I think Bush will get reelected in 2004, there is a number of reasons for that

1 - the Democrats have a lot of bad candidates with horrible approval ratings

2 - now that the economy is improving Bush will be seen as someone who made the right decisions

3 - He's currently in office, (US presidents tend to get reelcted)

4 - although it seems like a lot of people hate Bush inthe US it only seems like that because the people that do go out on the streets and have rallies and other protests, while the people that approve of him tend not to care

Give some feedback

I would like to say it's not my business, but american president is in fact business of all world. I can hope & pray that he won't be reelected and that is everything I can do right now.

But honestly I think he will be reelected, no doubts whatsoever

Originally posted by BuDi
But honestly I think he will be reelected, no doubts whatsoever
i think so, too :cry:.
but the election is still some time away, so a lot of things can (hopefully) change in the meantime. although i'm happy that this will be the last time he can get elected.
edit: i also think that many people, who didn't vote in 2000 at all will now see that a few votes can decide about who will be president, so maybe more people will go and vote next year.
i think bush is a candidate that has very loyal voters, voters that will go to an election no matter what, so maybe next time some of those that didn't vote in 2000 but were in favor of gore will go to the election to stop bush from becoming president again.

i would say no, .. like father like son ...hehehehe

it really depends on the candidate of the other side, and i think GORE will not run... will he?

if the Democrats have a good candidate then maybe theres a chance there will be another democratic president..

i really think the americans have a very good "balance of power" , no single party has absolute power, the senate and the congress usually has a opposite majority than the president..

8 years of Reagan (republican in the 80s)
8 years of Clinton (democrats in the 90s)....

as i say its a balance of power.. :)

George W. Bush

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
* I attacked and took over two countries.
* I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the Treasury.
* I shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history.
* I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
* I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
*I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
* I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
* In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
* After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.
* I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history.
* In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
* I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.
* I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
* I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
* I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president since the advent of TV.
* I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other president in US history.
* I presided over the biggest energy crisis in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
* I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
* I cut health care benefits for war veterans.
* I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
* I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
* I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.
* Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her).
* I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
* I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.
* I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
* I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
* I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history.
* I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
* I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.
* I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
* I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
* I withdrew from the World Court of Law.
* I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
* I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.
* I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
* The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former
CEO of Enron Corporation). I spent money on polls and focus groups, more than any president in US history.
* I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
* I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
* I took the world's sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
* I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and
stability.
* I am the first US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
* I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
* I set the all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations bidding for gov't contracts.
* I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history. In a little over two years I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US has been since the civil war.
* I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
* I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
* I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during a time of war.
*I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
* All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
* All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
* All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
* Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
review.

PERSONAL REFERENCES:
* For personal references, please speak to my dad or uncle James Baker (They can be reached in their offices at the Carlyle Group where they are helping to divide up the spoils of the US-Iraq war and plan for the next one.)

LOL...... and Clinton ?


<IMG SRC="http://www.movie-list.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=54592">

I think he will get reelected but i sure wish he didnt ;o

If he get Reelected you will see that america has nothing learned....sad sad if he will be reelected

With the last election fiasco, I pretty much suspected that whichever one won (Bush or Gore), it would only be for one term. At least until the Democratic candidtate is named, I will stick to that prediction.

Personally, I am thankful every day that Gore wasn't elected, but that is another story (not that I like Bush all that much, I just wouldn't be able to stand four more years of Clinton's administration, and to me, that is all Gore was, Clinton II).

The problem with the Bush vs. Gore election wasn't so much who will you vote for, but who will you vote against, and I am proud to say I voted against Gore. I'm not as proud to say I voted for Bush, but I am not ashamed of it, either.

I'm sure the Democrats will come up with somebody who can compete against Bush, although looking at the choices at this moment, I think I will still take Bush. Rudi Guillani may be the Democrat's best bet for presidency, assuming he is willing to run. God help us all if Gore tries for the office again.

Originally posted by corfy
Rudi Guillani may be the Democrat's best bet for presidency, assuming he is willing to run.
i think against bush his chances would be really fantastic. unlike bush there aren't many people really against him.
i also think that he would get large support internationally.

An interesting topic. My say is simple!

I'm currently living in the U.S. and in just a few days from first arriving, i've learnt one major thing.
The U.S. resident don't mind Bush. He is a President that is doing the right thing. The problem is that he is doing the right thing for wrong reason.

I attend to agree. Singling out the war on Iraq, the reason was of WMD. I mean, hasn't he now admitted that they haven't found any or they won't? The information and reason to go attack iraq was false. The U.S. ppl don't like that. They don't like that at all. The actions were acceptable and I agree but lying to the public and his own people is just described as "untrustworthy".

