PDA

View Full Version : Who is the laziest U.S. President?


wantafanta
20-08-05, 01:01
Bush Set To Break Record For Most Vacation Days
Posted by David R. Mark on August 10, 2005 01:35 PM

If all goes as planned, President Bush next week will break Ronald Reagan’s all-time high for most presidential vacation days.

According to the Washington Post, with three and a half years left in his second term, Bush had already spent 319 days in Crawford -– almost 20% of his time in office -- upon arriving at the so-called Western White House last week. Reagan, another president famous for his ranching retreats, spent 335 days on vacation spread across eight years.

So, assuming he doesn't cut his vacation short, Bush will break Reagan's record on Aug. 19.

This probably is not as big a record as say, breaking Hank Aaron's all-time home run record. And it's certainly not as newsworthy as say, bringing Osama bin Laden to justice.

Still, the White House is trying to spin the vacation as a busy time for the president. Why? In a recent article, The Houston Chronicle offered this insight: "White House officials are touchy about criticism of Bush's traditional August break, because most Americans don't get five weeks of vacation a year, nor do they have access to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland where Bush sometimes spends weekends. So they call the ranch the Western White House."

It doesn't help matters when television news -- objective or partisan -- show images of Bush cutting tree stumps, biking or golfing. There will be images of Bush having sweat-laden meetings with Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld, too. Anyone who has ever taken a "working vacation" knows how these things work: there's always time for a good, long round of golf.


***

Why the long vacation? The Guardian speculates that it's because of the continued drumbeat from Democrats regarding the ongoing investigation into White House leaks of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name or identity. That investigation has apparently centered on senior White House officials Karl Rove -- dubbed "Bush's Brain" -- and Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

And this is an exceptionally long vacation. The Guardian reports that Bush's five-week vacation may be the longest retreat in at least 36 years. By comparison, the president spent 27 days at his ranch in August 2001, another 27 days in August 2002, and 29 days in August 2003, and 14 days in August 2004.

***

This article first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.


More fine reading at Blogcritics.org.


---------------//--------------------------

Wednesday October 1, 2003 Previous | Next

Dear Yahoo!:
How many vacation days has George W. Bush taken to date as president? How does that compare with Clinton?
Vince
West Hollywood, California

Dear Vince:
While the president of the United States is never completely on vacation, most commanders-in-chief manage to enjoy a respite from the daily grind during their stay the White House. George W. Bush seems to have taken this to the extreme early in his tenure as president. A humorous, fake resume for Bush suggests that he set the record for most days on vacation by any president in U.S. history -- a bit of an exaggeration, but still cause for some teasing.
According to an August 2003 article in the Washington Post, President Bush has spent all or part of 166 days during his presidency at his Crawford, Texas, ranch or en route. Add the time spent at or en route to the presidential retreat of Camp David and at the Bush family estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has taken 250 days off as of August 2003. That's 27% of his presidency spent on vacation. Although to be fair, much of this time is classified as a "working vacation."

Bush isn't the first president to get away from his work. George Bush Sr. took all or part of 543 vacation days at Camp David and in Kennebunkport. Ronald Reagan spent 335 days at or en route to his Santa Barbara, California, ranch during his eight years in office. Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter took the least days off -- only 79 days, which he usually spent at his home in Georgia. That's less than three weeks a year, which is closer to the average American's paid time off of 13 days per year.

What about Clinton? As of December 1999, President Bill Clinton had spent only 152 days on holiday during his two terms, according to CBS News. A former staffer noted Clinton was such a workaholic that "it almost killed Clinton to take one-week vacations during August." In 2000, Clinton cut his summer vacation short to just three days, so he and his wife could concentrate on her Senate race and fundraising for Democrats. While we couldn't find the exact tally for Clinton's last year in office, it's reasonable to expect he didn't increase his vacation rate. And in barely three years in office, George W. Bush has already taken more vacation than Clinton did in seven years.

Flipper1987
20-08-05, 01:26
You know wantafanta, you might find this as a shock but there were presidents before Reagan & Clinton. Too bad your biased, left-wing, I hate GWB blog doesn't even attempt to entertain that.

What a bunch of insignificant, utter nonsense. :rolleyes:

FLIPPER - who asks the question: if it was discovered that GWB took less so-called "vacation days" than Clinton, would wantafanta have posted this blog? Of course we all know the answer to that. And frankly, who cares?

BoyTRaider
20-08-05, 02:00
God! He's really lasy. Btw, I love your s/n "wantafanta"; it makes me thirsty. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

nikos
20-08-05, 08:17
Sorry wanta but for sure mr.bush needs vacation!
I am not expecting a comment like this from you!you should be ashamed! :mad:

Poor mr bush had a lot to do!new wars,new oil contracts,big troubles in s.america with all these
"communist" goverments down there all over the place!

He couldn't sleep well last years!

Osama is still out there,giving troubles to his partners,american experts and officials said that terrorism is increasing year by year.

Iraqi people are still insist to defend their country,over 2000 poor us soldiers lost their lives, and more and more american experts talk about new vietnam,at least in an ethical view.
someone official [i think j.ramsfeld ]said for about 12 more years, us troops will remain to iraq!
In afghanistan is about the same situation!
Iran is not obeying,and the worst, the europeans, even blair ,dont even think about a new attack!
N.korea is a hard negotiator...

Dont be cruel wanta,if you knew that you mess up the world,everyone in this planet is against you,even 50% of your compatriots dont like you,what you will did?

Think a little as a humanitarian as you call your self,yes even this man needs vacations! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-1.gif

crux2
20-08-05, 08:30
It be nice if he vacated the planet

nikos
20-08-05, 08:42
Original posted by crux2
"It be nice if he vacated the planet"
I hope so ,and believe me ,if he wants to quite, he will be very welcome in greece!we will keep him here in a splendid lovely island, Makronissos,he will love it!

But unfortunally he try hard to "evacuate" this planet! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/vlol.gif or http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-1.gif ?

[ 20. August 2005, 09:43: Message edited by: nikos ]

Draco
20-08-05, 13:00
You do know he doesn't get a day off right?

Capt. Murphy
20-08-05, 14:10
Let's see...

[x] Sarcasm
[x] 1 or more Hateful remarks
[x] Liberal biased website quote/s
[_] Lame Pretzel joke/s
[_] "(I'm going to, I would like to, I wish someone would) as$a$sinate the F'ing President!"
[_] "Gawd I hate that man"
[_] "He should be Impeached"

The typical Anti-Bush Topic -Replies Checklist is almost compl33t doodz. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif

Flip: can you think of anything else to add? :D

Neteru
20-08-05, 15:46
Originally posted by Capt. Murphy:
Flip: can you think of anything else to add? I can:

[x] Right wing biased members who can't stand to see anything even remotely anti-Bush, who pounce on the slightest hint of negativity against him or his administration, and whose seemingly sole purpose here is to stand up for Bush.

Draco
20-08-05, 16:07
Originally posted by Draco:
You do know he doesn't get a day off right? Hello?

