I'm usually not one to start political discussions, but I wanted to post this. I have seen a tremendous amount of Bush-bashing all over the place. I'm not saying the man is perfect, but I don't believe he deserves the venom being spit at him from everywhere.

For those that do hate Bush, read this, and then ask yourself (honestly) if you follow the mind set of any of these observations. Or, at the very least, ask yourself if you have legitimate evidence to support your anti-Bush stance and not simply repeating what the Democrats or other biased groups are sensationalising. It's perfectly valid to dislike the man, but I have to wonder how many people have legitimate reasons, or are simply blindly towing the party line.

I received this in email, and the email credited Rich Lowry as the author. I could not find a reference to where it was printed.

=============================================================

The double binds of George W. Bush
Rich Lowry (archive)


Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters. For them, Bush is the double-bind president.

If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius.

If he hasn't been able to capture Osama bin Laden, he is endangering U.S. security. If he catches bin Laden, it is only a ploy to influence the elections.

If he ignores U.N. resolutions, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he takes U.N. resolutions on Iraq seriously, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he doesn't get France to agree to his Iraq policy, he is ignoring important international actors. If he supports multiparty talks on North Korea, he is not doing enough to ignore important international actors.

If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running.

If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.

If he adopts a doctrine of pre-emption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have pre-empted it. If he signs a far-reaching anti-terror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law.

Bush's economy hasn't created new jobs. If it has created new jobs, they aren't well-paying jobs. If they are well-paying jobs, there is still income inequality in America.

If Bush opposes a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's miserly. If he supports a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies. If he restrains government spending, he's heartless. If he supports government spending, he's bankrupting the nation and robbing from future generations.

If he opposes campaign-finance reform, he's a tool of corporate interests. If he signs campaign-finance reform, he's abridging the First Amendment rights of Michael Moore (whose ads for "Fahrenheit 9/11" might run afoul of the law).

If he accuses John Kerry of flip-flopping, he is merely highlighting one of the Massachusetts senator's strengths -- his nuance and thoughtfulness. If he flip-flops on nation-building or testifying before the 9/11 commission, he proves his own ill-intentions, cluelessness, or both.

If he doesn't admit a mistake, he is bullheaded and detached from reality. If he admits a mistake, he is damning his own governance in shocking fashion.

If he sticks with Dick Cheney, he is saddling himself with an unpopular vice president, giving Democrats who can't wait to run against Cheney a political advantage. If he drops Cheney, he is admitting that the Democratic attacks against his vice president have hit home, thus giving Democrats who have made those charges a political advantage.

If he loses in November, the voice of the American people has spoken a devastating verdict on his presidency. If he wins, he stole the election.

No politician get's a fair shake. One media outlet leans a direction, and trashes the other guy, and another media outlet leans a different way. There will always be political fanatics much like there will always be religious fanatics.

Not everything the President has done is wrong or bad, and not all that he has done has been right or beneficial. People just need to pick the key issues they care about and vote accordingly.

I just wanted to get in on this before it ends up another closed flame-war.

I don't care who anyone votes for, I just want people to vote at all.

My intent is not to create a flame war... not at all.

You are absolutely right. When a Democrat is president, the spin doctors are hard at work to change the perception of their actions just as much as they are working now. The point I was trying to make holds true for any political party. It's frustrating to hear one side shouting "Open your eyes! You're being misled! This is the truth!" when they are simply repeating what they heard/saw on the previous (as you put it) slanted broadcast. Those that are claiming others are being misled are being used, and quite possibly misled themselves unless they have researched the issue themselves (beyond newspaper or TV reports).

It's a nasty habit I have to play devil's advocate; not to prove someone/something is wrong, but to make sure that the people I'm discussing things with have a reason to believe what they're stating. And that's all I'm getting at here. It's ok to dislike Bush, Clinton, or both, but I'm interested to hear what those reasons are; not the party line.

I know it wasn't your intention, but political threads always end up becoming a flame-war. Politics draws a troll who makes a stupid comment, then another (well meaning non-troll) points out their stupidity, and their off. I hope it doesn't go that way, as I like calm intelligent political discussions, especially near an important election.

I am a weirdo anyway, so my political beliefs are largely ignored by the parties. I am a gun-toten, pro-choice, pro-Iraq-war, anti Patriot Act, anti-Socialist voter who believes Bush deserved to win in 2000(because of voting law), and the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a crime against our system of government. I have voted for two Republican presidents, and as of this election two Democrat presidents. I make pollsters eyes goes crossed when they question me. That sums up my stance on things.

welcome to the wonderful world of "new age" american politics. George Washington stated that America would prevail overtime, however the separation of policatal bodies would cause be the only thing to cause the fall of America....

sorry that is not an exact quote.. if anyone would like to research and post up the exact quote be my guest.. but it pretty much says what is said above

Exactly, These wacko partisans really piss me off. How can you possibly believe in everything that one party or the other believes in? I am Pro-choice, against the iraq war but take an objective view, Pro gun rights, anti UN, Pro-gay rights. What the hell party is that? But none of those really matter to the country in the grand scheme of things. The only two things that really matter are the core principals of the Constitution and the Economy. Neither of these two parties should have the right to modify the economy in any way except in an emergency. The economy is run by and should always be run by the private sector not some group of politicians. I have not read all of the patriot act so I cannot comment all that much but I will say It is highly unlikely almost impossible that someone could be abducted and imprisoned for doing nothing.
Being a non Partisan gives me the ability to see through all the media and politicians lies, and they are so clear its like listening to satan himself

p.s. Religeous organizations should not have tax exempt status
p.s.s. 15 percent tax rate across the board so we dont have to hear the crying about the rich getting a tax break.

