Theories on why GWB was elected president...anyone?

[INRM]

To my knowledge George W. Bush was an F-102A Delta Dagger pilot not an F-104 Starfighter pilot.

INRM

 

[Cicero]

To my knowledge George W. Bush was an F-102A Delta Dagger pilot not an F-104 Starfighter pilot.

INRM

I was thinking of ex US Congressman Bob Dornan. But when the Starfighters were pulled from service in Vietnam in 1967, they were deployed to U.S. Air National Guard units. While Bush 43 may have flown/trained on a Starfighter, it was replaced by the Delta Dagger by 1969. Even so, the Dagger had the third highest rate of crashes with the Super Sabre being first and the Starfighter being second.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yikes. That website is a big no-no. Conspiracy galore.

And since the project has stalled, then the contention that the reason for the war in Afghanistan was to "secure the pipeline" is not true.

I cited both far right and far left wing websites in that post, Pard. Free Republic and 59 Deceits are hardly bastions of truth themselves. The point was exactly how Karzai was involved with Unocal, the pipeline, the Taliban and the Bush administration is not clear. What is clear is the Pipeline agreement was one of the first things Karzai got done. That says a lot.

As far as no pipeline, why would that mean it wasn't the intended goal? These guys proved incompetent but that doesn't say anything about intent.

Or do you just remember the lie, Rumsfeld: ‘I Have Never Painted A Rosy Picture’ About Iraq? Here is the truth you may have forgotten:

Dec. 18, 2002: KING: What’s the current situation in Afghanistan? RUMSFELD: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.

Feb. 7, 2003: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

Feb. 20 2003: “‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”

Mar. 30, 2003: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

Bush continues to fantasize about Iraq and Afghanistan. Here's a critique of Bush's 08 State of the Union comments on Afghanistan.

Washington, D.C.-A fact check from the National Security Network on President Bush's State of the Union comments regarding Afghanistan show the country is still in a state of disrepair. Bush claimed that:

A nation that was once a safe haven for al Qaida is now a young democracy where boys and girls are going to school, new roads and hospitals are being built, and people are looking to the future with new hope.

On each point, Bush is absolutely wrong:

Of course you could say the 08 comments were just political hype. But early on the whole Bush talking Points team expressed absurdly optimistic beliefs about what both invasions were going to accomplish and how easy it was going to be.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My error. Bush's SAT scores were higher than Bill Bradley's, Paul Wellstone's, and John Kerry's, but not higher than Al Gore.
...r.

This is too far OT to bother replying except to say, you got your last facts wrong, why should anyone believe these?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Without investors, there is no pipeline. Without investors, there's no profit to be made, no paybacks to be had. Why on earth would anyone conclude that we were motivated to go to war for a pipeline nobody actually wants to build?

It's not happening. And it didn't motivate our involvement in Afghanistan.

See my previous post to Pard. You know fulll well these guys had a fantasy of what they expected was going to happen. The fact they failed is not evidence oil contracts and an oil pipeline were not significant motivating factors for the invasion of both countries. This stuff is not just something out of the mouths of the 'truthers'. It is well documented from pre 9/11 Bush admin actions revealed by three authors from the inside, Woodward, O'Neill, and Clarke. And Woodward is a Bush supporter. In addition if you would just take a little time to read about the Iraq oil law which so favors Bush cronies at the expense of the Iraqi people, it's darn hard to come away with any other conclusion than oil played a big big part here.

Here, take your pick of sources of information on the Iraq oil law rather than just discounting the information I link to for you.

 

[Pardalis]

The point was exactly how Karzai was involved with Unocal, the pipeline, the Taliban and the Bush administration is not clear. What is clear is the Pipeline agreement was one of the first things Karzai got done. That says a lot.

For a conspiracy theorist it might say alot, but in reality there is no pipeline, and the US is no longer interested in Afghanistan.

As far as no pipeline, why would that mean it wasn't the intended goal?

I don't have your hability to read minds.

Or do you just remember the lie, Rumsfeld: ‘I Have Never Painted A Rosy Picture’ About Iraq? Here is the truth you may have forgotten:

Relevance?

