quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo thats not my fault, but just to mention one thing, he's changed everything.

Yes. Yes he has. But some specifics could ligitimize your first grade answer here.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd Leaving all other disagreements aside... what about the fact that he only surrounds himself with people who agree with him, and refuses to engage his opponents?

a very legitamte gripe. don't all presidents surround themselves with people that agree with him? how is Bush so different? i'll tell you how he's different from those that do. he's a supreme delegator. sometimes to a fault. he gives his subordinates, those he knows follow his ideals, much latitude, from Cheney on down. does he put too much faith in their abilities? sometimes, as a leader, youre given no choice. Katrina was a prime example. he got ripped a new one for an entire city under 10 ft. of water from a failed levee.

quote:

At least Tony Blair engages his opponents. He doesn't run away from them. He is prepared for a public dialog.

if i understand your gripe correctly. we in this country are not blessed with the Parliamentary procedures Blair enjoys in the House of Commons. without getting too off topic our system of government is actually set up to preclude that kind of engagement in favor of separation of powers, term limits, and rights of the majority given by vote. when you say "opponents" who do you mean?

quote:

Bush is NOT prepared or willing to engage in dialog. There is only one point of view, his.

again, not only is this a two party system, he is the executive. it just so happens that this executive exercises his duties and priviledges to their fullest. more than any other president in a while. a supposed majority in Congress doesn't help either. most of the discorse you here is from the other party desperately wanting that majority back to further their agenda. personally i don't want that.

quote:

How can you admire a public figure with such a consciously sheltered personality? How can you not mention it?

i find a lot in common with that personality. thats just me. and a lot of other people too. it's not so sheltered when you think about election after election after re-election that voters have turned out for candidates that share his philosophy in one way or another. the guy is out there every day trudging away at 30%. still trying to change the world. he's not going to give up. he's not going to forgoe the mid-terms or Iran or the UN or Tal-Afar or Mexicans or the deficit. nothing. maybe your 4th amendment rights? i kid.

quote:

Oh, but it would destroy the warm, fuzzy mystique of this article... I see...

it's just someone's opinion. this is a watershed moment for us 30% percenters. we need re-enforcement.

quote:

Originally posted by OurManFlint Yes. Yes he has. But some specifics could ligitimize your first grade answer here.

no. i don't like you. nah n'nah n'nah n'nah nah.......poopyhead.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it's just someone's opinion. this is a watershed moment for us 30% percenters. we need re-enforcement.

awww. the article read like an american idol human interest blurb.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo culpability. ah yes! is this the culpability that can withstand every legal indictment b/c honestly it's based purely on public opinion, more befittingly, your opinion and others like you that have nothing more to gain than to serve themselves for whatever reason.

Legality doesn't have anything to do with it. Apart from the wiretapping scandal (which he is still yet to escape legal censure from, if I'm not mistaken) all of Bush's most attrocious failures have, unfortunately, been made within the law. I'm not really sure how that helps your case here, though: a "legal" fuck-up is still a fuck-up.

quote:

isn't the planet chock-ful of people like that? im not saying you have anything to gain but isn't your opinion shaped by most of those people?

Do you think I get all of my opinions and ideologies directly from the DNC or moveon.org or something? Given that I am essentially an impartial observer on US politics (I am neither on the red or blue side), can you not at least give me the benefit of the doubt with regards to my ability to make objective judgements here?

quote:

...and to deny the "made-up news" or it's value in respect to Iraq, Katrina, Wiretaps, Judges, Renditions, 9/11 ect. just absurd on it's face.

You're honestly trying to place the blame for these fiascos at the feet of the media? The media are just doing their job (i.e. reporting the facts), it's just a shame that Bush isn't doing his.

Let's run through them one by one:

quote:

Iraq

Did the US - based on the advice of its top generals - not go into Iraq with too few troops, purely because of Rumsfeld's arrogance? Did they not, on Wolfowitz's own admission, go into Iraq without a coherent post-war plan? Did they not ignore those who warned of civil war in the country, who warned that there would be no quick exit or that the war in itself would do nothing to halt the incidence of terrorism around the globe? Have they not been there for over three years now, at a terrific cost in both monetary and humanitarian terms, with very little to show for it?

