who does bush think he is? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-06-2005, 10:30 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:51 AM
Until after 9/11, the Bush Administration was solely concerned with building a missile shield, so frankly, blaming Clinton for terrorism is short-sighted, at best. Our government, for years, was only looking at high-tech warfare concerns, and terrorism, frankly, was on nobody's radar.

Although if you pay attention to Richard Clarke, he makes it sound as if the Clinton Administration did pay attention to terrorism, and the entire "War on Terror" was architected by Clarke during the dying days of that administration. All I know is that Bush and the GOP cannot pin this one on Clinton, because you can tell that Bush was not interested in solving this issue until *after* it happened. He was caught off-guard just as much as the rest of us.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-12-2005, 07:30 AM   #17
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Re: who does bush think he is?

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoomerang96
this bullshit he's spewing over the networks tonite is exactly the same bullshit he's been spouting for years.

it's OLD NEWS.

and he keeps tying iraq to 9/11...

how many people truly believe that anymore?

__________________

__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 08-12-2005, 07:35 AM   #18
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by xtal
Exactly. If 9/11 happened during Clinton days, a lot would have changed. If 9/11 hadn't happened, nothing would have changed.

The terrorism threats has been going on a long time. But who is really to blame? Clinton? Bush? Bush sr?
If the FBI, CIA, and other various agencies had communicated and cooperated together, then 9/11 may have been prevented. I don't know who is to blame for these agencies not communicating. But Bush did get many warning signals from the CIA that a terrorist attack was very probable.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 08-22-2005, 05:12 PM   #19
VKX
Babyface
 
VKX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 17
Local Time: 10:51 AM
I can't believe we voted him back into office.
__________________
VKX is offline  
Old 08-22-2005, 06:40 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 03:51 AM
VKX, i'm right there with you. Had the election be held 6 months or maybe even fewer then 6 months later, then Bush definitely wouldn't have won. We Americans as a whole are very slow in understanding that the Iraq war was a mistake, let alone full of lies. When we went into Iraq, the war approval was quite high, then it became 50/50, and now it is 40%. I guarantee you it will get sink lower as time passes by.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 07:39 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
VKX, i'm right there with you. Had the election be held 6 months or maybe even fewer then 6 months later, then Bush definitely wouldn't have won. We Americans as a whole are very slow in understanding that the Iraq war was a mistake, let alone full of lies. When we went into Iraq, the war approval was quite high, then it became 50/50, and now it is 40%. I guarantee you it will get sink lower as time passes by.
This is false because the polls have often fluctuated depending on the casualty levels and other events in Iraq. Aproval for the war was above 50% in February and was actually higher than it was prior to the November election.

The terrorist in Iraq realize that one of the centers of gravity in the conflict is American public opinion, so naturally, their actions are carefully conducted so as to maximize the level of carnage that gets reported in the media and is then hopefully for them produces more negative attitudes among the US public pushing for a pull out.

Also, the polls are not entirely accurate, as the November election demonstrates. Bush had some low aproval numbers prior to the election, yet won by the first majority for an elected president since 1988.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 08:45 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,062
Local Time: 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Bush had some low aproval numbers prior to the election, yet won by the first majority for an elected president since 1988.
You always seem to have to remind us of this fact, so let me continue to remind you how he got there in the first place.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 09:30 PM   #23
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


This is false because the polls have often fluctuated depending on the casualty levels and other events in Iraq. Aproval for the war was above 50% in February and was actually higher than it was prior to the November election.

The terrorist in Iraq realize that one of the centers of gravity in the conflict is American public opinion, so naturally, their actions are carefully conducted so as to maximize the level of carnage that gets reported in the media and is then hopefully for them produces more negative attitudes among the US public pushing for a pull out.

Also, the polls are not entirely accurate, as the November election demonstrates. Bush had some low aproval numbers prior to the election, yet won by the first majority for an elected president since 1988.
Yes the polls fluctuate, but overall the approval rating has been on a downhill ever since we decided to go into Iraq in the first place.

How do you know that the terrorists do the bombings in way to get media attention? It seems like there is a bombing every day in the major cities. I don't think that they care what the American public thinks, they keep bombing because they radically oppose the situation. And it is not only the American troops they are bombing, they are also bombing other troops (including Iraqi troops) and the Iraqi police force. So clearly, their intention is not cause the American public to change their minds on Iraq, their intention is to kill anybody of military or police authority occupying Iraq.

