quote:
George Bush fired 3,000,000 people?
The economy was in decline when Slick was in office. 9-11 exascerbated it, but actually may have taken some of the sting out of the recession by bottoming out almost immediately. Bush has concentrated first and foremost on national security, as he should have. But he hasn't neglected the economy or anyone in it.
Besides, the president's job is not to care about the "common man", as Slick conned people into thinking he did. But he's not so stupid that he doesn't know the "common man" votes.
And if you don't like the way the economy behaves when a businessman is in the White House, what the hell do you want a minor general in there for?
First, I am just expressing my opinions and am not trying to pawn my personal preferences onto others. I respect your right to challenge my statements, and will back up my beliefs as best I can.
I'd rather elect someone with an economic plan that favors the nearly 3 million people out of work, rather than the 1 million wealthiest people in our country. The ongoing degradation to our healthcare system, educational system and the environment, from an administration that values the rights of corporations over average citizens is growing tiresome. The consequences of your ignoring reality will continue to tribute to America's down cline.
With a tremendous tax-cut for the rich, inexcusable expenses for oil-wars and consistent inattention to the concerns of the working class, Bush is participating in a class war. Additionally, are you aware of the fact that he yet again shot down Congressional attempts to increase military salaries? All the while as American troops (God bless our men and women who serve proudly, my only contempt is for their commander-in-chief) continued to be sniped, Bush pounds his chest and declares the war has ended. It hasn't ended for the soldiers deployed far away, attempting to conduct missions while the administration seems to have forgotten them. In addition to being a guru on economic impacts, I bet you’re also a defense expert as well. So please, enlighten me on a simple inquiry. If given the support initially requested by military planners such as GEN Eric Sinseski (removed after questioning flawed decisions), would our troops still be over there and how susceptible would they be?
The Bush Administration and its shills use every tool at their disposal to point fingers at the Clinton/Gore Administration. While I find Clinton's morale character severely lacking, only a fool would claim this nation is better off since his departure. (My motive isn't to praise Clinton, merely to awaken you to Bush's inadequacies).
I believe the part of the timing behind the 9/11 attacks lay in the fact that Bush was vulnerable. (I was very supportive of the operations in Afghanistan and the planning/logistics couldn't have been better).
In 1999, The Rudman Hart report specifically mentioned the lack of preparation for "a weapon of mass destruction in a high-rise building." The report was instructive, offering a step-by-step blueprint of what urgently needed to be done to create a National Homeland Security Agency, revive the front-line public services, and pull together forty official bodies with responsibility for national security.
In March of 2001, Congressional bills were proposed to give Bush the tools to start the process of setting up a Homeland Security initiative. (Republican Mac Thornberry, and a Democratic Representative, Ike Skelton were the initiators). The propositions basically asserted that we have a major problem coming with terrorism and then simply put Bush in charge of forming a plan, based on the Hart-Rudman report, to protect the country.
http://www.house.gov/transportation/pbed/04-24-01/skelton.html"The president and his departmental secretaries are in the best position to know the answers to issues concerning use of the military in homeland security. As a result, H.R. 1292 directs the president to devise and implement this strategy."
In August 2001, however, the Department of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld gave thumbs down to H.R. 1292. One must wonder on what basis Rumsfeld came up with an "unfavorable comment" to a bill authorizing the president to protect the country and gave him a free hand to do so.
With nearly the entire US Army committed to Iraq with costs skyrocketing out of control and American Soldiers, our friends and family, dying daily, President Bush says "Stay the Course". After recent bombings and uprisings, he was asked what message he'd like to convey to the unwilling to conform to Coalition peace efforts. Mister articulate himself looked into the cameras, shook his fist, and then blurted out "Bring it on!" Sadly many of our soldiers have come to the realization that their lives are expendable to GWB. Troops continue to receive broken promises and die, even though the "war is over", all for the cause of GWB's pride.
High-ranking military executives were removed from their positions, some even separated from service, for criticizing the post war recovery plan. I'm extremely proud of the men and women in uniform and their actions have liberated a country. However, how much longer shall these soldiers sacrifice and suffer due to a severe lack of planning, incompetent intelligence, and a President who continues downplay resistance?
While running our economy into the ground, misusing our troops, and Bush is also failing miserably on pertinent domestic concerns such as environmental issues. I'm not a tree hugger, but from an ecological standpoint Bush has shown fallacy here is well. GWB and Cheney have gouged the environment, selecting to eases business regulations to encourage oil, gas and nuclear production and create tax incentives. The recipients of this "reward" are none other than the oil, gas, mining and utility companies that contributed over $40 million to Bush campaign.
All things considered, I usually try to distance myself from partisans and address the respective individual. In general, I dislike discussing politics as there are too many closed minded individuals that lack the ability to accept opinions may vary from their own. One thing I do find humorous and slightly ironic, the ones that are first to attack another’s belief are usually the ones that have done nothing for their cause.
the president's job is not to care about the "common man".-Pat McGroin
[This message has been edited by Jock 97 (edited 9/4/2003 7:49p).]
