The frightening legacy of George W Bush

[just maybe]

The other day I was thinking over the legacy Bush will leave behind after one of the worst Presidential tenures of all time. In no particular order:

- the first large-scale foreign attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century
- the deterioriation of relations with China
- the alienation of numerous countries with rhetoric such as 'axis of evil'
- the denial of 'global warming' as a phenomenon and a refusal to face it as a policy issue
- horrifically slow responses to Hurricane Katrina and to a lesser extent, Rita, turning parts of the Deep South into Third World scenes
- the deepening instability of the US economy
- the invasion of two sovereign countries (Iraq and Afghanistan)
- overseeing Iraq descend into chaos, brutally exposing US lack of a post-Saddam plan
- the increasing crisis of the worst health system in the First World
- the refusal to work with others to reduce pollution and emissions
- the demotion of human rights as a practical priority (cf: Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo Bay etc)
- the unveiling and actual use of the repugnant 'pre-emption' doctrine
- the chance to load the Supreme Court for two generations in deeply conservative, Republican favour
- the disturbingly increased fusion of church and state in politics
- the weakening of the UN as a multilateral organisation
- the push for the National Missile Defence doctrine
- the double standards on nuclear proliferation
- the unqualified support of Israel
- the double standards on human rights and 'terrorism'
- the fragmentation of world trade through bilateral focus
- deliberately giving the finger to world free trade with the astonishingly protectionist US Farm Bill

I'm sure there's plenty more, that's just off the top of my head...but that is genuinely scary.

 

[rick James]

wasn't pearl harbour an attack on US soil?

 

[just maybe]

Sorry, should have specified that as 'mainland US' soil.

 

[Murray]

wasn't pearl harbour an attack on US soil?

The scrapping of Atomic weapons treaties (START Treaty)
The detention of citizens without charge (The Patriot Act)
Over turning the ban on mining in Alaskan National Parks.
Allowing all members of the Bin Laden family to leave the USA after S11 (the only plane given permission to fly).
Bush family business ties with Saudi Arabian Government.

We could go on

 

[- PC -]

wasn't pearl harbour an attack on US soil?

Technically NO

Pearl Harbour was in Hawaii and Hawaii and Alaska were given statehood in 1952.

If your definition is of territory then yes. Told ya it was technical

 

[- PC -]

Of all listed by JM the 2 most important in my mind are the disintegration of Iraq which will have consequences for the next 30 years and the economic instability the cost of the Iraq campaign will have on the domestic US market.

America is entering a period where economic forces will inhibit much in America. An American led economic depression could well be on the horizon due to the mismanagment of the budget by GWB

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I agree with JM on his list. However GWB has acknowledged the existence of global warming. Im not sure if he also acknowledged if it was caused by humans. Either way, his policies are only exacerbating the problem.

 

[Monkster]

Allowing all members of the Bin Laden family to leave the USA after S11 (the only plane given permission to fly).

So whats your point? That all the Bin Ladens are terrorists?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

So whats your point? That all the Bin Ladens are terrorists?

No. The point is they let made the trouble to fly all those family members out of the country directly after the incident , even though it was a sure bet Osama was the culprit.

That raises questions about how willing they are to offend their friends (rich Saudis) to fight a 'war on terror'.

 

[Murray]

So whats your point? That all the Bin Ladens are terrorists?

No not at all - but surely they should have been detained and at the very least questioned to see if they knew anything about Osama's involvement, they may well have been material witnesses.

Why the haste in allowing them to leave?

Could it have related to the fact that the Bush family had in the past done business with the Bin Laden family and the fact that Osama used some of that money, which was made in those busines transactions, to carry out the bombing of the WTC?

Relevant questions for any investigation - don't you think?

 

[Monkster]

No not at all - but surely they should have been detained and at the very least questioned to see if they knew anything about Osama's involvement, they may well have been material witnesses.

Why the haste in allowing them to leave?

Could it have related to the fact that the Bush family had in the past done business with the Bin Laden family and the fact that Osama used some of that money, which was made in those busines transactions, to carry out the bombing of the WTC?

