George W Bush and the real state of the Union

[Madina]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=482947

i just read the frontpage of the independent whilst eating breakfast and i thought others may be interested in this link

Madina

[Stew]

$374 billion: Amount of US budget deficit in the fiscal year for 2003

$1.58 billion: Average amount by which the US national debt increases each day

2.4 million: Number of Americans who have lost their jobs during the three years of the Bush administration

+6%: Percentage change since 2001 in the number of US families in poverty

Remind me again why he's gonna get re-elected!?

[Spearhead]

cause a lot of very powerfull and important people gained a lot of very important dollars ....

look at Iraq....lots of money to be made there *bling bling*

he'll get re-elected, cause its all a setup anyway .....

i'm so glad i dont live in that retarted country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Stew

Remind me again why he's gonna get re-elected!?

because hes so good at fighting the evul.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Stew

Remind me again why he's gonna get re-elected!?

http://www.democrats.org

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

http://www.democrats.org

You mean the opposition is just as crap?

Well why dont they set up a decent party!

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Cos to fight a presidential election campaign in America costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

Only if ur crap and have to buy ur presidency, a good candidate should speak for themselves!

[wu_trax]

and things like this have no influence at all? (im talking about the book, not the article about it)

[wu_trax]

A series of revelations shows that Saddam Hussein never posed a threat to the security of the United States. In a turn of events especially embarrassing to George W. Bush, a member of his own cabinet has exposed the Vice President as the secret ruler in the White House.
According to close associates at the White House, President George W. Bush is "walking on clouds" these days. A second term? It seems as good as certain. The pundits are saying that Karl Rove, the seemingly all-knowing jack-of-all-trades and chief strategist behind Bush' upcoming victory at the polls, is capable of achieving miracles. They call him, half-mockingly and half-respectfully, the "Master of the Universe." Indeed, the incumbent, nine months before the election, seems to be in the best of positions: arch-enemy Saddam Hussein, literally pulled from a hole in the ground, is behind bars, his palaces now filled with victorious US soldiers. Although the attacks in Iraq are not becoming less violent, they are decreasing . The most recent quarterly data on the US economy are encouraging, and the Bush campaign's war chest is overflowing.


Advertisement

None of this is good news for the eight Democratic candidates for the presidency. According to the most recent polls, all of them would lose against Bush, one more pitifully than the next. Nevertheless, there is still hope for the Democrats. The administration, just as everything seemed to be going its way, has now been forced to take the defensive against a series of revelations, all of which have one thing in common: they have consistently shaken the President's credibility.

Bush has been served some truly devastating blows. For example, the US Army War College published a study in which the campaign against Saddam was referred to as "unnecessary." According to the report, the President's "War on Terrorism" is an "unrealistic objective" and creates the risk of involving the United States in wars against states that do not pose a true threat.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a world-renowned research institute devoted to the study of peace, has also stopped treating the President with kid gloves. According to its most recent report, there was never any link between Saddam and the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, and much less a risk that such a link would lead to weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists.

But the most devastating blow against the President was a book about the brief tenure of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, which became available in bookstores throughout the nation on Tuesday. In the book, experienced Washington veteran O'Neill, who served as a budget expert under Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and was most recently the CEO of aluminum giant Alcoa, confirmed that the new administration had already planned to topple Saddam when it came into office. According to the book, however, it was only the terrorist attacks of September 11th that provided the excuse the administration had been seeking for months.

The White House as a den of tricksters who would not even shy away from using the national trauma of the destruction of the World Trade Center for their own political gain? Suddenly a fundamental question of trust is being raised: Would Americans be willing to follow the lead of the man in the White House as readily as before if he were to ask once again for their support of a US preemptive strike against an alleged threat? In an editorial, a flabbergasted New York Times asked: "How could the United States have been led so astray?

This is the question to which the book about O'Neill's experiences with the current administration provides a conclusive answer. Today, the 68-year-old O'Neill says that he entrusted Pulitzer Prize-winning former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind with his memories because he is convinced that "in contrast to the way we currently engage in politics in this country, there is a market for the truth."
O'Neill describes the President as a rather dim, easily influenced politician with no clear opinions of his own. Bush is portrayed as a puppet controlled by advisor Rove and power-conscious Vice President Dick Cheney. Any attempt to communicate with the President, according to O'Neill, places one into the position of "a blind man in a roomful of deaf people."

O'Neill longs for the days of Richard Nixon. In those days, "when the documents on which decisions were based consisted of more than just one page," targeted approaches to resolving a problem were still compared and weighed against one another. Today, in contrast, Cheney and Rove are only interested in securing power and asserting their ideological convictions, says O'Neill.