Bush continues to fantasize about Iraq and Afghanistan. Here's a critique of Bush's 08 State of the Union comments on Afghanistan.Of course you could say the 08 comments were just political hype. But early on the whole Bush talking Points team expressed absurdly optimistic beliefs about what both invasions were going to accomplish and how easy it was going to be.

The war in Afghanistan was millitaristicaly easy. And boys and girls are going to school there, and roads and schools are buing built, that is fact.

http://acr.hrschool.org/mainfile.php/0129/142/
http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/En/FRA-321102557-JXB

The situation is not perfect (we're still at war with the Taliban), but it's way better than during the Taliban rule.

 

[Kestrel]

I was thinking of ex US Congressman Bob Dornan. But when the Starfighters were pulled from service in Vietnam in 1967, they were deployed to U.S. Air National Guard units. While Bush 43 may have flown/trained on a Starfighter, it was replaced by the Delta Dagger by 1969. Even so, the Dagger had the third highest rate of crashes with the Super Sabre being first and the Starfighter being second.

So how does this accident rate compare to losses during combat missions in Vietnam?

 

[Cicero]

This is too far OT to bother replying except to say, you got your last facts wrong, why should anyone believe these?

Your board moniker should more aptly be "Antiskeptigirl." If facts do not support your preconceived notions, they must be falsified? I corrected my error, while you still cling to some romanticized notion of Algore. The fact that Gore flunked out of Divinity School, bragged about creating an internet when he had nothing more to do with it than his contemporaries in Congress, and the guy can not distinguish the familiar visages of Washington and Franklin, is just not relevant to your idolization of the Oliver Barrett IV wanna be.

 

[Cicero]

So how does this accident rate compare to losses during combat missions in Vietnam?

The Air Force gradually withdraw the F-102 from southeast Asia beginning in December 1969 and concluding in May 1971.

There were 15 F-102's lost in combat in Vietnam. By the time Bush left the TANG in May of 1972, the B-52 was bearing the brunt of missions into North Vietnam.

According to the Air Force Safety Center, the accident rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours.

 

[davefoc]

I read through the discussion of Bush's intelligence.

It would seem that given his accomplishments that at some point in time Bush was more intelligent than average.

From my perspective there are two general reasons to wonder whether that remains true today:

1. Bush's speech patterns in general. When I listen to him, I hear an individual that seems to not have the capability to talk beyond a set of simple talking points developed to justify his policies. I noticed this in particular when I first listened to Bush and then to Cheney. Cheney seemed to be putting forth his own thoughts. It was clear that he had thought about the issues the interviewer was questioning him about. Bush on the other hand seemed to have accepted the simple slogans of his speech writers as actual argument and was happy to parrot them as a substitute for internal analysis.

2. Bush's administration appears to me to have been unique to the degree that others have developed and controlled policy. Rove and Cheney had extraordinary power and despite various missteps continued to have a strange level of control over the presidency. It is a very unusual arrangement not only for the presidency but for human organization in general.

One thought that has been put forth by others is that Bush's prior addictions may have reduced his mental capacity. I had not given this discussion much credence previously. I saw it as routine partisan spin. But my extended family now has two people in it whose mental capacity has deteriorated substantially as a result of their decline into alcoholism. Given the huge decline that I see there it certainly seems plausible that Bush's earlier addictions might have had a more negative impact on his mental capacity than at least I might have suspected.

ETA: As I reread my post, I was reminded of something I saw on the internet a while ago. It was video of Bush speaking when he was governor of Texas and his speech as president. The difference was startling. Bush, the Texas governor, was actually something of a dynamic speaker. Bush, the president, as has been noted by others, is bizarrely inept as a public speaker.

 

[Ziggurat]

See my previous post to Pard. You know fulll well these guys had a fantasy of what they expected was going to happen.

I'm afraid I can't mind-read. Sorry for my ignorance.

