Has Bush put up or should he shut up??

from PolMach Forums
Listening to the speeches at the RNC, and especially Bush's own, I kept hearing the same things. Sept. 11th, "terrorism won't happen on my (Bush) watch", Bush has great resolve, and America will defeat terrorists.

I have to say, I found this all most perplexing. I understand what they were going for, trying to show how immediately after 9/11 Bush showed resolve, etc. etc. But what I heard (and many heard) was the obvious negatives.

The themes of 9/11 and "it (terrorism) won't happen on Bush's watch" seem like an odd combination. Anyone who can add 2 + 2 can probably put the pieces together and see that the worst act of terror in American history happened on Bush's watch, exposing the great inadequacies of his administration. Why the RNC speakers wanted to constantly remind us of this is beyond me. It would have been more appropriate if Bush had added "no terrorism on my watch............starting...........now!".

Bush has steadfast resolve. There's a term for that. It's called being pig-headed. They criticize Kerry for changing his mind when new information becomes available. This is called evolution of thought, or more simply learning. But Bush seems to think this is a major character flaw. Resolve is great, if you're right. But when new info surfaces that changes things, it's time to re-examine your position. George takes great pride in the fact that if he picks a course he follows it no matter what. By this logic, the world is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth and disco still rules. Bush promotes education in America, but refuses to educate (ie. continuously learn) himself.

"America will win the war on terror" - Bush. *flip* "The war on terror cannot be won" - Bush. *flop* "American will win the war on terror" -Bush. *flip*......... While I admire Mr. Bush for actually exploring more than one option, in this instance he really should decide. If it can't be won, he should pull his troops out from around the world, bring them home, and instruct the American public to head to the basement and never come out because the next attack is on the way. Otherwise, Bush had better start focussing less on his dad's unfinished war in Iraq and start targetting the true terrorists. He should widen the search for Bin Laden. Track down the terror cells in Spain. Rid Libya of it's many terrorists. Move forces into Russia and Chechnya to help Putin with his REAL war on terror. Put forces in Saudi Arabia to round up the many terrorists hiding out there. Force Israelis and Palestinians to come to a peaceful compromise. This last one Bush was actually doing, which gave me a lot of respect for him. Then he pushed it aside and started his war for daddy in Iraq...........I mean war for oil in Iraq............I mean war on terror in Iraq.

Bush's RNC speech made it clear that he wants us to forget about the last 4 years (minus tiny sections that make him look good) and look to the future. Judging by his past record, I think Mr. Bush should just shut up and gracefully make his exit from politics so he can't do any more damage. But that' s just my opinion.
politics
2,977 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
By: hitmaneoin
Posted: Sunday, September 05, 2004
Message Board: Politics

Listening to the speeches at the RNC, and especially Bush's own, I kept hearing the same things. Sept. 11th, "terrorism won't happen on my (Bush) watch", Bush has great resolve, and America will defeat terrorists.

I have to say, I found this all most perplexing. I understand what they were going for, trying to show how immediately after 9/11 Bush showed resolve, etc. etc. But what I heard (and many heard) was the obvious negatives.

The themes of 9/11 and "it (terrorism) won't happen on Bush's watch" seem like an odd combination. Anyone who can add 2 + 2 can probably put the pieces together and see that the worst act of terror in American history happened on Bush's watch, exposing the great inadequacies of his administration. Why the RNC speakers wanted to constantly remind us of this is beyond me. It would have been more appropriate if Bush had added "no terrorism on my watch............starting...........now!".

Bush has steadfast resolve. There's a term for that. It's called being pig-headed. They criticize Kerry for changing his mind when new information becomes available. This is called evolution of thought, or more simply learning. But Bush seems to think this is a major character flaw. Resolve is great, if you're right. But when new info surfaces that changes things, it's time to re-examine your position. George takes great pride in the fact that if he picks a course he follows it no matter what. By this logic, the world is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth and disco still rules. Bush promotes education in America, but refuses to educate (ie. continuously learn) himself.

"America will win the war on terror" - Bush. *flip* "The war on terror cannot be won" - Bush. *flop* "American will win the war on terror" -Bush. *flip*......... While I admire Mr. Bush for actually exploring more than one option, in this instance he really should decide. If it can't be won, he should pull his troops out from around the world, bring them home, and instruct the American public to head to the basement and never come out because the next attack is on the way. Otherwise, Bush had better start focussing less on his dad's unfinished war in Iraq and start targetting the true terrorists. He should widen the search for Bin Laden. Track down the terror cells in Spain. Rid Libya of it's many terrorists. Move forces into Russia and Chechnya to help Putin with his REAL war on terror. Put forces in Saudi Arabia to round up the many terrorists hiding out there. Force Israelis and Palestinians to come to a peaceful compromise. This last one Bush was actually doing, which gave me a lot of respect for him. Then he pushed it aside and started his war for daddy in Iraq...........I mean war for oil in Iraq............I mean war on terror in Iraq.

Bush's RNC speech made it clear that he wants us to forget about the last 4 years (minus tiny sections that make him look good) and look to the future. Judging by his past record, I think Mr. Bush should just shut up and gracefully make his exit from politics so he can't do any more damage. But that' s just my opinion.


And your opinion stinks just like all of the rest of ours. And "do NOT" try to put 9/11 on the Bush administrations door step. Even the 9/11 commisson said there was nothing they could have done differently. And that from Democrats! And those so called "Chechnyan rebels" were NOT! It has already been shown that they were Islamic extremists!
And on top of ALL that I want you to show me that we went into Iraq for the oil! If we had don't you think that by now the price for gasoline would have gone down? So say all the "experts"!
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
"America will win the war on terror" - Bush. *flip* "The war on terror cannot be won" - Bush. *flop* "American will win the war on terror" -Bush. *flip*......... While I admire Mr. Bush for actually exploring more than one option, in this instance he really should decide.


