My opinion about Bush is no secret - Thread #2

  1. Again. . . as we debate over the U.S.'s involvement and possible near-unilateral war against Iraq, it is my hope that we not forget the other issues that face our country. Although the possible impending war with Iraq is well worth discussion and debate, other issues being brought forth by this current administration deserve close scrutiny as well.

    This thread is focused towards the environment.

    I've started at least two threads in the past expressing my distaste with this administration's policies regarding the environment. Here's another. The following is an editorial found in 3/16/2003 Times Union. The valid concern this editorial presents is well worth the read.
    _________________________________

    Targeting our Resources

    The Bush administration continues to try to weaken environmental safeguards

    First published: Sunday, March 16, 2003

    The Bush administration's repeated attempts to weaken environmental laws have made for a disturbing pattern in the last two years. But now come signs that the trend is evolving into an all-out assault. An alarmed public must tell Congress to draw the line now, before long-term, and irreversible, damage is done.

    Since taking office, Mr. Bush has targeted an array of environmental protections, from the Clean Air Act to the ban on oil and gas exploration in pristine Arctic wilderness. The most recent White House proposal would exempt the oil and gas industry from a storm water regulation that affects all other industries nationwide.

    The new regulation requires all developers whose construction sites encompass one to five acres to apply for permits before work can begin. The goal is a reasonable one -- to keep work-site runoff from polluting rivers, lakes and other water sources.

    Municipalities with populations under 100,000 also would be required to secure permits for urban runoff from streets and parking lots.

    But the White House now says the oil and gas industry should have at least two more years to comply with the law, and may even be entitled to a permanent exemption from it. The reasons for such favorable treatment are hardly convincing -- namely, that work at drilling sites must be done quickly, and that the industry's reliance on leased equipment and land would expose it to heavy costs if energy producers were forced to wait long periods before receiving permits. Yet the goal should be protecting the environment. If the industry needs prompt responses, then the permit system should provide for an accelerated process. Ignoring water purity is not the answer.

    Meanwhile, the Pentagon is seeking its own exemptions to five key environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Superfund law. In each case, the Pentagon says the war on terrorism, and military readiness, must take precedence over environmental concerns.

    In most cases, the Pentagon seeks to exclude munitions, explosives and other toxic materials from the definition of "solid waste" in the five environmental statutes. That would not only put ground and surface waters at risk, as well as air quality, but would also expose taxpayers to millions of dollars in cleanup costs.

    To its credit, the last Congress turned back a similar Pentagon proposal, largely on the basis of a finding by the General Accounting Office that the Department of Defense has not produced any evidence to show that environmental laws have impaired military readiness.

    Moreover, Christie Whitman, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, testified before the Senate recently that she could not find "a training mission anywhere in the country that is being held up or not taking place because of environmental protection regulation."

    This Congress must do what the last one did: Just say no
    •  
  2. 8 Comments

  3. by   rncountry
    You know something Ted? I feel like those during WWII that despised Roosevelt yet believed that we were doing the right thing in WWII. Seriously. I dislike the policies of Bush tremendously and feel that for everything like this, that I need to write my legislators and let them know so. Yet, I am at a point that I am unwilling to allow my dislike for the man's politics to blind me to what is needed to keep my country safe and free. I am more than willing to fight against policies that I believe are wrong for the country, but have to stand with the President on the question of rather we have to take a stand against those that are terrorist states. Politically it is not always a comfortable place to be, but one I think is necessary.
  4. by   Ted
    RNCountry -

    I think, as a country, a firm stand against terrorism should be made. Just not headed by an administration who doesn't even have the over-all, day to day, interests of our country's citizens at heart.

    This is my point:

    If GWB and his political regime is making drastically wrong decisions that effect our day to day lives and our environment, how can we trust an administration to make decisions that will ultimately effect the entire world?????

    Blind faith in this administration is not what is called for now.



