Patriot Act and our President

[pipoman]

My only point is:

Prior to the Iraq invasion there was nearly unanimous agreement on both sides of the isle that Iraq was a great threat to the US. There were very few Democrats who were willing to bet their future, reputation, or the lives of their family members that Iraq was not a threat. Now after the threat has been neutralized or greatly weakened democrats are feverishly trying to rewrite history to make it appear they opposed the Iraq effort from the start.

Prior to 9-11 Bin Laden was a middle eastern leader who made repeated threats on the US. Nothing was done. Saddam has been threatening the US for decades. If nothing had been done and Saddam would have brought us the next 9-11 all the Dems would be blaming GWB.

This is the same approach which was somewhat successful in pinning blame for Vietnam on Nixon.

Have your cake and eat it too. Don't forget the Koolaid.

 

[Rob P.]

Prior to the Iraq invasion there was nearly unanimous agreement on both sides of the isle that Iraq was a great threat to the US. There were very few Democrats who were willing to bet their future, reputation, or the lives of their family members that Iraq was not a threat. Now after the threat has been neutralized or greatly weakened democrats are feverishly trying to rewrite history to make it appear they opposed the Iraq effort from the start.

Irrelvant and just so much smoke and mirrors. It was G-dub's JOB to get it right the first time. Not his job to just go ahead and do stuff then point fingers and try to shift the issue/blame.

Prior to 9-11 Bin Laden was a middle eastern leader who made repeated threats on the US. Nothing was done. Saddam has been threatening the US for decades. If nothing had been done and Saddam would have brought us the next 9-11 all the Dems would be blaming GWB.

More of the same. Comparing G-dub to OBL won't make G-dub look any better when you look at G-dub's record.

This is the same approach which was somewhat successful in pinning blame for Vietnam on Nixon.

Have your cake and eat it too. Don't forget the Koolaid

More "mine is bigger" BS.

Stick with POINTS and FACTS and prove that g-dub is a "good" president.

What has he done that's not controversial AND has helped America?

 

[Tamara]

pipoman,

WW2? FDR a democrat attacked Germany. Germany didn't attack the US Japan did.

Purely for the sake of historical correctness: Germany declared war on the US before we declared war on them, handily allowing us to sidestep potential complaints from the substantial pro-isolationist/pro-German faction in the US at the time.


Also, NK troops attacked US personnel south of the 38th Parallel before any US/UN offensive operations were carried out against the North.

 

[Sulaco2]

Those with BDS will howl and whine. We that understand we are in a fight for our lives and the lives of our familys will do what has to be done. Its always been that way. When we win the BDSer's will say they were on our side all the time. Only 3% of the population fought the first war against the brits, 80 % claimed later to be vets. This forum is no different. :barf:

 

[pipoman]

Rob P. I didn't understand one point you tried to make.

By Tamara Purely for the sake of historical correctness: Germany declared war on the US before we declared war on them, handily allowing us to sidestep potential complaints from the substantial pro-isolationist/pro-German faction in the US at the time.

And Iraq repeatedly violated UN resolution after UN resolution. Saddam continued to make verbal threats against the US.

By Tamara Also, NK troops attacked US personnel south of the 38th Parallel before any US/UN offensive operations were carried out against the North.

And Saddam attacked US forces enforcing the agreed upon "No Fly Zone".

Each action had its own justification, Iraq is no different. The question is do you support the action based on the justification? (in each instance WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, Iraq)

 

[Tamara]

pipoman,

I didn't say a thing about Iraq one way or another, just wanted to clear up some factually incorrect statements you had made.

 

[gc70]

by BIGJACK:
The fact that pipomans point being that all those other "wars" were preemptive, as was the war in Iraq, justifies the preemptive strike on Iraq for reasons all found to be false, makes his point creditable, hu gc70????????

and from an earlier post:
"you got it all wrong, we never preempted in any of the cases you sited."

BIGJACK, you originally made an absolute statement that there was "NO COMPARISON" between the wars that pipoman cited and the war in Iraq. I suggested that you loose credibility by such a blanket dismissal. See Tamara's excellent points regarding comparisons as an example of credible rebuttal.