O'Neill ascribes his rather pitiful failure in the Washington of the 43rd US president to conflicts surround Bush' tax cuts. In O'Neill's view, the tax cuts did nothing but turn a sizeable surplus that was in place when Bush came office into a deficit of record proportions.

As his star witness in his attack on the economic and fiscal policies of a president with whom he never had a close relationship, O'Neill enlists another friend, thus revealing him as an outspoken Bush opponent: Alan Greenspan, the legendary Washington oracle and powerful head of the US Federal Reserve Board.

What a contrast. Initially, at least, O'Neill captures both men in their weekly rhythm. But his debates with Potus (the Secret Service acronym for the President) turn into painful, sixty-minute monologues on the part of the Secretary. Potus says nothing, Potus knows nothing, and Potus seems to be out of his league. O'Neill observes his president as being increasingly clueless. It appears that Bush doesn't even bother to read the short memos O'Neill sends him.

His meetings with his friend Greenspan are entirely different. Both men have the most current economic figures at their fingertips, both are champions of extremely detailed analysis, and both are very skeptical about the tax cuts supported by Bush' more ideological advisors whenever they sense dissatisfaction among voters. The supreme edict from the White House reads: "We must look to our base."

In contrast, O'Neill and Greenspan do not want to give away the initial budget surplus in the form of tax rebates. Instead, their plan calls for a fundamental reform of the current Social Security system, which is expected to be bankrupt within the foreseeable future. They want to set aside at least a billion dollars over a ten-year period, and Greenspan's advice to his friend is to "just take it and put into a lockbox."

But the odds are against the two men. Cheney and the ideologues demand tax cuts, and they get them. O'Neill assures his president that the new investment-based Social Security system could make every insured American a millionaire at age 65. Bush isn't the least bit interested. Greenspan calls his response "irresponsible fiscal policy."

O'Neill pays dearly for his stubborn opposition. Suddenly the President, a man who is obsessed with nicknames, stops calling his treasury secretary "Pablo" and begins using the name "Big O" - a name that could easily be interpreted as the big zero. Bush himself lacks the courage to fire the man, and the task falls to the éminence grise, Cheney, in December 2002.

O'Neill's revelations about the administration's Iraq plans are really a secondary issue in the book. By virtue of his cabinet position, the Secretary of the Treasury is also a member of the National Security Council. At its first meeting on January 30, 2001, ten days after the new president had been sworn in, a fundamental shift occurred in American foreign policy. President Bush issued the directive that the US should remove itself from the uncertainties surrounding the Middle East conflict.

Instead, said National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, the US should concentrate on Saddam Hussein, who she believed was destabilizing the entire region. At the end of a discussion that lasted just under an hour, Bush instructed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to "review our military options."
By the next meeting of the National Security Council two days later, O'Neill had found among his papers (in addition to a dossier prepared by Deutsche Bank on the economic situation of Iraq) a "Political and Military Plan for the Iraq Crisis Following the Overthrow of Saddam." The document was stamped "Secret." One month later, O'Neill received a Pentagon document indicating that the Americans had long since set their sights on Iraq's oil reserves. The document lists more than 30 countries that have shown an interest in Iraqi oil.

O'Neill never had any doubts that the principal objective pursued by Cheney and the hawks at the Pentagon was to use the ouster of Saddam to impress upon other insubordinate states just how risky it is to confront the world's only remaining superpower. According to O'Neill, the only remaining task was to "find a way to do it."

September 11th solved the problem. However, O'Neill never saw any evidence of Saddam having secretly acquired illegal weapons: "During my 23 months in office, I never saw anything that I would define as evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction."

Even his former colleagues' highly vocal expressions of outrage over O'Neill's supposed betrayal cannot make up for the fact that Bush has yet to deliver this evidence. However, many Americans are not even aware of something that in other times would lead to an administration being brought to account if it was caught lying to the public. Although the Democratic presidential candidates quickly took advantage of the rash of revelations about the administration, Bush still seemed to be a step ahead of his rivals.

As Rove had been planning for some time, once the desert despot had been defeated, the President was to add a new element to fuel the expansion fantasies of his fellow Americans. America, said the President last Wednesday, must now conquer the Moon, Mars and ultimately "our entire solar system" by peaceful means.

