I'm Beginning To Hate Bush ...

Gatekeeper · February 1, 2003, 16:16

... ever since he got into office, it's been nothing but one disaster after another:

1. The economy really starts to tank.
2. Tax cuts that aren't really benefiting Middle America.
3. Sept. 11, 2001.
4. Homeland Security.
5. The saga involving Iraq.
6. North Korea.
7. Space Shuttle Columbia is destroyed.

I mean, has anything *good* happened since he took the Oval Office?

Yet, at the same time, I also know on another level that you can't hold the president personally responsible for all the crappy things that have happened.

**sigh**

Gatekeeper

chequita guevara · February 1, 2003, 16:17

What took you so long?

Drake Tungsten · February 1, 2003, 16:20

Would you rather have Gore handling all these tragedies? (shudders)

chequita guevara · February 1, 2003, 16:22

If Gore were President, I doubt we'd be focusing on Iraq right now instead of looking for the bastards who massacred our people.

Drake Tungsten · February 1, 2003, 16:24

Like we're not looking for the bastards who massacred our people. The government can do more than one thing at a time, you know.

Az · February 1, 2003, 16:27

The Israeli TV showed him before he went live with the transmission. He talked to someone before going live, and he smiled, but then he changed his face quickly. Made him look like a hypocrite, though I am aware that this doesn't necessarily mean he's not sad for the tragedy that happened today.

Shi Huangdi · February 1, 2003, 16:27

"
1. The economy really starts to tank."

This started before Bush was sworn in.

"2. Tax cuts that aren't really benefiting Middle America."

Hard to say. Perhaps without them we would still be in a recession(that is still suffering negative economic
growth), which would be bad for Middle America.

"3. Sept. 11, 2001."

Most people who aren't conspiracy nuts don't blame Bush. It's possible some people in the FBI and CIA did not take warning seriously, but it'd be really hard to lay the finger of blame directly on Bush.

"4. Homeland Security."

I agree they have gone too far with this, but OTOH we haven't had any terrorist attacks against us suceed since then(unless you want to count the MD/VA snipers)

"5. The saga involving Iraq."

It's not Bush's fault Saddam hasn't honored the treaty obligations after the Gulf War and how he isn't cooperating with the UN inspectors.

"6. North Korea."

Has more to do with Kim Jong Il desperately needing economic aid and hoping he can find a way to do it.

"7. Space Shuttle Columbia is destroyed."

Hating Bush for this is rediculous.

" I also know on another level that you can't hold the president personally responsible for all the crappy things that have happened."

Then don't.

"I mean, has anything *good* happened since he took the Oval Office?"

1. End of Recession
2. No new terrorist attacks against US since 9/11 (excluding Sniper attacks)
3. Fall of the Taliban regime, Al Qaeda put on the run.
4. Many Al Qaeda officers arrested around the world.
5. Saddam finally pressured to live up to his treaty obligations after the Gulf War.

Pekka · February 1, 2003, 16:27

Most of them were from Saudi Arabia, right?
Attack Saudi Arabia, I'm pro-that one.
Everyone knows what that country is like anyway..

Velociryx · February 1, 2003, 16:27

Don't worry. His own catchy phrase is gonna come back and bite him in the butt next election.

America....get ready for a regime change.

-=Vel=-

Nubclear · February 1, 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Like we're not looking for the bastards who massacred our people. The government can do more than one thing at a time, you know.

Yeah! I mean, Bushs plan to invade the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and stop the largest proliferation of nuclear weapons IN THE WORLD can also handle an invasion of Iraq.

OH WAIT...........

cavebear · February 1, 2003, 16:28

Before I get involved in this thread any deeper, is it to be a Bush-bashing (quite alright with me, but a bit repetitive) or is it to be a rational discussion of how Gore might have handled things differently (also quite alright with me)?

Sava · February 1, 2003, 16:32

Step by step... if Gore were in office:
1. The Economy would not be as bad because we wouldn't have the massive deficit spending which is stalling growth.

2. Smarter targeting of tax cuts to benefit consumers and those that actually need it.

3. 9-11; I'm sure that it would have happened regardless of Bush/Gore. The only difference is that Republicans would be bashing Gore constantly for a lack of a war in retribution.

