated, distorted or entirely untrue" for the Democrats... Hmmm...
Interesting collection of indictments-- Not only are you not exaggerating, you could be far, far tougher on Bush/Cheney for the tens of thousands they massacred in Iraq based upon lies-- and the billions squandered to enrich Halliburton, etc. instead of taking care of our own people here at home...
Thanks for the thought-provoking blog, DragonBait.
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 07.10.04 (7:13 pm)
Ooh ooh, and don't forget that he introduced the doctrine of pre-emptive strike. I can't WAIT to see what consqeunces that principle has on global warfare.... (sarcasm)
Excellent blog, good research. Its nice to see solid criticism without a lot of silly hyperbole and juvenile name-calling.
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.11.04 (11:08 am)
First of all, it's misleading to call Cheney a former Halliburton employee. When somebody still gets paid by a company, I consider that person to be an employee. That's especially true when the company benefits from the person's work.
On paper, Cheney does not work for Halliburton. He quit the job and got a "severance package" that is conveniently paid to him over a five year period, or roughly the term of his presidency. It has been reported to be a $34 million dollar package. The required federal filings put it in the "over $100,000/year and up to $1 million/year" category, so it may be less than what was reported. Regardless of this, there's a good chance that he gets more money from Halliburton each year than he gets as salary for being the Vice President.
During his term, Halliburton got myriad questionable contracts in Iraq. They were not put out for bids to other companies. Cheney got rewarded comfortably for this.
How can you call him a FORMER Halliburton employee?
I also have problems with the notion of flawed intelligence as the basis of the war. "Intelligence" has several meanings. The proper meaning for this context is information, but the more common meaning is intellectual ability. In the latter sense, I might agree with you.
However, the various intelligence agencies had sufficient information to judge the facts. What they lacked was either the other type of intelligence or the objectivity to judge them in context instead of as a political tool.
This also makes me question why congress has no mechanism in place to solicit information independently.
When Bush and Powell made their famous speeches, they presented lots of misinformation. It was already known within the scientific community that the information was wrong. Did Congress have access to all the information, or were they merely presented with the same narrow set of "facts" that the American public saw?
It was a fact that we had aerial photos of a mobile plant for making "chemicals." It was a fact that Saddam had purchased aluminum tubes that some suspected could be used for processing uranium. But it was also a fact that scientific experts knew that they were the wrong types of tubes and the truck was the wrong type of plant.
What do you do when your "experts" disagree? Do you merely take the facts that support your position and ignore the others? Do you develop the expertise to understand the situation? Do you get outside help from the most distinguished scientists in the field to see if there is ANY disagreement at that level? Do you present all the facts? What do you do when one of those scientists appears on television and presents his case? Do you still find it acceptable that Congress did not know?
Republicans have a talent for presenting only the information that supports their view and ignoring information that disproves their hypotheses. Some Democrats do that too, albeit less often. There will always be another Democrat to disagree if they do. But Gore had no problem making statements on the death penalty that he must have known were false. His weasel words may have gotten him out of it, ("I believe in my heart that it prevents crime." Statistics be damned.) And Kerry can be just as slippery when it comes to gay marriage.
But all politicians can face a situation where what studies show goes against what is popular, and going against the voters to do what is right may cost an election.
However, there's a difference between doing it on a phony issue such as abortion or gay marriage, and sending people to their death over it.
When I say phony, I mean that any issue on which the president is powerless to do something should not be an election issue. Reagan said he was against abortion, but kept his hands out of it for his whole time in office. Likewise, nobody would be proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage unless they thought it was constitutional. And what the president thinks of the amendment has little relevance since he's not part of the process. And of course passing a law against something when the Supreme Court already ruled is just another way of passing the buck and playing political games. It results in no real change, but your supporters think you actually did something when you did nothing.
But that's not the case with the war. Bush did something. Big time.
posted by: jbfs (reply)
post date: 07.11.04 (1:57 pm)
"Obviously, the removal of Saddam from power is a good thing, few would dispute that."
I'm just one of those few then. Morally, I believe that if his human rights abuses (let's, for the sake of this particular argument, exclude his use of particular types of weapons in various wars) were as bad as they have been reported, then he should not have been in power. Politically, I don't think anybody had any right to remove him from power. Ultimately, I'm torn. While I may be happy that he is no longer in power, I am unhappy that he was removed from power by external forces.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.11.04 (5:08 pm)
Reply to: jbfs
You're right, perhaps I should have chosen my wording more carefully. I meant that it's good that Saddam is no longer in power, not that the forceful removal of Saddam by the US was a good thing.
posted by: reducto (reply)
post date: 07.11.04 (8:06 pm)
Uh, so negative = reality and not spin. Yeah, I suppose that since everything seems to be a negative only for the Bush administration, there could possibly no spin involved.