BTW, I am did not present any argument that the war in Iraq was, or was not, justified, although you clearly seek to avoid my actual comment and shift to your (apparently) favorite topic.

 

[gc70]

by Rob P.:
Stick with POINTS and FACTS and prove that g-dub is a "good" president.

No, thank you. The initial post in this thread puts forward that Bush is a "bad" president, so it falls to those who support that stance to prove the point.

 

[BIGJACK]

Sorry jc70 but if you can't see the 5 years of stumbling, fumbling and shooting his self in the foot, all at the expense of the credibility of the US, there is no use trying to prove it. He has done that for me.

 

[gc70]

(sigh)

by BIGJACK:
Sorry jc70 but if you can't see the 5 years of stumbling, fumbling and shooting his self in the foot, all at the expense of the credibility of the US, there is no use trying to prove it. He has done that for me.

I don't care one iota about your opinion of Bush or the righteousness of the war in Iraq for the purpose of this discussion, nor do my opinions on those topics (which I have not expressed) have any bearing on this discussion.

I do care when you refuse to engage in reasoned discussion. You are correct that "there is no use trying to prove" something when the proof consists of your boringly repetitive assertions and your dismissal of anyone else's rebuttal arguments. Debate your position or you will not sway anyone's opinion!

 

[kennybs plbg]

Personally I see 5 years of up front (this is what I believe, this is what I'm going to do) administration. Reaching out to minority's and installing them in high level positions. Bringing respect back to the country, the white house and the military. Protecting the country at all costs regardless of polls and what people actually think of him.
You may think this is out of step with the majority of americans, but didn't the majority of americans re-elect him last year and didn't he have over 50% of the popular vote. A few weeks back when his rating was at 40% it was considered over for him, but a few years back 40% is what bill clinton went into office with and you considered that a mandate!

kenny b

 

[gc70]

by Tamara:
Also, NK troops attacked US personnel south of the 38th Parallel before any US/UN offensive operations were carried out against the North.

The only American troops in South Korea at the start of the Korean War on June 25, 1950, were the members of the Military Advisory Group to the Republic of Korea (KMAG). I could find no mention in the US Army Center for Military History's online information about the Korean War to suggest that those advisors became immediately and directly involved in hostilities. Nevertheless, by June 26, 1950, President Truman had ordered General MacArthur to use Air Force aircraft and Navy ships against all North Korean military targets south of the 38th Parallel.

 

[gc70]

by Tamara:
Purely for the sake of historical correctness: Germany declared war on the US before we declared war on them, handily allowing us to sidestep potential complaints from the substantial pro-isolationist/pro-German faction in the US at the time.

Absolutely technically correct. However, one could argue that Germany had a treaty obligation to declare war on the US after the US declared war on Japan.

Three-Power Pact Between Germany, Italy, and Japan (September 27, 1940):

ARTICLE THREE
Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict.

A more fundamental question arises from the fact that Roosevelt and Churchill had, several months earlier, committed their countries to "the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny."

The Atlantic Charter (August 14, 1941)

The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.
...
Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

I don't know about the Germans in WWII, but I would tend to view that "final destruction" language as 'fightin' words.'

 

[Rob P.]

No, thank you. The initial post in this thread puts forward that Bush is a "bad" president, so it falls to those who support that stance to prove the point.

Very well - I posit the following:

Item #1: The Patriot Act. GWB signed this little piece of legislation that is so unconsitutional it's amazing it hasn't been declared to be totally violative of the Constitution. Yet. Round 2 starts soon.

Item #2: The current wiretapping scandal. Which (again) violates the US Constitution and also DIRECTLY contradicts his statements that wiretapping requires a warrant and that Fedgov doesn't wiretap without warrants (which he only implied) all the while KNOWING that he had authorized warrantless evesdropping on telcommunications within the US. Irrelevant that "other" presidents did this - GWB did this and got caught with his pants down and lied about it.