Capt. Murphy
20-08-05, 17:03
"seemingly sole".... Hmmm. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/privateeye.gif http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/whistle.gif

Yin and Yang Net. Yin and Yang. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

The balance of the Cosmos is sustained. :D

[ 20. August 2005, 18:07: Message edited by: Capt. Murphy ]

Catapharact
20-08-05, 19:08
Vacations should be used to question the performance. However, the current administration uses dogman to support the so called "Sucular" mode of government.

The right wingists have shown no open mind or felxibility when it comes to major on world decisions. To them, the world is wrong, and America is right. I am sorry, but this kind of attitdue was limited to the feudal lords of the feudal age.

Furthermore, I can see that is about half a decade or so, the United States will loose it's position as the world Economic and thus Super power. I see China as the new headstrong representitive of that role.

Isabella
20-08-05, 19:15
Originally posted by Draco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
You do know he doesn't get a day off right? Hello? </font>[/QUOTE]No, You're right. It's not as though anyone is helping him out or pulling the strings or telling him what to do... http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/whistle.gif

All those hard, mind befuddeling tasks, I mean who wouldn't need some r&r?

[ 20. August 2005, 20:16: Message edited by: Isabella ]

BoyTRaider
20-08-05, 19:23
Ahhhh...VACATIONS. Now that's my type of topic! :D

dragonquest6
20-08-05, 21:27
Originally posted by Neteru
[x] Right wing biased members who can't stand to see anything even remotely anti-Bush, who pounce on the slightest hint of negativity against him or his administration, and whose seemingly sole purpose here is to stand up for Bush. Spot on!

Flipper1987
20-08-05, 22:07
Originally posted by Capt. Murphy:
Flip: can you think of anything else to add? :D Nope, that's pretty spot on. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif

EDIT: Actually you could add this to your anti-Bush list:

[x] Bush is an idiot


Posted by Neteru:
I can:

[x] Right wing biased members who can't stand to see anything even remotely anti-Bush, who pounce on the slightest hint of negativity against him or his administration, and whose seemingly sole purpose here is to stand up for Bush.First,would you prefer us so-called "right wingers" to shut our traps whenever someone posts something that is pure propaganda? Can reasoned counter-arguments be made in this forum?

Second, I (as well as others) don't "pounce" on every negative comment made against Bush. In fact I ignore most anti-Bush comments b/c they're completely irrational or asinine in nature.

Third, what about those members whose "seemingly sole purpose here" is to criticize Bush or to post negative propaganda about him? Do you have any criticism for them as well?


Posted by Catapharact:
The right wingists have shown no open mind or felxibility when it comes to major on world decisions. To them, the world is wrong, and America is right.Catapharact, you are obviously part of "the world is right & America is wrong" crowd. Does that make you "close-minded" as well?

And what exactly is this "world" that you're talking about? Over 6 billion people live outside the U.S. & I don't think they all agree with you.

Also, you're intimating that the US always acts unilaterally and without the support of any other country in the world. Just because the US & so-called "right-wingers" don't goose-step to your viewpoints doesn't make them "close-minded" or inflexible.

FLIPPER

[ 20. August 2005, 23:18: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

mau3genius
20-08-05, 22:08
Wantafanta, I don't really care if Bush does or does not take any vacations.

For me, Bush is the same idiot person, with a peanut brain, with, or without vacations.


*Sorry If I get mad someone, I respect your opinions, even if they're completely opposite.

[ 21. August 2005, 00:00: Message edited by: mau3genius ]

dragonquest6
20-08-05, 23:27
Flipper1987: Maybe Neteru's post wasn't the best counter argument but it's funny that your post wasn't actually "a reasoned counter-argument" to his comment... It's also funny how you complain about him calling you a "so called right-wingers" when your first post in this topic said

Orignally posted by Flipper1987
Too bad your biased, left-wing, I hate GWB blog doesn't even attempt to entertain that.
So called "left-wingers?" You do realise that many right-wingers oppose Bush because they don't believe he is doing a competent job?

Originally posted by Flipper1987
Catapharact, you are obviously part of "the world is right & America is wrong" crowd. Flipper1987, just because he doesn't support Bush doesn't mean he opposes America. Maybe he doesn't support Bush because he supports America, but doesn't believe Bush is doing a good job at it?

tlr online
20-08-05, 23:45
Originally posted by dragonquest6:
Flipper1987, just because he doesn't support Bush doesn't mean he opposes America. Maybe he doesn't support Bush because he supports America, but doesn't believe Bush is doing a good job at it? http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif

My sentiments COMPLETELY!!!

wantafanta
21-08-05, 00:09
Originally posted by Flipper1987:


What a bunch of insignificant, utter nonsense. :rolleyes:
The numbers speak for themselves.

While it is true that I don't like Bush, that doesn't make me necessarily a liberal. I have liberal views, and some fairly centrist views as well. I do no consider Bush to be a conservative. His economic recklessness and other missteps are hardly conservative at all, but rather rash and radical.

There is world of difference between George Bush and Gerald Ford or Ike.
http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[ 21. August 2005, 01:21: Message edited by: wantafanta ]

wantafanta
21-08-05, 00:16
Originally posted by Catapharact:
Furthermore, I can see that is about half a decade or so, the United States will loose it's position as the world Economic and thus Super power. I see China as the new headstrong representitive of that role. This is so true! Foreign students don't want to come to the US any more to go to college. The immigration laws are too strict. These are very bright students who will be contributing to European countries and other places, in science, medicine, etc.

Furthermore, the Bush adminsitration ban on stem cell research means the U.S. will fall behind while other countries develop cures that America doesn't have.

You are right about China. They are booming and they are demanding fuel for their new industries. That's why oil prices are soaring. The U.S. had better move to a conservation strategy soon.

Neteru
21-08-05, 13:06
Originally posted by Flipper1987:
... would you prefer us so-called "right wingers" to shut our traps whenever someone posts something that is pure propaganda? Can reasoned counter-arguments be made in this forum?Where in my post did I say anything about not wanting right wingers to post? Nowhere.

Where did I say anything about not wanting 'reasoned' counter arguments? Nowhere.

Flipper
Third, what about those members whose "seemingly sole purpose here" is to criticize Bush or to post negative propaganda about him? Do you have any criticism for them as well?Where in my post did I criticise? Nowhere.

In the interests of a balanced view (I'm sure you would agree that's always a good thing), I posted the suggestion for Capt M's mocking checklist because as he so eloquently puts it:

Yin and Yang Net. Yin and Yang.

nikos
21-08-05, 18:15
Originally posted by Neteru
[x] Right wing biased members who can't stand to see anything even remotely anti-Bush, who pounce on the slightest hint of negativity against him or his administration, and whose seemingly sole purpose here is to stand up for Bush. You just leave the boomerang to return the one who threw it! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif
And lol! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/jumper.gif
Well some so biased reaction for something so funny!i wonder what will happen if there is a serious issue againt poor planteleader! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/jumper.gif

CATAPHARACT!

Exactly to the point!perfection in 3 steps!

[ 21. August 2005, 19:31: Message edited by: nikos ]

nikos
21-08-05, 18:38
Originally posted by dragonquest6:
Flipper1987, just because he doesn't support Bush doesn't mean he opposes America. Maybe he doesn't support Bush because he supports America, but doesn't believe Bush is doing a good job at it? After all that happened to the planet the last few years and especially the last 2,there is only one thing to say!

"The one who really support america,should opposes bush!"

Think about it!

Grenade
21-08-05, 18:41
Originally posted by tlr online:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dragonquest6:
Flipper1987, just because he doesn't support Bush doesn't mean he opposes America. Maybe he doesn't support Bush because he supports America, but doesn't believe Bush is doing a good job at it? http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif

My sentiments COMPLETELY!!! </font>[/QUOTE]Mine too! :D http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

Mona Sax
21-08-05, 18:56
"The one who really support america,should opposes bush!"I couldn't disagree more. To me, supporting a country and supporting its government are two completely different things.

Flipper1987
21-08-05, 19:53
Originally posted by dragonquest6:
Flipper1987: Maybe Neteru's post wasn't the best counter argument but it's funny that your post wasn't actually "a reasoned counter-argument" to his comment...Well Neteru's comment wasn't an argument per se so how can my response be termed as a "counter-argument?"

Neteru's addition to Capt. Murphy's list was obviously written to belittle anyone on this website who has the gall to actually stand up & support Bush in any way, shape, or form. Capt. Murphy's list wasn't targeting a specific person but a familiar litany of complaints about Bush, which have now become tired cliches that have lost all meaning. There's a slight difference.

You do realise that many right-wingers oppose Bush because they don't believe he is doing a competent job?I agree that some conservatives aren't happy with Bush on a few issues like immigration and a prescription health plan that will cost taxpayers billions down the road, but conservatives approve of his overall job performance. Your statement that "many right-wingers oppose Bush" b/c he isn't doing a competent job is erroneous.

Flipper1987, just because he doesn't support Bush doesn't mean he opposes America. Maybe he doesn't support Bush because he supports America, but doesn't believe Bush is doing a good job at it? You obviously haven't been following this forum for the last two years. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

I do agree that not everyone on this website who hates Bush hates America; however, many clearly do (although they will most-likely deny it vociferously). It's a sad fact that many of those who hate Bush are using this rage to mask their hatred/jealousy/whatever for America. Over the last two years there have been numerous posts slamming the US on this website without even mentioning Bush's name. Of course everyone who hates Bush &/or America is entitled to their opinion, but so are those who disagree with them.

Now the "he" that you are referring to is Catapharact and I can't recall (off the top of my head) one positive thing that he has said in any of his posts about the US. My reply to him was appropriate based on his previous posts.

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
21-08-05, 20:08
I haven't forgotten about you wantafanta. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Originally posted by wantafanta:
The numbers speak for themselves.What numbers exactly? You only post numbers for presidents Reagan, Clinton, & Bush 43. What about numbers for the first 39 presidents of the US? How about William H. Taft? How can you call Bush the "laziest" president in US history based solely on appalingly-incomplete information provided to you on a liberal blog, and then pass it off as an unquestionable fact? That is academically irresponsible of you.

While it is true that I don't like Bush, that doesn't make me necessarily a liberal. I have liberal views, and some fairly centrist views as well.Interesting

His economic recklessness and other missteps are hardly conservative at all, but rather rash and radical.Well that sounds liberal to me. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif In fact lib Dems have been saying that for years about Bush.

There is world of difference between George Bush and Gerald Ford or Ike.Perhaps but what are those differences exactly? Ford dealt with the closing years of Vietnam while Eisenhower did the same in the Korean Conflict.

FLIPPER

[ 21. August 2005, 21:27: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

Flipper1987
21-08-05, 20:25
Originally posted by wantafanta:
Foreign students don't want to come to the US any more to go to college.That's not true at all. Foreign students are still coming to the US in droves to pursue higher/advanced education. Where did you get this from?

The immigration laws are too strict.After 9/11 the immigration laws have tightened up but it's still relatively easy to come to the US to study.

These are very bright students who will be contributing to European countries and other places, in science, medicine, etc.Well the majority of foreign students who graduate from American universities return to their homeland. This has been going on for years.

Furthermore, the Bush adminsitration ban on stem cell research means the U.S. will fall behind while other countries develop cures that America doesn't have.The problem with that statement is that there is NO BAN on stem cell research. I repeat: there is NO BAN on stem cell research in the US. There are restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research, but no law against it whatsoever. In fact, about $35 billion was appropriated by the federal government in 2004 to research stem cells, which is more than the Clinton administration allocated for the same research during the late 90s. Private businesses & universities are allowed to pursue stem-cell research on their own (with their own money).

FLIPPER

[ 21. August 2005, 22:45: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

Neteru
21-08-05, 20:34
Originally posted by Flipper1987:
Neteru's addition to Capt. Murphy's list was obviously written to belittle anyone on this website who has the gall to actually stand up & support Bush in any way, shape, or form.Interesting opinion considering the fact of my reason has already been stated.

wantafanta
22-08-05, 00:35
Actually, Flipper, the Bush policy on stem cell research is an effective deterrent to real progress. It shuts off government funding. You cannot have piecemeal efforts in that area that produce timely data. It has to be a government funded and coordinated drive. Bush has effectively put a roadblock in the way to research. Even Bill Frist, a staunch conservative favors funding for research. Bush is pandering to the so-called religious fanatics who make up his base.

Bush's brash go-it-alone attitude toward our long-standing trusted allies flies in the face of all that Ike stood for. The U.S. is increasingly isolated and resented in the world. The conservative approach would be to unify, not slam the doors on our friends of 50 years.

Bush's effort to drop the wrecking ball on Social Security was radical and would have been laughed off the table not long ago. He never explained how he would recover the $2 trillion lost to "private accounts." His true goal to was enrich Wall Street brokers with billions of dollars in new commissions. BTW, the stock market has returned less the 0 percent the past 5 years.

As for foreign students choosing to study outside the U.S., I do not make this stuff up. Here are just two sources.

http://immigration.about.com/b/a/157384.htm

Foreign Students Snub U.S. Study: Good For You?
Immigration Issues Blog
« Denied by the USCIS? Now What? | Main | New Filing Address for Family-Based Applications »

From Jennifer & Peter Wipf,
Your Guide to Immigration Issues.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!

March 28, 2005
Foreign Students Snub U.S. Study: Good For You?
An increasing number of organizations are letting the public know that more foreign students are choosing universities in other English-speaking countries since the United States has tightened its student visa laws. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain are becoming more popular destinations among foreign students. What is the impact on the U.S.? And what does it mean for foreign students who still want to study in the States?Statistics of the Institute of International Education show that enrollment at U.S. universities has decreased by 2.4 percent in the last academic year, reversing the trend of a growing number of applicants before September 11. Educators and officials point out that not only are stricter student visa laws driving away foreign students, but universities abroad, after picking up on the anti-American trends, have increased their own marketing efforts to attract new international students. The antipathy of foreign students toward U.S. politics does not help that situation. To restore the faith in U.S. universities and schools, more needs to be done than just changing the visa laws.

What happens when the U.S. loses foreign students? Quite simply: A brain drain. We lose people like Einstein to other countries, and we lose computer programmers, inventors, engineers, mathematicians, scientists. The U.S. will fall behind if the trend continues.

As for students abroad still interested in the U.S., well this is the best time to apply, especially if you are interested in technical, computing or scientific disciplines.

----------------//----------------

Foreign students still waiting for visas
Scrutiny stricter now, Wisconsin educators say
By NAHAL TOOSI
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Last Updated: Aug. 20, 2002
Nearly a year after the Sept. 11 attacks, foreign students are having a harder time getting visas, and some are having to defer or drop their plans to attend college in the United States, officials at several Wisconsin schools said Tuesday.

At least 30 of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's admitted undergraduate and graduate students, many from Indonesia and Malaysia, have been denied or delayed in their attempts to get visas and arrive in time for classes Sept. 3, said Sheila Spear, director of international student services.

UW-Madison enrolls about 4,000 undergraduate and graduate foreign students, and in past years, very few students have had problems with visas, with maybe one a year getting denied, Spear said. The university's international student orientation begins Friday.

About 20 of Marquette University's international students, both new and returning, are having visa hang-ups, while at least three international students at Edgewood College in Madison are still waiting for an answer. Classes for both schools begin next week.

At Beloit College, where international students make up 11% of the 1,200-member student body, it's rare that a student ever gets denied a visa. But this year, at least five students have.

A patchwork of new laws and regulations imposed - or at least newly enforced - since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has resulted in greater scrutiny of foreign students vying for spots at U.S. colleges.

As part of the new regulations, colleges are scrambling to meet a Jan. 30 deadline to computerize the way they track and report data about their international students. And embassy officials in various countries appear to be checking the backgrounds of students, especially men, more rigorously.

The heightened awareness was expected after it was learned that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used student visas to enter or remain in the country.

Admissions and international student officials at the various schools weren't outraged by the new push for security, but they expressed concern that innocent students were getting denied a chance to fulfill a dream of getting a U.S. education.

"The concern is that, you know, it's the issue of students being the ones that kind of suffer in the wake of what's happened," said Tom Kreiser, Beloit's director of international admissions. "I want the process to be fair."

U.S. State Department officials could not be reached for comment.

University officials are monitoring the situation closely. Some expect that the rate of denials and delays may be higher than the anecdotal evidence they've collected through the students.

Based on the information the Wisconsin colleges have gathered, students from Indonesia, Malaysia, India and China are having a lot of problems. This month in China, students who had been turned down for visas protested at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported.

The three students still trying to make it to Edgewood College all are from Indonesia, said Larry Laffrey, director of the school's international student office. He's been getting worried e-mail messages from those students. Edgewood has about 85 foreign students; its total enrollment is more than 2,000.

"I think they're kind of mystified by the process at one level and frantic at another," Laffrey said. "There's not a real clear path that any of us can really see right now to help expedite this."

The main grounds for denial for many of the students is their perceived intent to remain in the United States indefinitely. Other conditions considered by consulate officials include the students' academic preparation and their ability to pay for school.

As far as college officials interviewed know, none of their students has been linked to terrorism.


Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Aug. 21, 2002.

[ 22. August 2005, 01:47: Message edited by: wantafanta ]

Draco
22-08-05, 01:41
Originally posted by wantafanta:
Actually, Flipper, the Bush policy on stem cell research is an effective deterrent to real progress. It shuts off government funding. You cannot have piecemeal efforts in that area that produce timely data. It has to be a government funded and coordinated drive.That sounds like a Socialist stance to me.

Bush has effectively put a roadblock in the way to research.Clearly you don't know much about Corporate Research and Developement.

Even Bill Frist, a staunch conservative favors funding for research. Bush is pandering to the so-called religious fanatics who make up his base.No, Frist is pandering to the left so he can stay in office.

Bush's brash go-it-alone attitude toward our long-standing trusted allies flies in the face of all that Ike stood for.Lighting a fire under some arses isn't always a bad thing.

The U.S. is increasingly isolated and resented in the world. The conservative approach would be to unify, not slam the doors on our friends of 50 years.What door was that?

Bush's effort to drop the wrecking ball on Social Security was radical and would have been laughed off the table not long ago.Social Security should be removed entirely.

He never explained how he would recover the $2 trillion lost to "private accounts." His true goal to was enrich Wall Street brokers with billions of dollars in new commissions. BTW, the stock market has returned less the 0 percent the past 5 years.Based on?

As for foreign students choosing to study outside the U.S., I do not make this stuff up. Here are just two sources.

http://immigration.about.com/b/a/157384.htm

Foreign Students Snub U.S. Study: Good For You?
Immigration Issues Blog
« Denied by the USCIS? Now What? | Main | New Filing Address for Family-Based Applications »

From Jennifer & Peter Wipf,
Your Guide to Immigration Issues.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!

March 28, 2005
Foreign Students Snub U.S. Study: Good For You?
An increasing number of organizations are letting the public know that more foreign students are choosing universities in other English-speaking countries since the United States has tightened its student visa laws. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain are becoming more popular destinations among foreign students. What is the impact on the U.S.? And what does it mean for foreign students who still want to study in the States?Statistics of the Institute of International Education show that enrollment at U.S. universities has decreased by 2.4 percent in the last academic year, reversing the trend of a growing number of applicants before September 11. Educators and officials point out that not only are stricter student visa laws driving away foreign students, but universities abroad, after picking up on the anti-American trends, have increased their own marketing efforts to attract new international students. The antipathy of foreign students toward U.S. politics does not help that situation. To restore the faith in U.S. universities and schools, more needs to be done than just changing the visa laws.

What happens when the U.S. loses foreign students? Quite simply: A brain drain. We lose people like Einstein to other countries, and we lose computer programmers, inventors, engineers, mathematicians, scientists. The U.S. will fall behind if the trend continues.

As for students abroad still interested in the U.S., well this is the best time to apply, especially if you are interested in technical, computing or scientific disciplines.

----------------//----------------

Foreign students still waiting for visas
Scrutiny stricter now, Wisconsin educators say
By NAHAL TOOSI
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Last Updated: Aug. 20, 2002
Nearly a year after the Sept. 11 attacks, foreign students are having a harder time getting visas, and some are having to defer or drop their plans to attend college in the United States, officials at several Wisconsin schools said Tuesday.

At least 30 of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's admitted undergraduate and graduate students, many from Indonesia and Malaysia, have been denied or delayed in their attempts to get visas and arrive in time for classes Sept. 3, said Sheila Spear, director of international student services.

UW-Madison enrolls about 4,000 undergraduate and graduate foreign students, and in past years, very few students have had problems with visas, with maybe one a year getting denied, Spear said. The university's international student orientation begins Friday.

About 20 of Marquette University's international students, both new and returning, are having visa hang-ups, while at least three international students at Edgewood College in Madison are still waiting for an answer. Classes for both schools begin next week.

At Beloit College, where international students make up 11% of the 1,200-member student body, it's rare that a student ever gets denied a visa. But this year, at least five students have.

A patchwork of new laws and regulations imposed - or at least newly enforced - since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has resulted in greater scrutiny of foreign students vying for spots at U.S. colleges.

As part of the new regulations, colleges are scrambling to meet a Jan. 30 deadline to computerize the way they track and report data about their international students. And embassy officials in various countries appear to be checking the backgrounds of students, especially men, more rigorously.

The heightened awareness was expected after it was learned that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used student visas to enter or remain in the country.

Admissions and international student officials at the various schools weren't outraged by the new push for security, but they expressed concern that innocent students were getting denied a chance to fulfill a dream of getting a U.S. education.

"The concern is that, you know, it's the issue of students being the ones that kind of suffer in the wake of what's happened," said Tom Kreiser, Beloit's director of international admissions. "I want the process to be fair."

U.S. State Department officials could not be reached for comment.

University officials are monitoring the situation closely. Some expect that the rate of denials and delays may be higher than the anecdotal evidence they've collected through the students.

Based on the information the Wisconsin colleges have gathered, students from Indonesia, Malaysia, India and China are having a lot of problems. This month in China, students who had been turned down for visas protested at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported.

The three students still trying to make it to Edgewood College all are from Indonesia, said Larry Laffrey, director of the school's international student office. He's been getting worried e-mail messages from those students. Edgewood has about 85 foreign students; its total enrollment is more than 2,000.

"I think they're kind of mystified by the process at one level and frantic at another," Laffrey said. "There's not a real clear path that any of us can really see right now to help expedite this."

The main grounds for denial for many of the students is their perceived intent to remain in the United States indefinitely. Other conditions considered by consulate officials include the students' academic preparation and their ability to pay for school.

As far as college officials interviewed know, none of their students has been linked to terrorism.


Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Aug. 21, 2002. And this is bad why?

Flipper1987
22-08-05, 03:17
Originally posted by wantafanta:
Actually, Flipper, the Bush policy on stem cell research is an effective deterrent to real progress.Once again Bush actually increased funding to @$35 billion for federal stem-cell research, which is more than Clinton provided. What a shock that Clinton has completely escaped your criticism.

Also, we are in the beginning phases of stem cell research which has a lot of promising potential but has produced few (if any) concrete results. How much should the federal government allocate for this? Hundreds of billions a year? This would have a large impact on the budget which doesn't need another bloated, government-funded program. How many stem cells should be destroyed? Which stem cells? How about stem cells off the imbilical cord? There's still a lot of very important issues that need to be resolved.

Draco is correct in implying that private corporations/universities will help out with this. After all, where do you think all the "wonder drugs" come from? The government? It has been proven time & again that private industry is more efficient than the government.

Bush's brash go-it-alone attitude toward our long-standing trusted allies flies in the face of all that Ike stood for. The U.S. is increasingly isolated and resented in the world.The problem is that the US has yet to "go-it-alone" under the Bush administration. There were at least 30 countries that offered troops, supplies, intelligence, and money in Afghanistan & Iraq. Are you belittling their contributions? The US is also working with 5 other countries to convince North Korea to cancel its nuclear weapons program, & the US is supportive of the E3 in trying to get Iran to abandon its nuclear facilities that could be used to generate nuclear weapons.

This "going-it-alone" argument is just more propaganda from the left. Great Britain has been a major contributor in Afghanistan, Iraq, & elsewhere. I'm sure they would like some credit too.

As far as the US being isolated from the world, that too is more of the same blather. Imports into the US have gone up over the last few years, and tourists & immigrants still come here in large numbers. What "isolation" are you talking about exactly?

Bush's effort to drop the wrecking ball on Social Security was radical and would have been laughed off the table not long ago. He never explained how he would recover the $2 trillion lost to "private accounts."I admit solving Social Security situation is tricky. I like the idea of people owning their Soc. Sec. account & passing it down to their family (most libs hate that; anything that reduces your reliance on the government frosts many of them). Yet Dems have produced no ideas or solutions whatsoever, except for raising taxes. All they've done is complain & resort to their standard scare tactics. Their basic strategy is "let's do nothing & hope the situation takes care of itself." No wonder they're mired in the minority for now.

As for foreign students choosing to study outside the U.S., I do not make this stuff up.I read those two sources & nowhere does it indicate that foreign students are avoiding American universities in large numbers as you stated in your earlier post (unless you think a decrease of 2.4% is a huge number). In fact you said: "Foreign students don't want to come to the US any more to go to college." The two articles that you cited clearly show that this is not the case.

Once the new student visa guidelines and red tape at the INS get smoothed out, that small dip in foreign student attendance will reverse.

FLIPPER

[ 22. August 2005, 04:57: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

nikos
22-08-05, 12:08
original posted by monA sax

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The one who really support america,should opposes bush!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't disagree more. To me, supporting a country and supporting its government are two completely different things. Yes you are absolutely right http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif
but when some goverments do something,which can causes serious problems to the rest of the world,and if that is mostly illegal,then some people,confuse goverments with nations!
Unfortunately most of the people is now saying
"america to blame!",instead of bush or us goverment,and thats very bad for the relationships between people and nation!
Do you know that many of them refuse to by something or see a moovie or music because "Ha,americans they attack to iraq?,and funny so ,that most of them are not left-winged?
Do you know that the most anti-americans in greece are rthe right-winged and the concervatives!
For the first time in history,sosialists,concervatives,communist,centris ts,have an agreement?"america to blame?"
Well most of them are uneducated,but as you know,the uneducated people are the majority,in this world!
I can tell the different between, the will of the usa-uk people, from their goverments but many others don't,so some politicians espesially usa goverment should be extremely carefull!
You know, as we use to say in greece,
"When usa is coughing,the rest of the world is getting cold!" ;)

wantafanta
22-08-05, 15:09
Sorry Draco, but America is steeped in Socialism already and could not work without it. The Manahattan Project to build the atomic bomb for one. NASA, for another. The entire US park system, the federal highway system, the public school system, the CIA, FBI, FAA, NTSB, US Army, Navy, Marines, Airforce, Coast Guard, EPA, OSHA, DEA, ATF, IRS, SEC, DHS, etc. With his record budgets, no president has done more to make this a Socialist country than George W. Bush. If you are scared of Socialism, you are about 100 years too late.

As for s****ping Social Security, that would be a catastrophe. Millions and millions of Americans depend on it to survive and have for decades. And you will need it when your turn comes. In fact, Bush's solution, the stock market, crashed in 1929 and sent millions into poverty which is how Security started!

Flipper you are wrong. The Democrats have offered up raising the income limits subject to FICA tax - currently capped at $90,000 I believe. A simple fix and one which does not raise a nickel in taxes on the vast majority of Americans. They have also suggested means testing.

If Bush were truly interested in saving something, he would focus on Medicare - which is in far more trouble than SS. But he has ignored it. That should tell you something about his motives. Don't you think it is strange that Bush is so worried about SS solvency, but completely shrugs off the snowballing deficits and debt of the government itself? He has yet to veto a single bill!

Also you cannot have meaningful stem cell research without government aid. It just cannot be done.

Draco
22-08-05, 16:53
Originally posted by wantafanta:
Sorry Draco, but America is steeped in Socialism already and could not work without it. The Manahattan Project to build the atomic bomb for one. NASA, for another. The entire US park system, the federal highway system, the public school system, the CIA, FBI, FAA, NTSB, US Army, Navy, Marines, Airforce, Coast Guard, EPA, OSHA, DEA, ATF, IRS, SEC, DHS, etc. With his record budgets, no president has done more to make this a Socialist country than George W. Bush. If you are scared of Socialism, you are about 100 years too late.Uh...lol? You do know that having a functioning government...doesnt make you socialist right?

As for s****ping Social Security, that would be a catastrophe. Millions and millions of Americans depend on it to survive and have for decades. And you will need it when your turn comes. In fact, Bush's solution, the stock market, crashed in 1929 and sent millions into poverty which is how Security started!Of course s****ping it isn't going to work, but that's what should be done.

Flipper you are wrong. The Democrats have offered up raising the income limits subject to FICA tax - currently capped at $90,000 I believe. A simple fix and one which does not raise a nickel in taxes on the vast majority of Americans. They have also suggested means testing.So as soon as someone makes over 90 grand, they dont have to pay taxes.

If Bush were truly interested in saving something, he would focus on Medicare - which is in far more trouble than SS. But he has ignored it. That should tell you something about his motives. Don't you think it is strange that Bush is so worried about SS solvency, but completely shrugs off the snowballing deficits and debt of the government itself? He has yet to veto a single bill!I didnt hear the liberals complain about his never-veto policy till Congress turned conservative.

Also you cannot have meaningful stem cell research without government aid. It just cannot be done. Do you even live in the US?

Catapharact
22-08-05, 21:04
Originally posted by Flipper1987:

And what exactly is this "world" that you're talking about? Over 6 billion people live outside the U.S. & I don't think they all agree with you.

Also, you're intimating that the US always acts unilaterally and without the support of any other country in the world. Just because the US & so-called "right-wingers" don't goose-step to your viewpoints doesn't make them "close-minded" or inflexible.

FLIPPER [/QB]First off, most world countries obviously voted to give the inspecters more time before an ivasion was even to be thought off. Now being part of the UN, don't you think the U.S. should have abide by it's rule? Or do you think that the U.S. has the right to break laws it's trying to enforce around the world? If they expect other countries to follow laws under the UN charter, it should begin following them itself.

Second, I am not a left wingest. My views are usually positioned in the middle. What I see from the U.S is administration is a blatent idiotic plan of attack that hasn't been successful tot his day. Sure they toppled Saddam, but what was the war being fought on? To eliminate terror. What has been the result? MORE terror. Even a republian senator calls Iraq the "New Vietnam."

[ 22. August 2005, 22:12: Message edited by: Catapharact ]

Flipper1987
22-08-05, 22:36
Originally posted by Catapharact:
First off, most world countries obviously voted to give the inspecters more time before an ivasion was even to be thought off.Yeah we have been down this path before. Once the inspectors showed up again Iraq in late 2002, Saddam's regime played their cat & mouse, bait & switch routine with inspectors that they perfected from 1991-1997. In other words, Saddam did everything a guilty scoundrel would do if he was trying to hide something.

And by the way, the only reason that inspectors returned to Iraq was because Bush went to the UN & convinced them to send them back. In other words, Bush forced the UN to get off their duffs & enforce the numerous resolutions that the UN has passed against Iraq.


Now being part of the UN, don't you think the U.S. should have abide by it's rule? Or do you think that the U.S. has the right to break laws it's trying to enforce around the world? If they expect other countries to follow laws under the UN charter, it should begin following them itself.Where do I start with this?

First of all, the UN has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the US, or any country for that matter. Whatever laws (if you can call them that) that the UN passes & encourages countries to follow are largely humanitarian in nature.

And which so-called UN law (in the UN charter or otherwise) did the US violate exactly? Security Council Resolution 1440 sent Saddam a final warning & gave the US the right (as if they needed the UN's permission) to use force if Saddam didn't comply, which he clearly wasn't doing again.

EDIT: Remember Catapharact, we are talking about probably the most corrupt organization in world history: the UN. Recently a symbolic proposal was introduced to condemn terrorism as a violation of human rights, and it failed to pass! Once again the UN has shown that it's largely impotent to act against any serious threat, much less terrorism. What a surprise that the US-led coalition had to take action.

And what a big surprise, Catapharact, that you give another pass to a Muslim nation. First you claimed that Iran was no threat at all in a previous thread, and now you are COMPLETELY IGNORING the simple fact that Iraq has violated Security Council resolutions left & right for years! If you were intellectually honest and consistent on this topic, you would have slammed Iraq for these obvious violations, yet you say nothing.

Second, I am not a left wingest. My views are usually positioned in the middle.LOL! This is usually the first thing a liberal or a radical says. First wantafanta gives us this line (or something similar to it) & now you. Next you'll be telling us that you're a "New Democrat."

What I see from the U.S is administration is a blatent idiotic plan of attack that hasn't been successful tot his day. Sure they toppled Saddam, but what was the war being fought on? To eliminate terror. What has been the result? MORE terror.Actually the invasion of Iraq was to topple the brutal Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, to set up a democratic government, and to prevent Iraq from producing WMD in the future & possibly giving them to terrorists. Terrorism was not the main motivating factor in the invasion. The resulting terror against Iraqi muslims has largely come from foreign terrorists (some from your country, Catapharact) that have come across the border to butcher innocent civilians and to derail the move towards freedom & democracy for the Iraqi people.

So if you're going to blame somebody for the increase in terror in Iraq, how about actually blaming the people who are using car bombs to target Iraqi civilians & children: the terrorists! By the way did you know that the vast vast vast majority of Iraq is not experiencing any terrorism at all?

Even a republian senator calls Iraq the "New Vietnam." Oooo, one Republican who puts his foot in his mouth & you quote him as an authority. How about all the Democrats who feel that staying the course in Iraq & not backing down is the way to go (such as Joseph Lieberman for one)? Why aren't you quoting them? Oh wait, I know. You're a "moderate!" ROFLMAO!!!!

FLIPPER

[ 23. August 2005, 01:30: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

wantafanta
23-08-05, 02:32
Originally posted by Flipper1987:
Security Council Resolution 1440 sent Saddam a final warning & gave the US the right (as if they needed the UN's permission) to use force if Saddam didn't comply, which he clearly wasn't doing again.
Actually, you are talking about 1441, not 1440 I hope. Nowhere does 1441 mention the United States. It does not give the US any authority to enforce anything. Read it for yourself.

Comply? What comply? What WMDs was Saddam moving around and hiding? Two of Bush's handpicked experts said there weren't any. Do you know better?

Actually, it is Bush who ignored the UN. He would not allow Hans Blix to finish his work.

Originally posted by Flipper1987:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Even a republian senator calls Iraq the "New Vietnam." Oooo, one Republican who puts his foot in his mouth & you quote him as an authority. How about all the Democrats who feel that staying the course in Iraq & not backing down is the way to go (such as Joseph Lieberman for one)? Why aren't you quoting them? Oh wait, I know. You're a "moderate!" ROFLMAO!!!!
FLIPPER </font>[/QUOTE]You are talking about Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and not a chickenhawk tele-tubby like Bush/Cheney/Lieberman. Actually, it is another Vietnam. It's unfolding the same way. Promises of progress. And now you hear the Army is preparing for an additional 4 years occupation. Strange, I thought "mission accomplished." Talk about ROFLMAO!!!!

My coworker has relatives in Iraq. It was 120 degrees there this summer some days and they still get just one hour of electricity per day.
Now the "terrorists" as you call them - the Shiites who were fighting us last year - are leading the new Iraqi government. Ironic that it was Democracy which put them into power.
Progress - yeh right.

[ 23. August 2005, 03:54: Message edited by: wantafanta ]

Draco
23-08-05, 03:06
Whose authority does the US 'need'?

nikos
23-08-05, 12:37
Original posted by draco
Whose authority does the US 'need'? UNITED NATIONS!your army bombed and destroyed iraq[1991],and serbia,taking the permition of the un,you asked from all nato's country to follow you and they obeyed because of the un decisions,but now is not ok?
This is the greatest hipocricy i've ever heard!

HUMAN RIGHTS and WORLD'S PUBLIC OPINION is the only authorities you need to ask,but you ask about that,only if they are positive,and you forget when they dont agree with your plans!

The same answer goes to FLIPPER!for this:

ORIGINAL POSTED BY FLIPPER
EDIT: Remember Catapharact, we are talking about probably the most corrupt organization in world history: the UN. Recently a symbolic proposal was introduced to condemn terrorism as a violation of human rights, and it failed to pass! Once again the UN has shown that it's largely impotent to act against any serious threat, much less terrorism. What a surprise that the US-led coalition had to take action.
Now un is corrupt, but when you get the "licence to kill" was not corrupt?
What about nato then?they follow you before now not everyone,is also a corrupt organisation?
Are the majority of the world who didn't follow you corrupt goverments,or members of the terrorist axis?

The game of democracy and freedom,is a very hard to play,game,and the new us goverment failed 100%!
We are all under fear and flames,because of the "BULL IN A GLASS STORE POLITICS",that mr bush baptise it as anti-terror war!ha

[ 23. August 2005, 13:45: Message edited by: nikos ]

Draco
23-08-05, 16:14
The UN being corrupt had nothing to do with the US challenging the UN to actually do something it says it will do.

Flipper1987
23-08-05, 22:33
Originally posted by wantafanta:
Actually, you are talking about 1441, not 1440 I hope. Nowhere does 1441 mention the United States. It does not give the US any authority to enforce anything. Read it for yourself.It's common knowledge that Security Council Resolutions have a tendency to be vague at times. Since I and most people aren't strict literalists like yourself, it should be perfectly obvious who was going to be administering the punishment of Iraq if they continued to screw around and not comply with inspectors.

Comply? What comply? What WMDs was Saddam moving around and hiding?Comply? Comply with the inspectors of course. Comply by opening up all of their facilities, files and such to be inspected. Comply by not bugging the offices of inspectors. Comply by giving the inspectors complete, unfettered access at all times. Once again Saddam dragged his feet & dramatically slowed the work of inspectors. In other words, it appeared to everyone that he had something to hide.

Think about it wantafanta. If Saddam had nothing to hide, he would have been completely open with everything (this would have expedited the lifting of sanctions on Iraq); however, Saddam did the EXACT OPPOSITE of that.

Two of Bush's handpicked experts said there weren't any.Names? By the way, what did the other "hand-picked experts" have to say? How many "hand-picked experts" did Bush have exactly?

Do you know better?Once again let's review by looking at some of the people & organizations that believed Saddam had WMDs before the Iraq invasion in 2003:

Bill Clinton
Al Gore
John Kerry
Hillary Clinton
Most Democratic senators in 1998
the CIA
British Intelligence
French Intelligence
Russian Intelligence
Jordanian Intelligence
Egyptian Intelligence
Kuwaiti Intelligence
the almighty UN

I think these people had access to a little bit more information than you do, wantafanta.

Actually, it is Bush who ignored the UN.If that was actually true, then how do you explain why Bush went to the UN before Afghanistan & Iraq? Who do you think got the UN to get the inspectors back into Iraq? How do you think SCR 1441 got proposed & passed? And by the way, is the US obliged to do absolutely everything the UN says? Hell, Iraq surely didn't but they seem to have escaped your wrath.

You are talking about Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and not a chickenhawk tele-tubby like Bush/Cheney/Lieberman.Ah, so that's how it is. People who don't subscribe to your views on Iraq are labeled "tele-tubbies?" Just curious, do you think making childish insults actually raises our opinion of you?

Actually, it is another Vietnam. It's unfolding the same way.*Yawn* This again? Have you sold your soul to MoveOn.org as well?

Now the "terrorists" as you call them - the Shiites who were fighting us last year - are leading the new Iraqi government.So it was Al-Sistani, the main Iraqi Shia cleric, that was ordering those fringe Shiites to attack US troops? Of course not! It was Al Sadr that was stirring up all that commotion. Funny how we haven't heard his name for a long time.

As most people know, the insurgents were/are largely Sunni Muslims who enjoyed a nice life under Hussein's lovely regime. The majority, mainstream Shiites know full well that they have the most to gain if a constitution & a democratic government are set up in Iraq. In other words, if the US succedes, they succede. It would be completely idiotic for them to attack the US troops like Sadr's radical Shias did.

So who has the most to lose if democracy succedes in Iraq? Let's see...the terrorists, some Sunnis, and the Democratic party (no wonder you're playing the Vietnam card wantafanta).

By the way, terrorists are not leading the new Iraqi government. They're blowing up Iraqi policemen, recruits, & innocent civilians in order to submarine democracy. Do you even know the simple difference?

FLIPPER

[ 23. August 2005, 23:40: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

wantafanta
24-08-05, 01:14
Nikos is right. You denigrate the UN and then justify it when it suits your purpose for debate.


It's common knowledge that Security Council Resolutions have a tendency to be vague at times. Since I and most people aren't strict literalists like yourself, it should be perfectly obvious who was going to be administering the punishment of Iraq if they continued to screw around and not comply with inspectors.Except that this is a legally binding document and you have to take it literally. There is no other way. It was not a Mother Goose rhyme.

Names?
How about David Kay and Charles Duelfer?

think these people had access to a little bit more information than you do, wantafanta.Except when you mention Clinton, Gore and 1998 - you are not talking about 2003 - a full 5 years later. And you are not talking about going to war, either. Saddam had WMDs once - we sold them to him - gas. Kerry and Hillary made one stupid mistake - they trusted George W. Bush - a very unintellegent man to give them meaningful intelligence.

The reason Saddam was obstinate in letting inspectors perform their task full speed is Iran and Israel. He did not want his enemies to know that he did not have gas weapons or other WMDs. Iraqi national security. That should be obvious - as you like to put it. It makes perfect sense - unless you are president bunnypants.

Which begs the question - do you now believe that Iran has WMDs? And because Iran is probably a major supplier of the insurgency, do you favor going to war with Iran? And because Iran is most likely working on a nuclear weapon, isn't it more a danger to the US than Iraq was - especially considering all the terrorist groups operating there, as opposed to almost none in Iraq at the time of the US sneak attack? If we went to war with Iraq over far less, then we have to invade Iran. Quite a conundrum, eh my friend?

Draco
24-08-05, 02:16
Legally Binding to who? And who is going to enforce it?

tlr online
24-08-05, 03:54
Originally posted by Draco:
Whose authority does the US 'need'? And this is exactly the kind of tunnelled and sole self-preservative mentality America has become synonymous with. A law unto themselves, at the expense of all others. And for that, you must blame education.

Draco
24-08-05, 04:36
What authority has ANY nation needed? Save the Vatican's?

Isabella
25-08-05, 01:23
Originally posted by Flipper1987:
Comply? Comply with the inspectors of course. Comply by opening up all of their facilities, files and such to be inspected. Comply by not bugging the offices of inspectors. Comply by giving the inspectors complete, unfettered access at all times. Once again Saddam dragged his feet & dramatically slowed the work of inspectors. In other words, it appeared to everyone that he had something to hide.

Think about it wantafanta. If Saddam had nothing to hide, he would have been completely open with everything (this would have expedited the lifting of sanctions on Iraq); however, Saddam did the EXACT OPPOSITE of that.

Names? By the way, what did the other "hand-picked experts" have to say? How many "hand-picked experts" did Bush have exactly?
FLIPPERHi Flipper.
In response to the first above quoted statement: I think we can all agree on Sadam's nature. He is a tyrant in every sense of the word. What better way to keep up his power-trip than WMD's? There is no concrete evidence that he had any left just prior to our invasion but he doesn't seem to be the sort of person who would simply fold and admit to being 'clean'. Rather the mystique of still having weapons was leverage enough to keep him feeling powerful.

To the second part. It's true that Dr. Blix wasn't exactly hand-picked by Bush. But he was very well respected in his field. It was only when he couldn't find what was to be our supposed reason for invading Iraq that the U.S coalition began it's criticism. Personally I think the fact that he wanted to handle the situation with diplomacy, patience and grace irritated the Bush administration who were chomping at the bit to invade. And before you argue about there not being time for patience, When it comes to the decision of starting a war then all details must be gone through with a fine tooth comb. We ( as in non-conservatives ) know that there was no need to be hasty when it came to Iraq. They posed no threat to us and certainly not on the scale of what happened on 9/11. Now they are dangerous, now they have a reason to hate us.

BTW, As a MoveOn member, My soul is still beautifully intact. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Flipper1987
25-08-05, 03:12
Originally posted by wantafanta:
Nikos is right. You denigrate the UN and then justify it when it suits your purpose for debate.I think the UN has done a superb job in denigrating itself, or have you not been paying attention? Do I really need to list all the recent scandals?

Except that this (Security Council Resolution 1441) is a legally binding document and you have to take it literally. There is no other way. It was not a Mother Goose rhyme.Once again wantafanta you have utterly failed to understand SCR 1441. SCR 1441 was directed towards Iraq, not the US. Have you actually read SCR 1441, wantafanta, or merely someone's blog comments about it? Here's a link:

SCR 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

Look at Points 1,2,4,5,7, & especially Point 13. Here is Point 13 for all to see:

"Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations..."

You lecture us how Security Council Resolutions are "legally binding," but once again you are apparently ignoring the fact that Iraq ignored 18 of these "legally binding" resolutions. Have you criticized Iraq about this in this thread? Nope. The question is why?

How about David Kay and Charles Duelfer?I knew you would pick these two guys, lol. For those who were paying attention before the invasion of Iraq, David Kay believed Iraq had WMDs. It wasn't until AFTER THE FACT that Kay (& Duelfer) said there were probably no WMDs in Iraq (unless they were smuggled to Syria) because they couldn't find them after the invasion.

Except when you mention Clinton, Gore and 1998 - you are not talking about 2003 - a full 5 years later. And you are not talking about going to war, either.If you compare what Clinton & leading Senate Democrats said about Iraq & Saddam Hussein in 1998 & compare it with what Bush said in 2002-2003, you will see an amazing amount of similarities. Some speeches & talking points are almost word for word.

Saddam had WMDs once - we sold them to him - gas.You know wantafanta, everytime I try to take your arguments seriously, you drop one of these ridiculous lines on us.

Kerry and Hillary made one stupid mistake - they trusted George W. Bush - a very unintellegent man to give them meaningful intelligence.Yes yes wantafanta, we're familiar with the tired propaganda of the Left that Bush is stupid and leading Democrats are brilliant & can do no wrong unless they're duped by Bush, who, according to you guys, is supposed to be an idiot. So how does an idiot like Bush dupe supposedly brilliant people like Kerry & Hillary Clinton?

*Sigh* Clinton, Kerry, and other leading Democratic senators didn't get all the intelligence about Iraq from Pres. Bush. They got most of it from the CIA. The CIA was constantly going over to Capitol Hill to brief Congress on the intelligence they had (some of which came from numerous foreign intelligence agencies). I understand that since you hate Bush you'll probably blame him for everything without really knowing the facts.

The reason Saddam was obstinate in letting inspectors perform their task full speed is Iran and Israel. He did not want his enemies to know that he did not have gas weapons or other WMDs. Iraqi national security. That should be obvious - as you like to put it.But wait a second wantafanta. You gave us a big, haughty speech about how Security Council Resolutions are "legally-binding" & need to be followed to the letter. According to SCR 1441, Saddam was obliged to allow unfettered access to inspectors, regardless if it tipped off his enemies that he supposedly had no WMDs (btw Israel was not going to invade Iraq whatever was discovered). Maintaining "Iraqi national security" was not an excuse for jerking-around the inspectors! So if you are going to be intellectually-consistent, wantafanta, then you would have to argue that since Saddam violated 18 "legally binding" SC Resolutions, he deserved to be punished/invaded. After all, the military invasion of Iraq was implied in Point 13. Everybody knew it, including Saddam.

And just for your gratification, it was common knowledge that Hussein might jerk-around the inspectors when they returned in 2002 in order to hide national secrets. You're not enlightening anyone with your bombshell.

And also for your gratification: when Hussein surrendered after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, he agreed in the cease-fire agreements that he would allow unfettered access for UN inspectors. So not only has Saddam violated 18 "legally binding" SC Resolutions, he reneged on the cease-fire agreement, which the US has every right to construe as an ACT OF WAR.

It makes perfect sense - unless you are president bunnypants.Once again very mature. How old are you wantafanta?

Which begs the question - do you now believe that Iran has WMDs? And because Iran is probably a major supplier of the insurgency, do you favor going to war with Iran? And because Iran is most likely working on a nuclear weapon, isn't it more a danger to the US than Iraq was - especially considering all the terrorist groups operating there, as opposed to almost none in Iraq at the time of the US sneak attack? If we went to war with Iraq over far less, then we have to invade Iran. Quite a conundrum, eh my friend? Yes it's quite a problem. Thank goodness we have people like you, wantafanta. No matter what Bush does, he's going to be criticized by those who are willing to jeopardize national security for short-term political gain. If Bush attempts diplomacy, Dems will criticize him. If Bush threatens force, Dems will criticize him. If Bush, Britain, & the Coalition invade Iran, Dems will criticize him. If Bush attempts to set up a democratic government in Iran, Dems will criticize him & say democracy will never work in Iran. And so on and so on and so on.

Btw, who are you going to blame if the White Sox fail to make the World Series this year? No don't tell me, let me guess.

FLIPPER

[ 27. August 2005, 02:54: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

Flipper1987
25-08-05, 03:17
Originally posted by Isabella:
BTW, As a MoveOn member, My soul is still beautifully intact. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif I am so happy to hear it. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
25-08-05, 03:19
WHOOPS! Sorry, double post. :D

[ 25. August 2005, 04:21: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]