Since I believe Gore would have been worse for the US than Bush, it is natural for me to assume that Bush winning the election was good for the US as a whole. Just because you do something against someone’s wishes, does not mean that it still cannot be good for that person. We have a social contract in this country that says the winner of the election gets to be president (as per the process which included the electoral college). No ones rights were violated by the fact that Bush is president rather than Gore.
Now if the question is: is there one good thing that Bush has done that everyone will agree on, the answer is probably no. And that goes for every president that has every held that office.
BTW, the AIDS money is slated for Africa. The OP talks about good things done for Americans. So even this is a real stretch in response to the OP. Of course that also leaves aside the question of whether the function of gov’t is to take some people’s money and give it to other people in other countries. But that’s a topic for another thread.
So Iceland should get the credit for the tax initiatives in favor of hydrogen-celled cars that Bush is instituting, and the 120% increase in funding for hydrogen fuel cell research that was part of his new budget?
Which of the following is true:
A) Someone that’s in favor of smaller government can’t also be in favor of establishing a new cabinet department when that cabinet department is seen as necessary and/or helpful;
B) OliverH is in favor of smaller government;
C) the creation of the Office of Homeland Security has singificantly increased the size of the federal government;
D) OliverH is desperate for any grounds to criticize Bush, no matter how irrational or ridiculous.
Your criticism makes no sense. Bush can’t be all things to all people. If he’s going to be a “transformer,” then by necessity, he must be a transformer for all people. He can’t make new laws, but only enforce them against those that want to be subject to them. He can’t fight a war on terrorism, but only against those terrorists that want to be fought against. So in answer to your question, yes, even if you don’t agree with his transformations, you have to go along with them.
Wrong. Terrorism is a criminal act. But it’s more than just a criminal act. It’s larger in size, has different motivations, greater implications, usually involves international law, and its prevention requires the use of much greater means.
True enough, as far as that goes. But our initial blunder in dealing with the criminality of terrorism was in dealing with it as though it were somehow a state-to-state issue. It should have been dealt with as a criminal act, and dealt with by way of cooperation of police, not military. We had the sympathy and cooperation of the entire world. People who don’t even like us were on our side on this! But GeeDubya had to piss it all away being a tough guy.
I think we reached for the military option because, well, when you are a hammer you think all problems are nails. This is stunningly short-sighted. Take the military option and you can be seen to be taking action!!. Immediate, dramatic, impressive…ultimately futile, if not actually counterproductive.
Are you seriously arguing that the world would be a better place with the Taliban and Saddam still in power? And if the world is a better place with them out of power, then wasn’t overthrowing their governments a good thing?
Yes, and as long as they have one member, they’ll still be able to blow things up. But by halving their numbers and freezing their financing, we can make the instances of terrorists “blowing things up” fewer and less severe. I would have thought that point was obvious, but apparently you’re so blinded by your hatred of Bush that you missed it.
The operative word in your post is “bulk.” Please note that this implies that at least “some” of it is new money. Even according to this article, which criticized Bush for not giving all new money to the programs, Bush increased funding on hyrdogen fuel cell development by 120%, and funding for AIDS prevention to Africe by over 80%. Are you arguing that the new money is a bad thing, or are you hoping to divert attention from the fact that Bush did something good?
So which is it? Did Bush just reshuffle the org chart or did he create a new bureaucracy? And why do you assume that conservatives were always against new bureaucracies? Even conservatives weren’t against bureaucracies when they were effective and necessary.
Yes. Can you explain why it’s not a good thing? Take as many sentences as you need. And please tell us why it’s a disguised subsidy to Big Oil (which I assume is some sinister organization, because it’s capitalized and preceded by the word “Big”).
[quote] elucidator:
It should have been dealt with as a criminal act, and dealt with by way of cooperation of police, not military. We had the sympathy and cooperation of the entire world. People who don’t even like us were on our side on this! But GeeDubya had to piss it all away being a tough guy.
