Bush's history of drunk driving was a harbinger of the negligence he would exhibit in office.
IamFry said 04/16, 06:57 AM
Going to war without learning about the people you'll be occupying (Bush didn't know about the different sects of Islam), and going to war without an exit strategy are reminiscent of getting behind the wheel and not putting on your seat belt.
Just as no one who gets behind the wheel intoxicated thinks that they're going to smash into a telephone pole, Bush didn't think Iraq would become such a mess, but in retrospect, the march to war was irresponsible, and it was driven more by raw emotion than sober reasoning.
Ariyel said 04/18, 10:12 AM
An indiscretion over 30 years old is hardly an indication of a person's general character. We are talking about one DUI in the life of a 61 year old man.
Do not forget the President Bush didn't go the war alone. It was voted for in Congress and executed through the President, his cabinet and Congress.
IamFry said 04/18, 11:11 AM
An indiscretion/felony certainly CAN be indicative of a person's behavior thirty years later. Indeed, there often IS a correlation between one manifestation of a type of deviant behavior and another. Of course, there is no relationship between drunk driving and marching to war... or is there?
In '76, a wasted G.W. Bush wanted to drive home, in spite of the fact that such an irresponsible act could kill or injure someone. Bush didn't willfully endanger someone; he simply didn't consider the potential carnage because it was inconvenient to his purposes.
Fast-forward to 2003. Bush sees the opportunity to get Saddam Hussein. Using all of his resources (incl. his cabinet), he seizes the opportunity to go into Iraq, in spite of the daunting collateral damage that he was warned of but didn't want to hear about.
Wait, you say, he wasn't drunk in 2003. Oh, no? Yes he was; he was drunk with power after winning Congress in the mid-term election and gaining a windfall of nationalistic support in the wake of 9/11. He felt as though he could do just about anything - he felt bulletproof, like he could fly, etc...
Ariyel said 04/19, 11:49 AM
IamFry, you are really stretching. If I can use a 30-year-old mistake to judge character, then I assume you won't be voting for Obama (history of drug use might make him "high" on power) or Clinton (history of blatant ... uh ... mis-statements? shows how trustworthy she will be as President). McCain has a history of being a rebel; if you don't like Bush, maybe you should vote for McCain who's history indicates he will go agaist he grain. Or can Nader count on your vote?
Again, you are ignoring that Bush did not go to war alone. Was Clinton "drunk" with power when she supported the resolution? or any of the other individuals who voted for the war and are now against it?
IamFry said 04/22, 09:34 AM
Sure, I'm stretching, but NO! I'm not using a thirty-year-old mistake to judge character; I'm looking at an event that happened thirty years ago and pointing out the similarities between that and something that's happened today.
Obama's not exhibiting behavior like that of a teenage drug-user, so you're right; I won't be holding that against him, but sh1t! Hillary's been using dirty tactics, half-truths, and mis-truths up until... well, the last time she opened her mouth, I guess.
Anyway, I digress. Bush drove the war! Stop saying he didn't go to war alone! It was his war. Clinton obviously wasn't drunk with power; she voted for the war because she's an idiot. Rove used the guilt of being unpatriotic to goad congressmen into voting for the war. Even then, it wasn't THE WAR they were voting for, rather, the POWER to go to war IF NECESSARY.
When John Kerry was under attack from criticizing the war while having given Bush the authority to go to war, Kerry's response, How was I supposed to know he'd definitely go to war? C'mon, was the Republican response, we all knew he wanted war.
Ariyel said 04/24, 01:25 PM
There is no similarity. Bush is not drunk; even with power. Our government has checks and balances that prevent the president from abusing his authority. If you feel that that Bush drove the war and he is abusing his power, then stop whining about it and complain to Congress; the people who are supposed to be balancing his authority. He is doing what he believes is right, and, obviously, so did Congress when this thing started.
Are you honstely saying that Congress is so incompetent and spineless that Rove could "guilt" them into going to WAR (affording the power to do so is basically the same thing)? "We didn't actually think he would go to war!" is a pretty lame response and a rather flighty way to deal with our troops lives! And you think Bush is acting like a drunk?
Comments
Add Your Comment
Actually, the Chappaquiddick (Ted Kennedy) incident happened seven years BEFORE Bush's incident, but if you want to make the case that they're of the same character, among other similarities (politically polarizing, privileged upbringing, presidential relations), then you'll get no argument from me. Personally, I'd feel like a frickin' moron if I'd voted for either one of them.
IamFry | 04/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
Ok, i stand corrected. Good to know that you don't like Ted either, by the way. however, a DUI is a pretty small misdemeanor. anyone who ever drove home from a bar is probably guilty of it, whether they were caught or not. now if there was more to the story than a simple DUI, i'd be interested in finding out, until then i stay with my vote for Ariyel.
MorgMcA | 04/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
It's not a misdemeanor, though. It's a felony. And he wasn't just driving home after a few cocktails, he was wasted enough to get pulled over by the cops in rural Maine, in 1976, in the heart of Bush country...
IamFry | 04/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
I wish I had another response section! First of all, yes, Congress WAS that spineless and weak-minded to be manipulated by Rove and party doctrine. Not just Rove, but the fear he plays on, that of being perceived as unpatriotic by your supporters - a valid fear. Secondly, I'm "whining" about people needlessly dying? I argue that you can do more to persuade Congress by persuading your fellow citizens, rather than writing letters that will be crunched up and discarded. Are you having that much trouble grasping the concept of... well, you're quoting "We didn't think he would go to war," something that I didn't say..
IamFry | 04/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
so is it fair then to ask what Obama's youthful drug use is going to mean should he become president? And would you say that President Clinton's affairs were a harbinger of his complete failure in handling the Rwanda issue?
Skipper04 | 04/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
After all, President Clinton was dishonest and misleading to the public about the Lewinsky affair and he then tried to mislead world leaders who had the responsibility of dealing with the Rwandan genocide. He refused to allow it to be called a genocide officially because to do so would have committed the US by treaty to acting in defense of the Hutus.
Skipper04 | 04/25/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
Well Ted Kennedy was wasted and behind the wheel and drove off a bridge and it so happened that his passenger didn't make it (with a few other suspicious details laced throughout the story) and this was just a few years ago. i think that is a little more indictative of that man's character than something that happened over 30 years ago
MorgMcA | 04/18/08
Report Offensive Comment