The 2004 election being the first majority win since 1988 doesn't mean much. In both the 1992 and 1996, there was an unusually strong 3rd party candidate, Ross Perot, which made it next to impossible to win by a majority. The 3rd party candidate for the last election, Ralph Nader, wasn't that strong at all, he received 0.4% of the vote. As opposed to Ross Perot who received 19% of the vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996. Also Ralph Nader was quite strong in 2000, receiving 2.7% of the popular vote. So it was quite difficult to get a majority in 1992, 1996, or 2000.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 12:13 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


Yes the polls fluctuate, but overall the approval rating has been on a downhill ever since we decided to go into Iraq in the first place.

How do you know that the terrorists do the bombings in way to get media attention? It seems like there is a bombing every day in the major cities. I don't think that they care what the American public thinks, they keep bombing because they radically oppose the situation. And it is not only the American troops they are bombing, they are also bombing other troops (including Iraqi troops) and the Iraqi police force. So clearly, their intention is not cause the American public to change their minds on Iraq, their intention is to kill anybody of military or police authority occupying Iraq.

The 2004 election being the first majority win since 1988 doesn't mean much. In both the 1992 and 1996, there was an unusually strong 3rd party candidate, Ross Perot, which made it next to impossible to win by a majority. The 3rd party candidate for the last election, Ralph Nader, wasn't that strong at all, he received 0.4% of the vote. As opposed to Ross Perot who received 19% of the vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996. Also Ralph Nader was quite strong in 2000, receiving 2.7% of the popular vote. So it was quite difficult to get a majority in 1992, 1996, or 2000.
The easiest way for the terrorist in Iraq to further achieve their goals is to force the coalition forces to leave. Just look at all the kidnappings of foreigners and the threats to kill them if country x would not withdraw their troops! Why do you think so many of these executions were video taped?

The goal of any insurgency is to try and trick the enemy into believing that victory is impossible. This is what the North Vietnamese and Vietcong succeeded in doing to a certain degree in the Vietnam War. Bin Ladin expressed the fact in one of his few interviews given to western media that he saw the weakness of the United States in Somalia, when the United States pulled out of the country 6 months after 18 US Rangers were killed and one of the bodies was dragged through the street in an operation partly planned and supported by Al Quada. Saddam before the first Gulf War would often say that the United States was weak because they retreated from a war where they lost 60,000 troops, but that was the number he sometimes would loose in a single battle against the Iranians. The perception is out there that the United States will run from the fight if one can inflict enough losses to damage public opinion back home. Clearly one of the goals of terrorism, is to terrorize populations or whole countries into making choices they would not make under different conditions or circumstances.

The third party candidacy of Ross Perot is unfortunately more of a sign of the percieved weakness of the candidates by the voting public. There were plenty of other candidates running in both the 2000 and 2004 election as well. It is significant that Bush has received the first majority in an election since 1988.

If the polling for Iraq was going all down hill, Bush would never have been re-elected as President, let alone by a majority. The most significant sign of public opinion about the war in Iraq was the 2004 election! 120 million voters as opposed to polls with questionable methods and under 1,000 people involved.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 12:16 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


You always seem to have to remind us of this fact, so let me continue to remind you how he got there in the first place.
If your refering to the 2000 election, Bush won that as well no matter what type of spin Democrats like to put on it. The results of the 2004 election show that America clearly agree's!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 12:31 AM   #26
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The third party candidacy of Ross Perot is unfortunately more of a sign of the percieved weakness of the candidates by the voting public. There were plenty of other candidates running in both the 2000 and 2004 election as well. It is significant that Bush has received the first majority in an election since 1988.

If the polling for Iraq was going all down hill, Bush would never have been re-elected as President, let alone by a majority. The most significant sign of public opinion about the war in Iraq was the 2004 election! 120 million voters as opposed to polls with questionable methods and under 1,000 people involved.
Just because more people voted for the 3rd party in '92 and '96, it doesn't mean that the other candidates were weak. It means that the 3rd party candidate was very strong. Ross Perot could have even gotten many more votes in '92 had he not pulled out of the race and then re-entered such a short time before the election. Yea I know there were plenty of other candidates in '00 and '04, but that doesn't mean they were strong.

