08-03-2004, 07:06 AM
Thanks for your comments Kandrathe, this is the kinds of things I like to hear. But as you can imagine I don't agree.
I want to reply on one paragraph you wrote:
I cannot blame a president for taking the wrong actions if I look back on a certain fact in history, nobody ever knows the complete picture before taking deccisions. The main problem however, and I think a lot of people feel like this is that Bush took actions for personal gain. Let me explain: "what did Bush do wrong"? apart from the reports of torture of prisoners in Iraq, not much. I mean a war is always ugly and if you take the deccsion to go to war you should not be surprised there will be casualties. (I really don't agree with people that where firts in favor of the war, and now (because of victims) are against. It shows they are not really in touch with reality.
The biggest problem is here "why did he go to war?" When you say now " it is easy to in hindsight point out all the mistakes that are made" please check some older threads here in the lounge from when the war just started or even before. (I am almost sure there was this kind of thread) You see that a lot of people allready said at that time what was wrong with going to war. I myself allready had the opinion that there were no WMDs in Iraq anymore and that Saddam did not have anything to do with Al qaeda. Even before this war there were more or less proofs of these two things (at least there were serious doubts) and Bush still took this decission.
This is why the biggest problem with Bush (according to me any many others) is not that he made msitakes but that he, on purpose, went to war, and used lies for that. (to blame the CIA and the FBI for the wrong information was outright pathetic).
If he was so lucky that WMDs were found, or that some al queda connection was discovered he could even get away with, it but now he cannot.
The obvious (not proven) reasons why Bush went to war are of course oil/building contracts/sponsering of weapons industry. (something I already posted on these forums months ago, and subsequently got accused of using conspiracy theories :D ). Like I said we don't know if it is true, and Michael Moore tries to convince us it is.
As I said before I don't need Moore to tell me what to think but I agree with his opinion. And that gets me back on why I asked you (and others) what you think about the "trustability" of Bush.
I would like to detach this from being republican or democratic because people tend to "take" a lot more form politicians from their favorite party. I think Bush is in it for the money, together with people like Cheney and Rumsfeld. And I'm surprised how many people think "wow that guy is a good businessman (or son of a good business man :D )so he will probably do what is best for me" even now after al these rich peoples tax cuts. (something which you see also in Italy with Berlusconi)
eppie
I want to reply on one paragraph you wrote:
Quote:Ok, specifically, how do I feel about Bush? Since the beginning of his Presidency, I've faulted his administration (and our media) for failing to communicate clearly and loudly on why he is taking a particular course of action. It is easy now for people to review history in hindsight and say "he went to Iraq for wrong reasons", but leadership to me means that you have to be willing to commit to even a risky course of action based on the information that you have. I give Bush credit for taking actions that Clinton was unable, or unwilling to take. The jury is still out on whether Afghanistan or Iraq can emerge from these wars with at least civilized governments. The UN tried the carrot approach (or sanctions) for the entire Clinton presidency, and when you run out of carrots, all you have remaining are sticks. We are doing the same dance with North Korea, placating their blackmail for food and fuel oil and in the name of compassion we are delivering it -- but it still smacks of appeasement to me. Any positive press spin on that one for America? No.
I cannot blame a president for taking the wrong actions if I look back on a certain fact in history, nobody ever knows the complete picture before taking deccisions. The main problem however, and I think a lot of people feel like this is that Bush took actions for personal gain. Let me explain: "what did Bush do wrong"? apart from the reports of torture of prisoners in Iraq, not much. I mean a war is always ugly and if you take the deccsion to go to war you should not be surprised there will be casualties. (I really don't agree with people that where firts in favor of the war, and now (because of victims) are against. It shows they are not really in touch with reality.
The biggest problem is here "why did he go to war?" When you say now " it is easy to in hindsight point out all the mistakes that are made" please check some older threads here in the lounge from when the war just started or even before. (I am almost sure there was this kind of thread) You see that a lot of people allready said at that time what was wrong with going to war. I myself allready had the opinion that there were no WMDs in Iraq anymore and that Saddam did not have anything to do with Al qaeda. Even before this war there were more or less proofs of these two things (at least there were serious doubts) and Bush still took this decission.
This is why the biggest problem with Bush (according to me any many others) is not that he made msitakes but that he, on purpose, went to war, and used lies for that. (to blame the CIA and the FBI for the wrong information was outright pathetic).
If he was so lucky that WMDs were found, or that some al queda connection was discovered he could even get away with, it but now he cannot.
The obvious (not proven) reasons why Bush went to war are of course oil/building contracts/sponsering of weapons industry. (something I already posted on these forums months ago, and subsequently got accused of using conspiracy theories :D ). Like I said we don't know if it is true, and Michael Moore tries to convince us it is.
As I said before I don't need Moore to tell me what to think but I agree with his opinion. And that gets me back on why I asked you (and others) what you think about the "trustability" of Bush.
I would like to detach this from being republican or democratic because people tend to "take" a lot more form politicians from their favorite party. I think Bush is in it for the money, together with people like Cheney and Rumsfeld. And I'm surprised how many people think "wow that guy is a good businessman (or son of a good business man :D )so he will probably do what is best for me" even now after al these rich peoples tax cuts. (something which you see also in Italy with Berlusconi)
eppie