Now, in politics, I don't know if having trust and the truth is all important or is it just the result of work thats important. I want to believe the first but trust is such a rare thing next to honesty with power.

Bush has done excellent things for the U.S. as stated above but missed out on the major thing that is the U.S. and any other country... its people.

What I'm saying is that "true" & trust" a strong thing to follow in politics or is the results of its actions that determine a good leader. I guess its a combination of both but its simple weight of the facts and faults. Faults being more seen and weighted.

Originally posted by Kn'thrak
Singling out the war on Iraq, the reason was of WMD. I mean, hasn't he now admitted that they haven't found any or they won't? The information and reason to go attack iraq was false.

Well, I may be wrong about this, but so far, hasn't the only thing Bush admitted was wrong/lieing/etc. was Saddam trying to assemble the parts for a nuclear weapon? Granted, we haven't found the chemical or biological weapons yet, but I don't think they have given up on them or admitted defeat on that issue yet. Everyone seems to be saying, "Well, Bush lied about the nuclear stuff, so obviously Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction at all." If that were true, then Saddam would have let the UN inspectors search the country years ago, which would have proven they don't exist and allowed the UN sanctions against Iraq to be lifted, thus a large portion of the Iraqi people's suffering.

I think you guys forgot that something in 2001 happened and that's why the US economy was screwed up

Guliani is a Republican but he'd make a great candidate

Originally posted by BuDi
George W. Bush

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:


You forgot some.

--Allowed the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil of any previous US president in history.

--Allowed the destruction of a second Space Shuttle, resulting in the deaths of 7 astronauts.

--Allowed one of the greatest entertainers in history, Bob Hope, to die while in office.

--Was unable to prevent countless storms to cause flooding throughout the American mid-west, resulting in millions of dollars of property damage.

--Allowed Madonna to make in "Swept Away."

I mean, if we are going to blame Bush, we need to really pile it on. He is obviously single-handedly responsible for every bad thing that has happened on the planet since he took office in Jan. 2001. The fact that the economy was slipping at the end of Clinton's term is irrelevant. The fact that our country was attacked is irrelevant. The fact that he is only one person is irrelevant. The fact that he has to answer to Congress, the Supreme Court, and to the US voters is irrelevant. The fact that he is advised by advisors who have advisors who have advisors is irrelevant. Heck, we could probably pin the very existence of Al-Queda on Bush. Everything that is wrong in the world today is Bush's fault. Period. End of discussion.

Bush/ Blair lied to the whole world when they said that Saddam has WMD (not past but now) he said that in the state of the union address and Powell declared that in the UN security council last February.

with this idea, Bush or any american president can lie or create any information about a country, having a bad or useless leader and simply take over it. As a European or a non american that idea is very scary.

or is the world simply a pissing game? and that America can simply piss on any country they want to:rolleyes:

God Job Corfy!

Someone got the right idea, now let's go throw some German tea into Boston Harbor:D (just joking)

I would say no. It will depends on the other guy who's also running. I think it's Kerry??? Not sure.

But I don't like Democratic that much. We have to pay more taxes which the money goes to lazy people without a job.

I suppose I won't vote anymore.... I voted for Bush and look what happened... :angel"

*bumping this*

midway there, the democrats are getting their stuff together soon, not looking too good for them tho

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htmhttp://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

same link as the "Saddam..."

anyway, I figure the poll is still good

This is interesting. You know, suppose "YOU" decided to go for presidential elections. And you actually WON by something like 51% to 49%. Then the next election comes and there're still 49% not pleased about you. What have you done?

Well, regardless, I'd say that if there's one thing Bush has done, it isn't really uniting the country. The people who were happy with Bush now revere him as a God, and those who didn't like him before now see him as the scum of the earth. I don't think te numbers are going to be that different, unless the Democrats pick a terrible candidate. If Dean goes for it, it could very well come down to Florida again, assuming it doesn't get rigged... again.

I think that Bush lacks popularity to be re-elected, espically considering some of the views in this forum. *cough*ZUBi*cough*

Originally posted by I Got Trailers
I think that Bush lacks popularity to be re-elected, espically considering some of the views in this forum. *cough*ZUBi*cough*
yeah, but keep in mind, that all those opposing voices in the forum come out of europe, canada or somewhere else, so it will (sadly) never affect the choice the americans make.
like blugh said before, people see him as a god or the scum of the universe and unfortunately i think most americans see him as a god that made the usa look strong after 9/11 :rolleyes:

I kinda hoping he will get re-elected...

I mean I'm going by personal opinion. I'm not suffering financially like many Americans. And I feel safe in this country since there's a war.

Again, my PERSONAL OPINION! :D

Originally posted by radstar
I kinda hoping he will get re-elected...