The '04 election was not and should not have been based purely on the war in Iraq. There were many other issues besides Iraq. I absolutely don't support the war but I favored Bush to win for my own reasons. So you cannot say that the 2004 election was a significant sign of public opinion on the war in Iraq. In fact, there were polls before the election that showed that the topic that was most important to people was the economy.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 12:43 AM   #27
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The easiest way for the terrorist in Iraq to further achieve their goals is to force the coalition forces to leave. Just look at all the kidnappings of foreigners and the threats to kill them if country x would not withdraw their troops! Why do you think so many of these executions were video taped?

The goal of any insurgency is to try and trick the enemy into believing that victory is impossible. This is what the North Vietnamese and Vietcong succeeded in doing to a certain degree in the Vietnam War. Bin Ladin expressed the fact in one of his few interviews given to western media that he saw the weakness of the United States in Somalia, when the United States pulled out of the country 6 months after 18 US Rangers were killed and one of the bodies was dragged through the street in an operation partly planned and supported by Al Quada. Saddam before the first Gulf War would often say that the United States was weak because they retreated from a war where they lost 60,000 troops, but that was the number he sometimes would loose in a single battle against the Iranians. The perception is out there that the United States will run from the fight if one can inflict enough losses to damage public opinion back home. Clearly one of the goals of terrorism, is to terrorize populations or whole countries into making choices they would not make under different conditions or circumstances.

When I said that war approval has declined ever since we went into Iraq, I was not talking about polls regarding the pulling of troops from Iraq. I was talking about polls regarding whether people favor the war or not. The % of people favoring the war has been on a steady decline ever since we went into Iraq.

As to whether we should pull the troops or not, even though I am 120% anti-Iraq War, I still don't know how I feel about U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

On the one hand, I think we should pull out because our soldiers are dying everyday and the very fact that we are there may be causing radical groups to plan attacks on our country.

On the other hand, I think we should stay in because it is a "you break it, you fix it" type of situation in Iraq.

__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 10:00 AM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,062
Local Time: 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


If your refering to the 2000 election, Bush won that as well no matter what type of spin Democrats like to put on it. The results of the 2004 election show that America clearly agree's!
The truth is that he lost the popular vote in that election, yet still won the electoral vote - the first time that had happened in over 100 years!

The majority of Americans didn't want him in the White House in the first place. There's certainly no spin being put on that.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 02:49 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


The truth is that he lost the popular vote in that election, yet still won the electoral vote - the first time that had happened in over 100 years!

The majority of Americans didn't want him in the White House in the first place. There's certainly no spin being put on that.
I'm sure you'll note that Al Gore did not get a majority of the vote in 2000. In addition, a majority of Americans did not want Bill Clinton to be elected President in 1992 or 1996.

After 4 years of the Bush administration, the American people gave George Bush the first majority victory by a President since 1988. The majority of the Americans consider Democratic criticisms of the 2000 election to be irrelevant with such a vote in 2004.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-24-2005, 02:56 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


Just because more people voted for the 3rd party in '92 and '96, it doesn't mean that the other candidates were weak. It means that the 3rd party candidate was very strong. Ross Perot could have even gotten many more votes in '92 had he not pulled out of the race and then re-entered such a short time before the election. Yea I know there were plenty of other candidates in '00 and '04, but that doesn't mean they were strong.

The '04 election was not and should not have been based purely on the war in Iraq. There were many other issues besides Iraq. I absolutely don't support the war but I favored Bush to win for my own reasons. So you cannot say that the 2004 election was a significant sign of public opinion on the war in Iraq. In fact, there were polls before the election that showed that the topic that was most important to people was the economy.
3rd Party candidates that seriously impact elections in the United States two party systems usually do so because of a percieved weakness of the candidates the two parties have nominated. Strong votes for 3rd Party candidates are usually seen as protest votes and not really a sincere vote for the the third party candidate.

There is simply no other issue as important as a war which is why this was the #1 issue in the campaign. No other issue impacts the country more than war, nothing even comes close. The re-election of George W. Bush clearly showed that the American people support the war in Iraq as well as George Bush's handling of it. 120 million people voted, and that would dwarf any poll with a few hundred people conducted with questionable methods.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com