*grabs flamethrower from closet*

BURN BURN!!!!!

I'm sorry but what a load of crap.The bottom line is he started an illegal war. The US was not under attack from Iraq nor could it have been in the foreseeable future nor is there been any evidence that Iraq harbored terrorist organizations on any significant scale.
On the contrary, now anarchy reigns in Iraq with all kinds of religious zealots killing Iraqi civilians, foreigners and American soldiers. And the Bush administration could of foreseen this before playing the policeman of the world.

my two cents.

Anti-terror law

Federal charges were filed against Adam McGaughey, creator of the popular SG1Archive.com website - a fan website devoted to the MGM-owned television show Stargate SG-1. The charges allege that the website engaged in Criminal Copyright Infringement and Trafficking in Counterfeit Services. The charges were the culmination of a three-year FBI investigation, set in motion by a complaint from the Motion Picture Association (MPAA) regarding the content of the SG1Archive.com website.

SG1Archive.com is one of the most popular fan-run websites among the Stargate community. In addition to providing very active fan discussion forums, broadcast schedules, production news, and episode guides, the site heavily promotes the sale of the show on DVD. As of this writing, direct links from SG1Archive.com to Amazon.com have resulted in the sale of over $100,000 worth of DVDs. Many more DVDs have been sold to international fans of the show through sites like Blackstar.co.uk. Upon hearing this news, Stargate executive producer Brad Wright called the site "cool" - which Adam took as an endorsement of his work.

However, instead of thanking Adam for his promotion of their product, officials at MGM and the MPAA have chosen to pressure the FBI into pursuing criminal charges. Adam was first tipped off about the investigation when the FBI raided his and his fiancee's apartment in May of 2002 and seized thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment. Adam later received a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant, and was shocked to discover that this document, prepared by the FBI, contained significant amounts of erroneous and misleading information. For example, two social security numbers were listed for Adam, one of which is not his. References were made to a cease and desist letter sent by the MPAA to an email address that did not exist. His online friendship with other Stargate fans across the globe was portrayed as an international conspiracy against the MPAA. And perhaps most disturbing of all, it was later revealed that the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP. The FBI's abuse of its powers did not stop there. When they seized Adam's computer equipment, he was given written documentation stating that it would be returned within 60 days. The equipment that they did return did not arrive until more than 8 months later, and only then after much prodding from his lawyer. Much of it was damaged beyond repair - one laptop had a shattered LCD screen, an empty tape backup drive was ripped apart for no apparent reason, his fiancee's iBook was badly damaged when it was pried apart with a screwdriver. The FBI's computer crimes staff is either incompetent (at least when it comes to Macintosh computer equipment) or else they just don't give a damn.

Adam has has received positive feedback about his site from multiple members of the Stargate cast and crew at fan conventions. In addition, a representative of MGM's fan publication interviewed Adam about his website several months prior to the FBI raid. As a result, Adam sincerely believed that the show's creators did not have a problem with the content of his website. Many other sites are currently serving content of questionable legality, without promoting the sale of DVDs or offering a community for fans to discuss the show. Why the MPAA and FBI have chosen to ignore these sites and target SG1Archive.com is unclear.

Up until this point, Adam has been fortunate enough to receive pro bono legal counsel in his current hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio. However, the charges were filed in Los Angeles county.



Thank god they got that pesky judge and warrant business out of the way so they can go after the real terrorists like stargate1 download/fan sites quicker! GJ!

Stack, that is a scary story. I wish Adam and his wife the best in fighting off the evil American government and its injustice.

there was religious zealots from Iraq in other parts of the world while saddam was in power. At least he is no longer around to order mass killings of the kurds or his own people for that matter.

I do think it ironic that Bush Sr. stated Saddam is a nessacary evil... yet Bush Jr. ordered to have him taken out.

either way.. i dont know the full details as the president and his advisors knew.... So I will not preach my opinion.. I will back what decision was made by the elected officials.

Did Bush get a fair shake.

As far as I'm concerned, a dictator who was NOT legally elected, but rather used corrupt Justices on the USSC to get appointed, does not deserve a fair shake - and his record since the 2000 election has been atrocious.

Don't think Bush was appointed??