    Ted
  5. by   rncountry
    Ted, I don't have that kind of faith in anyone or anything except God. I don't feel I am blindly following GW on Iraq, I have taken a great deal of time to look at various thoughts and opinions from a variety of places, and ultimately I believe that what is coming is the right thing to do.
    It's been a very difficult decision to make. I do not make it lightly at all. A few weeks ago I was ready to go march in Lansing against the war, but then the French started their little ditty and knowing the history of France and how they have rarely done anything that was not in their own best interests made me pause. I had to ask myself why, why and why some more would the French want nothing more than endless inspections? The inspectors should not have to spend endless years looking for the weapons, the UN resolution does not call for that. So it got me to thinking what advantage there was for France to want that. Which led me to all sorts of other thoughts. Some of which involved the fact that Germany was not supposed to rearm after WWI, but they did it anyway. Oh, it was supposed to be for their national defense, just stuff they needed for their factories and such and the European Nations did nothing. Then Hitler moved into areas he was not supposed to be in, and everyone rushed to make a new treaty with him and Chamberlain came home a National Hero, until Hitler marched into Poland in 1938 and crushed the country who tried to fight his panzers with the Calvery, and the country was under the heel of the Nazi's in 4 days.
    I don't know how much Bush has convinced me of anything. But the French and history convinced me of much.
  6. by   Ted
    I'm not saying that S. H. shouldn't be removed from power. Just not by this administration, especially since they will ultimately be the ones who will fill the void once S. H. is gone.

    For this particular situation, S. H. should be removed from power by the world. I guess through the United Nations. But not by this particular administration . . . or any one country, for that matter.

    (Thinking here. . . . . . .)

    Not by any one country. Period.

    As a world, we need to learn to work together. Let the whole Iraqi thing be the world's responsibility, as it should. S. H. should not be in power. There is no question there. So let the United Nations figure it out. . . with our support. . . with the support of the whole world. . . just so that this is a world's decision and responsibility. The United Nations (and I'm not saying that this institution is perfect) may not act the way GWB and his political regime would like it to act. Too bad. If we (the world) can't figure out how to work with one another despite differences in opinions, then there really is no future for us. . . us being the human species.

    Oh well. . . I need to get some work done here at home. I'm finding myself getting way too involved with these issues. I need to enjoy life at home for a while. . . on to living one day at a time. Who knows what's going to happen tomorrow.

    Peace. . . if not among nations, then at least in our own hearts, minds, bodies and souls. . . .

    Ted
    Last edit by Ted on Mar 16, '03
  7. by   rncountry
    I have no hope that an institution that put Iraq as the head of Human Rights will ever do anything that protects human rights. The wish for the world to get along has been spoken by people for centuries, the problem is that there are madmen out there that have great difficulty with that. Just what do we do with them Ted? Seriously, what option do we have when someone is damn detemined to kill and main in order to stay in power? Should we continue inspections until SH simply dies? Then what about his son's?
    To me it is obvious that the UN is not going to take steps to do anything but toothless mumblings. No matter how much I wish they would do something else. The French in particular have made a bed they will have to lie in now because they were more concerned about winning their argument than they were in doing something productive that could have potentially avoided war.
    I so appreciate where you are coming from Ted. No one truly wants to kill other people unless they have some sort of mental illness. And it is thought by just about anyone that SH should go and that he is a despot of the worst sort, the big question is how. At this juncture it simply has become very apparent to me that no one, least of the UN, is going to do anything that will remove him and his weapons and since the pragmatic part of me believes that he has a hand in the terrorism that visited this country even if we have not been able to prove that without a shadow of a doubt, I still believe it, I believe it is in the best interest of this country to do what has to be done in order to make my children's lives more secure. Do I think terrorism is likely to stop with a war in Iraq? No, I don't. But I believe it gives us a better position in order to begin to deal with the problem and go about the business of taking out the viper's nests.
    Two good friends that simply see the opposite sides of things ok? I am not willing to allow my disllike of GW to blind me to what I believe we have to do in order to make things ultimately more secure in this country. Note I said ultimately. It may get worse before it gets better, but I believe we will prevail.
  8. by   Ted
    I am not willing to allow my disllike of GW to blind me to what I believe we have to do in order to make things ultimately more secure in this country. Note I said ultimately. It may get worse before it gets better, but I believe we will prevail.
    Hi RNCountry -

    I do appreciate your thoughts.

    There's not doubt that S. H. . . . and his sons. . . are dreadful people. S. H. and "leaders" like him should not be tolerated.

    I just can't get it out of my head that this problem should be settled by the world. I know that the United Nations is an imperfect system. Our own government isn't perfect. I can't think of a system that is without flaws. There isn't any. There isn't any because. . . we're human.

    Now I'm talking from my own philosophical point of view. As wierd as it might be, it is how I view the world. . . and I now that my view is rittled with imperfection.