Item #3: The war in Iraq. Sadaam was a known menace under the watchful eye of the entire world. Yeah, he was a bad guy, BUT he was also the head of a sovereign nation. It was the duty of his own citizens to change their leadership not ours. The fact that they were afraid to do that is irrelevant. The fact that he was a horrible person and the world is better off without him is irrelevant. The fact that he supposedly had WMD's is IRRELEVANT because he never made one single attempt to USE those WMD's against this country. In essence, we went to war in Iraq because of a pissant loudmouthed dictator who could be used as an EXCUSE by GWB. Or do you truly believe that Iraq was a serious threat to America and if so, how exactly could a 3rd world country with no intercontinental missle capability, no military presense outside of Iraq, and no covert operatives ANYWHERE in the world, and under strict international sanctions achieve a preemptive strike that would annihilate the U.S.? WITHOUT those WMD's we heard so much about. (so don't give me "dirty bomb" or biological attack scenario's.)

Item #4: In the next decade, knowing what we do now about the screwed up intel in Iraq, the screw ups with OBL, the Patriot Act, and the wiretapping fiasco, do you REALLY believe that GWB will be shown to be a great president or is it more likely he will achieve (at best) a grade of barely adequate or worse? If so, list all of the factual things he has done which are NON CONTROVERSIAL and which indicate that GWB has done more than just sit on his arse in the oval office. PLEASE do not just say he "gave us respect" and things of that nature. I would like to see a FACTUAL listing of achievements not opinion or beliefs.

Something which offsets the horrible economic conditions of his administration (PLEASE no "bill clinton is responsible for that" comments GWB had to fix it no matter WHO caused it).

Something which offsets his nomination of Harriet Meirs. (Alito hurts my HAIR he's such a bad nominee)

Something which offsets the 5 mile no-free-speech zones around him. (no praise, no rights.)

Something which offsets the Katrina hurricane disaster relief disaster. (yes, I know all about the "federal gov't isn't responsible" line of reasoning. However, the PUBLIC believes that the feds ARE responsible and history will hold GWB responsible because of that even if not true.)

Something which offsets the fact that GWB is a pot-stirrer and not a consensus maker.

HISTORY will hold GWB accountable for everything that has occurred while he was president and his lack of ability to counter the bad and foster the good. It won't matter what party, what religious belief, or even what size hat he wore. It's what he failed to do that will show him to be a less that marginal president. Your turn now.

 

[FirstFreedom]

If possible, I'd like everyone to quit talking about Iraq and pre-emptive war doctrines, and please go back to the original question: If the Patriot Act being enacted permanently is a crucial tool to fight the "war on terror" (not the war in Iraq - we're talking about GWB wanting a permanent renewal - the Iraq war WILL end at some point), and if GWB was so adamant that signing a temporary renewal would harm the Act's future chances of being re-passed, which thus provoked a veto threat from the president, then WHY oh WHY did he put us in jeopardy by harming the permanent renewal of this crucial bill by caving on his principles and signing the alternate measure (the temp renewal), reneging on his veto threat? If the bill is crucial to our safety, then he harmed it by signing the temp renewal. The point is, how on earth is that principled, as GWB's supporters still claim he is? And how does GWB think his veto threats will EVER work if he doesn't at least follow through on the threat at least ONCE. It might have been wise to actually follow through with such a threat, say, in his FIRST term, to give it credibility. Or if not, at least you'd think he'd do so in his first 2 years of his second term, to give him some clout down the stretch. [[I'll give y'all a hint: He doesn't care about anything except his own near-term political future, has no principles whatsoever. Don't feel bad; I was fooled too the first time around, and voted for him in 2000. He's slicker than slick Willie. I could tell slick Willie was lying WHEN he was talking. GWB, it takes awhile to realize.]]. Disclaimer - the Patriot Act, as written, is a horribly bad thing, in my view. BUT, the argument that GWB supporters throw around sometimes is that GWB supposedly is a "good-hearted and principled, but perhaps an occasionally misguided fellow". So, whether or not you agree that he's misguided on the Pat Act, the point is, HE has stated many times that he's a firm believer in its necessity. Now he's abandoned those principles to go-along, get-along with the Congress, and salvage some short-term goodwill. That's the makings of a very poor POTUS, when history views him.

 

[Sulaco2]

"Their coming to take me away, Ho Ha Ha Heh Heh, the nice men in the white coats...."

 

[MasterPieceArms.com]

Bush has cajones...What we need in a war-time Prez...

These ultra "patriotic" bush luvers hide behind gaggy phrases like that instead of answering points you bring up.