Has the media been wrong in reporting any of these facts? If you argue that they have been wrong, then I'd like to see that backed up with evidence. If they haven't been wrong in reporting these facts, then the blame - and therefore the culpability - for the debacle in Iraq must lie with Bush and those around him, must it not?

quote:

Katrina

Tell me if any of this is untrue:

• The government was ignorant of the damage that this storm had the potential to cause, despite the warnings of the meteorological service.
  
• When the storm hit, the government was slow to appreciate the severity of the situation.
  
• The rescue effort, once it was eventually organised, was slow to respond, was poorly prepared and was grossly insufficient under the circumstances.
  
• Bush not only refused to criticise Brown - who he appointed in the first place - for the appalling rescue effort, he actually lauded him for it.

Now I will admit that Bush may have suffered some unfair criticism in the media over his handling of the affair (many of the major fuck-ups were probably outside of his, or his immediate adminstration's, direct control), but - having said that - can you honestly tell me that Bush's handling of the affair was "good" or even "satisfactory"? You don't think that a more alert, responsive federal government might have helped to save some of the lives that were lost?

quote:

Wiretaps

This is a thread all on its own, but you can hardly be blaming the media for this one. If I'm not mistaken, the NY Times actually sat on the story for a year before publishing it - does that sound like the actions of a supposedly "liberal" publication (the Times has the reputation for being one of the most liberal in the country, doesn't it?) solely intent on destroying Bush's standing in the eyes of "public opinion"? If it had been a similar controversy surrounding the Democrats, it would have been all over Fox News and the Drudge Report within minutes, fact-checking be damned.

quote:

Judges

Haha, come on now. Don't go blaming the media for Harriet Miers - that's solely on the head of Bush and the GOP, that one.

quote:

Renditions

I'm not sure what this referring to?

quote:

9/11

I'm frequently in contact with the US media (either through reading the papers online, or by watching news broadcasts from CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox etc.) and I can't ever remember the media being particularly critical of the Bush administration for its perceived "failure" to prevent 9/11 or for its response to it. When you consider how many conspiracy theories are out there and how many people might so desperately like to pin blame for the attacks on the administration, I actually believe - as I said in another thread - that they've actually done quite well not to give any air-time or print-space to these people. Maybe I've just been missing it - after all, I'm sure you're in contact with much more US media than I am - but, from my perspective, I'm not sure the Bush administration could really complain about the media's handling of 9/11 so far.

quote:

to discard it's existence and it's influence on public opinion (because thats what i think we are really talking about here) speaks more about you and what you give credence to ideologically than mine or Anchoress' respect for Bush.

Media undoubtedly shapes public opinion, but my argument is that the media is generally ideologically neutral and that whatever small amounts of bias there may be in specific publications is balanced out across the board. The idea that the media, collectively, exhibits a liberal bias and is consciously attempting to undermine Bush's presidency by manipulating public opinion is nothing more than a paranoid fantasy. If your worldview is incompatible with that of the media's, then either you're wrong or the entire, global media conglomerate is wrong: which do you suppose is more likely?

quote:

no. don't lie. your not suprised. you think i'm a gullable goose-stepper, right?

Think?

quote:

this "musing" is in defence of his accomplishments. because you see defending his accomplishments takes a little more courage these days.

As I'm sure any good soldier will be able to tell you, there is a fine line between courage and brazen stupidity. I might recommend that you start to take stock of your opinions once in a while just to make sure you're keeping yourself on the right side of that line.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade all of Bush's most attrocious failures have,

hehe, just coz i dont want you to be suprised again, its atrocious

usage in a sentence:

james' spelling is atrocious

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Legality doesn't have anything to do with it. Apart from the wiretapping scandal (which he is still yet to escape legal censure from, if I'm not mistaken) all of Bush's most attrocious failures have, unfortunately, been made within the law. I'm not really sure how that helps your case here, though: a "legal" fuck-up is still a fuck-up.

and not all of what you opine to be "fuck-ups" are what his constituancy considers fuck-ups...regardless of how bad you want them to be legaly culpable. odds are it's something you will never have.

quote:

Do you think I get all of my opinions and ideologies directly from the DNC or moveon.org or something?

well not directly but you've proven commonality pretty much across the board.

quote:

can you not at least give me the benefit of the doubt with regards to my ability to make objective judgements here?

