<p>Re: The excuse that George Bush wasn’t president very long when 9/11 happened so we mustn’t blame him for it. </p>
<p>To me, it’s like in the Navy. As soon as a captain is read in as commanding officer, everything that happens is his responsibility. He can’t blame the previous captain for anything. Whether the ship’s sinking, the crew is mutinying, or the masts are falling, it is now the new captain’s baby. Same thing with commander-in-chief. Whatever happened – and 9/11 was 8 <em>months</em> after the 1st inauguration – was GWB’s responsibility from the minute he put down his right hand after swearing to uphold the Constitution. If he wasn’t prepared for that, then he shouldn’t have taken the job. </p>
<p>Mogulero – At this point, we’re down to two choices. Either the president is malevolent or he’s incompetent. The war’s a mess, New Orleans remains a shattered city, his numbers are ghastly, and his rhetoric has no relationship with reality. (<em>Now</em> Iraq is Vietnam? What happened to that being an invalid comparison – oh, only when the anti-war people say it? I see.) He doesn’t seem to care anything for the damage he’s done to his own party, let alone the nation. If he had even the miniscule decency of a Nixon, he’d resign. </p>
<p>Furthermore, to your address, if you don’t like a political discussion, why did you come in here?</p>
<p>Guess you thought wrong. This is a Parent’s Cafe - meant for all issues not college for parents to discuss. Sorry you haven’t managed to find your way around this site, but if you work at, youll find plenty of stuff on college admissions.</p>
<p>Uh … What’s the name of this thread, mogulero? Did you even bother to look before you wandered into it? If you were looking for a college discussion, there are about a million other CC threads that would satisfy your need. Personally, I appreciate the fact that many CC-ers are interested enough in the world around them that they occasionally discuss other issues as well–religion, philosophy, art, music, fast food, and yes, politics. If want to avoid liberal hand-wringers (and right-wing foot-stompers), try reading the title of the thread before entering.</p>
<p>No politician cares…I’m a republican (was a paid staffer for bush in 04 and a republican gov in06) and even I realize that 90% of politicians don’t care what people think of their policies. </p>
<p>Also, I wouldn’t be so sure about Clinton in 08. The dem party has been grossly inept at winning presidential elections that they should have (see 00 and 04) and if they nominate Clinton they better run one helluva campaign, something totally different then the past 2 elections, or they are gonna throw a 3rd straight electioin away.</p>
<p>A right-winger asking to be protected from seeing criticism of the president–in a thread about the lengths gone to, to protect the president from seeing any criticism of himself?</p>
<p>Alanis Morisette, I hope you’re taking notes.</p>
<p>I always wondered what kind of mindset was behind things like the Pearl Jam censorship.</p>
No, that might encompass the disagreements about the environment, labor, profile of taxes paid by the wealthy, and encouraging a certain amount of homophobic hysteria about gay marriage used as a wedge issue. For damaging the country and its future to the degree that he has done so, it’s about reacting to a fundamentally vile person and ensuring that he and his fellow-travelers are not only removed from power but pursuing an agenda such that they never come close to regaining it. </p>
<p>The neocon political apparatus deserves the equivalent of what Rome did to Carthage. No quarter asked, for I am surely giving none in return. If the neocons and Bush enablers slide into senescence with nothing better to do than paying attention to their canasta and tennis games, it won’t be too little for me.</p>
<p>We promoted de-Baathification in Iraq. De-Bushification in the USA seems only fit.