I mean I'm going by personal opinion. I'm not suffering financially like many Americans. And I feel safe in this country since there's a war.

Again, my PERSONAL OPINION! :D

Good that this is your personal opinion and i respect that opinion...but i only hope that not all americans think like you..

WARNING! Incoming Radstar verbal attack! WARNING!
You know, opinons are everyones own. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you insult them about it. That's how wars start. Now, if you excuse me, I must flee to my bomb shelter.

Originally posted by I Got Trailers
WARNING! Incoming Radstar verbal attack! WARNING!
You know, opinons are everyones own. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you insult them about it. That's how wars start. Now, if you excuse me, I must flee to my bomb shelter.

YOu doenst read my comment ...i say that i respect her opinion and dont have nothing against her opinion but i think that it would be not good if every american has got this opinion....

That's the point - you insulted her. You're saying that it is wrong to have that opinon and she doesn't think like the rest of the American public. Read it back, then realize you actually insulted her.

Originally posted by I Got Trailers
That's the point - you insulted her. You're saying that it is wrong to have that opinon and she doesn't think like the rest of the American public. Read it back, then realize you actually insulted her.

Nope...but i dont want to start a war...
You asked if he will gets re elected and i say No
and i hope that...and most of the europeans think that too....

Your opinon is fine, BUT don't insult others who have a different perspective.

Originally posted by I Got Trailers
Your opinon is fine, BUT don't insult others who have a different perspective.


Sorry to interfere, but... I don't see where is the insult. Reading Radstar post, the sentence "I'm not suffering financially like many Americans" shocks a bit; sounds like "I don't care about other people problems, as long as I'm ok"... sounds a bit egoistical, and maybe that's what discostu was talking about

I'm with radstar here. (No surprise.)

The only thing I'd state differently is that I do not believe that there are that many Americans who are not well off (for more on this see this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679463038).

There are many poor people in the world and we must do whatever we can to help them. I think Bush's support of things like faith-based inititives, limited immigrant amnesty, and school vochures are programs that will help the poor more than anything else that any other American politician has suggested.

Bush has effectively engaged the evil that faces the free world, he's improved the American economy, and he's worked to ensure that the poorest among us are not forgotten. That short list contains actual acheivements, not simply GOP rhetoric.

Originally posted by enkydu
he's improved the American economy, and he's worked to ensure that the poorest among us are not forgotten
ROFL,
yeah right. i bet those 2.5 million people that lost their jobs since he is in the office agree with you.
oh, i bet they are just fake and made up by some bad and evil anti-american democrats. same with the unbelievably high loss he made from a record high.


btw, just read an open letter from madonna against president bush. i just hope people like her and michael moore can actually reach some people to think about their situation in the usa and the president that "trashed" the country.
i think more people actually will listen to someone like them than to bush supporters like fred durst and britney spears.

letter readable here (http://www.madonna.com/madonna/php/news.php?&articleID=590)

Well, all I can say is I couldn't stand Willy Clinton, and I saw Gore as Clinton Jr., so I'm proud to say I did my part to get Bush elected (not that he had any trouble winning the state of Indiana). If the Democrats can come up with a better candidate for president, I will vote for him/her. So far, though, I am not impressed with their selection, so I will probably stick by Bush once more.

Originally posted by Borgtex
Sorry to interfere, but... I don't see where is the insult. Reading Radstar post, the sentence "I'm not suffering financially like many Americans" shocks a bit; sounds like "I don't care about other people problems, as long as I'm ok"... sounds a bit egoistical, and maybe that's what discostu was talking about

Finally someone who gets my point

Originally posted by streetpreacher
[B]btw, just read an open letter from madonna against president bush. i just hope people like her and michael moore can actually reach some people to think about their situation in the usa and the president that "trashed" the country.
i think more people actually will listen to someone like them than to bush supporters like fred durst and britney spears. Madonna, Moore, Durst, and Spears are entertainers. On why should their viewpoints be given any more weight then, say, mine?

Madonna said, "...as an American citizen and as a mother. I want my children to grow up with the same opportunities that I had – to know and understand what's going on in the world and to travel that world safely and with pride." I agree with her (that's why I support Bush), but if parenthood and citizenship is all the creditials one needs to become an influential person in the world of politics I guess since I'm a father of two and an American citizen people should start heeding what I say more.:P

Getting serious now...I feel for those who don't have jobs. But let's face it, a 5.6% unemployment rate is not very bad. In fact, during past recessions the US rate jumped way over 7%, and thankfully, that has not happened under Bush. It's tough going without a job, but we need to have jobs that are long-term and stable. The low unemployment rate that the last administration brought us was fueled by those Enron bastards who lied about their company's finances and web companies that never turned a profit. Hopefully, this growth will be based on real numbers.