4. We would have a smarter form of the Patriot act that doesn't ignore the Bill of Rights.

5. It would simply be inspectors and airstrikes as usual. And none of this dog and pony show that we have. Since domestic issues wouldn't suck as bad, there wouldn't be as much media coverage. And if weapons are found, we'd only attack then... not pre-emptively.

6. North Korea would not even be such an issue as it is because Gore wouldn't spark a standoff/pissing contest between him and Kim Jong Il

7. You can't blame Bush for this. I suspect the shuttles destruction was due to a chance collision which caused a chain reaction; or just a simple wearing down of certain items. Either way, NASA's funding is Congress's problem, not the president's.

Most things would probably be the same if Gore were around other than the things I listed. Again, we'd probably just hear more mud slinging from the right because Republicans don't know how to do much more. At least the Democratic challenges to Bush's policies are intelligent and civil.

Drake Tungsten · February 1, 2003, 16:33

Quote:

Yeah! I mean, Bushs plan to invade the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and stop the largest proliferation of nuclear weapons IN THE WORLD can also handle an invasion of Iraq.

Anyone who says something like this is an idiot, plain and simple. Invading Pakistan is suicide; you don't attack nuclear powers. That's why you have to take out Saddam before he gets nukes.

Quote:

Before I get involved in this thread any deeper, is it to be a Bush-bashing (quite alright with me, but a bit repetitive) or is it to be a rational discussion of how Gore might have handled things differently (also quite alright with me)?

I vote for the discussion of Gore. It would be far more interesting than the normal Bush-bashing...

Nubclear · February 1, 2003, 16:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Anyone who says something like this is an idiot, plain and simple. Invading Pakistan is suicide; you don't attack nuclear powers. That's why you have to take out Saddam before he gets nukes.

Yep. Pakistan gives North Korea nukes....Can Al Qaeda be next?

If you want to get rid of the BIGGEST threat, you go after PAKISTAN. Because eventually your inaction is going to come back and bite you in the.....

Sava · February 1, 2003, 16:38

Quote:

1. End of Recession
2. No new terrorist attacks against US since 9/11 (excluding Sniper attacks)
3. Fall of the Taliban regime, Al Qaeda put on the run.
4. Many Al Qaeda officers arrested around the world.
5. Saddam finally pressured to live up to his treaty obligations after the Gulf War.

I'll respond to each individually

1. Are you living in bizarro world? We're knee deep in recession. In the last 6 months this country has had the largest loss of jobs in 25 years!

2. Again, this would be the case if either were president.

3. It's a mistake to think Afghanistan is Taliban free, or that Al Qaeda as a whole has been significantly affected. Remember the Bali bombing? Al Qaeda is still alive and well.

4. Good, but not enough, and still would have happened with Gore in office.

5. This whole Iraq thing is a distraction from the domestic issues. Attacking Iraq will have no bearing on the security of the US.

Drake Tungsten · February 1, 2003, 16:40

Quote:

If you want to get rid of the BIGGEST threat, you go after PAKISTAN. Because eventually your inaction is going to come back and bite you in the.....

Are you really this stupid? America can't attack Pakistan; it would set off a nuclear war. Pakistan is a bigger threat than Iraq, but we can't do **** about it through military means. We have to hope that the secular segment of the Pakistani government keeps the nukes away from the wacko, fundie segments. Not a great alternative, but it's all we have.

Gatekeeper · February 1, 2003, 16:40

Today's not a good day. Just get tired of waking up to terrible news, I guess. And, fairly or not, Bush becomes a target for vitriol by sheer fact of being president during these darkening times.

I have nothing personal against Bush. Not yet at any rate ... just a general feeling of malaise about the world in general.

Gatekeeper

Nubclear · February 1, 2003, 16:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

If you want to get rid of the BIGGEST threat, you go after PAKISTAN. Because eventually your inaction is going to come back and bite you in the.....

Are you really this stupid? America can't attack Pakistan; it would set off a nuclear war. Pakistan is a bigger threat than Iraq, but we can't do **** about it through military means. We have to hope that the secular segment of the Pakistani government keeps the nukes away from the wacko, fundie segments. Not a great alternative, but it's all we have.

