Everyone Who Dislikes/Likes George W. Bush, Tell Us Why In Your Own Words (2 Viewers)

[Taurus]

In order to keep this from becoming a screed of It-like proportions, I'll just say that the only thing he's done in six years that I appreciate is to rededicate NASA to the task of manned spaceflight.

 

[texasjefe]

DD, you and so many here (Reb, Champ76, dapperdan, bulldawg, blackadder, and many others) are very thoughtful, reasonable, and learned posters. I learn alot from your posts.

That being said, I find it difficult, even impossible, to evaluate the Bush Administration with anything that is rational or reasonable in thought or context -- though the major discussions here are packed with so many people here exchanging substantive, rational, evaluative and predictive perspectives.

The true answers of why this administration has done anything it has done are not revealed. The operative and defining quote for this administration came here (taken from wikipedia):

"The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:
<dl><dd>The aide said that guys like me (article author Suskind) were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."</dd></dl>I believe this strongly. We're all here assessing micro and macro events logically and based in reality. The administration, skillfully building firewalls around itself, creates its own reality, outside of history, reason, or law. They are secretive, and the secrecy of their agenda will be preserved throughout the hierarchy, at all costs.

Essentially, they are not truly our elected representative leaders. They are a rogue cocoon who has co-opted all levers of power and resources owned by the government on behalf of its people -- to further their own agenda, consolidation of power, and redistribution of public wealth and resources to their inner circle.

While I know my take may sound deluded, blasphemous and darn hyper-liberal to so many reasonable-minded people, I urge you to consider along with your own, any Bush event in that context.

As for Iraq, Iraq was a pre-ordained implementation of a PNAC strategic plan, that was delayed by 9-11, and was assumed to be a slam dunk, based on the 50%-50% assumption that surely one legitimate WMD or mobile lab would be found -- and -- that Shiites would embrace their freedom and keep the peace. As you noted earlier, considerations of pacifying Sunnis were never planned for, and the administration used only two filters to move forward -- the use of Iraq victory as a political commercial for re-election, and, with Bremer installed, the evolution of a new enterprise marketplace.

 

[System Shock]

I don't dislike George Bush, because I firmly believe he's not calling the shots.

My father in law always thought very highly of Bush Sr, as they were neighbors at one point, but he thought little George wasn't all there

 

[sandiego_dre]

Tell Us Why In Your Own Words :hookline:

1. Destroyed what little credibility we had with foreign policy.
2. Everything regarding Iraq under his leadership (that's a very long list)
3. Got Domestic agenda?
4. Tax policies he supported are biased toward the extreme rich.
5. Education?
6. Health care?
7. So many children left behind.
8. Billions squandered on failed policies...

.... that's my short list

 

[Richard]

I like him for adding the words strategery and misunderestimated to the English vocabulary.

 

[sandiego_dre]

...The true answers of why this administration has done anything it has done are not revealed. The operative and defining quote for this administration came here (taken from wikipedia):

"The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:

<DL><DD>The aide said that guys like me (article author Suskind) were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."</DD></DL>I believe this strongly. We're all here assessing micro and macro events logically and based in reality. The administration, skillfully building firewalls around itself, creates its own reality, outside of history, reason, or law. They are secretive, and the secrecy of their agenda will be preserved throughout the hierarchy, at all costs.

Essentially, they are not truly our elected representative leaders. They are a rogue cocoon who has co-opted all levers of power and resources owned by the government on behalf of its people -- to further their own agenda, consolidation of power, and redistribution of public wealth and resources to their inner circle.

While I know my take may sound deluded, blasphemous and darn hyper-liberal to so many reasonable-minded people, I urge you to consider along with your own, any Bush event in that context....

Very well thought out and written. Spot on.

 

[DadsDream]

No, off-topic, I'm afraid.

Yes, in your own words. No links. No copy and paste jobs.

 

[texasjefe]

Hey now, I never play linky ping-pong in threads I post on. 99% of what I write is in my own words, so the use of a link by me here was a point of personal privilege.

 

[DadsDream]

Hey now, I never play linky ping-pong in threads I post on. 99% of what I write is in my own words, so the use of a link by me here was a point of personal privilege.

Yeah, yeah, tell it to Scooter Libby. :_rofl:

 

[purvis_guy]

Nope, you broke the rules, go ahead Dads, ban him from this thread forever!!!

 

[blackadder]

No, off-topic, I'm afraid.

DD,

Do you consider me a "copy and paster?"

I admit I use a lot of links, but I mostly use them to support and document my arguments and assertions, not just to play "link ping-pong."