if you knew anything about how the US economy was doing you would notice that it went to hell just before Bush was elected, Bush said "the difference between Herbert Hoover and me was that he created one and I inherited one"

it's true, just look at anything, for ex. look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average or NASDAQ, those indexes were 2, 3 000 points higher than they are now, and they all dropped back before Bush cam einto office, it's not his fault, and the fact that the US economy is growing at the fastest pace since 1970s, just means they'll get their jobs sooner

"jobs and economic growth go hand in hand"

Originally posted by enkydu
Madonna, Moore, Durst, and Spears are entertainers. On why should their viewpoints be given any more weight then, say, mine?

i agree with you, but according to vader statements by celebrities have the same weight as statements made by politicians ;)
dixie chicks <--> schwarzenegger

Originally posted by Borgtex
Sorry to interfere, but... I don't see where is the insult. Reading Radstar post, the sentence "I'm not suffering financially like many Americans" shocks a bit; sounds like "I don't care about other people problems, as long as I'm ok"... sounds a bit egoistical, and maybe that's what discostu was talking about

Well, just to let you know.. I didn't mean it to sound like that. What I meant is I know there's a lot of people (democratic people) who hates the Republican party and President Bush. And I understand that. President Bush does send a lot of money to a different country, to help build up and improve the country... rather than sending some of those money in to hospitals or insurance companies. Because of that, lots of people have to suffer to make payments on hospital bills. Some have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars just for a check-up at least. Well something like that...

So I do care about other people. It's just that I'm not experiencing it so that is why I said what I said.

I don't think I even wanna know what discostu said about me... but surprises surprises. It tells me he or she has not changed one bit. But thanks to IGT for backing me up.

It is my personal opinion. And I want to clarify the fact that I DO care! :D

Originally posted by radstar
And I want to clarify the fact that I DO care!


And I'm happy for that. Your previous post was confusing, and IGT got a bit... overprotective/paranoid ;)

THat is the point of ELECTIONS, to pick someone to work for you, and BUSH works for me

Yeah, good that you cleared that up Radstar;)

I thought this was surprising and interesting:

Three-term New York City Mayor and lifelong Democrat Ed Koch explains in The Forward why he will be voting for President Bush in 2004:


""I intend to vote in 2004 to reelect President Bush... President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism...

President Bush has confronted the terrorist threat head on. Immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the president presented the core principle of what has become known as the Bush Doctrine, an articulation of American foreign policy that rivals in importance the Monroe Doctrine, which barred foreign imperialism from the Western Hemisphere, and the Truman Doctrine, which sought to contain communism around the world. The Bush Doctrine, simply stated by the president, is: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

President Bush has lived up to that credo. Under his leadership, Afghanistan was liberated from Al Qaeda's patron, the Taliban. The president also has demonstrated, through the liberation of Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, that he is willing to wage a preemptive war when he believes the national interests of the United States are endangered."

well put

that makes two of us (voting for Bush)

make that the three of us :D

Originally posted by enkydu
Madonna said, "...as an American citizen and as a mother. I want my children to grow up with the same opportunities that I had – to know and understand what's going on in the world and to travel that world safely and with pride." I agree with her (that's why I support Bush), but if parenthood and citizenship is all the creditials one needs to become an influential person in the world of politics I guess since I'm a father of two and an American citizen people should start heeding what I say more.:P

I can't put this gently so I'm going to be blunt. The vast majority of the things Bush has done, regardless of their benefits to America which are certainly good for you guys and may give you plenty of reason to re-elect him, have NOT made the world a safer place where Americans can walk with their heads held high. Bush may be the best president America has had, as he has brought you guys a lot of good things, but it's been at the expense of isolating yourselves from the world. The rest of the world doesn't like what Bush is doing by ignoring international diplomacy and simply lying in order to achieve what he wants. He said, repeatedly, that Iraq had chemical and bio weapons(he should know, the receipts are still in the Pentagon checkbook), and that they were developing nukes. They didn't have chem/bio, and they weren't developing nukes. Of course, as soon as they realized this, they changed their tune to Iraq being a war for the liberation of an oppressed people, which is fine, I guess if you'd like to send Americans to die for that. But while most Americans lapped this up, the rest of the world noticed what Bush had done and needless to say, your reputations didn't improve too much that day. After Sept. 11, the US had a rare opportunity to lead the world into a better place. Instead Bush kicked everyone else to the curb and pursued his current strategy which is working wonders in America but only pissing people off elsewhere. And sure, your economy is picking up, but every gain you make is getting smaller every day as the US dollar sinks lower and lower on the exchange markets.

Hell, if I lived in America, I'd vote for Bush. He's making America the best place in the world assuming you don't mind never being able to leave.