The fact they failed is not evidence oil contracts and an oil pipeline were not significant motivating factors for the invasion of both countries.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Yes, I know that. But there's no evidence of presence, which is rather more to the point. Why would they push for war in Afghanistan in order for some companies to build a pipeline when no companies were actually interested in doing so? How's that supposed to pay off for them? It just doesn't make sense. Yes, it can't be disproven, but given that it doesn't make sense and there's no actual evidence for it, why on earth would I choose to believe it? Why on earth do you cling to it?

This stuff is not just something out of the mouths of the 'truthers'.

The pipeline stuff? Hell, I wondered about it myself at one point. And then a funny thing happened. Or rather, didn't happen. We had Afghanistan, and yet there's no oil pipeline. Not even in the works. What was once somewhat plausible speculation became nothing more than fantasy. I don't care who said it: it's not happening. Reality takes precendence over authority and plausibility. Surely you can recognize that.

 

[fuelair]

It's all relative I guess to what one's political leanings are. I think Carter and Clinton were far worse Presidents than Bush.

And I'm sure I won't like anything Hillary does if she gets in there.

Wasn't it already a given if you're a liberal that you weren't going to agree with most things Bush did anyway?

You forgot the proper smilies for your first para:

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not mind reading, Zig. It's what they said prior to invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush et al said very clearly they expected a short tidy war and a neat little functioning internationally interacting capitalist country to develop.

Why'd they bother signing the pipeline law as one of Karzai's first actions if they didn't have any visions of sugarplums prior to the invasion? Why was the Iraq Oil Law Bremer drafted (also right away) so favorable to the oil companies and not favorable at all to the Iraqi people and why did Bush try to get it pushed through despite the fact the Iraqi Parliament objected to the law?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Wasn't it already a given if you're a liberal that you weren't going to agree with most things Bush did anyway?

At 30% approval rating in a country that is about 50|50 split Democratic/Republican going by the last 2 presidential elections, that means almost half the Republicans are not too much in agreement with most things Bush has done either.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I can barely read this thread without looking at Cicero's avatar in awe.

I needs to get me one of those, desperatly.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why'd they bother signing the pipeline law as one of Karzai's first actions if they didn't have any visions of sugarplums prior to the invasion?

Maybe because the sugarplums were in Karzai's head, not Bush's. Afghanistan stands to gain more by a pipeline than anyone else, it desperately needs a way to make money, but they don't have the capital to do it themselves. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than the idea that Bush went to war for a pipeline that nobody wants to build. But the possibility didn't even occur to you, did it? Because Bush is active, the world only passively responds, and so all blame devolves on him.

Why was the Iraq Oil Law Bremer drafted (also right away) so favorable to the oil companies

On what conditions other than favorable ones would any oil company take a risk of investing heavily in Iraq? And do you honestly think that Iraq didn't have a serious need for foreign investment and expertise to get their oil industry back on its feet? Of course it did. The Iraq government needs oil revenue to function, but the dilapidated infrastructure (combined with security problems) meant that they couldn't just run with what they had and expect to get very far.

But since we're on the topic of oil contracts, do you honestly think that Total's contracts were fair to the Iraqi populace? If Bush went to war for oil, doesn't it make sense that France opposed war for oil? How come there's never a peep of objection over that? Because you're not consistent in the standards you apply.

 

[Snide]

You mean how did this guy win?



My theory is he lied.

Clinton sex scandals, a lethargic Gore campaign, general voter apathy and Ralph Nader may have been contributing factors.

As horrible as Bush is speaking in public, Gore came across as snooty. That's what prevented a Gore landslide IMO.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It's not mind reading, Zig. It's what they said prior to invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush et al said very clearly they expected a short tidy war and a neat little functioning internationally interacting capitalist country to develop.

Hey, we sorta agree. Nice change of pace.

Why'd they bother signing the pipeline law as one of Karzai's first actions if they didn't have any visions of sugarplums prior to the invasion?

The Farbakistans have mucho oil, getting it to market is, and has been, their chief problem. At the time, they did not want to be beholden to the Russians for transhipment, and so a "you scratch my back I scratch yours" deal was put into play.

Part of the upside was air bases in Kirghiz and Uzbekistan.

