The Puppet President ?

Great Debates
1

I’m of the view that George W. Bush has done only two things while he’s been in office:

One: Told the Mid-East to go fuck itself (hey, more trouble in the Mid-East means higher oil prices. Right :wink: ), and

Two: Told the rest of the world the same by reneging on Kyoto. Presumably, if tax cuts weren’t tied in with increasing demand (more demand = more power needed to produce goods, more disposable income = less thrifty use of domestic power, etc), he’d have reversed that policy, also.

Am I ill-informed or is this man now firmly revealed as no more than a parochial (went to Mexico once, the fishing was okay) oaf with only enough intelligence to be dangerous and a puppet (and also a free loader riding on Daddy’s coattails) of those who funded his campaigns in Texas and for the Presidency ?

Have his Presedential appointments been little less than a Who’s Who of the energy lobby: Vice President Cheney and Commerce Secretary Don Evans representing the oil industry, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil representing the aluminium industry, Interior Secretary Gale Norton representing the lead industry, etc, etc…?

Am I miss-judging him, pre-judging him, did I miss something (hopefully a lot) or is his sole agenda to repay those who funded this little need-something-to-do-in-mid-life Presidential adventure – is there any substance at all to the man (beside oil), does he care about anything other than lining his own pockets, is this whole thing just a spoof ?

Okay, let me summerise this into one question:

On a global scale, is George W. Bush the most dangerous man in all history or merely since Adolf Hitler ?

2

How dare you slam President Bush! I’ll have you know that the US has the finest politicians money can buy! An old joke but it seemed appropriate considering ‘W’s’ relations with the oil companies. S
Personally, I think that Bush won mostly because he COULD ask daddy when he got out of his depth. Well mostly anyway, his opponent being an absolutely loathsome megalomaniac probably had something to do with it.
As far as dangerous goes? Personally I can’t see him in that light, certainly not as dangerous as Hitler. Can you imagine Bush trying to inspire and lead people the way Hitler did? “C’mon y’all, lets send the army off to invade Poland.”
Stupid, clumsy, provincial and blundering would be a better description.
Anyway, bottom line is that he’s a small-minded jerk but he’s more a joke than a danger. His cabinet is pretty good and should reduce his damage to tolerable, if not enjoyable, levels.

Regards.

Testy.

P.S. As you might have guessed, I really ENJOY abusing politicians, regardless of nationality or party. No matter what they say, sign, or swear to, I assume it’s a lie.

3

You do realize, of course, that Godwin’s Law has now rendered this thread null and void?

Seriously, though, I would put Bush somewhere between a joke and a danger. His approach seems to be a variation on the “We’re Amurricuns, dammit, we can do whatever the hell we want!” philosophy, which I find a bit disturbing. Still, he’s only been in office a few months, so I’m willing to grit my teeth and hope that his advisors are eventually able to rein him in, or at least educate him on the finer points of diplomacy.

4

IIRC you are not an american and so can be forgiven your ignorance of american politics. Bush is actively engaged in the Middle East. He recently sent his Secetary of State to the Middle East amoung other things. He also has a good relationship with the Prime Minister of Israel. He is trying to reverse the disastrous policy toward Israel and the Palestinians which the previous administration had and contributed to the current violence. Bush has only had a few months to try to take on problems over there which have been festering for decades, give him time.
On the Kyoto treaty it never had any shot at being ratified by the US and when he rejected it he was just stating the obvious. The US is currently in a kind of energy crisis with our biggest state undergoing blackouts and people predicting more blackouts for some of our major cities this summer. Since we have a growing population and our current energy supply is hardly adequate for our current population it is obvious we will need more energy in the foreseeable future. However the Kyoto treaty would have necessitated cutting our energy use. Also the american economy is growing slower now than previously and there are fears of a recession. During such times rising energy prices would make this situation worse and hit the poorest americans especially hard. Bush is trying to craft an energy policy and has had only a few months in which to make up for the inaction of the previoius administration.

5

Glad you have some perspective on this loon. Problem is: He’s invoking the same kind of nationalist sentiment and hiding behind some grotesque flag as was Hitler i.e. “No one can tell America what’s right, we do things differently here and that’s why we’re such a great country. American jobs come first…” Total nonsense, utter bullshit and a complete misrepresentation of the economic realities.

headshok – I hope you’re right. I just don’t see any kind of political agenda, any kind of honest reason for him wanting the Presidency. He appears to have no policies save tax cuts to buy votes and to increase domestic demand. He’s a ‘politician’ without a political agenda – am I going nuts !!