To close, I'm only going to say that there's a reason you sew our flags on your backpacks.

very well said blugh

well said blugh, my stand on this matter has changed a bit, i am now employed by the US Army (civilian employee), so basically my boss is G. Bush...lol.. but its always fun to hate your boss ..:P

Very interesting, Blugh. Thanks for your comments. I really appreciate your insights and candor. You've given me much to ponder.

Originally posted by blugh
The rest of the world doesn't like what Bush is doing by ignoring international diplomacy... Instead Bush kicked everyone else to the curb and pursued his current strategy which is working wonders in America but only pissing people off elsewhere

So tell me, if you are angry that Bush has ignored international diplomacy, why didn't the rest of the world back the same international diplomacy that Bush is supposedly ignoring?

Since the first Gulf War in 1991, there have been, what, 16 resolutions passed by the U.N. requiring, not asking, not requesting, requiring that Saddam allow weapons inspectors into Iraq. Every one of them was either ignored by Iraq, or the inspectors were allowed into the country only to be kicked out well before their job was done. And the U.N.'s response to this has always been to pass another resolution.

Look at it like this. If Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, then he had good reason to keep the inspectors out. If he did not have, then why did he constantly "ignore intenational diplomacy" and keep the inspectors out at the expense of his own people? All he had to do was let the inspectors in, let them conclude there aren't any weapons, and the "international" trade restrictions would have been lifted helping all of Iraq's people, the U.S. would have had egg on its face, if not worse, and Saddam would still be in power. Apparently, that was too much of a sacrifice for Saddam to make.

Saddam spent 13 years ignoring international diplomacy. What makes you think he would have changed his mind? And why are you so mad at Bush for doing something that Saddam did for 13 years? Why aren't you mad at him, too? Or do third-world dictators who torture his own people for fun and invade neighboring countries without warning get more respect in the international community?

Excellent points, Corfy. You're right on.

Additionally, when Bush asked the UN for a resolution to oust Saddam, it was the first time since the first Gulf War that the UN Security Council was asked for support prior to sending troops since the first Gulf War in 1991. That means that the UN actions in Kosovo and Somalia were military actions that did not have support of the Security Council--yet I don't hear Bush's critics complaining about that.

Bush did everything right. He went to the Security Council (something Clinton never did), received a UN resolution (#1441) to keep Saddam accountable, and when some Security Council members decided to ignore that resolution and stopped supporting their own resolution, Bush got a 40+ nation coalition together (the largest such colalition the world has EVER seen) and did what the UN resolved to do, but didn't have the balls to carry out.

Now that the major fighting is over, Bush has welcomed the UN into Iraq to help with the rebuilding process--even though some major UN players fought against military actions.

Now the world is rid of a madman who ignored the UN and was a danger to the free world (in fact, weapons inspector David Kay found about two dozen major cases of where Iraq hid equipment or engaged in prohibited activities that were not permitted under the U.N. resolution for more read here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98995,00.html)). And today, the world is unifying in an effort to rebuild a safe and free Iraq.

If these actions weakened the US's profile among many people in Europe, so be it. That's an acceptable loss given the advances the US has made in securing peace.

Originally posted by blugh
They didn't have chem/bio, and they weren't developing nukes.

Just to say... that wuz never proven. They did not see every inches in Iraq. I do agreed that Bush made up a reason to go to war but it's for the right reasons. The only thing people are pissed about is that he could've just told the truth saying, "We were attacked. So we attack back." And also not spending so much money to rebuild Iraq.

That's all I can think of that is why you people are bitchin at us for.
Lots of you are just making excuses AND/OR over-exaggerating on why Bush sucks. He has done a lot for our country! He is not President Lyndon Johnson all over again. He is not the best President in the world. And to think, you gotta have the House of the Representatives and the Senate to approve whatcha wanna do... to help make decisions. Bush is not the ONLY human being doing this....

PEOPLE JUST GET OVER IT!!!! you guys don't even live in the USA. Can you even see the US news over there? I have no clue. It just seems to me that you're listening to badasses on the internet or friends who doesn't live in the USA either....


*screams*



I'm gonna kill the guy who invented politics... :freak:

To set the record straight.... they DID find Weapons of Mass Destruction just a few days ago. It was gas. They are still looking for more... and will be always but will find more eventually. I don't feel sorry for all those silly protestors. They all must already be feeling silly about the good things that are coming from recent events.

So now the war is even more justified (didn't need 2). All those bad comments about the U.S. can go flying out the door now.

As for the topic, I think he will. He is the most popular President to date and as corrected alot of mistakes in this world. As for internal U.S. politics, I don't know (nor that I care) about the finanical stuff within the U.S. (budget, tax, flaming against other politicians), but that's for only it's own people to decide.

I say, he definitely will.

