President Bush's Resume

[Maeve_Mari]

So.....what you're saying is he paid for that, via an insurance policy.

I was being kind. Insurance policies such as these are generally ploys on the part of executives as they provide for full salary regardless of company performance. Allows for mismanagment, both functionally and fiscally, on the part of of the executive and the insurance policy is usually covered by company funds!

[Inquartata]

A common characteristic of country's great presidents is the ability to communicate with it's people. To be able to share a vision. Have the intellectual capacity to conceive and envision the impact of our actions and policy. To have an understanding of the complexity of both world and domestic issues and lead with a compassionate hand and mind.

You forgot to add "in my opinion". These are the qualities YOU think are important; they are not Revealed Truth.

That, dear sirs, is not a capability we can ascribe to Mr. Bush.

Again, in your opinion. And be it noted, an opinon formed without having any personal knowledge of the man, his coterie, or the workings of his Administration whatsoever. As do we all, you view him through the dark glass of the media and the distorted lenses of your own perceptions and preexisting beliefs. Which makes such pronouncements about his fitness or lack of same rather useless, no?

[Inquartata]

Clinton was an excellent communicator, something even his critics (or at least the ones who can think rationally) will grudgingly admit. Bush is not.

"Blah blah blah."

"Excellent communicator" often equals demagogue. Clinton was indeed glib and charming, but so are a lot of people, from actors to talk show hosts to comedians to used-car salesmen. It isn't a quality that affects ability to lead or to make difficult decisions very much, is it?

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

Answer: personally, yes. Much better job, for one thing.

Let's see: the court of international opinion says "No."

And most people care as much about that as they do about the life of the common aphid...

One can always find something wrong with something anytime; easiest thing in the world. And we love having some person to blame for our troubles. But hey, you can blame space aliens if you like, too. Both are about equally strongly grounded in objective reality.

[Inquartata]

And Halliburton is by far the largest beneficiary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Um...you don't think that maybe Halliburton might be beaten out for that title by, oh, I don't know, the people who'd probably have been interred in Saddam's mass graves or tortured by good old Uday and Qusai by now?

[edew]

Sorry...out of the frying pan, into the fire.

[Inquartata]

Funny, though, how it's mostly us Americans saying that from thousands of miles away, not the Iraqis themselves...

[Aestro]

Funny, though, how it's mostly us Americans saying that from thousands of miles away, not the Iraqis themselves...

The issues many of us have aren't with the war itself, but the pretenses by which it came about, and how it came about. No one is against the removal of a brutal dictator and his regime. We ARE against the person who did it due to the extremely shady circumstances under which it happened.

We have not been given proof of the Weapons of Mass Destruction, and now it is likely we never will. We have seen the company with which the Vice President still has heavy ties given full control over the project of rebuilding. We see no clear strategy towards the invasion. We see a president with heavy ties to the oil industry take control over one of the largest oil producing nations in the world (#6, I believe?). We see an administration which promotes freedom worldwide while limiting them at home. We see the exploitation of the deaths of three thousand Americans in order to gain immense political power and essentially bully any dissenters, proclaiming them traitors. We also see vast hypocrisy in the same people who thought we should remove our last President for getting a blowjob now calling us unpatriotic for dissapproving of all these actions. I can gurantee it cost Monica a lot less to get that stain removed than it will cost us to remove our troops from Iraq, in time, money, and manpower.

We are not amused.

[jeff]

Well, let's not like him because he did well?????

Nope, Clinton's bad side does not prove anything about Bush, but, Clintonians pointed a lot of fingers at the Bush 1 admin AND the Reagan admin. All I ask is that the fingers be pointed fairly and equally. Some people (I don't mean you) ignore the Clinton failings and scream at the top of their lungs over Bush's.

All things considered, I think I'd prefer Bush to Gore. THAT Would have been fodder for the comics.........

No, not like him because it looks damned corrupt and quid pro quo (hey, some Latin from somebody other than Inq). Thanks for not lumping me in with the Clintonistas

The comics? I'm all in favor of candidates that provide fodder for them. Let the buggers be taken down a notch or two in smug ego by political cartoonists, regardless of party!

[jeff]

Good post, Aestro.

Remarkable the amount of outrage that people on the right had and have against Clinton (some of them still work up into a fit over FDR!) but can't be bothered by any of Bush's antics of a far more serious nature.

[Tireur]

I was being kind. Insurance policies such as these are generally ploys on the part of executives as they provide for full salary regardless of company performance. Allows for mismanagment, both functionally and fiscally, on the part of of the executive and the insurance policy is usually covered by company funds!

The bit about "regardless of company performance is why it's called "insurance". I've had this insurance myself, in the late eighties. I paid for it, not the company. You're just assuming.

Were you this vocal about Clinton's dealings with Halliburton and Enron? Do the names Huang, Riady or Lippo stir any anger in you?

The Great Al Gore himself praised Halliburton for their wonderful contributions to service......

I guess you're saying no P or VP can ever come from the business world because they might have done well, made money and provided for their future.

[jeff]

I would say "no P or VP can ever come from the business world if all they've done is to have done well, made money and provided for their future." Doing well for oneself and business partners shouldn't be the sole qualifying characteristic. Doing well isn't a bad thing, of itself.

[Tireur]

Never meant for it to be the sole qualifying characteristic, but it seems some people are bitter about people who do well. Guess it's just the socialist in them.

[Inquartata]

The issues many of us have aren't with the war itself, but the pretenses by which it came about, and how it came about. No one is against the removal of a brutal dictator and his regime. We ARE against the person who did it due to the extremely shady circumstances under which it happened.

I realize that, and ( unlike a lot of people I encounter on other boards ) I do not question the patriotism or intelligence of those who take this position. I just don't happen to think you guys are correct on the rationale---that is, there's been no proof of complicity, or cynical misrepresentation, or of "lying", presented about the intent of the White House leading up to the war. There's been only the assumption of bad faith and deception, a sort of "Aha! We knew it all along!" self-confirmation from an interpretation of what the circumstances mean....

We have not been given proof of the Weapons of Mass Destruction, and now it is likely we never will.

But is this the fault of the Administration? Or rather of the refractory, cunning Hussein government? Can we demonstrate that no WMDs were moved to Syria before the war opened? And even if Iraq had in fact destroyed all its WMDs, why suffer ruin rather than show as much to the UN and the US? Why the continued stubborn refusal to cooperate with inspections? Why the purchase of chem/bio protective suits and atropine? Etc.

We have seen the company with which the Vice President still has heavy ties given full control over the project of rebuilding.

Again, this is all "where there's smoke there's fire" reasoning. And you know, sometimes smoke exists WITHOUT fire. No proof of any connection thus far, only assumptions based on suspicious attitudes and partisan dislike.

We see no clear strategy towards the invasion.

Not sure I understand this one. We certainly won rather quickly and efficiently, did we not?

We see a president with heavy ties to the oil industry take control over one of the largest oil producing nations in the world

Ad hominem circumstantial. Are we really to believe that because a person works in a given industry for a time he becomes inevitably and irrevocably that industry's puppet forevermore? So if I worked for Taco Bell in high school I will serve the interests of the fast food industry for the rest of my days, will I nill I? If I work for a chip manufacturer I'm the creature of the semiconductor industry until I die?

We see the exploitation of the deaths of three thousand Americans in order to gain immense political power and essentially bully any dissenters, proclaiming them traitors.

Could you explain this a bit more fully? I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly.

We also see vast hypocrisy in the same people who thought we should remove our last President for getting a blowjob now calling us unpatriotic for dissapproving of all these actions.

OK, so you're blaming Bush for what other people said years ago???

Criticize the people who did that if you will, but wherefore the guilt by association?

[Inquartata]

Good post, Aestro.

Remarkable the amount of outrage that people on the right had and have against Clinton (some of them still work up into a fit over FDR!) but can't be bothered by any of Bush's antics of a far more serious nature.

Which would be a good argument to use against those people, but rather out of place otherwise, no? Or are you stereotyping all conservatives as "those people"?

[Tireur]

Remarkable the amount of outrage that people on the right had and have against Clinton (some of them still work up into a fit over FDR!) but can't be bothered by any of Bush's antics of a far more serious nature.

Let's see, Clinton antics, hmmmm.

He brilliantly came up with an agreement (with Jimmy Carter's help) to give North Korea 500,000 tons of fuel oil a year, plus, 4 billion dollars to construct a nuclear reactor (for electricity only), if they would promise not to make bombs with it.

He and Albright talked about what a "great win" they had left for Bush, who just "squandered" it.

Then in 2002 the Koreans admitted that as soon as they signed the agreement, they started making bombs.

The Clinton administration paid them to do it.

Now everyone is after Bush for not dealing with it correctly!!!!!!

FDR did what he had to do to get us into the war. The only thing he could do if Hitler was going to be defeated.

He lied, misled, bent and broke the law, but it was necessary because of the isolationist pacifist congress. I don't slam him for this, he did what had to be done.

Some of his social programs were great for putting people to work, but, I think led to an idea of entitlement in this country. It was made worse by LBJ's Great Society. But at the time, necessary.

[jeff]

Never meant for it to be the sole qualifying characteristic, but it seems some people are bitter about people who do well. Guess it's just the socialist in them.

Jealousy is available to all political types. Don't think for a moment that Larry Ellison doesn't resent that Bill Gates has more money... Schadenfreude is pretty universal too!