No flies on you, are there ?

Err, right. I wish this were ‘politics’ - it’s payback time, nothing more, nothing less.

Is that you, Dr Kissenger ?
And as for that crap about Kyoto please read the other threads littering this forum and The Pit. If I wanted a recital of what Bush said, I’d replay the damn video.

Japan is complying with Kyoto after an almost ten year recession and they had to reduce interest rates to zero last month in order to try and kick start the economy. Mainland Europe is coming out of a 5 year downturn and complying - understand this: ** Economic recovery and compliance with Kyoto are not mutually exclusive** – One of many possible links

Do you have any views of your own ?

6

Japan is in the middle of a decade long recession and Europe is just coming out of a five year decline, meanwhile the US is coming off a twenty year boom. So the obvious answer is for the US to act more like Japan and Europe. If you really think you have found a way for energy prices to increase without affecting the economy you are wasting your time on the internet. Less energy will have an effect on the economy, whether that effect is worth the salutory effect on the enviroment is certainly a debatable topic but that there will be an effect is not.
The real reason all the Bush bashing over Kyoto is european politics. The politicians know they are caught between the enviromentalist wackos and their national economies. So they sign it to appease the enviros and then blame it on Bush that they can not implement it. It is a no lose proposition for them. If the US agrees to it the US economy tanks and their economies don’t look so bad in comparison. If the US doesn’t agree they can pretend to be outraged and save face with their enviros without costing their economies.

7

Only if you consider having Forrest Gump stumbling around the Pentagon’s nuclear missile launch room “dangerous”. While Dubya hasn’t outright done anything on par with the Holocaust yet, the fact that he’s still allowed to sumble around in there doesn’t help me to sleep at nights.

Though to be honest, comparing Duba to Hitler really is unfair – Adolph was a smart guy who was properly elected by the populace; Dubya is neither.

(Anyone wanna make a list of all of Dubya’s screwups since January? Ashcroft nomination, arsenic in the water, loosening of emissions, Kyoto backpedaling, Arctic Wildlife Refuge threats…)

8

You guys here to debate, or rant? If you want a debate, what’s the damned topic?

If ya wanna rant, then I’d be happy to address this:

Get some goddamned perspective.

9

I appreciate W changing some foreign policies that had been based in unreality. One was the Kyoto Treaty, which the US Senate voted a resolution against ** 95 to 0**. Clinton never brought it a vote in 3 years. It was never going to pass, whether it deserved to or not.

Another was the Middle East “peace process,” which assumed that Arafat was willing and able to compromise and make peace. Last year Israel offered Arafat everything he wanted and still got turned down. This demonstrated that peace was not Arafat’s goal. (IMHO Arafat might not have the power to bring the entire Arab side to peace. Also, if he made a real agreement, he would likely be assasinated, as have been several other Arab leaders who seriously advocated peace.)

In both these cases, Bush’s actions didn’t solve the problems, but at least they got us back onto a more realistic footing. The fantasy was never going to lead to anything good.

Some people would rather live in a pleasant dream world than face uncomfortable reality.

10

I didn’t vote for the man and I don’t like him, but … Hitler? Hardly. Even if Bush wanted to take over the rest of the continent and massacre entire races of people, I doubt that he would have the rhetorical powers to pull it off.

I wouldn’t even put him in the same league with Reagan, who had roughly the same policies, more charisma, and a far more efficient propaganda machine. And the world survived eight years of Reagan.

11

Just.

12

Well, the guy has been remarkably predictable, in my opinion. Sure, he’s weaseling out of his environmental promises–is anyone suprised by that? Sure, the oil-man is declaring an “Energy Crisis.”

While I’m not happy at all about what he’s doing, at least he ripped off the mask early. Hellooo! We’ve got a Republican with a capital “R!” The only people who might actually be stunned by this revelation are probably part of the minority that voted for him. Good.

All the feedback I’m getting from the rumor mill says that Shrub is, as expected, a delegator of authority. According to some, Dick Cheney has been far more of a participant in the process than any prior VP. Early indications are that the future may acknowledge the de facto presence of a Co-Presidency. I’m, ah, okay with that. I really am.