Originally posted by radstar
Just to say... that wuz never proven. They did not see every inches in Iraq. I do agreed that Bush made up a reason to go to war but it's for the right reasons. The only thing people are pissed about is that he could've just told the truth saying, "We were attacked. So we attack back." And also not spending so much money to rebuild Iraq.

That's all I can think of that is why you people are bitchin at us for.
Lots of you are just making excuses AND/OR over-exaggerating on why Bush sucks. He has done a lot for our country! He is not President Lyndon Johnson all over again. He is not the best President in the world. And to think, you gotta have the House of the Representatives and the Senate to approve whatcha wanna do... to help make decisions. Bush is not the ONLY human being doing this....

PEOPLE JUST GET OVER IT!!!! you guys don't even live in the USA. Can you even see the US news over there? I have no clue. It just seems to me that you're listening to badasses on the internet or friends who doesn't live in the USA either....



"We were attacked. So we attack back" and that's the truth? Sounds funny. As far as I know, nobody has proved the implication of Iraq in the 11S.The truth is "We were attacked. So we will use it as excuse to our own interests".

And I agree, all that fanatics and dictators have other people behind him, but as they are the visible head, critizing them whe talk for the others, too

I can't see the news from USA about the USA (or well, I can see but I don't care about), so I don't talk about it. But I can see all the news from the world involving USA (something that you probably can't due to censorship)

Frequency: old/abandoned weapons don't count, sorry. It's like invading Louisiana for insurrection because they have find weapons from the civil war.

Originally posted by radstar
you guys don't even live in the USA. Can you even see the US news over there? I have no clue. It just seems to me that you're listening to badasses on the internet or friends who doesn't live in the USA either...
HEH, every village got CNN International... :P

Originally posted by Borgtex
But I can see all the news from the world involving USA (something that you probably can't due to censorship)

Censorship? Boy, you really don't know anything about the US, do you? As a representative of the news media industry in the United States, I can tell you that news in this country is not censored beyond the non-use of certain 4-letter words. We may not read it because we don't want to read it (just as you don't want to read US news from the US), but we are not forbidden to read it.

OK, so I am a reporter-turned-computer tech at a smalltown newspaper with a circulation of 11,000. I still know what I am talking about.

Originally posted by Borgtex
Frequency: old/abandoned weapons don't count, sorry. It's like invading Louisiana for insurrection because they have find weapons from the civil war.


Ok, so you're saying that the US has no nuclear weapons right? After all we stopped making them many many years ago.

Old as in 10 year old is not the same as 140 year old, a granade or a bomb is not milk, it doesn't cease to be a weapon just because it's past its "expiration date"

and let's get real, Iraq had one of the biggest military machines of the world, the fact that there aren't wepons found is actually making this more suspicious, I mean hell, if you had to hide something in your house I probably couldn't find it with all the time in the world, and nukes and especiallly little vials with sarin aren't exactly huge, and Iraq is quite big

Originally posted by corfy
Censorship? Boy, you really don't know anything about the US, do you? As a representative of the news media industry in the United States, I can tell you that news in this country is not censored beyond the non-use of certain 4-letter words. We may not read it because we don't want to read it (just as you don't want to read US news from the US), but we are not forbidden to read it.

So what happens when the US media(all owned by 5 companies in the US) decides unilaterally to not read something, therefore meaning it never shows up on the news? And what if their publishing divisions refuse to publish it, meaning it doesn't show up on bookshelves? Then it's off to the internet it goes, where it can be mocked as insubstantial by the TV and News Media. In fact, there's really only one truly independant Newscast in the US, and as should be expected, the Daily Show is gaining credibility fast.

As for finding gas, I guess finding some weapons is better for you guys than finding none... but it doesn't change the fact that they were abandoned. the US's 40 year old nukes are still impeccably maintained. The fact is Iraq's arsenal is neutralized. They don't exactly have the ability to launch attacks any more.

Re: the ignorance of international diplomacy... Iraq was calling the UN's bluff, and, when troops started lining up, Iraq yielded and inspectors were allowed back in. Unfortunately, the US, God forbid they ever back down from anything, decided they had to go on in anyway, lest the inspectors find out that in fact there were no, or very few weapons.

It wasn't the act of going in that ticked everyone off, but ignoring the fact that the inspectors were in and searching and charging in anyway.

corfy: I'ts more a auto-censorship of the news media industry than governmental (that would not be politically correct). We are used to the "images will not be aired in the USA by recommendation of the White House". It's like the movie ratings: miss out some things to avoid problems, the fear for fluctuations in audience ratings...

