Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Blaming Bush

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
ElTexican Donating Member (53 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:46 PM
Original message
Blaming Bush
Earlier in the day I was outraged on the blaming of Bush for the attacks in London. My rationale was the terrorists are the ones to blame not Bush. If we go down the line of blaming every wrong in society on the people in power, are we then going to blame a local murder on the mayor or the Ipod killing on Steve Jobs?

But then I was reading another thread on people who died in Iraq yesterday. My initial reaction was that Bush is the one who got us into that mess. So then I thought what is the differentiating factor between London and Iraq. My response to self was we have troops in Iraq, not London. But then my mind swung to a more conservative viewpoint. If we can't blame Bush for the London incident, then we shouldn't blame Bush for the daily terror attacks in Iraq. My immediate response to this thought was yes we can blame Bush because he put our troops in harm's way (so I'm blaming Bush for loss of American soldiers). Even further we can blame Bush for creating chaos that leads to terrorists thriving. (Some Americans may blame Bush for the former point and not the latter point, but rationally I do not see someone blaming Bush for the latter point and not the former point.)

But can I use the same agrument of creating a terrorist enviornment for London? Of course, a war is not taking place in London. Even if I were to use the argument that depletion of American resources reduces our domestic security budget in the States, this argument cannot be used for England (unless you are to argue Britain's own war budget is to blame for lack of security at home. But do you blame Bush or Blair for that?) This is where I'm stuck. I may be able to blame Bush directly on a lot of terrorism issues, but this issue is so remote to American control that I can't blame Bush right now for what happened in London. I wish to hear why I should blame Bush though. My thoughts are still forming on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Iraq War MAJOR distraction from real fight against terrorists.
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 12:48 PM by Hissyspit
Not to mention, Britain only real, overt supporter of the war besides U.S., so drew attention to themselves as target.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. You cannot wage a war against terrorism. It is an idiotic concept.
It is simply a mechanism to sell arms and loot countries. Americans need to grow up and let go of this foolish idea of waging war against a fighting technique.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paula777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. Your mind is at battle with itself
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueManDude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. We are locked in an escalating cycle of violence
that will make us less safe and less free. It's the less free part that bothers me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeekMonkey Donating Member (418 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. Creating more terrorists by invading Iraq IS BUSH's FAULT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. Personally, I believe Bush's rhetoric on how evil Muslims are is
the basis for the attacks. His cowboy attitude of "we will kill them all" (not a direct quote) fuels even more hatred and for that reason I blame him. Wish we had a real diplomat and a thinking man for a President, but at the present time we are stuck with this moron.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dean_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. Blair had to have known that by allying himself with
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 12:54 PM by dean_dem
Bush's war in Iraq, he was making Britain a possible target. So I suppose, in that way you could sort of blame Blair. But that strikes me as completely counterproductive. Chances are that not invading Iraq would not mean international terrorism would go away. This could have happened regardless.

Who to blame (other than the terrorists that committed the bombing) doesn't strike me as what's at issue here. If the people who did this can be caught, they should be prosecuted, imprisoned, etc. but this more provides an opportunity for the US and Europe to understand how Iraq did contribute to, not necessarily cause, this sort of thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whosinpower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. Bush and Blair have failed
And the attack is proof of that. Blame them for not being more forceful in coordinating and ensuring better, more relevant intelligence is forthcoming. Blame them for wasting precious resources in IRAQ instead of al Quaida. Blame them for dropping the ball in Afghanistan and creating a Terrorist university in Iraq.

I would blame them. I do blame them. Why should we give them a pass on killing tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ron Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
8. The cognitive dissonance is contagious.
Although we all respond to fear, and the masses respond to fear-mongering propaganda, yet something in the human spirit wants to make sense of the world, and to see hope and love in human affairs.

Remember Bush is just a tool, a one-dimensional fratboy in 'way over his head, being directed by the true forces of evil in this world. The fact that he's been put into his position TWICE by an otherwise free electorate tends to boggle all minds, yours and mine more so because, unlike the masses, we think about these things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
9. Our policy systematically supports
tyrants and tyranny in the Islamic world.

Those who oppose them do so on religious (fundie) grounds.
When we support the corrupt tyrants, we stand for corruption and tyranny.