Without the credible source, people will call you out, so I try to head it aff by providing the sourcing up front.

 

[DadsDream]

Not pointing a finger at you or anybody else Blackadder. Heck, we all do this from time to time.

Copying and pasting a brief blurb and a link to erase any doubts about sources of information or to initiate or expand a discussion is one thing.

But, posting pages and pages of copied and pasted material in a point-counter-point Google battle between two or three people quickly renders a thread dead in my book.

Also, if you look back at the opinions I've expressed in the past couple of pages, you may be surprised, given what you've seen me post in the past.

Some of my opinions have changed and evolved with new events and new information. Some of my opinions haven't changed at all.

One thing which I've come to resent is the notion that if someone disagrees with another poster, it's because they haven't read this trendy article or seen that propaganda-laced video.

I've seen political crusaders appear here and instantly start slinging labels at people with whom they disagree. Moonbat...liberal...neocon...Limbaugh dittohead...etc.

The notion that another poster is ignorant and needs to be "educated" smacks of elitism and is the height of hubris. Although both sides do this in one way or another, I associate this tactic with groups like MoveOn and the condescending liberal intelligencia from the East and West Coasts.

Maybe that's just my perception, but it's based in life experiences.

We've got a lot of fairly well-educated and knowledgeable people here on the EE Board.

Blackadder, as you and I have come to discover over the past couple of years, after a fairly rocky and resentful start, you and I probably agree on more things than we disagree on.

Are you a "copy and paster"? Sometimes you are. Sometimes I am. But, lately, when I'm tempted to do that, I stop myself, write a paragraph in my own words, then post an Additional Info style link afterwards for those who want to question the information.

It's a lot more personal that way.

 

[Saint Mike]

Great post, DD.

 

[mg450]

We are mostly New Orleanians here. The President of the United States of America took 5 days to get here after the largest "natural" disaster in American history. Inexcusable. So, do I "like" him? Not a chance.

But in reality his main legacy is Iraq. I disagree with his policies and decisions, but I understand that reasonable minds can disagree on whether it was a wise decision to invade Iraq. Where I take issue is two-fold. First, WMDs were not the real reason we went in. We went in to reshape the dynamic of the Middle East. We wanted a Democratic ally right in the heart of the Middle East - as a tool to counter terrorism and to ensure America's energy security. I disagree (and did then) that this would be an effective plan, but at least it is a reasonable one. The WMD thing was overplayed and put front and center to play on the American people's fear and trepidation following 9/11 knowing this would sell the war that he wanted (for a much more legit reason than WMDs by the way). So, to me, misrepresenting why you are putting thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives at risk is inexcusable and immoral.

Second, war is real. We are far enough removed from Vietnam (well before my time) to think of it seriously. Let's face it, the huge war is not really a big factor in most of our day to day lives. So it really is not as big of an issue to us as it should be. In essence, we care, but not that much, not as much as we care whether to pick Coke or Ice Tea with our lunch. Sad but true. Because it isn't real to us. And to be honest, I don't think the war is real enough to the Commander in Chief either. You can say what you want about McCain and Kerry - but war is for darn sure real to them. And that would play a part in their decisions, to go, to stay, to whatever. And I think Mr. Bush did not and does not put enough weight in the idea that war = massive loss of human life and thus war (albeit sometimes necessary - ex. WWII, Afghanistan) is something that should only be enterred into when you are darn sure that it is the right thing to do. Like I said, I am not a pacifist, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, like Afghanistan. But the Iraq war was just way too much of a question mark (at best) from the start to put so so many lives at risk. I know there is the argument, fight them there so yo udont have to fight them here. But all we have done is create more and more wannabe Anti-American terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists - and Bush didn't need a Harvard MBA to see that coming (his dad was head of the CIA and Senator - how can you NOT get into Harvard and Yale?).

 

[DadsDream]

mg450, a well-thought out and logical assessment. I especially liked the touch at the end.

Blackadder, one more point on "copy and paste."

I don't want to hit this too hard or directly point a finger at anybody, but you can go to various websites in the political spectrum and readily find a canned set of links and posts for the purpose of indoctrinating new members or swaying opinions or rebutting the opposition.

A free and open discussion is one thing, spreading Ann Coulter's vicious bile or Limbaugh's twisted lies or seeking to "educate" people using using a mind-numbing formula of postings laid out at ThinkProgress is another thing entirely. Indoctrination in the guise of discussion is still indoctrination and it's something I personally resent from either side.