Cohen, Dude, I never used the word "blindly" in any post in this thread. As you would say, "Pardon" but can you kindly show me where I have. But keep twisting my words around if it makes you feel good - I got other things to do with my time.
And from Dan Drezner, who actually knows a little bit about this issue (and a John Kerry voter to boot.) http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/
I wonder how many we could feed and clothe with the public monies used to build Toyota Center, Minute Maid Park, Reliant Stadium and the Folly Trolley.
Originally posted by 111chase111 I'm sorry. But in now way has the United States "bungled" its response to this tragedy. If the President had sent 500 million dollars the minute after the tsunami hit (and remember, it didn't hit at the same time in all the places) no fewer lives would have been lost. I have never argued about the money. We have resources no other country in this world has. We can fly in water, food, medicine and doctors in larger quantities and quicker than anyone else. Right now, there are tourists playing volleyball on the beaches that the tsunami just hit (I saw video on the news just now) so clearly they aren't too worried about what's going on. Another bizarre argument...first, they're tourists. Do they have any C130's in their hotel rooms? Should all charitable efforts be based on what resources tourists have available to them? Second, they're probably in Thailand. You do understand that this tsunami effected peoples thousand of miles apart, and most deaths occured in Indonesia? Do you see anyone playing volleyball in Banda Aceh? Also, you keep arguing that people are blindly supporting the president. What I see are people criticizing the politicizing of this event (like what YOU are doing). Whether they like or don't like the President is not important. What's important is that we let the governments and relief agencies and private individuals of the world work together to help as many of the survivors as possible. That's happening and I've not read or seen one news report that says the relief effort has been "bungled". I would suggest that we won't even know how successful the relief effort is or what opportunities have been missed until long after its over. To say that YOU know what the exact right thing to do is is laughable. What is laughable is that you cannot even understand what is being debated. 1. The overall relief effort has not been bungled, but if you have not read or heard the criticisms of Bush's slow response than you have not been reading anything nor watching the news. I watch CNN all day and have seen the issue raised numerous times. 2. Implied in a claim of the 'politiczation' of an event is that the criticism is baseless and has purely political motivations. Explain that to me, since I'd prefer a competent Conservative administration over a Liberal one. 3. Again, the image of the US in the world is critical to us. Bush has had opportunities and failed in most all of them. However, you insist on arguing that because the President isn't doing what YOU would do (and for some reason you think that you know what to do) he's "bungled" the effort. He did. So, to make it clear. I and others are simply mad at people like you for politicizing the tragedy to further your political agendas ... And what is my political agenda? You don't understand this conversation at all, do you. ...SO SOON AFTER THE TRAGEDY HAS OCCURED. Let it all play out and see what happens THEN start complaining. But until then please shut up. I will not. It's obvious that Bush's approach has improved because of the criticism ... from those of us that you'd like to shut up ... and from other around the world (not that he cares so much about what they say). Until this is over, why don't those of you who want to sit back and do nothing ... do just that. Let us others openly express our displeasure with Bush's blatant errors so we're not paying for this President's foreign relations gaffs for decades to come.
Manny, If you think that I misinterpreted what you said, respond to it directly and correct me. I didn't twist anything. Your words: 'If Kerry was President, I would fully support him on matters regarding something like this. ' Feel free at anytime to explain why this is not blind support? You essentially said 'I will support, I will not question'. That's blind. Again, if you have another way to interpret your statement, please share it with me. You subsequent statement drove home your point even further, criticising anyone who dare question the President's actions: 'The liberals should be thankful they live in a country where they can complain and the harshest thing done to them is someone to say "STFU".' Not only do you espouse blind support of a President's actions, you want everyone else to blindly follow also. Please correct my interpretation Manny. I'm all ears.
I also said in "foreign policy" matters which you conveniently left out in your last post. If you can't tell the difference between one special category such as foreign policy affairs to EVERYTHING a President does or is associated with (financial policy, domestic policy, etc), then I don't know what else to tell you. But I have a feeling it would go on deaf ears probably like this post right now.