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/rspin/
(Read the threads in the "2000 Election" folder)

Some other links of interest:

http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/archive/supreme/
http://www.priceofliberty.com/election2000.htm
http://unprecedented.org/UnprecedentedAboutTheFilm.htm
http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=248
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...03.raskin.html
http://www.thestolenelection.com/
http://members.aol.com/monicasf/nocoincidence/
http://www.iknowwhatyoudidlastelecti...reme-court.htm

I could post a hundred more - nuff said!

D.

I wouldn't classify him as a dictator. The results of the original vote count indicated Bush was the winner. Then Gore demanded a recount, and when the results didn't pan out the way Gore wanted, he demanded another recount, but also demanded "questionable" ballots be thrown out. The point is, there were enough votes to make it a very close election. Both candidates had approximately the same amount of support (as defined by our election process). And what would have happened if Gore's challenges had succeeded? Every political race that even hints at being a close call would be mired in legal wrangling. It would be the first step toward giving electoral power to the courts. As it is, we may be on that path now, but with a slightly slower pace.

And what about his record has been atrocious? If you are referring to the economy, it's hard to say who is responsible (if you can actually place responsibility on one person) for its condition. The economy is a slow-moving beast. When recessions and booms are measured in years, is it not possible that the changes made by Clinton are just now coming into effect, and that Bush's economy is really Clinton's? It's also possible that there are just too many factors involved to have any semblance of control. You can tweak this interest rate or those tax cuts, but it's not as if the economy follows a set-in-stone group of rules. The economy's response varies everytime you make a change. If you don't get a quick response, you change something else. That hardly sounds like a scientific practice, or even a controlled practice to hold someone accountable for.

If you are talking about the Iraq war, I agree with trey85stang. I believe the administration made a decision with the information they had. Regardless of how the public expects government to behave, people (fallible humans) occupy all positions of government. If humans can make mistakes or misinterpret information, then so can governments. There will never be a perfect government that makes all the right decision all the time. An analogy would be with the OJ Simpson murder trial. All the evidence presented to the public made a very strong case for OJ's guilt. However, the jury acquitted him. Who was in error? the jury? the public? If the jury made the mistake, then that's about as direct a correlation as you can get to the idea of government misinterpreting information. If the public was in error (i.e. the jury was right), then isn't it just as likely that the American public (if not the world) are in error about the war because all they have been fed are the "highlights": small bits and pieces of information from documents and intelligence relating to national security?

One part in the article above describes how Bush's political enemies will portray him as a manipulative genius, and at other times a bumbling buffoon. More than likely, he's a "regular guy" that makes mistakes just like everybody else. I think if Bush were the head of this vast political conspiracy with the courts, the electorate, and any other organization that supports him, he would already be ruler of the world. Nobody is that clever, that perfect in execution of strategy, and if he was, why bother with the show? Why even pretend to participate in a normal election? Why bother with pretending to wait for bipartisan congressional approval to go to war? Why delay the war to give Blair time to garner public support in Britain? If you have those connection, and everything planned out so perfectly, why not just appoint yourself ruler and be done with it? There are a number of rulers in history who have done just that through military coups. I just don't see the support for claims of mass conspiracy.

So petition your governement to bring him up on war crimes. Your use of illegal, I suspect,
you meant to say, immoral in your eyes. I don't think it was immoral. It was certainly legal in the US, they followed the constitution, everything all legal like. So, on what do you base the word illegal on?

I fully support any country, anywhere in the world, for whatever excuse, or any reason, removes vile people like Saddam from power. If the Polish army wants to get mad at Iran over an insult, and take out the dicator there and free the people, I'll be marching on their streets celebrating. For whatever reason, if someone does the right thing (take out that waste of skin called Saddam, and his regime), for the wrong reason (in your eyes ONLY), haven't they still done the right thing.

And before you say, diplomatic pressure would have worked eventually, on average, over his reign, 4,000 people were raped/tortured and killed EVERY MONTH. How many others, young and old, starved to death? So, for the UN, 6 more months of saying, you better stop or we'll say stop louder means, what 20-30K more dead Iraqii's?!?

I agree, that should have been left to Saddam. He was much more efficient, and his cost/kill ratio is only a fraction of what the US's is. Now, before you flame back, here is a data point. A good friend of mine, ex military, just got back from a year contract in Iraq. Civililian helping the transitional govt. (Minor way, but he was there). He described a lot of turnmoil, there are plenty of random acts of violence and death, but never, he said it always amazed him, NEVER, whereever he went, did the local people (not the zealots and the disatisfied searched out by the media), Mr and Mrs Iraq, ALWAYS thanked him for being there, thanked Mr Bush, and would offer to share whatever they had, food, water, just a handshake with him. Now, maybe he is the ONLY person in Iraq this is happening too, or maybe, just maybe, the people for whom it matters most, the little person, knows they are SO much better off, and have a future they can believe in. Maybe you should not just believe the incredibly jaundiced eye that most of Europe is reporting through.

I can tell the difference in him. 1 Year on the 'front', and the violence he saw was terrible, and he would probably not be able to handle it had he not seen the good it did, the triumph of the local people over Tyranny, and that he was a part of giving the people of that country their right to live, and be free, back to them.

RO