Relevant questions for any investigation - don't you think?

hrmmm according to this page http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm not only did the FBI have the opportunity to question these members but they were the ones who gave the go ahead for them to leave, so it seems that any information that may have been gleaned from these so called "material witnesses" was obtained before they left.

 

[Murray]

hrmmm according to this page http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm not only did the FBI have the opportunity to question these members but they were the ones who gave the go ahead for them to leave, so it seems that any information that may have been gleaned from these so called "material witnesses" was obtained before they left.

But it doesn't say if they were questioned.

If you are correct, and they were questioned, why wasn't the information that was collected by the FBI published in the Congessional Investigation?
What was the information that was collected?

You may well be correct, but let's see what was asked of them and what responses were given.

 

[spanky ham]

I agree with JM on his list. However GWB has acknowledged the existence of global warming. Im not sure if he also acknowledged if it was caused by humans. Either way, his policies are only exacerbating the problem.

But Andrew Bolt told me that global warming is a myth

 

[rick James]

The scrapping of Atomic weapons treaties (START Treaty)
The detention of citizens without charge (The Patriot Act)
Over turning the ban on mining in Alaskan National Parks.
Allowing all members of the Bin Laden family to leave the USA after S11 (the only plane given permission to fly).
Bush family business ties with Saudi Arabian Government.

We could go on

The first three are accurate, the 4th one a blatant lie and the 5th speculative at best.

but yes, he's been an atrocious president, my question was just merely that the inferred point of the first attack on mainland US soil wasn't clear.

 

[just maybe]

The first three are accurate, the 4th one a blatant lie

How so?

and the 5th speculative at best.

It's not speculative at all. The business links aren't even DENIED!

 

[rick James]

How so?

It's not speculative at all. The business links aren't even DENIED!

The bin ladens were one of the first groups that flew out, but it wasn't an exclusive permission, it was just they booked and scheduled the first available plane out. You tend to be able to do that when you're ludicrously wealthy.

the business links aren't denied because there are some links, that will happen when you're looking at a president who is part of the 'oil crowd' from Texas and dealing with rich people from the most oil rich nation on earth. What's not proven is money directly being paid by GWB to the Bin Ladens, or even that GWB has an interest in anything to do with the Bin Ladens.

Considering this thread is on his legacy as president, it's a stupid thing to include. AS it's clear the links that exist weren't put in place only once he became president, but in fact existed all along. Therefore not counting as his legacy.

 

[Murray]

How so?



It's not speculative at all. The business links aren't even DENIED!

I tend to ignore him on any issue of substance.

He is not interested in debate as he has a fundamental ignorance of anything even slightly logical.
I treat him as nothing more than comic relief while discussing interesting topics with other interesting people.

It works well for me

 

[rick James]

I tend to ignore him on any issue of substance.

He is not interested in debate as he has a fundamental ignorance of anything even slightly logical.
I treat him as nothing more than comic relief while discussing interesting topics with other interesting people.

It works well for me

No, you just get annoyed that an uneducated cretin like myself has a better grasp of logic and reasoning than you do.

Care to offer any kind of response to the actual point, or can I expect you just to sook and bugger off again like usual?

 

[Contra Mundum]

No, you just get annoyed that an uneducated cretin like myself has a better grasp of logic and reasoning than you do.

Care to offer any kind of response to the actual point, or can I expect you just to sook and bugger off again like usual?

Can't Truss it!!!

 

[dan warna]

actually the business links are extremely well documented

and the fourth point is reasonably sustainable given the evidence.

the government has been quick to silence or slam anyone who goes against them, and with the facts out there, the best they have managed to do is try and silence or punish the reporters who have reported it.

I think the american people are so jaded they just don't bother listening anymore.

I think if the facts came out that George Bush ate babies with sauce they'd just take in their stride ATM.

 

[CharlieG]

The bin ladens were one of the first groups that flew out, but it wasn't an exclusive permission, it was just they booked and scheduled the first available plane out. You tend to be able to do that when you're ludicrously wealthy.

