White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail

[bobbob1313]

Someone should've told him.

[viatroy]

Chris, the jury's still out on the Reichstag fire, and will remain out on 9/11 for a long time. What is certain is that the central policy document of the neoconservatives said that without a "second Pearl Harbor" they'd be hard pressed to implement their foreign policy goals. 911 fit that bill rather nicely, and while they may not have been directly complicit, there are certainly reasonable questions about why it wasn't prevented -- both with the forewarning they were granted, and on the day of the attacks when the F16s were stood down.

[Good Old Neon]

Confessions of a Bush Voter:

 

I could give a rat

[bobbob1313]

Chris, the jury's still out on the Reichstag fire, and will remain out on 9/11 for a long time. What is certain is that the central policy document of the neoconservatives said that without a "second Pearl Harbor" they'd be hard pressed to implement their foreign policy goals. 911 fit that bill rather nicely, and while they may not have been directly complicit, there are certainly reasonable questions about why it wasn't prevented -- both with the forewarning they were granted, and on the day of the attacks when the F16s were stood down.

 

I'm gonna have to disagree. But then again, I don't think Bush is nearly as evil as most of you do. Just incompetent.

[mountain bed]

Chris, the jury's still out on the Reichstag fire, and will remain out on 9/11 for a long time. What is certain is that the central policy document of the neoconservatives said that without a "second Pearl Harbor" they'd be hard pressed to implement their foreign policy goals. 911 fit that bill rather nicely, and while they may not have been directly complicit, there are certainly reasonable questions about why it wasn't prevented -- both with the forewarning they were granted, and on the day of the attacks when the F16s were stood down.

Exactly.

 

And - you've been missed around here.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

So is it conjecture or not?

 

You can obviously form you own opinion of what outcomes different policy decisions might have brought about, but there is no way of knowing what would have happened, or even if "your" candidate would have acted as you would have expected him to.

 

You don't think it's a reasonable inference -- at least in the forum of public opinion (which decides elections) that:

 

Bush = Iraq war, staying the course in regards to environment.

 

Gore = no Iraq war and, given hindsight, we know that the reasons for going to war were insufficient. At least attempts to stem emissions and no rollback of environmental policies -- we would be better off with the reasonable assumption of holding serve regarding policies and deadlines created under Clinton.

 

We can get stuck in the minutiae of what ifs, but I think those two issues are on very solid ground w/regards to choice.

 

You can response, "sez you" but don't see any wiggle room with regards to Iraq.

[JUDE]

True, but the government is also responsible for helping to create and sustain an environment in which you

[bobbob1313]

I think he's referring more to the outcome of those decisions. You can say what they might have done, but you can't make a value judgment on them.

[caliber66]

You can response, "sez you" but don't see any wiggle room with regards to Iraq.

What would have happened if Kerry had won the election with regard to Iraq?

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

I think he's referring more to the outcome of those decisions. You can say what they might have done, but you can't make a value judgment on them.

I'm sorry, I don't think it was a value judgment. I think 2004 was a mandate on the Iraq war and each voter had an obvious choice. The facts were out there. I will grant my heels are on slippery ground regarding would Kerry have ended the Iraq war. But he never had a chance to debate that, he was too busy defending himself (or, more critical, unsuccessful in defending himself) against attacks that had nothing to do with the facts at hand. Despite all the other issues that become part of the either/or decision of a presidential election, there was larger a vote against the war, or for it and what had already become documented as failed and coerced policies.

 

Again I grant with Gore it would have been conjecture. There was no way to know that Bush would conjure up the arguments for war against Iraq.

 

This to me, was an example of legislators voting their conscience and reasoning the value of the president and his role as commander in chief. They gave him the power and he abused it. This is one place where I think HRC opponents should have let her off the hook. She didn't have my perspective of hindsight then.

 

But I still think we had the value of that hindsight in 2004.

[JUDE]

What would have happened if Kerry had won the election with regard to Iraq?

 

Men and talking beasts would have lived in peace and harmony for a thousand generations.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Men and talking beasts would have lived in peace and harmony for a thousand generations.

 

"Dogs and cats living together ... mass hysteria."

 

The point is, we have not advanced the debate since 2004. We've lost more lives, we've not gotten much farther in truly enabling Iraq to stand on its own.

 

Supporter and opponent of Bush alike will openly agree he's largely incompetent. Facts are facts and they were in 2004.

 

If you hire an employee and he messes up, costing your company greatly, you have the choice of letting him do it again, or you allow someone else to have a go. You listen to his goals and approaches and let him stand and fall on his merits.

