Time for a little non-partisan HONESTY?

Question

Do you agree that:

1) By and large, NO ONE on either side of the political aisle did enough to prevent 9/11? I think that's fair enough. I don't think it really helps to point fingers, except to give the terrorists a chuckle. Just find the problems and fix them!

2) The Bush administration may not feel it has the ability to "go all out" for bin Laden? I wonder whether they feel having him "isolated" is the best we can do. Pakistan has many people who are sympathetic to al-Qaeda and their president is barely holding on. Would a massive assault do more than get many Americans killed, inflame the population there and destabilize this nuclear power? I assume special forces are working on this, and maybe the reports of Osama's death are an attempt to smoke him out - to make him appear.

3) I think many Americans would agree that Bush has made mistakes, but not that he lied or is evil or personally profiting. Don't war opponents hurt their own case by saying so?

Thanks.

Answer 1

Excellent question. I am so glad that someone is asking probing questions. I just hope your answers aren't all rants.

As a Democrat I believe that you are:
Wrong
Right
Right

I hope with number 1 the opposite is true. Both sides did everything they KNEW HOW to do but failed. They were attacked in a new way. Not to say some were not predicting it and not to say that we should have been asking "Who would take flying lessons but not landing lessons?" But the fist sneak attack must be a call to attention.

On number 2 and 3, I think you are exactly right. On two, very few Americans have taken the time to understand where OBL is and the complete situation over there.

On three, I don't like George Bush. (I voted for Gore in 2000 and still wish he won, but I voted for Bush in 2004 because my life and the lives of my children are better protected by Bush. If you're dead you can't try to right other wrongs, so terrorism must come first. We just can't forget there are other things going on in the world. Bush doesn't hide the truth, he doesn't flip-flop with each poll and those that acuse him about lies or profit are shallow and just have nothing to say because they have done no research. They're just reading some blog and blindly quoting it.

Answer 2

I agree with #1, #2 time will tell, #3 however I beleive all polititions are inheirenttly evil or corrupted by the route in which they take to become president, all the wheeling and dealing, I believe they all lie, sometimes perhaps they beleive we can not handle the truth. However I do personally believe Bush began a vendeta on Iraq, and his investments of which he has no comntrol over while in the white house as its in trust, have sky rocket profits. His father now, who like all fathers undoubtly weild a large infulence over Wubba, is making record profits in the family investments. So go figure.

Answer 3

I wanted to pose a similar question but could not decide on the proper wording. I am not even certain that I can answer this well now. I agree with you even though I never voted, nor would vote, for Bush (and only for Clinton and Kerry with great trepidation). Blaming in this case is useless and divisive. I truly believe that it is time in this country to unite behind our elected leaders every time we elect them. That is the essence of a successful democracy. We must have our discussions, cast our votes, accept the outcome and support those elected. That way we support our system AND we survive. Everyone makes mistakes, including all presidents and other elected leaders (and I and you). Inspection and introspection are required. However, partisan politics and a press corps all too dedicated to 'making' news exaggerate these mistakes in modern times and this causes a weakening of the system in general.

Answer 4

Non-partisan skill not biased with the help of any of the events. interior the USA of a, it oftentimes skill neither Republican nor Democrat. you are able to truly belong to a party yet can nonetheless have non-partisan place on particular themes. The message on your answering gadget is probably their portraying themselves as stunning human beings and urging you to vote your judgment of right and incorrect extremely than any particular party hype. To me apparently style of deceptive because of the fact in the event that they're Obama supporters, of their coronary heart they like you to vote for Obama, yet on the exterior they're asserting which you may vote non-partisan. nicely, politics is unusual.

Answer 5

I could not agree less.
1. The present gouvernment profited vastly from the 11th September, and might well not have done all it could have in order to prevent it.
2. The US gouvernment would find it much harder to get their laws restricting freedom and allowing torture through if there was not this "evil" individual and his followers still to defeat.
3. Bush is known to have lied, and he is known to have profited personnally.

Answer 6

I dont agree with 3 at all. Do you know the history of the Bush family? Do you know where thier money and power comes from? Do you know what he has to gain? I will not answer your questions but I will predict that you are about to get alot of angry answers.

Answer 7

(3) Bush made mistakes. Where are the WMDs? Invoking God's name to justify everything from war to torture won't gain him any "brownie points" when he meets his maker. Dick (Honest Buck) Cheney is still making money and if you go back to 3/18/03 and compare corporate profits of ten top defewnse contractors we will find they are all raking it in.

Answer 8

A) I agree with.

B) Bush disbanded the CIA special operations force that was fully dedicated to Bin Laden.

C) He has lied, and continues to do so. Watch all of his State of the Union speeches, he lies from year to year.
(Which he might be too stupid to know he is doing, but I'm sure his "advisors" know and just think you are too stupid to realize it.)