    Despite man's nature to make mistakes. . . sometime really f**king big mistakes. . . . I also believe in man's ability to learn and grow if he/she so chooses. I apply this reasoning to the United Nations. I don't deny that it isn't somewhat warped. But in my own head, it kind of make sense.

    The United Nations has made some blunderous mistakes in the past. . . I'm actually taking that for granted because I am a poor historian. But to the best of my knowledge, the United Nations was set up to help problem solve world issues. I guess I view the United Nations as a natural progression in the evolution of human development. Not that the United Nation will become THE world government. No. But, rather, the governments of the world, through the United Nations, will learn to work together and develop a process that will help eliminate people like S. H., hunger, poverty, as well as help developing nations grow and prosper. It only makes sense to me. . . the world is growing smaller and smaller.

    I guess I'm trying to look at the "Big Picture" . . . whatever that may be.

    I'm not saying that the United Nations isn't without fault. Probably, in terms a development, it's in the "baby stages" of growth with lots of room for maturation. But, right now, it is a vehicle, recognized by almost every country of this small planet, that can be used to at least attempt to solve pressing problems.

    Yep. The United Nations needs to be held accountable for setting and making sure dead-lines are met. But I don't share the same sense of urgency that many of the "pro-first-strikers" seem to have with S. H. I guess I look at him more like a poisonous rattle-snake. He can cause damage. He can even kill a few people. And he has!!! More than a few people!!! But the damage he can do to the world at large is minimal. . . now.

    Now, Do I trust GWB to do the job? He will . . . do the job. I'm sure of that. I just don't trust GWB. Not one bit.

    I am resigned to the fact that our country will probably take that first strike against Iraq. There is a part of me that wants to see S. H. dead. He's an awful man. I do think most of the world agrees with the perception. But at the same time I feel a bit like our country sold its soul to the devil. (No, I don't actually believe in the devil!) At the very least, if/when we go to war. . . and do so in a unilateral manner. . . we would have turned our back to the world. That I find. . . . well. . . my blood pressure is about 200/100 now. . . . not good.

    I've said my opinion. Again. Too many times, I'm sure. Now I feel like I'm talking in circles. . . being too redundant. . . very repetative, very repetative, very repetative, very repetative. . . . This isn't really good for me or any sorry person who reads my posts.

    My apologies. . . .

    So . . . . I'm going to sit back, take a deep breath and. . . live. . .

    Peace to you, RNCountry. Peace to all of us.

    Ted. . .
  9. by   Q.
    Originally posted by efiebke
    I'm not saying that S. H. shouldn't be removed from power. Just not by this administration, especially since they will ultimately be the ones who will fill the void once S. H. is gone.

    For this particular situation, S. H. should be removed from power by the world. I guess through the United Nations. But not by this particular administration . . . or any one country, for that matter.

    (Thinking here. . . . . . .)

    Not by any one country. Period.

    Ted,
    I can appreciate your view here, but at the same time, I also was disgusted at Clinton probably at about the same level you are of Bush. Yet I supported his actions in Operation Desert Fox in 1998, for the very reasons that Bush is proposing action today. Clinton's reasons and views and fears and speculations about Iraq are no different than Bush's now. And that is why as much as I hated Clinton, I was able to see that he wasn't using it to distract from his impeachment hearings. Not at all.

    I am not about to let my feelings of an administration stop them from ensuring our freedom. I am not about to wait until there is an administration you feel comfortable with before this snake is caught.

    Bottom line is, I judge administrations on individual issues. There were things Clinton did that were fine and I agreed with; namely his stance on Iraq. There were things I disagreed with, namely, Universal Health Care and his lack of character, his overall sleaziness and lack of a backbone. He will say/do anything for a vote. But if it were Clinton or Gore today pushing for this war for Iraq, as much as I don't trust either of them, I am not about to protest their actions and potentially put America in harm's way even longer simply because of who they are.

    This isn't about party lines. It isn't about one's sexual or addiction history. Hell, I'd argue it isn't even about education or environmental issues. While those are important, they are truthfully on the back burner for me because if we are wiped out by someone like Hussein, education and environmental issues really won't matter. We have to ensure we still have an interior to worry about!

    I can understand your questioning of Bush's stance because you don't agree with his stance on other important issues. But Ted honestly, look at each issue individually. And if you don't trust Bush, trust Clinton when he supported this very action in 1998.
  10. by   Ted
    My little protest. . .


close