Politics being what it is, the luster on this deal has not sustained, since the stable little place through which a pipeline might be built has yet to establish itself.

Uzbeks Ask U.S. to Leave Karshi-Khanabad

The Uzbeki powers that be tired of the deal, and so that base is no longer available.

In politics, play is continuous, and "what have you done for me lately" is a question asked daily.

DR

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe because the sugarplums were in Karzai's head, not Bush's. Afghanistan stands to gain more by a pipeline than anyone else, it desperately needs a way to make money, but they don't have the capital to do it themselves. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than the idea that Bush went to war for a pipeline that nobody wants to build. But the possibility didn't even occur to you, did it? Because Bush is active, the world only passively responds, and so all blame devolves on him.



On what conditions other than favorable ones would any oil company take a risk of investing heavily in Iraq? And do you honestly think that Iraq didn't have a serious need for foreign investment and expertise to get their oil industry back on its feet? Of course it did. The Iraq government needs oil revenue to function, but the dilapidated infrastructure (combined with security problems) meant that they couldn't just run with what they had and expect to get very far.

But since we're on the topic of oil contracts, do you honestly think that Total's contracts were fair to the Iraqi populace? If Bush went to war for oil, doesn't it make sense that France opposed war for oil? How come there's never a peep of objection over that? Because you're not consistent in the standards you apply.

If you want to ignore the fact that a president from a family with it's wealth tied to oil, personal and not just political close ties to the Saudi royals because of Bush's and his family's ties to oil, who also happened to have been governor of Texas when pipeline negotiations with the Taliban were occurring, and who also had direct influence on Karzai's subsequent political position in Afghanistan didn't have the pipeline on his short list of reasons to invade Afghanistan, be my guest. I think the evidence is rather overwhelming oil in Iraq (considering Iraq had squat to do with 9/11 and al Qaeda wasn't there and several countries that have known WMDs but no oil were not invaded) and the pipeline in Afghanistan were top reasons for Bush's decisions.

People can argue the BS that Bush really believed in Iraq's WMDs and threat. I don't buy it considering they tried so hard to suppress information discrediting the WMD threat. But it doesn't matter. To conclude the oil wasn't part of the reason for Bush's decision to invade Iraq is to ignore overwhelming evidence. Maybe the pipeline was convenient and we needed to rout al Qaeda from Afghanistan. I fail to see how the pipeline wasn't part of the pre-invasion discussion.

As to the oil companies and the people, it seems there is always this all or none mentality regarding these things. Either Libertarianism or Communism, pick your side. That isn't the case at all. There is no reason companies with record profits of all time shouldn't share some of that with the owners of the resources they made their profits from. You speak of infrastructure as if the natural oil resource belongs to the oil companies, sold for the price of the well. Are you kidding?

A fair oil law would sell the oil at a fair price. Were it not for the political corruption we are supporting in Iraq, the owners of the resource should be able to sell their oil for the price the market would bear. There would be no shortage of bidders willing to build that infrastructure.

Instead, Maliki gets rich, his government is propped up with the blood of our children, and the oil companies get the deal of the millennium. The Iraqi people get screwed. This is what the US has been doing for more than a century. The unintended consequences of screwing the people out of a fair price for their oil resources and for propping up a corrupt government is a prolonged insurgency.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you want to ignore the fact that a president from a family with it's wealth tied to oil,

And what money is he making off Afghanistan? Seriously, if you want to make accusations, expect to be challenged for evidence. This is the best you've got? Family ties to oil? How does that translate into an actual financial motive to invade Afghanistan? Who was supposed to pay him for that?

There is no reason companies with record profits of all time shouldn't share some of that with the owners of the resources they made their profits from.

This is hilarious. If oil companies were losing money, would you ask that owners of that resource compensate those oil companies?

You speak of infrastructure as if the natural oil resource belongs to the oil companies,

No I don't. I speak as if it takes a large capital investment to get any oil out of the ground, and nobody is going to make such an investment, given the large risks, unless there's a chance for correspondingly large profits. Otherwise, the capital goes elsewhere. Which does not benefit Iraq.