The complaint about the Cheney's of the world is more fundamental: it smacks too much of croneyism and payback of favors. Nobody minded the head of Alcoa becoming Sec'y of Treasury because he was a successful businessman.

[jeff]

Which would be a good argument to use against those people, but rather out of place otherwise, no? Or are you stereotyping all conservatives as "those people"?

Hmmm... I'm getting lost in indirect pronouns. My comment is addressed against selective outrage, which I think we both agree is a bad thing. Not all conservatives practice this (nor liberals) but enough to discredit many of them.

[jeff]

Let's see, Clinton antics, hmmmm.

He brilliantly came up with an agreement (with Jimmy Carter's help) to give North Korea 500,000 tons of fuel oil a year, plus, 4 billion dollars to construct a nuclear reactor (for electricity only), if they would promise not to make bombs with it.

He and Albright talked about what a "great win" they had left for Bush, who just "squandered" it.

Then in 2002 the Koreans admitted that as soon as they signed the agreement, they started making bombs.

The Clinton administration paid them to do it.

Now everyone is after Bush for not dealing with it correctly!!!!!!

FDR did what he had to do to get us into the war. The only thing he could do if Hitler was going to be defeated.

He lied, misled, bent and broke the law, but it was necessary because of the isolationist pacifist congress. I don't slam him for this, he did what had to be done.

Some of his social programs were great for putting people to work, but, I think led to an idea of entitlement in this country. It was made worse by LBJ's Great Society. But at the time, necessary.

Agree on Clinton and N. Korea (there, that wasn't hard, was it? Told you I wasn't an apologist for Clinton).

Could you elaborate on what illegal things FDR supposedly did? His social policies, and the subsequent Great Society, dramatically reduced poverty and disease in this country, a tremendous social good. Sense of entitlement isn't exclusively the property of those benefiting from Social Security, either.

[Aestro]

But is this the fault of the Administration? Or rather of the refractory, cunning Hussein government? Can we demonstrate that no WMDs were moved to Syria before the war opened? And even if Iraq had in fact destroyed all its WMDs, why suffer ruin rather than show as much to the UN and the US? Why the continued stubborn refusal to cooperate with inspections? Why the purchase of chem/bio protective suits and atropine? Etc.

Perhaps Hussein wished to martyr his nation to a United States he knew to be aggressive. How long did WE get give the weapons inspectors to finish their job? Had they actually found anything other than the remnants of what we knew they had ten years ago? There did not seem to be definitive evidence presented to the people of the United States that there was a purpose, and quite a few members of the United Nations agreed.

Not sure I understand this one. We certainly won rather quickly and efficiently, did we not?

Well, we ousted the Hussein regime, if that's what you mean. The fighting has not yet ceased, and it is fairly obvious that there were no plans in regards to the future of Iraq once Hussein was removed.

Ad hominem circumstantial. Are we really to believe that because a person works in a given industry for a time he becomes inevitably and irrevocably that industry's puppet forevermore? So if I worked for Taco Bell in high school I will serve the interests of the fast food industry for the rest of my days, will I nill I? If I work for a chip manufacturer I'm the creature of the semiconductor industry until I die?

I'm sure if Taco Bell gave you several million dollars you wouldn't be opposed to a Burrito Wednesday. It is little coincidence that the Ministry of Oil was under heavy protection while the rest of Baghdad was being looted during the initial occupation.

Could you explain this a bit more fully? I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly.

I refer to the cause for initial talks about the war in Iraq - September 11th. President Bush related Iraq to the terrorists on numerous occassions, and riding on "rally round the flagpole" situation 9/11 created, he got his war against Iraq.

OK, so you're blaming Bush for what other people said years ago???

Criticize the people who did that if you will, but wherefore the guilt by association?

The last one wasn't so much an attack on Bush, but more the anti-liberal rhetoric that I also began the post attacking, in regards to it being "unpatriotic" to dislike the actions of our President.

Anyway, my main fault with the war is that we were not initially told that we were simply going in to remove a brutal dictator. Bush tried to make the war into more than it was so as to seem less imperialist, and it backfired in a very bad way.

[Tireur]

Agree on Clinton and N. Korea (there, that wasn't hard, was it? Told you I wasn't an apologist for Clinton).

Could you elaborate on what illegal things FDR supposedly did? His social policies, and the subsequent Great Society, dramatically reduced poverty and disease in this country, a tremendous social good. Sense of entitlement isn't exclusively the property of those benefiting from Social Security, either.

Well, I admit, it's been awhile. But, It seems he bent a few laws and circumvented congress to get weapons and supplies to the Russians and Brits, prior to getting the Lend-Lease Act thru.

Really have no problems with the social programs other than, they weren;t supposed to be permanent (like the income tax) and have led to a multigenerational welfare culture.