I guess President Bush personally destroyed his guard record, knowing it would be an issue decades after, huh? I guess it doesn't help that there are voluminous records that showed he served? And further, I guess it now does matter-- when it didn't a mere administration ago-- what a man did during Vietnam.
I guess it means nothing that Bush had nothing to do with Enron's illegal activitiesd and that Enron gave to both parties. I guess it means nothing that the illegal activity occured or was allowed to happen during the Clinton administration. Of course not.
I also suppose it doesn't matter that Halliburton has been used in war by every president since World War II. I guess it doesn't matter that no-bid contracts are a reality of the defense contract business. No sir. It doesn't matter that President Clinton used Halliburton, or that Halliburton has staffed prominent democrats as well as republicans on its advisory board.
As far as Iraq goes, the case for war existed whether or not the world believed he had WMD or not. Saddam's promise to the world was to dismantly and verify what he had. He did not dismantle his WMD, and if he did, he didn't let the UN and the world verify. That is a breaching of the UN cease-fire, which requires what? Thata's right, force.
After 9-11, if you recall, Bush asked Hussein to comply with the will of the world, he did not. His action was quite justified.
I don't know why you seem to care about what our image is in the Middle East. You offer no reasonable alternative to fighting terror, and I'm not really sure how after 9-11 the image could get any worse. Can you?
Besides, you only think the entire Middle East hates us because that's what the media that feeds you wants you to believe. It's no different than Michael Moore showing false images of a "peaceful" Iraq before the US liberated it.
When Democrats are in power, the world is at peace and terror is no worse than criminal behavior. When Republicans are in power every conspiratorial stone is unturned and vacant drones that gulp it down sit there and wonder why there are suddenly so many "scandals" about the president.
Folks like you take a Democrat's excuse at face value, and scoff at the reasons behind anything a Republican gives. Your blog entry merely regurgitates left-wing thought and is no more original than anything else you've written, which means not at all.
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 07.12.04 (8:09 am)
Reply to: reducto
That's funny. You're defense of Bush consists entirely of saying that Clinton was just as bad.
And I don't comply with the will of the world all the time. Please don't invade my house.
posted by: jbfs (reply)
post date: 07.13.04 (8:22 am)
Reply to: reducto
"I don't know why you seem to care about what our image is in the Middle East. You offer no reasonable alternative to fighting terror, and I'm not really sure how after 9-11 the image could get any worse. Can you?"
This attitude disgusts me.
You mean, you don't care if we come across as being a threat to people's daily lives? You don't care if we anger and enrage people so much that they're willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill hundreds or thousands of people in a country they feel is oppressive? I guess you feel safe behind the fact that we have one of the strongest militaries in the world--despite the fact that a military will never prevent a suicide bomber/gunman from killing others. But you know, you keep thumping your chest and singing "I'm proud to be an American." Keep spitting on the ground that others walk on. Keep trodding on cultures you don't understand. But when the angry hoardes come, don't look for me for salvation. Hell, I'll even point them to your house.
posted by: jbfs (reply)
post date: 07.13.04 (8:24 am)
Reply to: jbfs
(and that was intentionally inflammatory)
*dons asbestos and waits for fiery return*
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.13.04 (6:33 pm)
Reply to: reducto
"Uh, so negative = reality and not spin. Yeah, I suppose that since everything seems to be a negative only for the Bush administration, there could possibly no spin involved."
Well, my negative/reality was really little more than stating the facts, without a positive spin. Take it however you want. And what are you talking about- negative only for the Bush Admin.? No one else was mentioned in this post, aside from Ken Lay.
As for the issues discussed in this blog, there isn't much more to say. I did not say that any of this is absolutely terrible, that Bush is responsible for it all, nor did I make any absurd implications- it is just a list of facts that can be interpretted however you'd like.
"I don't know why you seem to care about what our image is in the Middle East. You offer no reasonable alternative to fighting terror"
I'm not even talking about fighting terrorism. You're asserting that the war in Iraq is part of the "war on terror," and that's just blatantly dishonest.
"Besides, you only think the entire Middle East hates us because that's what the media that feeds you wants you to believe."
What? I love how you make assumptions about where I get my information and education. My views rarely have anything to do with what I've gotten from the media. My opinion that there is an anti-American sentiment in the Middle East comes from studying in depth the issue of terrorism, and specifically the attacks of 9/11. If you'd like me to educate you on these topics, I'd be glad to, just let me know.
"Your blog entry merely regurgitates left-wing thought and is no more original than anything else you've written, which means not at all."
There's nothing left-wing about my blog, aside from a little criticism of President Bush. Original? No, I had no intention of being original in this post; I merely wanted to present some facts.
posted by: jesusisangry (reply)
post date: 08.02.04 (7:54 pm)
Reply to: jbfs
lol "But when the angry hoardes come, don't look for me for salvation. Hell, I'll even point them to your house. "