Nevertheless, the former Treasury Secretary's accusations were taken so seriously that his former employees have launched an investigation into whether O'Neill revealed confidential information. However, the investigation is likely to end soon. The 19,000 documents that O'Neill gave Suskind were documents that had been given to the fired secretary for his personal use. Suskind announced his plans to make the incriminating material available on the internet.

Rumsfeld, of all people, was given the task of defending his boss, Bush, against his former friend. But even the Defense Secretary was unable to disprove O'Neill's accusations, leaving him with little more ammunition than the feeble claim that the overthrow of Saddam was really an invention of the Clinton administration.

It is certainly correct that the concept of "regime change" did appear for the first time under Clinton. The only problem with that logic is this: If Bush, the man responsible for a doctrine of preventive war, suddenly tries to portray himself as merely the humble executor of the will of his reviled predecessor, he would be assuming a role in which no committed Republican would be willing to see his president.

obviously i didnt read that book yet (cant find it online, Paul O'Neill only gives me gay porn as search result), but it has been published over there and such a thing should do some political damage on bush, no matter what the democrtats come up with.

[IncubusGod]

It wont do any damage. The people who will vote for Bush will vote for him. The people who hate him will still hate him. The amount of people who vote for him > people who hate him. Nothing apart from some horrible scandal will get him out of office. And that can't happen as his cronies have their hands in every pie & in every powerful place.

Its a simple demonstration that a man of pure stupidity or evil can do as he pleases so long as he can exploit the stupidity of people at large. He doesnt have to placate or stop the people who are smart. He just has to play the stupid ones. Which is most of them.

[IncubusGod]

The majority arent stupid at all. However a large chunk of those never vote. The ones that are left are the resolutly staunch Bush supporters and the rest are in-fighting liberals and centre-left's that offer no real breath of fresh air and divide opinon.

[wu_trax]

you always have to vote for the one who you think will cause the least problems. thats all you can do, i think the world run out of good politicians about 20 years ago.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

You are wrong.

It's time to take some responsibility for your actions.

and do what? start my own party? there are already many small parites, and no doubt soe of them have good ideas, unfortunatly noone cares.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Don't be silly. However if you believe that you live in a country that is essentially undemocratic you have to ask yourself if you are happy with that and if you are not you should trying to think of a way to change that or at least get your opinions heard if your views aren't represented at the ballot box, otherwise who are you to criticize.

Many people care, and even if they didn't that doesn't abrogate you or them of responsibility.

why does it make a country undemocratic if you only have crap politicians to choose from?

[Scoot951]

I get the feeling that if he does get relected, within six months he'll do something so disasterously stupid no one can deny it, but by then it will be too late.



I could've maybe accepted one term, on the basis that people didn't really know how poorly suited he was, but the fact that the polls seem to be all in his favor.....I mean, I'm a moderate, I could've accepted a Republican pres if he knew his stuff, but Bush? Our country must be filled with idiots.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

You are wrong.

It's time to take some responsibility for your actions.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

People baulk at me for voting Liberal Denmocrat, but I felt it was important to vote and the Lib Dems were the only party that hadn't perofrmed any atrocities and were promising to bring premiership football back to terrestrial TV.

[Scoot951]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

So not so much a moderate as fairly right wing then.

[no trace of irony] Our country must be filled with idiots[/no trace of irony]

I'm actually rather liberal. However, imo a good leader with opinions different than mine can still be better than a bad leader with opinions the same (and certainly better than a bad leader with bad opinions). For example, my pick in the 2000 elections was McCain, a Republican. 99% of the time however I do side with Democrats.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

OK right from the beginning. A democracy is meant to represent at least the agregate views of its population. Therefore if it is not doing that it is a failing democracy. If in the case of the United States (or for that matter the United Kingdom) the policies if the vast majority of politicians are not shared by a large proportion of the electorate, then there is something wrong.

If we get to the stage where peopel have been convinced that the only reason to vote for a terrible government is to avoid an even more horrific government and both thsoe parties barely pretend to represent anyhting other than elite interests you have a sort of Oligarchy.

If of course your standards for freedom are so low that you'll accept any concession by the elites to you as democracy then you are a slave and need to open your eyes to the world around you. I pity your ignorance.

it does represent the point of view of the public. the publics point of view is that politician A sucks less than politician B. what else can you ask for?
if you truly want to find the perfect guy for the job you have to ban all donations, all PR-shows, etc. (at best even all parites) and make people decide on the program that politician / party represents. BUT in that case people would care even less about policy than they already. they dont want to read some 50 pages long program, they want a good show and theyll vote for whoever offers the best show. this is sad but true.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

That is not true, you have it the wrong way round. All we get is a show and unquestioning media bias, and the policies in the manifersto's are usually irrelevent. The whole point is to give the illusion of choice when in fact it si just factions of the same party. there is no discussion of real issues.