What I’m really not happy about is the agency hatchet-job the White House has been pulling for the last two-and-a-half months by using picked Republicans left over from Bush I to run the show while not submitting nominees for Senate confirmation. While it’s not tantamount to burning the Reichstag yet, pretty soon someone’s gonna have to slap a lawsuit on the President if he doesn’t spit out some names.

Other than that, well, Shrub’s just being what he promised you he wouldn’t be. That’s just another President lying, something we should all be used to by now.

13

Just how is looking out for one’s own interests “bullshit”? Are we somehow obligated to look out for other countries?

ANd do you have a cite for your claim that Bush is reneging on Kyoto?

rjung:

Are you really that ignorant? Read a history book. You might learn something.

14

Okay, I admit I pulled that one out of thin air. But let’s face it – anyone would be more duly elected than Mister “The Supreme Court agrees that recounts are valid, but the conservative majority want me in office anyway so they’re a-gonna cook up some new excuses for me” Dubya.

(Admittedly, the OP isn’t much of a debate point, but then Shrub ain’t much of a “president”, either)

15

{polite mode ON}

Bush is not “reneging” on the Kyoto treaty, since we never agreed to the Kyoto treaty. Under our constitution, the president does not have the power to ratify treaties, only Congress. Sure, Clinton signed the treaty, but that meant nothing until the Senate ratified it. And the Senate has made it abundantly clear that they will never ratify it.

All Bush did is make US policy clear. Clinton agreed to the Kyoto treaty, KNOWING that congress would never ratify it…since he prefered the symbolism of the treaty over anything meaningful.
{polite mode OFF}

And comparing Bush to Hitler is simply pathetic. Do you leftists have a single brain cell left between you all? Is that all you people have left? No substance, just whining and puking? Criticize Bush all you like, complain that he should have pushed the Kyoto treaty, fine. But this?

Comparing Bush to Hitler means that you have put yourself beyond the pale of civilized discourse, you live in a fantasy world that bears no relation to reality. Why would anyone bother arguing with someone whose grip on sanity is only one step above a urine-soaked street lunatic?

16

Lemur is this suddenly the pit?:slight_smile: You shouldn’t insult the leftists by including London_calling with them.

London_calling

Yes

Do you think that hippy enviromentalists should run those?

17

And you, puddleglum, being an American can be forgiven for your ignorance of the rest of the world. :wink:

And, Asmodean, by “hippy environmentalists” do you mean people who subscribe to the apparently-radical notion that people should actually pay the costs of the products they use and the actions they take rather than having them subsidized by the rest of us?

18

Good point, since needless to say, no conservative has ever exagerrated during an attempt to smear President Clinton or any other Democrat. All those times that people called him a communist for example. We all know that WJC consulted his copy of “Das Kapital” prior to every major decision.
And of course judging all leftists based on a single statement is perfectly ok.

Bush worse than Hitler? I fail even to see how Bush II is worse than Bush I, to say nothing about Ronald Reagan. At least Bush appears to be cutting taxes slightly for the poor. Reagan actually raised taxes for everybody except the rich; he cut the income tax but pumped up virtually every other federal tax, especially Social Security taxes. (See I’m Right, You’re Wrong by James Carville for further discussion of the Reagan tax ‘cuts’.)
Yes, Bush II serves his campaign donors. Yes, he lies about his motivations. What exactly do you expect? Yes, he’s trying to minimize his encounters with the press. As long as there are a sizeable number of Republicans who will repeat whatever he says without checking the facts first, why would you expect Bush to do anything else?

19

We need some input from the DC press, here. The Post was obviously pissed about the 45-minute lead-time given them for the President’s press conference on Kyoto. They’re also pissed about their venue being moved from the former Swimming Pool to a less swanky venue. Overall, I think Chebusheney is being quite clever in his manipulation of the press, taking the big hit for a foregone conclusion (Kyoto), while simultaneously shaking up the Press Corps.

If these cats take such streetfighting to rareified levels, we’ll see yet another catastrophe like the blow-job thing, 'cause I’m willing to bet the press wants to ice 'em right now. President Thurmond, anyone? As long as we’re going hyperbolic…

(Um, just in case, would anyone in New Zealand wish to sponsor me? I promise I won’t drink all of the Canterbury Draught, and I think Bull Allen is right excellent. I’m a catch-and-release sort of guy when it comes to the salmon.)

20

“Hippy environmentalists”? Bush “most dangerous since Hitler”? Nice to see everybody’s making intelligent arguments rather than resorting to gross generalizations gleaned from BS media soundbites for their information.