Bush/Rove/Cheney, as architects and heirs of our policy in the ME, have taken it to a whole new level, but injecting our policy with moralist and reductionist rhetoric.

Sadly, it only blows up in their faces figuratively. It's the innocent commuters who get blown up literally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eagler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
10. I think that there are several indicators that certainly point
to putting some blame on this administration. First, With all of the available media they still have a tight grip on what is conveyed to the nation. We need a fairness doctrine. And also - for as much as I detest this war-this administration does not seem to want to take the necessary steps to win the war suggesting that they are benefiting from dragging it out for eternity. This of course results in countless unnecessary casualties. Control(of minds and emotions) is the motive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
11. Here you go
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
12. Blame no one if you choose...
But Steve Jobs did not invade Iraq. Whose decision has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis? No one is to blame except the terrorists? They are the ones that committed the dastardly act, right? More people are going to die on both sides. If it is on their side, no one is to blame. If it is on our side, then the terrorists are to blame. Rather simplistic, don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
13. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
14. Can we fight the terrorists yet?
Strumming fingers... still waiting.

I don't blame Bush for the attacks, but I blame him and Blair for a horrible terrorist strategy. That will change now, I don't think the Brits will put up with this keystone cop stuff anymore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
15. Can we fight the terrorists yet?
Strumming fingers... still waiting.

I don't blame Bush for the attacks, but I blame him and Blair for a horrible terrorist strategy. That will change now, I don't think the Brits will put up with this keystone cop stuff anymore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
16. I've got plenty on this. You can't troll a page without that info. Still,
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 01:41 PM by bigtree
I'll offer this latest from my files:

This is why we invaded Iraq: "a robust show of force"(Blair). . .posturing


Blair 'Astonished' by Coverage of Memos

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BLAIR_INTERV...

{snip}

For Prime Minister Tony Blair, the road to Iraq started with 9/11. The British leader said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press that the attacks on U.S. soil fundamentally changed "the balance of risk" in the world, sharing President Bush's view that the tragedy had made a robust show of force an urgent priority.

The attacks, he said, made it necessary to "draw a line in the sand here, and the country to do it with was Iraq because they were in breach of U.N. resolutions going back over many years."

Sitting on a stone terrace overlooking the garden of his Downing Street residence, Blair reflected on how Sept. 11 convinced him of the need for a new approach to the threat of international terror.

"9/11 changed the whole picture for me, it changed the politics of how we dealt with the threat," he said.




Although Blair gets points for a moment of candor, this is a stunning admission, and a window into the flawed logic that convinced Blair to let Bush lead him into an illegal, manufactured war of opportunity. Blair admits that the assault on Baghdad was essentially a muscle-flexing exercise, yet he conveniently leaves out issue of the hyped rhetoric about WMDs and the non-existent nuclear threat that he and Bush wined on and on about as they sold the invasion to their respective countrymen.

Now these jokers want to be seen as, essentially, just these two well-meaning warriors who had our backs. But Blair reveals their true personalities: two paranoid boobs who were more concerned about rehabilitating their own weak images after 9-11, than in formulating and executing a prudent response that wouldn't isolate us and further threaten our security.

They thought Iraq would be a cakewalk (the hunt for bin Laden was a bust) so they loaded up our national pride and covered all of us with Iraqi blood to go with the blood of innocent Afghans caught in our swaggering reprisal. Tens of thousands of innocents, in Iraq and Afghanistan have been killed by our cluster bombs, our search and destroy missions, and by the misguided hands of our nervous soldiers so that Blair and Bush could "draw a line in the sand" like bullies in front of a crowd.

So the numbers of bystanders slaughtered by our aggression quickly outpaced the numbers killed in the 9-11 attack, but that wasn't enough to satiate the fear of Blair and Bush. And they seem shocked (as bullies often are) at the lack of fear from those they sought to dominate with their violence. And their enemies multiplied. More shock. And their critics multiplied. More shock.

