Understanding America and the Bush administration

I can understand a concern with what you have perceived to be an "erosion of the rule of law," which has allowed "enemy combatants" to be held without trial. I'm not exactly in favor of this practice, but I'm not exactly against it either. I'm lukewarm on it, and the reason is because I see the justification for it to be an effort to counter terrorism. I see that as a very important goal, and one that requires a change from the tactics of the past. Specifically, a change from the Clintonian "law enforcement" approach which you favor. So, while I think this tactic, along with the Patriot Act, will change over time, I don't fault the Administration for implementing these policies in an effort to fight terrorism, which I believe to be a far worse evil.

I disagree with your characterization that Afghanistan, through a "proxy," attacked the US. It has always been my perception that the invasion of Afghanistan was an act in self-defense to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks, justified because the Taliban (as the de facto government) had been aiding and abetting the terrorists. Since the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden and give the US access to the terrorist camps in their country, the US had no choice but to invade Afghanistan. The right to self defense would be meaningless if terrorists could simply hide out in a soverign state. Those harboring terrorists are held accountable. The invasion of Iraq also fell under that theory, given Saddam's refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, and his regime's support of terrorists.

As far as the "financial meltdown" you are predicting for 5-10 years down the road, I suppose we shall have to wait and see what happens. You have no argument from me that the tax cuts should have been followed by huge spending cuts. No question about it.

0 Replies

Quote:

1) Starting a war on a nation that hadn't attacked America, diverting resources from a war on a nation that had; doing all this on dubious evidence, and misleading the rest of the world (intentionally or not) about the reliability of said evidence; having his underlings trash those heads of states who found the evidence unconvincing.

Don't you think 'misleading' implies intent to deceive and I dont believe the Bush administration was guilty of that, nor is their any conceivable motive for the US to do so. Given the fact that most in this thread have already admitted, the American military is far superior than most of it's European detractors'. The situation as I see it is that the US, chose to warn its european allies of what it perceived was an imminent threat. This seems to be a friendly act rather than a deceitful ploy to settle personal vendettas. Also, I've already made points as to why the war in Iraq was not such a big blunder after all and nothing so far has punctured the logic of those statements. I believe that my logic is open to question but stark generalizations of 'unnecessary war' dont really open themselves to debate.

Quote:

2) Using Orwellian rhetoric to argue that terrorists aren't criminals, they are enemy combatants in a vaguely defined war on terrorism. But they are not entitled to Geneva convention rights, because they don't really fit the proper status. But they are not entitled to the process specified in the Geneva conventions for figuring out what their real status is, because their status isn't really in doubt.

3) Using Orwellian rhetoric to argue that the USA isn't torturing people because their legal experts, handpicked for that purpose don't call it torture. Outsourcing torture to rouge arabic states as the administration feels the heat of adverse public opinion at home.

Is the argument rhetorical: the enemy (terrorists) target civilian populations as the primary means of obtaining their objective. They use baseless rhetoric to brainwash children and poverty stricken adults into believing that murder is the answer to their problems. This is hardly rhetoric!!! Nor is the fact that it is difficult to fight a guerilla army which doesn't really want to fight you, but rather your non combatant family.

As regards the torture comments, plz be more specific??

Also, the question I asked was about foreign perception, why should taxcuts shape foreign opinion?

0 Replies

As Thomas might have thought (and others as well), his last two points are my list, too.

I must underline, however, that this has nothing at all to do with Anti-Americanism.

I personally think it's an oversimplification to assume without questioning that anti-Bush sentiments are the same as anti-American.

On the other hand, these "American oversimplications" are something else, I don't like: either pro or our enemy.

0 Replies

Quote:

stark generalizations of 'unnecessary war' dont really open themselves to debate.

What stark generalizations? Most of my liberal progressive friends have been awfully specific regarding this unnecessary war. We attacked a country that didn't attack us. We attacked a country on specious intelligence. We attacked a country unilaterally, without the proper international channels, nor the proper Congressional channels (voting to authorize force is NOT voting to authorize war). Bush purposely created enough grey area in that regard to go ahead and illegally invade a sovereign country.

There are many instances of lies that came from the Bush administration in justifying this war. It was "sold" to the American people, utilizing every propogandist ploy at their disposal, without the proper debate.

The American military will have a clear adversary in China in less than a decade, as China continues to build their military machine. There are other country's troops that outnumber the U.S. There will be a time when the U.S. will be held in check on this policy of unilateralism, and then what are we going to do? Russia and China both have nuclear weapons. China is increasingly threatening Taiwan on a daily basis.

Iraq seems so much more of distraction when dealing this the broader issues of U.S. military engagement around the world.

And all the promises of oil revenue for reconstruction, liberation, flowers being thrown at U.S. troops, etc., have all fallen flat, and the insurgency continues to murder innocent people.

Where's the accountability from this administration?

0 Replies

Quote, "Where's the accountability from this administration?" This one sentence is the core problem with this administration. This is not only the administration that has lost more jobs since Hoover's tenure, but has put us into a national debt that will take the next several administrations to clean up. It also put this country into a war that sees no foreseeable end - which means more American soldiers dying and being maimed for a cause that is unsure; to bring democracy to the ME. It ignores the loss of jobs and security for many American families while making social security their top priority - something that can wait until the next administration. This administration single-handedly bankrupted our country from a surplus, started a war without international support, and now wants to make tax cuts permanent while increasing spending. Accountability? What accountability? Our children and grandchildren are gonna pay big time for the failure of this president and administration.

