NationStates Jolt Archive

In retrospect...

9/11:
Scenario 1) Bush takes action (providing intelligence was adequate, though it wasn't) and takes out the terrorists before 9/11. To do so meant wiretaps and other things (to find them, you have to be able to look for them, right?). However, no 9-11 happens as a result. There is no event that justifies his actions to prevent the attack. Leftists label Bush as a "big brother," and through rehashing it in the media, Bush is despised for the rest of his term.

Scenario 2) 9-11. Bush takes the war back to the terrorists and tries to pass the patriot act to prevent things like 9-11 from happening again, but a former advisor writes a book saying Bush ignored terrorism (ironic, since Bush quadrupled funding to counterterrorism and intelligence BEFORE 9-11.) A commission is formed with the purpose of forcing Bush into a corner. It's an election year, and his opponent is an ultraliberal who says whatever the public feels like hearing.

On 9-11, Bush was screwed either way.

On to Iraq...
Scenario 1) Bush goes to war with Iraq on the same intelligence the UN had, which said Saddam had WMD. The WMD haven't been found yet, and the media is getting impatient. It's an election year. There is no event that justifies his actions to prevent an attack. That attack would have been... thank God we will never find out what it would have been. However, public opinion turns on Bush.
Scenario 2) Inaction. Bush doesn't address the threat of Iraq. I wonder what the next 9-11 would have been. Fortunately, this scenario is now impossible. Whatever the attack would have been, the left's response would have been along the lines of "He should have seen this coming (vote Kerry) we have an incompetent and ineffective president (vote Kerry)" :roll:

Finally, the deficit created by the war:
Scenario 1)*Bush raises taxes to compensate for the deficit* Left: "Wait, he promised to LOWER taxes. Bush lied (vote Kerry)!"
Scenario 2a)*Bush lowers military spending to compensate* *casualties in Iraq* Left: "Bush lied, people died, why cut funding to the war?"
Scenario 2b)*Bush lowers spending to SS and welfare (the two largest areas of government expenditures)* "Bush's policy? Troubling. To fund the war, he has cut money to our sick and elderly..." You can see where this is heading.
Scenario 3)Inaction. Left: "Bush's reckless spending has created a huge federal deficit..."

The only way to curb a deficit is to raise taxes or cut spending, neither of which Bush can do.

If you find any way these scenarios are implausible, let me know.

In my opinion, the current situation this administration is in is not the result of mistakes, but of one catch-22 after another. I don't think even the inventor of the internet could have found his way out of this one.

Yup. They got a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation on him.

I'd still take him over John Kerry any day

War with Iraq wasn't needed. Before rushing into war he should of let the inspectors have the extra time they requested.

You know what really convinced me? The rolling-eyes smiley face. Easily your most eloquent point in the entire post.

You know what really convinced me? The rolling-eyes smiley face. Easily your most eloquent point in the entire post.I thought it did the job well :)

In retrospect...

9/11:
Bush ignored terrorism (ironic, since Bush quadrupled funding to counterterrorism and intelligence BEFORE 9-11.)e.
Actually I think you will find that is complete and utter bollocks. Bush was too busy finding ways to pay for the billions of dollars in corporate tax breaks to pay for inteleigence services and cut the budget repeatidly.

In my fervor, I managed to close my browser and erase my previous critique of this garbage, so let me try again.

In retrospect...

9/11:
Scenario 1) Bush takes action (providing intelligence was adequate, though it wasn't) and takes out the terrorists before 9/11. To do so meant wiretaps and other things (to find them, you have to be able to look for them, right?). However, no 9-11 happens as a result. There is no event that justifies his actions to prevent the attack. Leftists label Bush as a "big brother," and through rehashing it in the media, Bush is despised for the rest of his term.

Total and complete supposition. Can you show that:

a) Wire tapes and other abridgements of civil liberties would have been implemented and useful?

b) He didn't have previous information? The outgoing administration told him about terrorist threats, mentioning AQ and bin Laden in particular. These worries went unadressed and Ashcroft is even on record as saying terrorisim is a non-threat and using that stance to justify SLASHING funding to anti-terrorisim programs.


Scenario 2) 9-11. Bush takes the war back to the terrorists and tries to pass the patriot act to prevent things like 9-11 from happening again, but a former advisor writes a book saying Bush ignored terrorism (ironic, since Bush quadrupled funding to counterterrorism and intelligence BEFORE 9-11.) A commission is formed with the purpose of forcing Bush into a corner. It's an election year, and his opponent is an ultraliberal who says whatever the public feels like hearing.

An interesting scenario, too bad it didn't happen. AQ is still a threat, and becoming more popular, bin Laden is still at large and still has access to funds, Bush's war happened in a completely unrelated country for completely unrelated reasons, although an imminent threat of terrorist attack was used to justify his grudge match against Saddam and his open oil grab. Even if Clarke wrote his book out of malice, it still provides convincing evidence of a President unteathered to reality and unconcerned with the best interests of his country and his world. Finally, Kerry is hardly an ultraliberal any more than Bush is non-partisan.


On 9-11, Bush was screwed either way.


Perhaps, but there was a time in our country when a leader, instead of hiding in planes and reading stories to children during times of national crisis, was visible and connected to society. It may be unfair to fault him for this, but to me, it showed a certain cowardly attitude in the face of strife.


On to Iraq...
Scenario 1) Bush goes to war with Iraq on the same intelligence the UN had, which said Saddam had WMD. The WMD haven't been found yet, and the media is getting impatient. It's an election year. There is no event that justifies his actions to prevent an attack. That attack would have been... thank God we will never find out what it would have been. However, public opinion turns on Bush.

Again, for the 100th time, YOU ARE COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT. No one ever said Iraq wasn't a problem and Hussein shouldn't go. Not Germany. Not France. Not Russia. Not the UN. NO ONE. HOWEVER, instead of working collaboratively with the rest of the world, Bush chose to thumb his nose at the UN, go cowboy and act unilaterally for his own purposes and insult the rest of the world in the process. Not only did he squander the goodwill and international support gained in the wake of 9/11, but he fabricated truth to make the situation seem more immediate than it ever was. Instead of assuming a leadership role in a world community and waiting for Blix to conclusively give his opinion and findings, he turned our military behemoth rogue and fractured long-standing friendships all for his own ends.


Scenario 2) Inaction. Bush doesn't address the threat of Iraq. I wonder what the next 9-11 would have been.

Madrid, Saudi Arabia, Bali, current Iraq, etc.


Fortunately, this scenario is now impossible.

Hello? Have you missed the last year or more? MADRID, SAUDI ARABIA, BALI, CURRENT IRAQ, ETC.


Whatever the attack would have been, the left's response would have been along the lines of "He should have seen this coming (vote Kerry) we have an incompetent and ineffective president (vote Kerry)" :roll:

Did you know a memo was just sent out to all federal employes saying that a large number of UPS uniforms have been stolen and, for safety's sake, they should not accept UPS shipments from unknown deliverers or UPS people without a UPS vehicle. So, which is it? Are we winning the war on terrorisim or are we safer now? We're getting two messages here.


Finally, the deficit created by the war:
Scenario 1)*Bush raises taxes to compensate for the deficit* Left: "Wait, he promised to LOWER taxes. Bush lied (vote Kerry)!"

How about he just restrict the tax cuts to the richest upper 10%? I mean, he's making much hay about how we all have to be prepared to sacrifice in this time of national turmoil, yet the tax cuts he put into effect will save the super rich over $40 billion in taxes by 2006 while the poorest familes have to scrouge around for food and shelter.


Scenario 2a)*Bush lowers military spending to compensate* *casualties in Iraq* Left: "Bush lied, people died, why cut funding to the war?"

Actually, he's already raised military spending. The question is, where's the money coming from? It's going to come from the states and from yet again raiding SS and other safety net programs that many citizens rely on in order to survive. And, for the record, Bush did lie. People did die. People still are dying. Perhaps he shouldn't have acted as a lone gunman in the first place and gone into a situation with no forecast of the long-term costs or effective plan for withdrawl? I mean, one of the basic principles of self-defence is find your exits.


Scenario 2b)*Bush lowers spending to SS and welfare (the two largest areas of government expenditures)* "Bush's policy? Troubling. To fund the war, he has cut money to our sick and elderly..." You can see where this is heading.

He did this anyway. Further gutting Social Security and turning Medicare into a joke where elderly citizens not only can't get care, but then can't afford to pay for the medication that they need.


Scenario 3)Inaction. Left: "Bush's reckless spending has created a huge federal deficit..."

Bush's reckless spending has created a huge federal deficit: $364.2 billion in just 4 years from a $127 billion surplus which he inherited from the last administration.


The only way to curb a deficit is to raise taxes or cut spending, neither of which Bush can do.

Actually, he could do both, and has done both, just not for the vast majority of people.


If you find any way these scenarios are implausible, let me know.


Just did.


In my opinion, the current situation this administration is in is not the result of mistakes, but of one catch-22 after another. I don't think even the inventor of the internet could have found his way out of this one.

Ooo, nice slap at Gore. Very good. I'm sure he's devistated. Isn't it nice how when a NeoCon screws up, it's always someone else's fault, but when a liberal screws up, it's always because he takes his orders directly from Satan? Very convenient, that.

Kerry is hardly left wing. Does he advocate abolishing capitalism and bringing in socialism?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

I don't think even the inventor of the internet could have found his way out of this one.Al Gore didn't claim to have invented the Internet

This doesn't change mu opinion at all. He IS still, no matter what, a Republican.

In my fervor, I managed to close my browser and erase my previous critique of this garbage, so let me try again.


In retrospect...

9/11:
Scenario 1) Bush takes action (providing intelligence was adequate, though it wasn't) and takes out the terrorists before 9/11. To do so meant wiretaps and other things (to find them, you have to be able to look for them, right?). However, no 9-11 happens as a result. There is no event that justifies his actions to prevent the attack. Leftists label Bush as a "big brother," and through rehashing it in the media, Bush is despised for the rest of his term.


Total and complete supposition. Can you show that:

a) Wire tapes and other abridgements of civil liberties would have been implemented and useful?Without wiretaps and other means of gathering intelligence, how do you think we could have pinned anything on them in the first place :roll: Like I said, to find them, you have to be able to LOOK for them.

b) He didn't have previous information? The outgoing administration told him about terrorist threats, mentioning AQ and bin Laden in particular. These worries went unadressed and Ashcroft is even on record as saying terrorisim is a non-threat and using that stance to justify SLASHING funding to anti-terrorisim programs.Oh, wow. Yes, terrorism was mentioned in that Clinton report, but that's all the further it went. There were no details. Besides, if Clinton in his eight years had the intel, why didn't he do something about it?



Scenario 2) 9-11. Bush takes the war back to the terrorists and tries to pass the patriot act to prevent things like 9-11 from happening again, but a former advisor writes a book saying Bush ignored terrorism (ironic, since Bush quadrupled funding to counterterrorism and intelligence BEFORE 9-11.) A commission is formed with the purpose of forcing Bush into a corner. It's an election year, and his opponent is an ultraliberal who says whatever the public feels like hearing.


An interesting scenario, too bad it didn't happen.Didn't happen? It's EXACTLY what happened!AQ is still a threatyes. and becoming more popularmaybe. bin Laden is still at large and still has access to fundsat large, but his funds have been cut off. We are looking for nations that may have been or may still be funding him (ex: Iraq) Bush's war happened in a completely unrelated country for completely unrelated reasons, although an imminent threat of terrorist attack was used to justify his grudge match against Saddam and his open oil grab.Don't start parroting about oil. If the war were truly about oil, don't you think it would be a boldface headline on EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THE UNITED STATES? You accuse me of "total and complete supposition" then throw your own at me and expect me to believe it.Even if Clarke wrote his book out of malice, it still provides convincing evidence of a President unteathered to reality and unconcerned with the best interests of his country and his world.How so? If it's written, is it necessarily true? Finally, Kerry is hardly an ultraliberal any more than Bush is non-partisan.Okay, I may have gone over the line with the ultraliberal part, but you have to admit he tends to say what the public wants to hear.



On 9-11, Bush was screwed either way.



Perhaps, but there was a time in our country when a leader, instead of hiding in planes and reading stories to children during times of national crisis, was visible and connected to society. It may be unfair to fault him for this, but to me, it showed a certain cowardly attitude in the face of strife. "Cowardly?" He was evactuated. That's cut-and-dry Secret Service policy. Non-negotiable. Reading? So what? Pick a random moment out of your average day. If someone tells you bad news at that time, is it your fault?



On to Iraq...
Scenario 1) Bush goes to war with Iraq on the same intelligence the UN had, which said Saddam had WMD. The WMD haven't been found yet, and the media is getting impatient. It's an election year. There is no event that justifies his actions to prevent an attack. That attack would have been... thank God we will never find out what it would have been. However, public opinion turns on Bush.


Again, for the 100th time, YOU ARE COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT. No one ever said Iraq wasn't a problem and Hussein shouldn't go. Not Germany. Not France. Not Russia. Not the UN. NO ONE. HOWEVER, instead of working collaboratively with the rest of the world, Bush chose to thumb his nose at the UN, go cowboy and act unilaterally for his own purposes and insult the rest of the world in the process. Not only did he squander the goodwill and international support gained in the wake of 9/11, but he fabricated truth to make the situation seem more immediate than it ever was. Instead of assuming a leadership role in a world community and waiting for Blix to conclusively give his opinion and findings, he turned our military behemoth rogue and fractured long-standing friendships all for his own ends.Maybe you should read the scenario again. Then read the scenario if 9-11 were prevented. We're seeing the exact same thing. Think about it. If 9-11 were prevented, then (provided it were declassified (highly unlikely)) the public was told what they planned to do, the left would start chanting "bunk." You know this. The same thing applies to Iraq.



Scenario 2) Inaction. Bush doesn't address the threat of Iraq. I wonder what the next 9-11 would have been.


Madrid, Saudi Arabia, Bali, current Iraq, etc. by "next 9-11," I meant in the US.



Fortunately, this scenario is now impossible.


Hello? Have you missed the last year or more? MADRID, SAUDI ARABIA, BALI, CURRENT IRAQ, ETC. See above.



Whatever the attack would have been, the left's response would have been along the lines of "He should have seen this coming (vote Kerry) we have an incompetent and ineffective president (vote Kerry)"


Did you know a memo was just sent out to all federal employes saying that a large number of UPS uniforms have been stolen and, for safety's sake, they should not accept UPS shipments from unknown deliverers or UPS people without a UPS vehicle. So, which is it? Are we winning the war on terrorisim or are we safer now? We're getting two messages here. Post a link to a transcript of that memo and I'll listen.



Finally, the deficit created by the war:
Scenario 1)*Bush raises taxes to compensate for the deficit* Left: "Wait, he promised to LOWER taxes. Bush lied (vote Kerry)!"


How about he just restrict the tax cuts to the richest upper 10%? I mean, he's making much hay about how we all have to be prepared to sacrifice in this time of national turmoil, yet the tax cuts he put into effect will save the super rich over $40 billion in taxes by 2006 while the poorest familes have to scrouge around for food and shelter. Richest 10%? That's a pretty big chunk. You've got most of the small-business owners in the US in there. Take more from them and business will suffer. Also, those who pay more in taxes benefit most from a tax cut. That's the fundamental nature of a percentage. The richest pay upwards of 40% of their incomes in taxes. The poorest pay none at all.



Scenario 2a)*Bush lowers military spending to compensate* *casualties in Iraq* Left: "Bush lied, people died, why cut funding to the war?"


Actually, he's already raised military spending. The question is, where's the money coming from? It's going to come from the states and from yet again raiding SS and other safety net programs that many citizens rely on in order to survive. And, for the record, Bush did lie. People did die. People still are dying. Perhaps he shouldn't have acted as a lone gunman in the first place and gone into a situation with no forecast of the long-term costs or effective plan for withdrawl? I mean, one of the basic principles of self-defence is find your exits.



Scenario 2b)*Bush lowers spending to SS and welfare (the two largest areas of government expenditures)* "Bush's policy? Troubling. To fund the war, he has cut money to our sick and elderly..." You can see where this is heading.


He did this anyway. Further gutting Social Security and turning Medicare into a joke where elderly citizens not only can't get care, but then can't afford to pay for the medication that they need. I merely listed the two highest areas of government spending and what would happen if Bush lowered funding to either to compensate for the deficit.



Scenario 3)Inaction. Left: "Bush's reckless spending has created a huge federal deficit..."


Bush's reckless spending has created a huge federal deficit: $364.2 billion in just 4 years from a $127 billion surplus which he inherited from the last administration. You've just proved my point. There is a deficit, and nothing can be done without committing political suicide.



The only way to curb a deficit is to raise taxes or cut spending, neither of which Bush can do.


Actually, he could do both, and has done both, just not for the vast majority of people.I may have missed something. For whom has he raised taxes?



If you find any way these scenarios are implausible, let me know.



Just did.Actually, you didn't show how ANY of these things absolutely COULD NOT have happened, you just complained about details.



In my opinion, the current situation this administration is in is not the result of mistakes, but of one catch-22 after another. I don't think even the inventor of the internet could have found his way out of this one.


Ooo, nice slap at Gore. Very good. I'm sure he's devistated. Isn't it nice how when a NeoCon screws up, it's always someone else's fault, but when a liberal screws up, it's always because he takes his orders directly from Satan? Very convenient, that.Whoa, you're one to jump to conclusions, aren't you? I simply think it's ironic how the left jumps down Bush's throat. If Gore had won the election, he would have had to run the same gauntlet. How could he have done any better?

I know this has been a brick of words, but I hope I have accomplished something.