First, how do you know what Bush's approach would have been regardless of the criticism? You don't. You (and Glynch) want to believe that Bush is only upping the money because of the criticism but you really have NO WAY of knowing, do you? It's also unfortunate because the fact that you guys have politicized this debate in an effort to slam the president means we'll never know. However, if you look at past disasters you'll see that the US and this President are generally not stingy. Also, who said anyone wanted to "sit back and do nothing?" Please show me where ANYONE has said that? All we've said is please don't use this disaster to push political agendas (a conversation YOU don't seem to understand). I'll say it slowly: I'm not arguing per se about the amount of relief (although clearly you and I disagree on the appropriateness of the response - you say it's not enough; I say lets see how it plays out). I'm arguing against using disasters for political purposes. What you don't get is that we're not arguing about what's being done (or not done) we're arguing against "people like you" using disasters for political purposes. That's the reason I brought Reagan's funeral and Clinton's heart surgery in as examples of where people have (or in Clinton's case have not) used tragedies (or at least serious events) to push politics. Manny sees it. I can see it. Why can't you?
Okay, let me clarify my position: What happened with the tsunami is one of the greatest tragedies the world has ever seen in its long history. I think we can all agree on that. Where we are not agreeing is that I feel that our country will give more than its fair share in sending aid to the area in question. I also feel that it is classless to bring up politics in a time like this. Why does everything have to have a political bent to it? Why can't we take things at face value? If Colin Powell says that our aid is going to be in the billions, why can't we accept that? Why is there a need to criticize? I mean does anyone here actually have access to Dubya's brain? Do you really know for a fact that he would have only given 15 million until he got criticized for it? Enemies of us like Al-Qaeda must be enjoying this. How can we remain strong and defeat enemies like that when we can't even get along with each other? So, if wanting our country to be able to come together in times of crises and show the world why we are the leader of the world makes me a "blind follower", so be it. Bash me all you want, I don't care. Your negativity is not going to get me down.
Originally posted by Manny Ramirez I also said in "foreign policy" matters which you conveniently left out in your last post. No, I left in your '...like this...', which could have meant anything relating to the tragedy... foreign policy, crisis, charity, whatever ... I couldn't know exactly what you meant by it. But it's irrelevant because it would only qualify your statement to 'I blindly follow my leader WRT [fill in the blank]'. If you can't tell the difference between one special category such as foreign policy affairs to EVERYTHING a President does or is associated with (financial policy, domestic policy, etc), then I don't know what else to tell you. But I have a feeling it would go on deaf ears probably like this post right now. Unlike you, I find foreign policy to be a critical issue that Americans have ignored for too long. If we didn't 'mess' with other countries, this probably would not be a big deal. But since we do, it's critical for us to question what the President does in this area and not blindly support him as you just admitted. It's not a surprise to me really, FWIW. I've always felt that if you don't consider foreign policy and relations important, I see why someone would vote for Bush. But if you believe that they are critically improtant to us I think you would have voted for Kerry.
Originally posted by Manny Ramirez Okay, let me clarify my position: What happened with the tsunami is one of the greatest tragedies the world has ever seen in its long history. I think we can all agree on that. Where we are not agreeing is that I feel that our country will give more than its fair share in sending aid to the area in question. I also feel that it is classless to bring up politics in a time like this. Why does everything have to have a political bent to it? Why can't we take things at face value? If Colin Powell says that our aid is going to be in the billions, why can't we accept that? Why is there a need to criticize? I mean does anyone here actually have access to Dubya's brain? Do you really know for a fact that he would have only given 15 million until he got criticized for it? Again, I don't take issue with our country's support. Don't confuse me with glynch. Enemies of us like Al-Qaeda must be enjoying this. How can we remain strong and defeat enemies like that when we can't even get along with each other? I doubt that they care whether we disagree on Bush. If anything, they were probably pleased that Bush did not rush to their aid. So, if wanting our country to be able to come together in times of crises and show the world why we are the leader of the world makes me a "blind follower", so be it. Bash me all you want, I don't care. Your negativity is not going to get me down. 'Come together' on the fact that we want to help the victims of this tragedy. And I'm not bashing you.