[quote]
Certainly, there were other methods that could have been used. But I don’t see how strict “cooperation of police” would have worked in this case. For example, how should we have handled the Taliban in Afghanistan when they refused to turn over or stop bin Laden? It seems to me that the only tool we had to deal with that situation was the military “hammer.”
And (I realize you don’t believe this, but assuming for a moment that Bush did) how were we to deal with Iraq, which was headed by a dictator with ties to terrorism, and who was a potential terrorist himself? Certainly, the Iraqi government wasn’t going to arrest and turn over Saddam Hussein. Again, the military “hammer” seems the best method for dealing with it.
As you no doubt already know, I don’t accept the premise that we were impelled to “deal” with Saddam at all. Precisely what threat had he offered, beyond the somewhat nebulous theory of “potential terrorism”?
How about the threats listed in all of the resolutions passed by the UN against Iraq. It is all on paper, you may want to look at them someday, if you are done with rhetorical questions.
Strange how all the “good” things Bush does are attributed to him and all the bad things are the mistakes of past presidents he has to suffer for, but whatever.
Everyone is a potential terrorist, even Bush.
It seems to be a commendable trait, but with the ideas the guy is having, it seems to be a dumb move to go through with all the nonsensical ideas against better knowledge.
At least then it isn’t a big disappointment if he doesn’t get to serve another term, now that he accomplished so much already. As usual I am keeping my fingers crossed that common sense prevails over blind faith.
I am also quite done with spurioius threats and boogeymen. Have been for some time now.
If he was such a dreadful fiend, comin’ to get yo momma, how come he sat on his hands for ten years while we bitch-slapped him silly? How come Al Queda didn’t attack us with all this nuclear anthrax they got from thier good buddy, Saddam bin Laden? By what form of international clairovoyance do you purport to see what he’s gonna do, when he ain’t actually done diddly-squat!
Thank God we took him out before he had time to develop his nuclear Death Ray!
But you’ve said Bush used the wrong tool for the job. So my question is, when did Bush use the military “hammer” when he should have used cooperative police action?
I have used an imprecise term. I apologize. I should have replaced the phrase “potential terrorist” with “person likely to become a terrorist.”
Not exactly. He grabbed the tool he had, because American military might is the tits, can’t be beat, numero-uno. But you cant use an armored division against terrorism any more than you can launch an artillery barrage against an incoming fog. (Well, you can, of course, but you see what I mean)
I see you arn’t done with the mundane, rhetorical questions. A bit hung up arn’t we? And he done quite a bit, my amnesic friend. For twelve years. If you insist that such isn’t the case, I would like to know why you havn’t had your panties in the same knot for the resolutions and sanctions posed on this poor, harmless, benevolent dictator.
How about some examples of “he done quite a bit”? Since Iraq was run out of Kuwait have they attacked anyone outside of it’s borders and specifically any Americans?
Is there any unrefutable proof that Hussein backed al Queda?
Your red herrings aside. look at resolution 1441, and subsequent resolutions. They sum it up quit well.
I can play that moronic game too, “What do you mean Bush is bad for the country, show me irrefutable proof that he had a blowjob in the oval office and lied about it under oath.”
Iraqi soldiers shot at American and British soldiers patrolling the no-fly zones. Saddam also tried to assasinate G.H.W. Bush when he visited Kuwait. Regardless, Saddam need not have “attacked anyone outside of his border and specifically Americans” for his removal to have benefitted Americans.
And why are we only talking about Americans? Don’t the people within Iraq’s borders count for anything?
I doubt it. I think the Iraqi Information Minister has shown us that nothing is irrefutable. But that doesn’t mean it’s not true. So even if I ignore your implication that al Queda is the world’s only terrorist organization, I admit that I am unaware of any irrefutable proof of a link between Iraq and al Queda. But again, Saddam need not have been linked with al Queda for his removal to have benefitted Americans.
So, if I get your drift, anything that might be viewed as benefitting Americans justifies war. I mean, with all that shrapnel, blood, and stuff? Anything?