They are caught in their own vain play. Bush and Blair's rout of Saddam may have made them appear to be warrior kings. But in the context of their overwhelming domination of the inept Saddam and the hapless Iraqi army, they more resemble Don Quixote. In the classic tale of the ideal vs. the real, Quixote battles windmills that appear to be giants, and sheep that look to him like armies. He believes himself the victor, comes to his senses, only to be trapped by his delusion; forced to play the conquering hero.

According to our own military and intelligence operatives, our presence in Iraq is having the effect of creating more enemies and resistance to the U.S. than can be countered by any new recruits or any new Iraqi government intuitive sponsored or propped up by our heavy-handed military forces and their war of aggression against all who would resist our occupying army. Our oppressive posture has pushed the citizens of this once sovereign nation to a forced expression of their nationalism in defense of basic prerogatives of liberty and self-determination, which our false authority disregards as threats to our consolidation of power.

Yet, Bush and Blair push on, mesmerized by their own hypocritical rhetoric about freedom and democracy. It's more than clear to all in the Middle East that these stated ideals mask the bloody reality that the U.S., under Bush's leadership, has become the type of oppressor that all the suffering people around the world fear. The random exercise of our military strength and destructive power will not serve as a deterrent to these rouge, radical terrorist organizations who claim no permanent base of operations. The wanton, collateral bombing and killing has undoubtedly alienated any fringe of moderates who might have joined in a unified effort of regime change which respects our own democratic values of justice and due process.

Bush, in his Iraq speech, quoted General John Vines who said: "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us."

That's the common mantra coming from the White House. Vice President Cheney cautioned in a speech before the Heritage Foundation: "We are fighting this evil in Iraq so that we do not have to fight it in our own cities."

Sadly, American soldiers also serve as targets in Iraq, and their lives are no less important than ours here in the states. Inviting attacks overseas is an amazing retreat from the peaceful influence of a great nation of justice; humbled by bloody, devastating wars; and witnessed to the power of liberty, and to the freedom inherent in the constitution we wisely defend with our peaceful acts of mercy, charity, and tolerance.

What is the value in using Iraq as a terror magnet? It has resulted in daily attacks on our soldiers by an Iraqi resistance. What is it about our operation in Iraq that would support the argument that we won't have to fight them (terrorists) on our shores? Most observers predict another devastating attack in the U.S. is inevitable if not imminent. Further, by likening Iraq to the worldwide Muslim terror offensive the president does what Hussein could not; he binds Iraqis to the Muslim extremists. He practically invites them to join the battle there and ally with the forces that threaten our soldiers daily.

"Peace," Herman Wouk wrote, "if it ever exists, will not be based on the fear of war, but on the love of peace. It will not be the abstaining from an act but the coming of a state of mind." All else that we pursue should be a means to that peace; and a wholesale rejection of violent postures which just invite more violence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
17. Who should we blame for London? Who did it?
We don't know yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Exactly. My money is on the neoconservatives because they stood to gain
the most. The "Muslim terrorists" stood to gain nothing since the UK had announced a few days earlier they planned to withdraw. Same scenario as Spain. Spain withdraws from Iraq and they get hit. Makes no sense for the Muslims to do it. The ones to gain would be the Neocons...it backfired on them in Spain, hopefully the Brits are as smart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
18. The perpetrator of war does not get to say...
that war is not taking place on our ground, only yours. When a country is taking part in an aggressive war, war IS taking place in that country...or at least such a war should be expected to take place in that country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
19. But there has been a battle in London. Over viewpoints. and re:Bush,
Not all battles involve metallic weapons designed for slaughter.

Words and (the use or misuse of money) are also valid weapons of mass destruction too.

If Bush is to blame for 9/11, in ANY way - and docuemntation has shown the "LIHOP" theory to be very much possible, then he IS, at least indirectly, responsible for EVERY act of terror that has happened because of the decisions he made or the mistakes me made or the warnings he deliberately overlooked.

Oh. If a Dem was in power, the rethugs would be saying the same thing as I am - only with far more vitriol and selfishness. I care for America and Americans. The rethugs in power proved long ago they only give a damn about themselves and their special interests. (Clinton was the same in that regard, he also harped on about attacking Iraq. I will NEVER blindly oney one party or the other; I am a free thinker AND I will apologize and ask forgiveness when I proven wrong for I am moral.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
20. Have you formed your thoughts yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC