What’s Become of Americans?

The bar's been lowered, that's for sure. We tolerate a degree of incompetence and malfeasance that would have been unimaginable twenty years ago.

 

I am sickened by the minority left and their propaganda. But believe American will survive and become a better nation for it.

 

We still do the most research of any nation and record the greatest number of patents each year by a huge amount compared to any other nation. The pessimists need to get out of their basements and take a look around. Foreigners are coming to study in our universities while the parents of American chidlen are lazy and complain that their kids have to get away from the TV and actually do some work. At the same time foreigners are thrilled to study here. They are amazed at our libraries.

 

Now we are quoting Alan Shore on Boston Legal? LOL. It is a good show and very entertaining...but nobody with a brain really takes them seriously. What's next? Quoting "Denny Crain"?

As a matter of fact, they make a habit of twisting the truth to fit their political agenda on a weekly basis. If I wasn't already a fan of the show before they started this, I wouldn't watch it...but it is too entertaining now. For example, in this past week's episode, the one and the same Alan Shore made the point about Cindy Sheehan being escorted out of Congress for wearing the wrong shirt...and tried to state that only those with anti-war messages didn't have freedom of speech at the State of the Union speech...and of course this is all Bush's fault. Alan is entertaining, but if you are getting your information from him, just know that you are getting a politically twisted version of the truth...which seems to be ok with you. There was also a wife of a Congressman who wore a shirt supporting the war who was escorted out. Further, I am quite sure this rule didn't begin with Bush. Hey Ken...why don't you try watching the real news sometime instead of reading this garbage.

Joseph Botwinick

 

They're sitting in front of their tv sets hypnotized by the talking heads.

 

Americans are now more interested in security and money than freedom.

 

Uhhh...twenty years ago we had elected Carter.

Nope, I'm very sorry, that was 30 years ago.

 

You mean that we "know" about mistakes that 30-60 years ago would have been buried in sworn/coerced silence.

Want proof? Nuclear experiments were performed knowing that they would adversely effect people in a very large dispersion area... these facts weren't public until decades after the testing... I live in one of the effected areas.

It was years before papers documenting FDR's incompetence or else questionable manipulation during the run up to WWII were revealed.

Nothing Bush has done comes close to the abject incompetence of JFK's Bay of Pigs.

Want even more? How about the "incompetence and malfeasance" the American people tolerated from the Democratically held Congress for 40 years? In which time, the monster whose costs we can't escape was created? How about the incompetence of the initial projections for medicaid?

Incompetence and malfeasance? The intelligence community around the world made mistakes regarding Saddam's WMD program based on the most reasonable interpretation of the best data available.

What you and your ilk are doing is handicapping future leaders who see convincing evidence but won't act on it for fear that it might be wrong and they'll have to pay political price. After Bush, it is doubtful that any of them will do the right thing by being "safe rather than sorry".

To illustrate, consider the opposite scenario. Let's say that the intelligence pros had all told Bush that Saddam had an on-going WMD program and in spite of the fact that the will and ability to inspect were ending... Bush had decided that the intelligence just wasn't certain enough... and does nothing. Then let's say that Saddam once again kicked the inspectors out only to reveal in the heat of summer that he in fact had dirty nukes and an advanced missile system for delivering WMD's.

You with 20/20 hindsight would then be condemning Bush for not taking action when he could since he was faced with good evidenced that Saddam still had WMD's.

As far as the conduct of the war has gone... it is far better than most the US has been involved in to include the US Civil War and subsequent "Reconstruction" in which insurgents (KKK) rose up and committed acts of terrorism because an occupying "invader" was forcing the observance of the rights and freedoms of a previously oppressed people.

Nazis actively resisted the allies for several years after WWII often killing mayors and "disloyal" Germans.

The "incompetence and malfeasance" of the allied leaders after WWI led to WWII... and a loss of 60 million lives after the war to end all wars had already been fought.

No... your claim is overblown in cosmic proportions.

The threat from Saddam was credible and DEMANDED that Bush either take decisive action or risk terrorist capabilities that dwarfed 9/11's destruction and global impact.

 

You mean more so than during the Cold War when people didn't question gov't secrecy at all? When they thought it was an absolute necessary evil to prevent the spread of communism and destruction of the US?

Yes people are concerned about security... Can you have freedom without security... or money?

Let the Islamofascists proceed without opposition... See if they allow our progeny "freedom", security, or prosperity.

 

America won't fail because of its politics. It will fail because of its moral decay.

The facts that nearly 50% now approve of gay marriage and that we have allowed the slaughter of 40 million unborn babies and that sexual immorality (like live in relationships) has become "morally acceptable" in America are far more of a threat to our ultimate survival as a free and secure nation than Iraq, terrorists, Bush, or some anti-war nut are doing.

 

Brother Curtis,
Amen on Carter

 

Well Scott,
There you go again. Your ideas of history are at best skewed and probably paid for by the RNC.
First of all, those we elect are nothing but a reflection of us, the American people. So, how in one sentence can you recite facts and figures about how morally corrupt we are, and in the next sentence, talk about George Bush and his next to divine mandate in Iraq?
As far as your history of the 40's, 50's and 60's goes, since you were not around to live it, where did you get your information? the history channel?
I tell you something about those decades and before that. Those were much much greater challenges than now, and despite all the mistakes made by the various leaders you criticized, we went through a great depression, WWII, the cold war that almost got us exterminated in October 62, VIetnam, Watergate, and you dare compare those challenges and mistakes of the past with the challenges and incompetence of today??? If it were not for those leaders yes, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Nixon, Eisenhower, I doubt you would be here today typing your warped ideas.
And as far as the anti-war protestors, I may not agree with them, but by golly, the war protestors are exercising their freedom under the US Constitution, and lots of people fought and died for that right (yes, freedom takes sacrifice, not cliches on a thread). It seems to me I used to think some war protestors were wrong in the 60's, but darned if they werent right.
For you to sit here, criticize past achievements that gives you the right to sit in a chair and type without lifting a finger in sacrifice is unbelievible. It takes a lot of gall to criticize the past record and compare it with the incompetence and challenges of today.
You really need to have a better understanding of history, a better appreciation of what was done long before you were born, and get a real dose of what is going on today.

 

You betcha all wise and knowing one.

Agree.

Where did I say it was a divine mandate? How does his making a rational decision based on the best evidence for national security contradict the fact that we are sinking not because we can't save ourselves from foreign powers... but because of moral decay?

I think GWB's presidency is a good reflection on our moral corruption. A man who by all accounts is acting on conviction struggles to have a 40% approval rating while his predecessor, an abjectly immoral man, a profound liar and adulterer... if not worse, enjoyed over 60% approval.

Bush is wrong on social spending. He's wrong on much of his immigration ideals. He is wrong on "faith based" government co-operatives. He was wrong to expand the size and scope of the Dept of Education. He does a poorer job of communicating his agenda than any President of my lifetime to include Carter!

But there is no evidence that he lied about Iraq's WMD's and given the evidence he actually had and the time pressures then... he made the only responsible choice.

Yes... and college... and personal reading... and my relatives that did live through it...

If you did live through it, where did you get your info from? Firsthand knowledge of every situation? Didn't think so.

No they aren't. GWB presided over the first attack on the US mainland by non-Americans since 1815.

For the first time in our history, we are subject to unprovoked attacks at any location or time by enemies that we can't strike back at... so while MAD may not have been great... zero deterence is even worse... and requires much more effective intelligence and investigation.

In response to the notion that GWB is particularly faulty or incompetent or malfeasant. He isn't. Like the rest of our leaders that made mistakes and didn't have perfect foresight... it is not reasonable to expect him to be perfect... and completely irrational to now judge him for not peering into the crystal ball to see that the pre-war intelligence wasn't as ironclad as he was led to believe.

Yes... and they did what they thought was right... and saddled future generations with the Social Security entitlement... with no way to know that the payee to beneficiary ratio would go from 13:1 to a forecasted 2.5:1 in less than 100 years. Was that "incompetence or malfeasance"? By Galatian's standard, you'd have to say so. They didn't perfectly predict a historical outcome... so they must have been incompetent and ill-willed.

Yes. Emphatically! The complexity, challenges, and dangers of today are far worse than those.

Do you really think things are "waxing" better?

You could die from a terrorist attack today... and our gov't can't guarantee you won't or that they can deter it.

Absolutely agreed. And if GWB had not acted against Saddam and terrorism, future generations might not have had the opportunity either.

I am warped for judging Bush through a historical perspective while you are not even as you condemn him for being no less perfect than those of the past you defend.

Bush isn't perfect. Neither were any of those you listed nor their actions. One big difference is that his mistakes are far more public, publicized, and promoted.

The opposition political leaders to the men you listed only went so far. They stopped short of doing things that would weaken the country or its efforts against our enemies... that restraint is no longer the case. The screaming liberals who undermined the war in Vietnam and encouraged our enemy... now shape the disloyal opposition to our efforts against those who would destroy us.

You forgot to mention those who are dying... and the responsibility of those protestors that accompanies that freedom.

Funny that such protestors were seen and treated as anti-American by virtually all of the men (and their contemporaries) you knee jerk defended.