They didn't 'book and schedule the first available plane out'. They were given special permission to fly out of the country at a time when no other civilian aircraft were being permitted to fly. It was not that there were other flights being allowed, and the Bin Ladens simply beat them to it. They were the only exception.

The question is, why?

 

[camsmith]

The other day I was thinking over the legacy Bush will leave behind after one of the worst Presidential tenures of all time. In no particular order:

- the first attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century
- the deterioriation of relations with China
- the alienation of numerous countries with rhetoric such as 'axis of evil'
- the denial of 'global warming' as a phenomenon and a refusal to face it as a policy issue
- horrifically slow responses to Hurricane Katrina and to a lesser extent, Rita, turning parts of the Deep South into Third World scenes
- the deepening instability of the US economy
- the invasion of two sovereign countries (Iraq and Afghanistan)
- overseeing Iraq descend into chaos, brutally exposing US lack of a post-Saddam plan
- the increasing crisis of the worst health system in the First World
- the refusal to work with others to reduce pollution and emissions
- the demotion of human rights as a practical priority (cf: Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo Bay etc)
- the unveiling and actual use of the repugnant 'pre-emption' doctrine
- the chance to load the Supreme Court for two generations in deeply conservative, Republican favour
- the disturbingly increased fusion of church and state in politics
- the weakening of the UN as a multilateral organisation
- the push for the National Missile Defence doctrine
- the double standards on nuclear proliferation
- the unqualified support of Israel
- the double standards on human rights and 'terrorism'
- the fragmentation of world trade through bilateral focus
- deliberately giving the finger to world free trade with the astonishingly protectionist US Farm Bill

I'm sure there's plenty more, that's just off the top of my head...but that is genuinely scary.

And now can you tell me something that isn't BS?

It's easy to preach to the converted..
If i asked you about everyone of those points could you clearly be able to tell me what he has done wrong in more detail? Doubt it.

- the invasion of two sovereign countries (Iraq and Afghanistan)

So are you saying we should never of "invaded" Afghanistan?

- the first attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century

More Lies.

In 1942 February 23, a Japanese sub fired 13 shells at an oil refinery in California and dont forget all the Bombs they dropped on the US MAINLAND.

- the denial of 'global warming' as a phenomenon and a refusal to face it as a policy issue

Denial? Show me.

What? because he doesn't sign the flawed Kyoto Protocol?

- horrifically slow responses to Hurricane Katrina and to a lesser extent, Rita, turning parts of the Deep South into Third World scenes

*Yawn* Been through that.


---

I would love to go on, really, and you did a great job of making me bite at this thread full of lies. So good job, but at the same time, do some research and get your head out of the sand.

 

[- PC -]

Your a clown camsmith and an apologist for Bush and Howard.

Do you deny the response to Katrina was slow? I see you never denied it.. but yawned as if it was old news.

Do you deny that Iraq is in turmoil and the US plan of occupation of Iraq basically consisted of the US forces liberating Baghdad and the Iraqi people being so thankful they stopped fighting amongst themselves?

Do you deny Abu Ghraib and Guantanemo?... oh I forgot they are only camel rats and terrorists

Do you accept that Church and State , an issue so deeply felt 229 years ago they enshrined the separation of church and state within their own constitution, is now closely linked to the policies and politics of GWB?.

Do you accept the weakening of the UN is led by the US?

Or will you pick holes in 1 or 2 and then belittle the rest? Please show how each and every one of the OP points are false or STFU.

 

[Dry Rot]

Technically NO

Pearl Harbour was in Hawaii and Hawaii and Alaska were given statehood in 1952.

If your definition is of territory then yes. Told ya it was technical

I didn't know that - impressive minor fact.

Anyway, the USA started the war in the Pacific with their oil embargoes.

Was it the Hull Memorandum that was the trigger for the Japanese fleet to sail for Pearl?

 

[FuManchu]

I didn't know that - impressive minor fact.

Anyway, the USA started the war in the Pacific with their oil embargoes.

Was it the Hull Memorandum that was the trigger for the Japanese fleet to sail for Pearl?

I think Japanese aggression in Asia prior to any European war, may have been the catalyst for those embargoes, so I'm saying Japan were the culprits