|
Post by echnaton on Jan 14, 2011 10:51:46 GMT -4
During the Bush presidency anyone who was critical of him was told to shut up because you aren't allowed to criticize a President during a time of war. It's treasonous and gives aid to the enemy. His decisions were getting people killed, but we weren't allowed to say anything. Why have Republicans forgotten this now that Obama is President? Why is this just about Reps and Dems? Is it really just a horse race to be called in which side can make themselves to be slightly better than their morally bankrupt opponents? That is a pretty dismal situation.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 14, 2011 10:55:22 GMT -4
Which, in the bigger picture, can work out even better. The objective is to produce the most value possible from a given cost. That's good consumers; that's good for producers. True, but if people don't have jobs they often cease to be consumers. What is your alternative to letting people seek their own way to operate a business in this case? And how will that help people without simply forcing one group to pay for an others benefits?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 14, 2011 12:31:08 GMT -4
During the Bush presidency anyone who was critical of him was told to shut up because you aren't allowed to criticize a President during a time of war. It's treasonous and gives aid to the enemy. His decisions were getting people killed, but we weren't allowed to say anything. Why have Republicans forgotten this now that Obama is President? That's funny, because I remember a lot of anti-Bush rhetoric during his presidency. "Bush lied, people died", "No Blood for Oil", any of that ring a bell?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 14, 2011 12:33:07 GMT -4
I don't believe it was personally motivated either. Yes, I genuinely believe that President Bush believed that Saddam had or could obtain WMDs and would eventually have used them against us. 9/11 simply made it obvious to the public that there was no way to defend us except by removing the threat. Well people believe that the moonlandings were filmed in Area 51 too.... But disbelieving a historic event is a little bit different from believing that a person's stated motives are true.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 14, 2011 12:41:59 GMT -4
As best I can tell, the difference between exploiting a situation and using it as a turning point to implement a policy or action is primarily one of whether you thing the proposed action. Not really. Using a tragedy to implement any policy, even a good one, might be called exploiting it. If the President goes to the sight of a tragedy and says "we're going to get the people responsible" or "we're going to learn from this", then I don't see that as exploiting. If he goes to a tragedy and says "this shows how my opponents are wrong," or "this shows how I was right," then I feel that is exploiting it. I will give President Obama credit for saying that political rhetoric didn't cause the tragedy in Arizona when he spoke there the other day.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 14, 2011 19:53:34 GMT -4
Well people believe that the moonlandings were filmed in Area 51 too.... But disbelieving a historic event is a little bit different from believing that a person's stated motives are true. So when someone says: when their intelligence is saying the person making the claim of Iraqi training: and that the National Intelligence Estimate Bush himself gave to congress stated that only with with "low confidence" Saddam might: So if what he was telling the public, and what his intelligence agencies were telling him were two different things, how can you hold out that he believed that Iraq would use WMDs against the US in a 9/11 style attack?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 15, 2011 16:35:16 GMT -4
I'm not going to argue about Bush's motives, and I still think the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, regardless of whether the pre-war intelligence was accurate.
|
|