No they weren't. They were just effective.

The war in Vietnam may have been unjust. But those protestors encouraged an enemy that might have otherwise lost heart. They spat on, lied about, and cursed those whose blood was being shed on their behalf... They were not right. Period.

Oh... so I don't have a right to free speech. Just those with whom you sympathize? But you have every right to criticize current efforts... in a very complex situation? To criticize a decision that very well already may have enabled you to sit there and type without lifting a finger in sacrifice....?

That's called- Hypocrisy.

It takes gross hypocrisy to judge current leaders by a harsher standard than past leaders... to demand perfection while overlooking past failures.

It appears that my understanding is at least as good as yours... but I am not in denial about the current effects of past actions/failures... or even successes.

I do appreciate it... but do not operate under the delusion that they did everything right or didn't make mistakes even worse than the one that you call Bush incompetent for.

I read the non-sense you all post... read from both sides... read what returning soldiers say... read from "mainstream" sources... read from alternative sources...

Perhaps you should take care of that beam before operating on my speck.

 

You mean that we "know" about mistakes that 30-60 years ago would have been buried in sworn/coerced silence.

Want proof? Nuclear experiments were performed knowing that they would adversely effect people in a very large dispersion area... these facts weren't public until decades after the testing... I live in one of the effected areas.

It was years before papers documenting FDR's incompetence or else questionable manipulation during the run up to WWII were revealed.

Nothing Bush has done comes close to the abject incompetence of JFK's Bay of Pigs.

Want even more? How about the "incompetence and malfeasance" the American people tolerated from the Democratically held Congress for 40 years? In which time, the monster whose costs we can't escape was created? How about the incompetence of the initial projections for medicaid?

Incompetence and malfeasance? The intelligence community around the world made mistakes regarding Saddam's WMD program based on the most reasonable interpretation of the best data available.

What you and your ilk are doing is handicapping future leaders who see convincing evidence but won't act on it for fear that it might be wrong and they'll have to pay political price. After Bush, it is doubtful that any of them will do the right thing by being "safe rather than sorry".

To illustrate, consider the opposite scenario. Let's say that the intelligence pros had all told Bush that Saddam had an on-going WMD program and in spite of the fact that the will and ability to inspect were ending... Bush had decided that the intelligence just wasn't certain enough... and does nothing. Then let's say that Saddam once again kicked the inspectors out only to reveal in the heat of summer that he in fact had dirty nukes and an advanced missile system for delivering WMD's.

You with 20/20 hindsight would then be condemning Bush for not taking action when he could since he was faced with good evidenced that Saddam still had WMD's.

As far as the conduct of the war has gone... it is far better than most the US has been involved in to include the US Civil War and subsequent "Reconstruction" in which insurgents (KKK) rose up and committed acts of terrorism because an occupying "invader" was forcing the observance of the rights and freedoms of a previously oppressed people.

Nazis actively resisted the allies for several years after WWII often killing mayors and "disloyal" Germans.

The "incompetence and malfeasance" of the allied leaders after WWI led to WWII... and a loss of 60 million lives after the war to end all wars had already been fought.

No... your claim is overblown in cosmic proportions.

The threat from Saddam was credible and DEMANDED that Bush either take decisive action or risk terrorist capabilities that dwarfed 9/11's destruction and global impact. </font>[/QUOTE]What has Bush done right during his entire administration. Dramatically increase the deficit and weaken the dollar? Invade another country without good reason? If we had wanted to invade a country that might actually have represented a threat to the U.S. why not Iran instead of Iraq? Why didn't we focus on the attack in Afghanastan and really bring down al Quada instead of pulling out pre-maturely to fight Bush's favorite target. Why did we allow a planeload of Saudi princes to fly out of the U.S. on 9/12 when everything else was grounded? Why were the warnings from the FBI staff before 9/11 unheeded? Why couldn't the strongest military on earth scramble fighters to intercept the 9/11 aircraft in time? Why did Bush continue reading a book about a pet goat for 15 min. after being told about the crash of the second jet into the WTC tower? Why did Haliburton receive so many war contracts without having to bid on them? Why did the only really good man in this administration, Colin Powell resign? Was it because he wasn't willing to put up with the incompetency and lying to the American people any more? Why do American soldiers torture prisoners contrary to the Geneva Convention? Why does everyone in the world hate us?

 

A necessary evil if you are going to lower taxes and generate domestic demand. It all plays together.

One of the reasons the Europeans don't like Bush is the low dollar value. It makes their new products more expensive here and makes our companies more competitive. For instance, for the first time in my 15+ years in printing, Americans are actually going into equipment manufacturing. This was previously an industry dominated by Europe (Germany in particular) and Japan.

He had excellent reason... and that is my whole point.

If the "experts" tell a President that a rogue nation with likely ties to a terrorist group that just recently drove airplanes into US buildings has an active WMD program that will likely arm future terrorists... he can't risk them being right while doing nothing. If there were only a 10% chance of them being right it would still be worthy of consideration... but they called it a "slam dunk".

The thing I am primarily opposing you guys on is that your hatred of Bush isn't allowing you to put his decision in its historical context. It is terrible that the intelligence wasn't uniformly correct... unless you happen to be a US soldier who didn't die during the invasion from a chemical/biological attack. None the less, he made the absolute right decision based on the situation as it existed. And no, he couldn't have waited.

If you'll think back, they waited until the last possible moment before starting the attack. The military had basically told them that they couldn't conduct a summer attack against an enemy that could deploy bio/chem weapons... at least not without 10's of thousands of US casualties.

First, Iran's weapons program had never reached the level Iraq's had in the past. Second, because as crazy as they are, Iran has never used WMD's... Saddam had... against other Muslims and even his own civilians. What makes you think he would have hesitated to give those weapons to terrorists to use on us?

We didn't pull out. That mission met its objectives.

I don't know... maybe a mistake? Maybe they had friends and were fearful of reprisals? Maybe they just really wanted to go home?

Why weren't the warnings before December 7th heeded? Possibly because these two Presidents wanted a war... or maybe just because someone made a mistake in judgment about how credible the threats were.

Do your really suspect that Bush told them not to and a conspiracy that large has kept its silence?

Probably because we had never experienced such a thing before and our military really wasn't prepared for the contingency that they might have to shoot down domestic aircraft full of innocent Americans.

Maybe because he didn't want to seem to panic, maybe shock, maybe he was trying to come to grips with it,... I don't know and neither do you.

Because that is the way the gov't does business sometimes. Right or wrong.

Presumes facts not in evidence (that he was a good man). But to the point, it was no great secret that Powell led one side of a power struggle in the Administration. He lost and decided it was time to go. Not an uncommon thing in gov't or the private sector.

Probably not. It appears to have been genuine philosophical differences with Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld.

Because people under the pressure of situations do bad things. Americans have violated the principles of the Geneva Convention in every conflict we've ever been in. For instance, it is against the Geneva convention to kill someone trying to surrender... but how many times do you think LRP teams have killed them or tied them up where no one could find them so their mission could go on?

This isn't the first violations... and notably, those responsible are brought to justice.

That's a pretty complex question... and that hatred didn't start with Iraq.

Part of it is jealousy. Part of it is that leaders get criticized no matter what they do. Part of it is the human nature impulse to blame someone else... in particular someone with more power, for everything that goes wrong.

Some nations resent us because we are successful while having rejected the way they run their country.

Another reason is that we have faithfully supported Israel.

If you've ever been a leader of even a little league team... there have been people that criticized the way you did things and who were probably suspicious of your motives. Magnify that a billion times and through in the egos of men who run their own countries and you'll be about half way there to understanding "why they hate us".

Why do they hate us? Consider that the 9/11 attacks were planned and for the most part executed during the 90's. In fact, every major terrorist attack against American interests occurred before Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20060324/D8GI3DHOC.html?PG=home&SEC=news

Now isn't this interesting?

Our good friends the Russians were feeding Saddam info. One conjecture about where the WMD's went suggested that the Russians had helped him move them... but the Bush haters scoffed at the notion.

 

Paul Craig Roberts is on the right, not the left. </font>[/QUOTE]I was referring to your question.

As far as Mr. Roberts is concerned he endorsed Kerry in 2004 and despises the Bush Administration. Sorry but not willing to waste a minute of my day to read such garbage by Roberts. Garbage in garbage out, perhaps the explanation for the plethora of posts in the Political Forum on the BB.

 

Scott,
Aside from your flawed analysis of history, your assessment of Iran vs. Iraq is very, very comical, coming from someone like yourself that was never in combat especially.
I do not agree with everything Straight and Narrow said, but it has logical thought behind it.
If any veteran of any overseas war read your posts over the last several months, they would be angered. You treat invasions and combat like some sort of chess game for you to analyze, when you dont have a clue what it is like to be there. And the anger is to me a righteous anger, quite apart from your idea that it is not "coming of a person professing to be a brother."
Isnt it time for you to flop on the couch, open your potato chips, turn on Oliver North's "War Stories," wave the flag and sing "America the Beautiful."
Oh and by the way, in the vast majority of your posts, you talk about people calling Bush incompetent, when his name was not even mentioned in the post you cited.