Ha! Man, that made my 2004. Rocketman95 Lite!! Great taste, less filling! YES!! Anyway, considering the circumstances, the poo flinging in this thread saddens me. Happy New Year, Man-Ram.
Originally posted by 111chase111 First, how do you know what Bush's approach would have been regardless of the criticism? You don't. You (and Glynch) want to believe that Bush is only upping the money because of the criticism but you really have NO WAY of knowing, do you? It's also unfortunate because the fact that you guys have politicized this debate in an effort to slam the president means we'll never know. However, if you look at past disasters you'll see that the US and this President are generally not stingy. Some of you don't belong in D&D until you: 1) can comprehend posts 2) respond to the issues raised 3) don't project other people's arguments onto a different person. There is little doubt that Bush has been forced to respond to the heavy criticism. AS I'VE STATED AND YOU'VE IGNORED, I HAVE NOT POLTICIZED THIS BECAUSE I HAVE NO POLTICAL OBJECTIVES. THE PRESIDENT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE GOODWILL IN A CRITICAL AREA TO US INTERESTS; HE FAILED AND IS NOW PLAYING CATCH-UP. I n e v e r said that the US or the President is stingy. In fact, if you would have read my previous posts you'd see that I believe otherwise. Also, who said anyone wanted to "sit back and do nothing?" Please show me where ANYONE has said that? You don't want to criticize the President, so that's what you do. All we've said is please don't use this disaster to push political agendas (a conversation YOU don't seem to understand). I'll say it slowly: I'm not arguing per se about the amount of relief (although clearly you and I disagree on the appropriateness of the response - you say it's not enough; I say lets see how it plays out). I'm arguing against using disasters for political purposes. And I'll say it slowly for you: I'm not arguing per se about the amount of relief, and I have no political agenda, I'm arguing about the President clearly missing an opportunity that would have helped the US ... because he just doesn't 'get it'. What you don't get is that we're not arguing about what's being done (or not done) we're arguing against "people like you" using disasters for political purposes. That's the reason I brought Reagan's funeral and Clinton's heart surgery in as examples of where people have (or in Clinton's case have not) used tragedies (or at least serious events) to push politics. Manny sees it. I can see it. Why can't you? glynch may have a political agenda here, I don't. Bush screwed up. I see it. The media sees it. Why can't you?
An initial contribution was #2 in the whole wide world, not #1...so the idiotics of the world claim embarassment and stinginess, because of a wicked slant view of anti-Bush hatred. "Complaining, crying and whining" has done NOTHING to persuade the eventuality of obvious further contributions...In no sense of the word was it pronounced by the so called "evilistic neo-cons" that is all we care to give...In fact, the blatant opposite as I recall... Now the monetary issue is put to bed, but now we have snipes of President Bush not speaking fast enough in a public format...Well I would have liked to see him speak the very second tragedy occurred as well, but the thing is he did speak with heartfelt empathy on the issue. I don't know the inner workings of what his agenda dealt with and I will give our President the benefit of confidence that his priorities were dealt with appropiately behind the scenes...
I never doubted our monetary intentions and made mention of this in one of the other threads. The criticisms of Bush's slow response did not just start. They started days ago and were reportedly from the effected region itself. Now you can have confidence with what your President was doing 'behind the scenes', but everyone in the world knows what it means when a leader holds a press conference...or doesn't. Regardless of what you think, the only thing that matters here was the impression left on the people in the region ... assuming that you think the US image is important.
Shall I trust you over CNN reporters in Indonesia who report that people questioned, quite logically I might add, why it took the President so long to make a public speech on the calamity? Or shall I accept your speculation that they would not be offended at the apparent lack of concern by the leader of the free world?
Probably - considering I don't have a political agenda (just like you even though you admitted you didn't vote for Bush) like they do, but we won't go there, Cohen.