I wouldn’t vote for a Bushevik for dog catcher. And given that the GOP has mostly sold it soul to Bush/Cheney/Rove et alia, that means virtually every Republican with the burden of proof on him or her, and not satisfied by the namby-pampy handwringing done by the likes of Susan Collins and Gordon Smith.</p>
<p>I’d rather spend the rest of my life arguing with the likes of Mini then to give the Busheviks even a toehold. (Hi, Mini.)</p>
<p>Thanks, T-Dead. But I think you are being shortsighted. There really is no candidate, Democrat or Republican, who is embracing the Bush Doctrine. It is already history.</p>
<p>The bigger question is whether we can get something better than the pro-growth, pro-pollution, pro-global warming, anti-labor policies of Bill Clinton (this is putting his genocidal policies aside) that has resulted in tens of millions of people kicked off their land worldwide, millions streaming across the U.S. borders, while folks fidget about auto mph standards. Can we get anyone who really CARES about the people of Iraq, who have suffered so greatly at our hands? Can we get someone who really isn’t in the hip pockets of the big insurance companies, big pharma, and their lobbyists when it comes to health care?</p>
<p>I think it might be possible (I have my doubts), but it might require as thorough a “de-Clintonization” as the end of the Busheviks.</p>
<p>Yes, but I don’t see it happening. Hell, take Ron Paul for example. Many “different” ideas and most would agree he has a different slant on things, but he has no chance in hell at winning. </p>
<p>Lets not kid ourselves, it will be Clinton/Guiliani in 08 and one of them (I’d guess Rudy) will win…</p>
<p>The lies Rudy has told about 9-11 are such a huge betrayal of trust that they should be career-ending. </p>
<p>But we’ve gotten so desensitized to the current administration lying to us for political gain that when they get caught, we no longer even shrug–even when they say two things that can’t possibly both be true (Congress has no oversight role; we recognize that Congress has an oversight role, to give one small example).</p>
<p>Pity the Republican candidates who must walk a very fine line right now. To win the nom, they need the base. The base (that ever-Bush-lovin’ 65% of Republicans) don’t want their candidate to run away from Bush policies. They <em>like</em> the way things are going. They want Congress/gov’t agencies inert, they want to ‘win’ in Iraq, they like tax cuts, and draconian security. So the Republican candidate mustn’t seem critical of those things…though they don’t have to do hand-shaking photo-ops with an unpopular President. </p>
<p>To win the office, however, they must appeal to moderates in their own party as well as woo independents. Very broadly speaking, those people aren’t so sure about <em>anything</em> the administration has done and are doubting the war’s aims, the infrastructure, and the necessity of increasing security measures like warrantless wiretapping. The Republican candidates have to seem to be doubtful of these things too, but not until after they have the nomination. The president’s approval rating is approx 29%. You can’t win an election with that. </p>
<p>Summing up in one word: YouTube. Their statements are being recorded and remembered. If they suddenly soften or switch positions upon being nominated, it’s out there, life-size, all over. A candidate cannot deny having said it (doubling the size of Guantanamo, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran…whatever), no matter how hard they may try. Saying ‘lighten up’ is definitely not going to work. So pity the poor Republican candidate walking that tightrope. It can’t be easy. </p>
<p>The Democratic candidates can just run against GWB. They’ve done some jockeying for position amongst themselves and we can look for that to increase as we approach primary time (next week, if things continue as they have been!). But their true opponent is the activities and philosophy of GWB and their weapon is how closely they can tie the Republican nominee to those. </p>
<p>“But we’ve gotten so desensitized to the current administration lying to us for political gain that when they get caught, we no longer even shrug”</p>
<p>No lie told by the current Administration was or is bigger than the Big Lie told by Clinton/Tenet in January 1998, which sold the “experienced” Democrats on future war with Iraq. In fact, in hindsight I’d venture a guess that there never would have been an invasion of Iraq without the foundation of the Clinton/Tenet Big Lie.</p>
<p>What’s different about the current Administration, Karl Rove and all, is that, when it comes to lying, they just aren’t very good at it.</p>
<p>I pity the democratic candidates who have to hope things keep going bad in Iraq, and American boys/girls keep dying, in order to ensure a white house victory. Make no mistake that Clinton is, deep down inside, hoping things stay the same course in Iraq…for political gains of course. Also, isn’t it funny that she voted FOR the war in the first place?</p>
No such worries. The pieces in Iraq aren’t there for anyone to make it work. Substitute Allawi for Malike? Makes no difference, it doesn’t affect the Iraqi political geometry, which is far more determinant of the outcome, than any American “surge” or military action, something the Busheviks just can’t stand to swallow.</p>
<p>Bush & Co. can’t seem to decide whether Iraq is a sovereign state that can choose its own course, choose its own course as long as it’s what Bush & Co. want, or a totally owned subsidiary.</p>
<p>I used to say that we could get two out of three in Iraq from among democratic, pro-American, and stable. I think we’re now down to one out of three, at best. </p>
<p>Anyone else notice that whomever we try to back in the Middle East, overtly or covertly, gets shellacked when elections come around? Iraq, Gaza, Iran, and coming soon to a theater near you, Lebanon. Even the whiff of American support is the kiss of death.</p>
<p>Seems to me the people wanting Americans to die in Iraq are the ones calling for a 50 year occupation with no accountability and no requirement that it be in our best interest.</p>
<p>If US troops left Iraq tomorrow…there’d still most likely be a Democrat in the White House come 1/21/09. There’s plenty of wrong-doing from the present occupant for a Democrat to run against. Katrina, infastructure failures, civil rights violations, incompetence, Alberto Gonzales, politicizing of government, Abramoff…oh, the list is long and varied. Bush’s Watch – Bush’s Responsibility. </p>
<p>[I pity the democratic candidates who have to hope things keep going bad in Iraq, and American boys/girls keep dying, in order to ensure a white house victory]</p>