of course i can and i do but thats not to say that i don't think you haven't been influenced by distortions and half truths from the left that try to undermine this administration at all costs including efforts to put the Democrats back in power, despite your admitted impartiality.
your a pretty rational guy when it comes to the big conspiracies. when it comes to the core of what actually drives Bush to do what he does you differ and i accept that. sometimes.

quote:

You're honestly trying to place the blame for these fiascos at the feet of the media? The media are just doing their job (i.e. reporting the facts), it's just a shame that Bush isn't doing his.

no. i'm saying your dead wrong denying the media's influence on those subjects. she's not trying to "shift blame" she's blaming the media for not "just reporting the facts".

Let's run through them one by one:

quote:

Did the US - based on the advice of its top generals - not go into Iraq with too few troops, purely because of Rumsfeld's arrogance?

no. all the top generals with the expeption of one was satisfied with the levels prior to the invasion.

quote:

Did they not, on Wolfowitz's own admission, go into Iraq without a coherent post-war plan?

i don't know when did he admit he didn't have a coherent post war plan? >LINK<i know he wanted less than a 100,000 troops to fight the war. the Generals went with more. generals, one has to assume, don't do any thing without a coherent plan, flawed or not.

quote:

Did they not ignore those who warned of civil war in the country, who warned that there would be no quick exit or that the war in itself would do nothing to halt the incidence of terrorism around the globe?

well they obviously ignored "those" and invaded and have always said this endeavor was not going to be easy. who's "those"?

quote:

Have they not been there for over three years now, at a terrific cost in both monetary and humanitarian terms, with very little to show for it?

yes, but we are not at the mall shopping. standing up two pioneer countries full of tens of millions of people that disagree with Renegade's version of "worth" is more important.

quote:

Has the media been wrong in reporting any of these facts?

yes, but unfortunately the facts you presented have broad ranges of interpretation. except the one that we've been there for 3 years. they maintain my argument that you may,in fact, be influenced by the likes of moveon.org and the DNC. they're their best talking points.

quote:

Tell me if any of this is untrue: The government was ignorant of the damage that this storm had the potential to cause, despite the warnings of the meteorological service.

untrue. the government estimated $10-$14billion in damages hours before the storm hit. emergency and forces were mobilized 2 days prior.

quote:

When the storm hit, the government was slow to appreciate the severity of the situation.

untrue. the storm hit as a CAT3. New Orleans had initially thought they were in the clear with minor damage once the storm passed. a few hours later they noticed they were underwater.

quote:

The rescue effort, once it was eventually organised, was slow to respond, was poorly prepared and was grossly insufficient under the circumstances.

your blessed media got it wrong and played it up negatively. you want culpable? this is culpable. >>LINK<<

quote:

Bush not only refused to criticise Brown - who he appointed in the first place - for the appalling rescue effort, he actually lauded him for it.

true. Brown had successfully managed dozens of even more major hurricanes, subsequent disasters, emergencies ect. somthing like 150 Federal emergencies big and small with the help of competent and experienced state and local officials. nothing like this though. no one did. and they choked in a lot of ways.

quote:

Now I will admit that Bush may have suffered some unfair criticism in the media over his handling of the affair (many of the major fuck-ups were probably outside of his, or his immediate adminstration's, direct control), but - having said that - can you honestly tell me that Bush's handling of the affair was "good" or even "satisfactory"? You don't think that a more alert, responsive federal government might have helped to save some of the lives that were lost?

quote:

This is a thread all on its own, but you can hardly be blaming the media for this one. If I'm not mistaken, the NY Times actually sat on the story for a year before publishing it - does that sound like the actions of a supposedly "liberal" publication (the Times has the reputation for being one of the most liberal in the country, doesn't it?) solely intent on destroying Bush's standing in the eyes of "public opinion"? If it had been a similar controversy surrounding the Democrats, it would have been all over Fox News and the Drudge Report within minutes, fact-checking be damned.

they sat on it because they were asked to and leaked it at their convenience. this i really don't care about. yes there is a thread about this. if you care to contribute to it be my guest but i've already made my case there. the NYT is a liberal pub by any standard. when i have the energy i'll expound on that. right now its 7:00am and i just got off work.

Last edited by Q5echo on May-26-2006 at 12:51