Its called COVERT OPERATIONS. (I think theres a game of the same name, I'm not referring to it)

And then lets get into a discussion about NORTH KOREA.....

DanS · February 1, 2003, 16:42

1. Are you living in bizarro world? We're knee deep in recession.

We are not in recession. We came out of it over a year ago.

Sava · February 1, 2003, 16:42

Tassadar is right in one respect... Pakistan is a greater threat to the security of the US than Iraq. Pakistan has the largest population of Al Qaeda. And if the Musharaf government gets replaced by a radical Islamist government, then terrorists have the bomb.

I don't think we attack Pakistan, though... work with Musharaf to stop Al Qaeda is a better idea. But it's a very delicate situation because the Pakistani people do not like the US at all. Any US involvement would be a threat to Musharaf's administration.

Drake Tungsten · February 1, 2003, 16:43

Quote:

Its called COVERT OPERATIONS. (I think theres a game of the same name, I'm not referring to it)

Special ops can't get all of Pakistan's nukes. There are too many of them hidden in locations we don't know about.

Quote:

And then lets get into a discussion about NORTH KOREA.....

North Korea is the same as Pakistan. They already have nukes, so it's too late to do anything to them militarily.

Sava · February 1, 2003, 16:44

Quote:

1. Are you living in bizarro world? We're knee deep in recession.

We are not in recession.

... well what do you call a stagnant economy, growing unemployment, increasing poverty among low income Americans... yet the richest 1% keep getting richer? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's not a recession, it's a Republican president.

Nubclear · February 1, 2003, 16:44

Lets do SOMETHING about Pakistan. Lets put up the pressure for them to crakc down on Al Qaeda instead of REMOVING SANCTIONS (?!). Lets force them into action instead of waiting for them to give Al Qaeda the bomb.

Then lets do something about NORTH KOREA instead of trying to win this unwinable piss-fest.

Wernazuma III · February 1, 2003, 16:44

Tassador: What point should it make to attack a country where at least the government is complying and holding the extremism at least a bit back. You can't change a people's conviction with bombs, you can just keep them down if possible. And no one could do better in Pakistan as the current military government - oh, annihilate Pakistan would be a solution

Nubclear · February 1, 2003, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Its called COVERT OPERATIONS. (I think theres a game of the same name, I'm not referring to it)

Special ops can't get all of Pakistan's nukes. There are too many of them hidden in locations we don't know about.

OK, I'll conceed that to you. Read my latest post.

Quote:

North Korea is the same as Pakistan. They already have nukes, so it's too late to do anything to them militarily.

They already have nukes? But they didnt have them a YEAR AGO.....Did we accidently forget about North Korea?

Gatekeeper · February 1, 2003, 16:45

Columbia's destruction just brought the malaise to a head, nothing more.

DanS · February 1, 2003, 16:47

well what do you call a stagnant economy

The economy grew at a 2.4% rate last year. This is not bad, considering the circumstances. And certainly nothing like a recession.

We are still feeling the impact of recession from Q1-Q3 '01.

Nubclear · February 1, 2003, 16:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Tassador: What point should it make to attack a country where at least the government is complying and holding the extremism at least a bit back.

Theyre almost giving nukes away!!! Al Qaeda is in the eastern half of the country (which is run by warlords), and the government is letting it all slip by. The people hate us and under the control of warlords they can help fund terrorism against the entire world.

North Korea, Al Qaeda....We gotta get Pakistan under control because their stabbing us in the back. Same with Saudi Arabia....

Drake Tungsten · February 1, 2003, 16:48

Quote:

Lets put up the pressure for them to crakc down on Al Qaeda instead of REMOVING SANCTIONS (?!). Lets force them into action instead of waiting for them to give Al Qaeda the bomb.

America is trying to get them to crack down on Al Qaeda, you jackass. Removing sanctions was an important part of getting the Pakistani's on our side.

Quote:

Then lets do something about NORTH KOREA instead of trying to win this unwinable piss-fest.

North Korea is the unwinnable piss-fest. America actually has the opportunity to change things for the better in Iraq, something we can't do in North Korea.

Sava · February 1, 2003, 16:49

The rate of growth slowed DanS... of course the economy as a whole grew... :duh: I want a DUH smiley!