Their second favorite thing they do is change the subject. Pictures about WWII that were skillfully made (about a different subject) provide a great diversion.

Then they run and hide behind the "we're at war so anything goes" nonsense.

Some folks forget, we're in a WAR.

Um, I know how you bush supporters love to mangle the english language to attempt to make your man look honorable, but FIRST, our globalist script reader president declared an end to major combat operations looooong ago, while standing in front of a banner reading "widows accomplished" er I mean, "mission accomplished." (sorry about that, the truth slipped out).

SECOND, a war cannot be waged against a CONCEPT (especially a broad, wide open concept such as "terrorism").

THIRD, an occupation is not a war. I know I know, bush lwith uvers are, at their core, massive government loyalists, (which they mask so called "patriotism" and "support the troops" slogans). Bush luvers are so loyal to government that they repeat whatever they hear from Sean Limbaugh because it feels good. Questioning contradictions and bad english means questioning the party line and thinking independently.

When challenging the slogans and contradictions of bush luvers, be prepared to be called a "liberal" and/or a "leftie" whether you are one or not.

Proof of what a "leftie" I am, I'll point out the obvious about how klinton's war in Yugoslavia was nice and illegal (meaning unconstitutional).

 

[DonR101395]

There was plenty of b*&^%ing about Reagan when he was president and he's become known as one of our greatest president's ever. Having served in the military under 3 republican presidents and 1 democrat I can tell you IMO the country has never been more unprepared than it was under the democrat and his cronies.
We can't fight an ideology and a tactic, but we can fight those who believe in an ideology and use a tactic to destroy our safety and way of life.
I don't agree with everything the current president has done, but at least I'm not hearing his infidelities, listening to him lie about it and then acting like it never happened so his wife can have her stab at being a political hack.
Like him or not GWB is what this country needed, a President that wasn't afraid to tell the U.N. to go to kiss his @$$, and take the fight to them before they have another chance to bring it us.

 

[gc70]

Nice post, Rob P. Since nobody else has provided a rebuttal, I'll take a stab at it.

#1 - PATRIOT Act: What a putrid pile. It is hard to believe that most members of Congress supported most of the Act's provisions, not once, but twice. And then our President signs it into law both times. I guess that is proof positive that both political parties are populated by the rankest form of statists.

#2 - Wiretapping: George gleefully ignored the Constitution, just like his predecessors; no virtue here.

#3 - Iraq: You said it... "In essence, we went to war in Iraq because of a pissant loudmouthed dictator who could be used as an EXCUSE by GWB." You didn't really expect Bush to announce that he had selected Iraq to become the Middle East's learning laboratory in democracy?

#4 - Legacy: Judge a President after 10 years? 50 years is a more reasonable period if you want an unbiased assessment. BTW, Presidents (at least those whose names we can remember) establish legacies by doing things that ARE controversial. Nevertheless, as to your specifics:

Economy: Allowing the economy to flounder is very bad; shame on George.

Harriet Miers: A non-event to be forgotten within a few months.

(I will not dignify the next self-indulgent characterization with a response.)

Hurricane Katrina: Yep, for a couple of years the ignorant masses will villify Bush for not ignoring the Constitution and simply "doing something." Thank goodness - the Constitution has been assaulted enough without Bush contributing another indignity.

Now for the good stuff... what I think of Bush.

Notwithstanding being particularly uninspired (and uninspiring) when first elected, Bush has since shown a degree of determination that few Presidents are given the opportunity to exhibit. In the long run, Bush will be judged on whether the venture in Iraq is successful or not. And it is way to early to make the call on that topic.

 

[Wildalaska]

Item #1: The Patriot Act. GWB signed this little piece of legislation that is so unconsitutional it's amazing it hasn't been declared to be totally violative of the Constitution. Yet. Round 2 starts soon.

Please cite each and every EXACT provsion of the Patriot Act that is "unconstitutional", please ensure that you proovide us with case citations that support your argument...also, please highlight the difference between the the statutory languange of the Patriot act and other similar pre existing legislation, together wtith the cases interpreting same..

Bet you wont or cant, and like so many others, havent even read it.

WildpartofmynewyearsresolutionAlaska