As I said the American people aren't attracted by the PR, look at the viewing figures for them, people just change the channel. Instead people are voting at random because they don't feel represented by either of the parties.

then please explain why politicians who do a lot of show have better chances of winning? noone cares about complex subjects. its all too complicated, people dont want to waste time on understanding them. theyll vote for whoever looks nice and offers some simple solution to all their problems. thats it.

(and YES, i have lost all faith in humanity)

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Cos if peopel are voting at random then they may just be voting for who's name they remember..

oh, please. if people remember the name only they dont vote at all. they know what they vote for, its just that they dont vote for a policy but for some guy.

As for the rest of what you say I look forward to reading your documentary proof of such a wide ranging claim.

then waht subject was important enough for people to really care about and get informed? not even that damn iraq war. 'its all about oil, blablabla', that was all you could here from most people.

[wu_trax]

now you get it wrong. it wasnt discussed BECAUSE people didnt care enough. the other way round it doesnt make sence, because every politician who says something about subjects of matter would be able to score a lot of points against those who dont do that.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

There is no inconsistency there. I was replying to the "That's all you can do" part of it, I of course heartily indorse voting for the least evil party, in an election which is clearly meaningless.

If you really think an election is meaningless then I don't think you should vote. Voting in a meaningless election just adds your sanction to the process and, ultimately, to the outcome.

[Nodrog]

How many people who jump on things like "national debt/deficit = X billion" actually understand what the concepts mean, and what effects they have, in an economic context, and arent just operating on the logic "those numbers are big so Bush must suck am i rite".

[wu_trax]

i already said, i lost all faith in humanity.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well Nader was a good candiate and got around 3%. He is smarter than Bush or Gore and had good policies and he got nowhere.

The real thinig is that the Presidential elections are soley the preserve of the Republicans and Democrats. It is a game played by advertising and corporate elites to give the impression of democracy when in fact as the results show when both sides get roughly 50/50 its because people are voting at random.

No, at most it shows that in a two-party system, each party will cater to the median or "swing" voter.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

How many people who jump on things like "national debt/deficit = X billion" actually understand what the concepts mean, and what effects they have, in an economic context, and arent just operating on the logic "those numbers are big so Bush must suck am i rite".

I quoted it, I'm 2nd yr economist, I understand it.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

OK right from the beginning. A democracy is meant to represent at least the agregate views of its population. Therefore if it is not doing that it is a failing democracy. If in the case of the United States (or for that matter the United Kingdom) the policies if the vast majority of politicians are not shared by a large proportion of the electorate, then there is something wrong.

If we get to the stage where peopel have been convinced that the only reason to vote for a terrible government is to avoid an even more horrific government and both thsoe parties barely pretend to represent anyhting other than elite interests you have a sort of Oligarchy.

If of course your standards for freedom are so low that you'll accept any concession by the elites to you as democracy then you are a slave and need to open your eyes to the world around you. I pity your ignorance.

Oligarchy is great, and we're arguably less oligarchic now than before, at least in the UK. It's representative democracy, the politicans' views mirror the publics' through the process of voting, but are better in the sense of being more suited to the job. The country might be filled with idealists but politicans still have to deal with reality. Where you have competing interests, the answer isn't that we should listen to the majority, the answer is to listen to those willing to compromise and negotiate, ie the swing voters, so the interests of everyone are respected, rather than choosing between different factions. At least that's the impression I get from listening to MM.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

How many people who jump on things like "national debt/deficit = X billion" actually understand what the concepts mean, and what effects they have, in an economic context, and arent just operating on the logic "those numbers are big so Bush must suck am i rite".

I don't see a problem with the premise 'Debt is bad, and therefore having the national debt increase at an increasing rate is also bad', personally. It's one of the few areas where 'common sense' (cough cough) is applicable.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by queball

Oligarchy is great, and we're arguably less oligarchic now than before, at least in the UK. It's representative democracy, the politicans' views mirror the publics' through the process of voting, but are better in the sense of being more suited to the job.