Unlike Kerry when he flips and flops, Bush did that one by slip of a tongue accident. (We all know he is not a great orator.) If you lessen to the full interview (not the one sentence sound bit you got from Moveon.org) you will notice that that part of the interview was about the next four years. Him and the interviewer were discussing in the near future. He even claerly stated that at the start of that section of interview. The Next day, after many started to play the sound bit out of context, he quickly clarified and put it back into context. Unlike Kerry who still stands behind the fact that he first voted for the funding, then didn’t. I will not even get into his many other Flips and Flops.

It’s a little childish to go “See, see, see... now stop calling my guy a flip flopper“, on a sound bite. Weather it's Ultra-Libs or Noe-Cons I just think it makes the person (and the party making the allegation) look more ignorant then the person who originally made the statement.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
Yeah I heard the full on interview, and when every anything is taken out of context you can always use it to bash someone, but that still doesn't make it correct. He was asked could we win the war on terror in the next four years, Bush said no, and the simple reason is how fast can you stamp out terrorism against the U.S. could you do it in Four years or less, I don't think so, he did not say that we wouldn't win it, but that the war would not be over as soon as tomorrow. Another case of sentence out of context does a good case against not make.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
Otherwise, Bush had better start focussing less on his dad's unfinished war in Iraq and start targetting the true terrorists. He should widen the search for Bin Laden. Track down the terror cells in Spain. Rid Libya of it's many terrorists. Move forces into Russia and Chechnya to help Putin with his REAL war on terror. Put forces in Saudi Arabia to round up the many terrorists hiding out there. Force Israelis and Palestinians to come to a peaceful compromise. This last one Bush was actually doing, which gave me a lot of respect for him. Then he pushed it aside and started his war for daddy in Iraq...........I mean war for oil in Iraq............I mean war on terror in Iraq.


By the by, Al Quaida has never had a CENTRAL leader, they are a network of terrorist cells with many leaders, Bin Laden is just a spokesperson, and the Congress men and women (won't name any names) need to wake up to this fact. Great we caught Bin Laden, how much REAL effect would that have on terrorist cells, ultimately the will be more pissed off, but still there with their own leaders. It's a sad fact, but we must eliminate them cell by cell, because they have no CENTRAL leader, and it's Bush and others own fault for pinning all this CENTRAL leader B.S. on one guy, Terrorists are never one leader or person, they are a group of loonies, in which everyone is their own perspective little Napoleon.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
The whole case is about Oil.............The whole world depends on oil...So IF the Bush administration went to iraq also because of the oil.........It wouldnt be a crime........What the heck do you think kerry's car is driving on............Sugar???
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
Mmmm, sugary exhaust, suck on that tailpipe but don't burn your lips. Hehehe
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
Well said hitmaneion!!!
However, I do agree that we cannot put the blame of 9/11 on the Bush administration; however, there were PLENTY of Republicans in that administration that were quick to blame Clinton's administration immediately after it happened! The reality is, we were caught with our "pants down". Mistakes and oversights were made by several administrations - including Bush's. This unpreparedness seems to be a common thread in our history. WWII and Pearl Harbor is another example of us getting caught when there were indications out there that pointed to an attack of some kind. It may be because of our make up as a nation (tend to be very trusting and good hearted) or possibly the "red tape" that exists in our governement that slows quick responses.
On to Iraq....why in the world did we invade Iraq? Why could we not have waited a few more months to see if WMD were found? Did we do it because Hussein was an "immenent" threat? Did we do it because we were going to force a democracy in the Middle East? Did we do it in an attempt to gain control of oil prices? (and by the way, the reason oil prices have gone up is because the whole thing was botched. We still do not control the country and oil exports from Iraq are constantly being curtailed by attacks) Did we do it to stop terrorism? Did we do it to settle a score? It is my guess that there are fragments of truth in ALL of the above - which makes it difficult to prove any one thing as the over riding factor. One thing is certain - for every "fact" someone digs up, another "fact" can be found to counter it! Hindsight seems to be more clear and the question now really is was it a wise and correct move? Unfortunately the answer to that seems to indicate - NO! We are paying a huge price in dollars (almost alone - even though we claim to have a "coalition"), the majority of soldiers killed over there are almost all ours, the people over there do not like us (even though we were led to believe they would be greeting us in the streets! Any one who knows any of the history of that region would know that would not have been the case. We also had been bombing this country for YEARS and killing innocent people as well as bad guys - and I am not saying the containment policy was all wrong either), we have stretched our military to the breaking point and cannot focus exclusively on the real terrorists, and we are a more isolated country than we have ever been (and while I don't always want to admit it, we do need other nations to help - it is the only way to defeat global terrorism).
In our rush to war, it seems we were wrong on many more things than we were right on. I still do not see what a few months of waiting on the inspectors (in Iraq - a country we have been closely monitoring for 15 years) would have cost? Regardless, we have no choice now but to stick it out and make it right - we have no other choice because to pull out now would make the area even worse than it was before. Because of all of this, Bush should be held accountable on the whole Iraq war and deep questioning of his errant policies there is justified and one is NOT unpatriotic or weak on defense if one questions this!
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top


I agree fully. Personally, I believe the war on terror can't be won for that very reason. Take out all the leaders you want, as long as there are ppl who hate other people, terror will happen to one degree or another.