Jake: Let's get real: Saddam has been one of the biggest boasters of the world concerning to his military power (now and before).

btw, USA "intelligence" said that they knew the exact location of the weapons. Now seems that are perfectly hidden.... Wait.... maybe are intelligent weapons and hide themselves :whistle:

Borgtex, you just said we couldn't see the news about the US from around the world because of censorship, and then you accuse us of self-censorship. If I want to see the news about the US as written in Japan, Russia, China, German, France, or even Iraq, there is nobody in the United States that is going to, or can, stop me. Because I choose not to read their news does not mean I am censoring it.

And blugh, you make it sound as if the US is the only country in the world where this occurs. Show me one news source, any news source anywhere, that reports all of the news all around the world all the time. It doesn't exist, unless you lump "the Internet" into one giagantic news source. You have to choose what you report on. At my newspaper, we subscribe to the Associated Press Wire. We get hundreds of stories a day, but we can only print a small number of those in our paper, so we decide what goes and what stays. That isn't censorship. Today, for example, in our world section, we ran stories about SARS, the latest updates from Iraq, the Asia Bird Flu that is infecting humans, and the first Starbucks in France. From the choices we had, those are the ones we decided to run. We just didn't have room for the Israel/Palestine story, Singapore Death Penalty, Libya WMD policy, the Vietnam MIA remains, or any of the dozens of other stories we received. If we had more room, we probably would have run more stories. Maybe we will run some of these stories tomorrow. Granted, the AP wire is the only one we subscribe to, but we can't afford any of the others. It would be great to have Knight-Ridder, Ruetgers, and the others, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

I think you got it wrong, corfy. I never said that you can't read the news generated by other countries concerning the USA. What I said is that USA media tends to filter/manipulate some "delicated" news they give to their audience. And it's not about giving all the news of the world, also

Originally posted by corfy
And blugh, you make it sound as if the US is the only country in the world where this occurs. Show me one news source, any news source anywhere, that reports all of the news all around the world all the time. It doesn't exist, unless you lump "the Internet" into one giagantic news source. You have to choose what you report on. At my newspaper, we subscribe to the Associated Press Wire. We get hundreds of stories a day, but we can only print a small number of those in our paper, so we decide what goes and what stays. That isn't censorship. Today, for example, in our world section, we ran stories about SARS, the latest updates from Iraq, the Asia Bird Flu that is infecting humans, and the first Starbucks in France. From the choices we had, those are the ones we decided to run. We just didn't have room for the Israel/Palestine story, Singapore Death Penalty, Libya WMD policy, the Vietnam MIA remains, or any of the dozens of other stories we received. If we had more room, we probably would have run more stories. Maybe we will run some of these stories tomorrow. Granted, the AP wire is the only one we subscribe to, but we can't afford any of the others. It would be great to have Knight-Ridder, Ruetgers, and the others, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

But what happens when you systematically choose not to put a topic in your paper. Say, you've got all those stories on AP but you or someone higher up decides not to cover the Singapore Death Penalty ever. Then people who only use your paper as a source for news will never find out and its been censored. I wouldn't expect everything to be in the paper every day, even every week or month, but if you repeatedly choose to not show something then you, or whoever decides not to show it, is censoring. Look at how little criticism of the war was on the TV... I'd look up the stats, but I don't have my stuff with me at the moment... I'll post it later.

You're right, blugh. That's always been a problem in the print and broadcast media. Whenever there is a limited amount of space and/or airtime, decisions need to be made and the viewer has no way of knowing what was left out. Hopefully, the Internet will change things. Since sites can tailor news to their visitors, many stories that would otherwise be left uncovered can now at least be written. Whether or not the mainstream press picks up those stories will probably be dependant on how much the public wants to hear stories like that.

On Iraq, the media was very pro-war during the period of major combat. Once Bush declared major combat over (and said there was still a long way to go) the media did an about face and started revealing its natural left-leaning tendencies.

The best example I can give of this comes from last October when David Kay released his preliminary report on Iraq's military capabilities. His report cited over two dozen ways that Saddam's military violated UN sanctions. The US media, however, universally decided to headline their coverage with "No weapons of mass destruction found." Most stories even failed to mention that the report PROVED that Saddam was in material breach of the UN sanctions, instead informing readers, rather, that inspector had yet to find the weapons of mass destruction.

My favorite recent example of the liberal media can be found here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3956787/). This story compares apples to oranges but makes the reader think that they are comparing apples to apples. The writer compares compares the rate of suicide for the 150k troops in Iraq in 2003 to the rate of suicide for the 1.1 million US troops in peacetime. If s/he wanted to show us a meaningful statistic why doesn't s/he tell us what the rate of suicide was for the entire military in 2003--I expect it's because the rate would be lower or comparable to recent peacetime rates, though since it's not reported I have no way of knowing whether my guess is true. What is reported makes for good news. Suicide is a horrible thing. Every loss should be mourned. But the media has no buisiness reporting these statistics this way. It's misleading and therefore irresponsible.

