Americans answered their President - Page 2

Originally posted by: lighthouse

Factoid- Sens. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted FOR the Iraq war resolution in 2002.

It is clear that democratic victory is not an affirmation of a Democratic agenda because they didn't offer one IMO.

true and true.

but it is also probably true IMO that these folks were too scared by the republican attack machine to vote against the resolution. that goes even if like some of us they believed the WMD story was all bull. after all, it wld have been political suicide to be seen as being "soft on terror", no? i buy the theory that they were spineless (unlike howard dean) but real question still is whether any such resolution wld have been necessary had they been prez.

Originally posted by: abhijit shukla

Yeeee Haaaa;
Actually no!
I have repeatedly said that invading Iraq was a mistake in retrospect.
WHat was that sinister mtive? OIL? Probably not. It sounds too farfetched to bonbing a country to rubbles just to get oil - in plain sight. I still believe Bush Genuinely believed there were WMDs in Iraq. There were plenty of circumstancial reasons to do so at the time.

1, Iraq evaded IAEA's efforts.
2, Iraq has been known to use them in past.
3, There were documents to show that they were working on nuclear bomb.

We can see that it did not panout that way but in 2003 February we did not have the hindsight we have now. I guess more than anything else, Bush did not want two 9/11s on his watch.

BTW, Nancy Pelosi is all over the tube today and she has always scared me. Be careful, very careful. She is out to make America a socialist totalitarean state.

it was a mistake in retrospect? in retrospect? yaar, i find it astonishing but a lot of ordinary folks i know could see plain and clear at the time that bush could not wait to start bombing. it was apparent at least to some of us even back then that the WMD case was weak- hadn't the UN inspectors been there for umpteen years? in retrospect, it sure seems he had his mind made up and he wanted to find a reason, even if manufactured, to attack. sort of too much to swallow to also think that the administration with all the resources at their beck and call cldn't see things when some of us could!

and even if we buy that sorry excuse, isn't a good leader expected to (a) make decisions (b) have the good fortune of these decisions turning out right in retrospect?

fwiw, the world is full of uncertainty and incomplete information. there's uncertainty even facing CEOs, stock market analysts, risk managers who have to make decisions. it still behooves them to somehow get it right. when they dont, there is a proud tradition at least in corporate life of them taking the fall, no excuses, and of not passing the buck.

btw, it isnt retrospection to say that next time we want to go after a bigger despot in the middle east, that there will be less manouevrability for the US. didnt we already have folks saying last time around that the west had it in for Islam? it isnt also retrospection to say that the bushies for reasons best known to them went after a country which was secular and aligned with the west and created enemies when there were none. we've already argued before that morality does not enter here- there are/ have been bigger instances of immoral behavior when people have looked the other way. it was a strategic blunder, the kind a leader shld not be making.

as for pelosi, if the choice is between spending on social welfare policies or a bogus war, i'd go with the former. at least, some people benefit from increased spending on education for children etc. On the other hand, we got nothing but the biggest deficits in US history as a direct result of the war, not exactly the trade i'd want to make.

all that said, i'd still go with Bush: 😉😆

1. he cut down on my taxes. deficits jayen bhaad mei. 😛

2. he's scared folks like Gadaffi into turning a new leaf; hopefully, the misguided effect of demonstrating American strength in Iraq will be contagious and inadvertently beneficial and get other tin-pot dictators the world over to see the proverbial light. 👏

3. he's one republican who's at least started to make the right noises in regards to India eg. nuclear energy bill. so far, we've had to rely on an occasional democratic administration to do the right thing by India. good for our investments in India. 😉

but surely, these are personal reasons and not a reason for the general population to have voted for Bush?

Originally posted by: abhijit shukla

BTW, Nancy Pelosi is all over the tube today and she has always scared me. Be careful, very careful. She is out to make America a socialist totalitarean state.

Another scarry thought. Presumed madame speaker of the house Nancy Palossi is 3rd in line to the presidency..

But you won't hear me say what Barbara Streisand said- if Bush was relected she would move to Canada.

Originally posted by: abhijit shukla

That is precisely what I hate about the other side. (Remember I have said - I am an independent. I am not a Republican). However the presumption of these Sreiesend type that they are soo darn popular and so sdarn adorable that just to keep them in the country, people would would pick the governments they don't really like.

Exactly why Clinton was so popular with women and people abroad. He was "charming" and "adorable" even after the scandal.

Originally posted by: abhijit shukla

BTW, there is a book called 'do as I say...' even if you don't buy and read it, look at its back cover. It shows that Michael Moore owned stockes of Haliburton! How about that?

I didn't know that.!!! Politics do make strange bed fellows. Moore and Chenney in the same stock holder meeting...😆

Originally posted by: Pradarshak

Hillary Clinton, John Kerry like many democrats and republicans voted for war with the sentiments of 9/11.

And Bush was not affected by 9/11 ?

Bush proposed to go to war by fooling us and taking advntage of the sentiments of 9/11. No one urged him to go to war with Iraq, neither the public nor the Democrats. It's his team who staged the war. And people got carried away with that. He took people to a wrong direction, and a senetor or congressman is a representative of people.

Why Iraq? None of the terrorists were related to Iraq. They were Saudis, UAE, Lebanese and Egyptians. Who is responsibe for so many losses? the catastrophe of war? Everyday so many people dying, Iraq becoming base of terrorism with not much law and order.

Originally posted by: sareg

Originally posted by: abhijit shukla

Now you are speculating. Chaney recieved money from HB because he had shares. He was not on payroll to the best of my kowledge.

Now that the Democrats are back in Congress after 12 years, everything will come under investigation, the most talked about staged war, Halliburton no-bid contract.

Okay, let me assume that Bush went to war for a noble cause. What kind of stupidity was that to go to war without any plan? The situation is escalating day by day. Terrorists popping up every now and then from every corner. So many lives, money have been lost because of his stupidity. He is answerable to everyone. Why should others pay heavily for his stupid assumption. He thought he is doing something heroic, that's utter stupity and the whole world is watching his "Tamasha".

Now he has put the gun on Rumsfeld's shoulder. Making him look like a scape-goat(of course Rumsfeld is a devil). Why did not he fire him long back? If he would have won the election, that devil still would have been holding his post. He thinks eveyone is fool and he is the smartest one. Associates advice a President but the sole authority to take any decision is President's responsibility.