 

It would be the same damned mirror, and if Kerry would have intercoursed it up, I would have to look at my face. But I would certainly take that into account before I voted for him again.

[Good Old Neon]

I guess I'm gonna have do disagree with you on this, yes the government has a responsibility to provide security and protection for it's citizenry, from there everything decreases in importance. If I decide to build/live in a depression that is below sea level with an ocean to one side and a giant freaking lake on another I shouldn't expect to be saved when a huge hurricane comes in and returns the area into a more natural state, i.e. underwater.

 

As for welfare vs. corporate welfare I'm not a fan of either, but as long as the US government see's fit to take nearly 30% of the GDP in taxes and redistribute those funds, I'm not going to blame business or individuals for trying to get a piece from uncle Sam. I am however going to vote for candidates who I feel may someday in a moment of weakness actually do something about the system. I can hope can't I?

 

I wasn

[bobbob1313]

I'm sorry, I don't think it was a value judgment. I think 2004 was a mandate on the Iraq war and each voter had an obvious choice. The facts were out there. I will grant my heels are on slippery ground regarding would Kerry have ended the Iraq war. But he never had a chance to debate that, he was too busy defending himself (or, more critical, unsuccessful in defending himself) against attacks that had nothing to do with the facts at hand. Despite all the other issues that become part of the either/or decision of a presidential election, there was larger a vote against the war, or for it and what had already become documented as failed and coerced policies.

 

Again I grant with Gore it would have been conjecture. There was no way to know that Bush would conjure up the arguments for war against Iraq.

 

This to me, was an example of legislators voting their conscience and reasoning the value of the president and his role as commander in chief. They gave him the power and he abused it. This is one place where I think HRC opponents should have let her off the hook. She didn't have my perspective of hindsight then.

 

But I still think we had the value of that hindsight in 2004.

 

I think it is a value judgment. I don't see how anyone can judge what they would have tried to do, but the real question is if they would have made the right choice. That's the part that is up to conjecture to me.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

I think it is a value judgment. I don't see how anyone can judge what they would have tried to do, but the real question is if they would have made the right choice. That's the part that is up to conjecture to me.

Did you weigh additional value on a confidence that Bush would turn Iraq around vs. giving an alternative a shot? Did that issue rank lower on your values that you used to re-elect Bush?

[bobbob1313]

I did not vote for Bush. I was 16. I wouldn't have voted for him then, but I've mellowed out in my distaste for him since then. Like I said, I think he's merely incompetent, rather than flat out evil.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

I did not vote for Bush. I was 16. I wouldn't have voted for him then, but I've mellowed out in my distaste for him since then. Like I said, I think he's merely incompetent, rather than flat out evil.

Understood. I still would have voted for Carter if I would have had the chance in '76.

 

Did you think he was competent in 2004? Evil wouldn't enter into it if the choice came down to competency in performance.

[bobbob1313]

I don't think he's ever been competent. I don't think Kerry was either.

 

I also think it's pretty unfair to get mad at his reelection, as it is pretty rare for a president to run for reelection and not win.

[JUDE]

I wasn

[myboyblue]

I did not vote for Bush. I was 16. I wouldn't have voted for him then, but I've mellowed out in my distaste for him since then. Like I said, I think he's merely incompetent, rather than flat out evil.

 

Wow, if your distaste in Bush has mellowed since 2004, you are really in the minority. Most of his head in the sand "supporters" have even seen the light. I realize that you aren't a supporter but I'm not sure how he has gained any favor with you. Regardless of what political party you align yourself with, this guy is easily one of the worst leaders in US history. How he won twice is a testament to the stupidity of our nation.

 

As far as being evil, that is somewhat subjective. However, in my opinion, he very clearly misled America on the case to go to war with Iraq by playing on fear and misinformation. That can be seen as "evil" as it had led to countless deaths.

[bobbob1313]

I think it's more that I've become a less angry person than anything to do with him.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

I don't think he's ever been competent. I don't think Kerry was either.

 

I also think it's pretty unfair to get mad at his reelection, as it is pretty rare for a president to run for reelection and not win.

His dad lost.

[Good Old Neon]

I did not vote for Bush. I was 16. I wouldn't have voted for him then, but I've mellowed out in my distaste for him since then. Like I said, I think he's merely incompetent, rather than flat out evil.

 

 

[bobbob1313]

His dad lost.

 

Ok. I'd say 1 of 3 presidents in history going for reelection lose.

[JUDE]

His dad lost.

 

 

Actually a charismatic politically savvy opponent whooped his dad.

 

I don't know how the Democrats forgot this simple little strategy and put up Gore and Kerry.