First off, if they are using our newspaper as their only news source for international news, they are in trouble. Our focus is news in the county. We have a circulation of 12,000, and typically we have 20 pages in our paper. Usually, we have 2 or 3 pages devoted to world news, 2 or 3 for national news, 3 or 4 to sports (local, national, and international), 3 for classified ads, and the rest for local and state news. If you are really interested in international or national news, you should never limit yourself to just one news source. Go with several. The more viewpoints you get, the more you will learn about the situation. Case in point, we receive Time, Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, the Shelbyville News, and the Greenfield Daily Reporter at home. If I could afford more, I would probably get more.

Second, when you ask about "someone higher up," are you referring to our paper, our corporation, or the AP? We have no control over what the AP covers. The person who sets up the pages tries to get a variety of news stories in the paper because we know we can't cover everything. We also try to get stories that might be of interest to people in the county. With the war on, Iraq is taking precedence in our international pages. Before that it was Afghanistan. Before that it was the Israel/Palestine conflict. Before that, I don't remember. I can say, though, that the person or people who lay out the page have no instructions on what not to use from anyone. They may be told "We need a story about such-n-such," but they will not be told, "Do not publish the story about This-n-That because we don't want that in our paper." You are right, we may never have a story about the death penalty in Singapore. But then, we may never get another story about the death penalty in Singapore. We have too much current news to put in the paper without having to go back several days looking for stories that we may have missed.

As for criticism of the war, what channel are you watching? Every day there are people on TV/radio/newspaper complaining about the war. They were complaining before we went in, they were complaining when we went in, they were complaining when we started fighting, they were complaining when most of the fighting stopped, they were complaining when WMD was not found, they are complaining because we aren't out yet. Granted, most of those people were portrayed with counter-points supporting the war. That is the point of fair news reporting... show both sides, not just your own. People have a tendency to see the other side being favored, though, no matter what side you are on.

We see that all the time locally. We have 4 high schools in the county that our paper covers. Greenfield-Central complains that Southern Hancock has too much coverage and there isn't enough Greenfield-Central coverage. Southern Hancock complains that Greenfield-Central and Mt. Vernon have too much coverage and there isn't enough Southern Hancock coverage. Mt. Vernon complains that Eastern Hancock and Southern Hancock have too much coverage, and Mt. Vernon isn't covered enough. Eastern Hancock think they don't get any coverage at all, and we just focus on the rest of the three schools. They can't all be right, and yet people from all four schools can call and complain about the same day's coverage.

If you are in favor of a stance, you are going to see the opposition more than you are the stuff supporting your position, because it is the opposition you remember.

All I can tell you is that I read the New York Times, and watch CNN and BBC, there is no way you can say I don't have all the info I can get

I'm not disputing you try to get all the info you can. Where my concern is, is what you're getting all the info?

Anyway, in the first three weeks of the war, you were 25 times less likely to see an anti-war message than a pro-war one,

Of 840 sources in the US military, 4 were anti-war,

No newscast featured a full sit-down interview with people who opposed the war.

Now tell me that the corporations who stand to benefit from the reconstruction contracts aren't having their media divisions play the government's tune.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0305/warstudy.html

As for who's higher up, it's either corporate or AP... possibly both. The people who actually report the news aren't doing a bad job, they're just working with limited information from their superiors.

Yes, I agree but I personally avoid sources that take sides, if you take the NY Times, one of the most respected newspapers in the world, you will see that all articles are fact based and opinions are found in a separate section.

The fact that you were hearing more pro-war messages is because that was the initial public reaction to the issue, it's just a trend in society. This works just the same as right now you're more likely to hear anti-war messages.

I remember some NY Times articles and Editorials when the Pinochet Affair, praising his contribution to Chile and worried for the extradition process, leaving conveniently out the implication of USA in the Chile dictatorship and violation of human rights.

That makes me think that, in fact, USA is the godfather of some of the worst dictadures around the world. It's a know fact that in some way or other, it helped, in addition to Pinochet:

Pérez Jiménez in Venezuela
Batista in Cuba
Trujillo in the Dominican Republic
Duvalier in Haiti
Somoza in Nicaragua
Ríos Montt in Guatemala
Stroessner in Paraguay
Videla in Argentina

Seems that they even armed and financed Saddam and Osama Bin Laden... Let's hope that in the future, USA will stop creating monsters and then destroying them, killing innocent people in the process.

Hummm... sorry, I finally moved away a bit from the current theme about the censorship and manipulation of the media in the USA.

Here's a very apt Dirty Harry line, that Bush might say about the War On Iraq:
"It's alright to shoot people, as long as the bullets hit the right people."