They're better at getting public support than most, but they're not more suited to running the country (except in the extremely simplistic 'politicians, on average, are more intelligent than average, so they must be better', but that's a stupid argument)

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't see a problem with the premise 'Debt is bad, and therefore having the national debt increase at an increasing rate is also bad', personally. It's one of the few areas where 'common sense' (cough cough) is applicable.

well, if you consider the economical situation bush didnt have much of a choice other than running deep into debt. (although, in my opinion what he spends the moeny on didnt make much sence, and i think im going to be prooven right within this year).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

well, if you consider the economical situation bush didnt have much of a choice other than running deep into debt. (although, in my opinion what he spends the moeny on didnt make much sence, and i think im going to be prooven right within this year).

He could have saved some $50 billion by not starting up Son of Star Wars.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

He could have saved some $50 billion by not starting up Son of Star Wars.

and another 100 by not invading iraq. as i said how he spend his money didnt make too much sence to me (especially those tax cuts), but he had to waste some money in order to make the economy grow again. the consumers are already deep in debt, so that they cant extend their spending much more

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't see a problem with the premise 'Debt is bad, and therefore having the national debt increase at an increasing rate is also bad', personally. It's one of the few areas where 'common sense' (cough cough) is applicable.

This is oversimplified to the point of being essentially meaningless.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This is oversimplified to the point of being essentially meaningless.

So?

The US is a republic.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Ivana

The US is a republic.

Very well done.

So shut the fu*k up about the US being un-democratic, its a republic you chosse the people who make the decisions, and they want to get re-elected, if the US voted en-mass for a certain polciy (talking polls, not referendum) then the government would act. Its America's fault, not Bush's.

You can't expect him to out-flank on the left, he is a repulican.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Ivana

So shut the fu*k up about the US being un-democratic, its a republic you chosse the people who make the decisions, and they want to get re-elected, if the US voted en-mass for a certain polciy (talking polls, not referendum) then the government would act. Its America's fault, not Bush's.

You can't expect him to out-flank on the left, he is a repulican.

Sorry, what?

If You Don't Want Him, Don't Vote For Him.

Thats Your Choice.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Ivana

If You Don't Want Him, Don't Vote For Him.

Thats Your Choice.

I don't want him, and I didn't vote for him.

ps.

We never realised that Democracy involves VOTING!

WOW!

US is a republic.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

Oligarchy is great

Source please.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Source please.

ordinary people are stupid

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

ordinary people are stupid

Originally Posted by Bertrand Rusell

Carlyle remarked: ``The population of England is twenty millions, mostly fools.'' Everybody who read this considered himself one of the exceptions, and therefore enjoyed the remark. You must not denounce well-defined classes, such as persons with more than a certain income, inhabitants of a certain area, or believers in some definite creed; for if you do this, some readers will know that your invective is directed against them.
How to Become a Man of Genius

(apologies, since I've referenced this before)

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Ivana

So shut the fu*k up about the US being un-democratic, its a republic you chosse the people who make the decisions, and they want to get re-elected, if the US voted en-mass for a certain polciy (talking polls, not referendum) then the government would act. Its America's fault, not Bush's.

You can't expect him to out-flank on the left, he is a repulican.

ONLY IN AMERICA do you elect a leader who isn't a leader to promote democracy when his election wasn't democratic to praise free trade while imposing tarriffs to criticise foreign economic mismanagement while your own country hits record unemployment levels with the largest fiscal deficit in history.




ONLY IN AMERICA!

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

(apologies, since I've referenced this before)

im not denouncing them... im just saying they are too stupid to make important decisions

i still quite like a lot of them

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

im just saying they are too stupid to make important decisions

Are you clever enough to make important decisions, and if so why?

[queball]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

They're better at getting public support than most, but they're not more suited to running the country (except in the extremely simplistic 'politicians, on average, are more intelligent than average, so they must be better', but that's a stupid argument)

Do you think that some people are "more suited to running the country" than others?

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't see a problem with the premise 'Debt is bad, and therefore having the national debt increase at an increasing rate is also bad', personally. It's one of the few areas where 'common sense' (cough cough) is applicable.

Having more debt than you should is bad. Having less debt than you should is bad. That's almost by definition.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Are you clever enough to make important decisions, and if so why?

nah... i dont know enough about the issues... and i doubt anyone on this forum REALLLY does.

if i did it as a full time job i think i would be though. Although i doubt i would be willing, i tend to shirk responsibility.

and a "why" would just be a "why do i think im clever" and i really would rather not do that, being a niceh modest sort of guy.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

if i did it as a full time job i think i would be though.

Yeah, thought so. "Ordinary people are stupid, but I'm not".

As Nodrog has said, of all the people who say "Most people are stupid" I've never met someone who counts themselves amongst "most people" but always some part of the elite, unsurprisingly.