Answer 9

I really like your tone and sincere question!
And I agree that *nobody* did enough to prevent 9/11.
And I agree that we have to be very very careful with regard to Pakistan, as per your assessment.
I do believe that we messed up, from a military and strategic standpoint, when we had Bin Laden trapped in Tora Bora.
It seems that people in the know, e.g. people who were leading the efforts to get him!, felt they needed a different strategy there, that this recruitment of 'local' afghan and pakistanis to mind the routes out of the region where bin laden had gone to hide was *not* a good idea. It seems obvious, and makes you wonder what the politics of the situation were. At that time I don't agree that Pakistan would have revolted against Musharref or somesuch if the American forces killed bin laden, I think it would have been a great 'victory' in the war on terror.
But now, I agree, to have US forces hunting him down in Pakistan where it seems he likely is would be tricky. We can't forget either that Pakistan *IS NUCLEAR*! They have the bombs, and they have the terrorists, and they have the scientists who've already admitted to selling the secrets.
Pakistan is critical to monitor and deal with effectively.

I also agree that it hurts the war opponents *greatly* to say Bush is evil..it even comes off as stupidly hypocritical, since one of the great anti-bush touchpoints that can actually work if pitched well is that he is hurting the US by refering to axis of evil, etc.
Mind, avoiding this kind of rhetoric about evil-doers isn't the same as 'appeasement', which the pro-Bush people are quite guilty of claiming to the detriment of *everyone*.

I think a reasonable case can be made that Bush lied, as in stretched the truth, in many instances.Of course, how good-faith his efforts at communicating with the American people were is the issue. But you don't even have to go very far to find places where the 'conspiratorial' aspects of the left's attack on him get backed up by his own words. For instance, did people catch in Bush's most recent news conference that he said something like we need to have stability in the mideast because look at say what iran can do, they can hold the world's economy hostage, they can cost us a lot of money, etc. It was clear as day that a major motivation for our 'statebuilding' involvement in the middleeast is that they have the oil we need! It would be better if we could all address this intelligently, instead of having the left say things like we went to war *just because* bush wanted to fatten cheney's retirement funds, or take control of oil fields. There is no doubt that the war was motivated at least in part by desire for profit. The president will focus on how it is to avoid joe sixpack having to pay 8 bucks a gallon for gas, and that's as true as it is true that it is to avoid his golf buddies' stock portfolios tanking just as they were getting ready to play fulltime.

Unfortunately, the current president's style and administrative culture is *not* conducive to dialogue about important issues like analysis of who profits how much and why and what's equitable and what do we really want as a society, and *is* secretive, dismissive, clueless about the lives of people who don't live in his social circles (I can't ever forget his statements right after Katrina that trent lott *will* rebuild, bigger and better than before, before the people in the 9th ward even had all the bodies accounted for). This is why the leftie rhetoric can be so harsh, and this is why the rightie rhetoric is so harsh...bush changed the culture of washington all right. but not as he promised. he installed his 'ownership' society right in, and claimed he had a mandate when he barely had a technical victory. He's the 'owner', the 'decider', and everyone else can just eat it. he created a vibe that our civic-mindedness should be about clearing the way for everyone to get as much stuff as he can, keep as much of his own as he can. now, that includes *everyone* of course, all those little folk in the ninth ward and all those immigrants and those people selling bbq and waiting tables. And don't forget he's watching out for you even if you're in that 'class' against all the people trying to stop you from worshipping or from sending your kid to the school you want or from thinking gay marriage is icky! Plus don't forget the terrorists! The other party wants to fight them with spitballs!

He promised us he'd create a culture of respect, but if your views about what government is about and how wars should be fought and how we as a nation should protect ourselves differ from his, he don't really want to hear your views. He might tell you that you have every right to that opinion, it happens to be wrong (chuckle, snicker), and it happens to help those (insert the bugaboo of the moment here..."big government:" "big taxes" "people who take their cues from the Nazi appeasers" "people who don't believe in God" "people who want to tell you what to do" "people who think we should send flowers to the terrorists to make them like us" ) people who are looking to make things 'bad' for you, but okay, whatever.

Which is not only an annoying management style, it's downright dangerous for a president I'd argue. At the very least, it makes him hear what he wants to hear, a problem that many in his very administration have pointed to. And it makes the feeling of people talking past each other with slogans more pervasive.

And *that* I think is what the left is bouncing off of when they make these accusations about Bush's focus on personal profit, or accuse him of evil and stupidity.
If they could just tweak it intelligently they'd be better off.

Answer 10

bush IS a liar. We cant do anything because everyone is telling everything they know about out clandestine operations. bomb the sh*t out of 'em.