0 Replies

The hackneyed phrase is that politics is the art of the possible. I believe that the Bush Administration recognized that the 2004 election would be close, and therefore made a conscious decision to deploy their priorities incrementally during their first term, so as not to overload the political hurdles they would have to face.

Increasing economic growth was clearly (and properly in my view) their top priority: hence the tax cuts during the first term. Though the Democrats willingly castigate them now for not simultaneously cutting spending, the undeniable fact is that had the Republicans attempted to get both tax relief and spending cuts at the same time they would likely have gotten neither, and would have lost at the polls in 2004. So instead they went for tax cuts in the first term and now have the resultant economic growth and the second term in which to cut expenses and deal with our balance of payments problem (now, with higher economic growth, much less immediate). Moreover the Administration is also attempting to deal decisively with its social insurance problem - something that the European governments have not yet begun to do, and which is for them a far more serious issue than it is for us. Overall this appears to me to have been a very intelligent, and successful strategy. That the Democrats with, revisionist hindsight will criticize it for political reasons is more understandable to me than is the criticism for presumably objective reasons by an observer as astute and wise in the ways of economics as Thomas.

0 Replies

Tax cuts in a time of war. Yep. That's a successful strategy.

Fake news propoganda to deal with social insurance problems. Yep. That's a successful strategy. Until you check the polls.

At least the Europeans aren't afraid to use the term "socialism" in describing their system. Here in the states, it's a four-letter word to conservatives who think they know what European governments "need to do."

Understanding the Bush administration is easy. They are hellbent to willfully force their radical agenda on the American populace by lying, cheating, changing the rules, and keeping ANY substantive debate on any issue relegated to vitriolic talk shows and the demonization of organizations such as the AARP.

At least Bush is consistenly dishonest. That much is certain regarding this corrupt administration.

0 Replies

Hmmmm. Ya think maybe there was something to Bush's whole tax cut scheme?

Quote:

Breathe easy, workers: The jobless recovery is indisputably over. Some 262,000 new jobs were created last month, with almost every sector of the economy contributing, including manufacturing. That's icing on the cake after January, when the U.S. labor market at long last recouped all of its losses from the 2001 recession. There are now about 300,000 more people working than in February 2001, the pre-recession peak.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/050321/21intro.htm

0 Replies

Quote:

In 2004, Los Angeles added about 15,000 jobs, the first year of job growth since 2000, after losing about 100,000 jobs over the last four years. (Most of those have been in low-skill manufacturing sectors such as apparel and food processing).

Source: Another Recession Likely to Hit U.S. as Early as 2006, Report Says

100,000
- 15,000
------------
still 85,000 jobs gone.

(Such maths is done , btw, everywhere over the world.)

0 Replies

Surely no citizen of Germany where unemployment is well over 10% will find fault with the United States in this area. We pursue real free trade more openly than do Europeans, opening our markets to the new products of developing countries, and competing freely in the inrternational marketplace. We have a far more competitive and adaptable labor market than does Germany, and our economic groewth is higher.

What could possibly be behind Walter's complaint?

0 Replies

You could ask me, and I would say the same as above:

I dislike the falseness of some firms, factories, corporations and even governmental agencies, when they say "we created xxxx jobs", but forget that they closed down x-times as much the years before.

And I could give you x-examples from not only Germany, but my state, my county, my town!

0 Replies

The people praising the increase in jobs in the US probably hasn't been looking for one during the past five years. Most college grads today can't find jobs compared to any time before five years ago - except during Hoover's reign. To keep up with a net increase in jobs, it must produce enough to hire all the new job seekers into the work force (all new college grads, high school students, plus those high school graduates who must find employment to survive) in addition to not losing jobs for the middle class. Most of those jobs created during the past five years are in the service industry - WalMarts and KMarts. The net loss of factory jobs during the past five years are in the hundreds of thousands. Silicon Valley alone lost 500,000 jobs, and we're finally beginning to add back some jobs - not not nearly enough to keep up with the new job seeker market and rehire those that lost jobs.

0 Replies

C.I., when you solve the employment problem, let us know.

0 Replies

McG, Your problem is you assume being able to identify a problem equates to solving the problem. Your simple-mindedness is just that; simple but uninformed.

0 Replies

No, I have merely observed that you complain endlessly about the employment numbers in the US, yet I have yet to hear what your plan would be to ease them.

I am all for 0 percent unemployment. That means less money going towards welfare, school aide, etc...

0 Replies

Well, you see, I'm not for zero percent unemployment. My "plans" to improve our economy is full of BS, because it doesn't mean anything to our government, and I'm not about to "waste my time." There are things that this administration has done and is doing that is bad for our economy: Very simply put 1) tax cuts during a time of war is stupid and irresponsible, and 2) not controlling spending.

0 Replies

I agree.

Spending has been completely out of control.

But, how does that effect the unemployment rate and create jobs?

Do you agree with the supposition that taxes had to be cut to spur the economy and that had the tax cuts not gone through, we might have seen much worse unemployment and recession?

0 Replies

This government is spending most of our resources on a wrong war; it should be spent on our own needs. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our schools are closing, our deficit is growing, and more middle class families are going without health insurance.

0 Replies

Oh well, so much for Bush's domestic policies...

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

This government is spending most of our resources on a wrong war; it should be spent on our own needs. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our schools are closing, our deficit is growing, and more middle class families are going without health insurance.

This is illogical. The war was initiated out of concern for WMD in the hands of someone who might use them. One or two WMD used in the US could render all of the problems you are describing incalculably worse. You persistently see only half of the equation.

0 Replies

Understanding America and the Bush administration

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know