Enlighten me.. how much of this is Bush's fault exactly?

I've always thought that the president was basically a puppet, and the real power was in the House, and with the military (sec. of defense, generals, etc.). Aren't they more to blame for all this recent Iraq mess, than Bush? If we had any other president for the last four years, but the same administration...would anything be different? How? Does Bush have to approve EVERY move we make, and that's where his power is? If Kerry were in office, would he have whiplash from shaking his head "no" all the time to all the ridiculous requests coming from the military & administration?

Thanks for any info. :)

Right?

I am betting on it being a joke.

:-)

There's no evidence that the Congress or the military would have invaded Iraq on their own.

with no UN support. and no evidence that iraq was an imminent threat to american security.

they may not constantly have lied over the supposed iraq-al qaeda ties. etc.

The Saudi Arabian royal family who fund terrorism.

Bush has gone out of his way to protect them.

has NO authority to attack until the President says "sic!"

Generals are not allowed to make these decisions. Congress surrendered its authority to wage war to the president, which was an illegal act.

Uh, no.

But if you were awake, you must not have been paying attention.

During the run up to the invasion, Rumsfeld and Co at the Pentagon fired or 'retired' any generals who didn't wholeheartedly agree with their stupid plans. I think it was well over a dozen generals who left. Some media used the word 'Purge'.

Even with that, there were STILL people in the military who've been against these ill-conceived invasion plans all throughout. Invading Iraq was not the military's idea -- it was the Bush administration's.

Of course Kerry wouldn't have to worry about pressure from his administration -- since it would be HIS administration, not the assortment of Iran/Contra crooks Bush brought with him.

And the House? Give me a break. The House has been getting walked over so much by Bush that Hastert is actually starting to get criticial of the Bush administration.

Bush is supposed to be the boss, so it's his fault. Period.

Please provide evidence that the President is supposed to be a puppet. Maybe that's how Repubs view the presidency, but Clinton, whatever you may think of him, was certainly no puppet.

Bush has two choices and he's still responsible in both of them:

1. He's puppet and therefore incompetent because he's supposed to be in charge.
2. He is in charge and making decisions and therefore still responsible. And since the decisions he's making are bad ones, he's still incompetent.

everytime. JFK took the blame for the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, even though it was clearly the inept CIA's fault for providing absolutely no help to the people on the ground.

But what kind of ridiculous requests have come from the current military leadership?

In so far as ridiculous requests from the Administration, it's pretty plain to see that a Kerry Administration would be different. So that point is quite disingenuous.

because Bush was recruited by PNAC to be their poster boy, the guy they could put into the office.

Bush was more than happy to oblige, which actually makes him more evil than the people who beleive their own bullshit.

People here say BFEE (Bush Family Evil Empire -- correct me if I'm wrong) and I mean Bush Co. when I say Bushco.

Cheney is probably more powerful than Bush, but he knows he could never get his ass elected. He's a creep.

And the regime came in with him. Maybe he was a bit upset on 9/11, sitting in that classroom thinking--"I didn't know it would be this bad." But they pulled him together & he went on with the charade.

Well the president is a puppet, but not for the congress or the senate but for his administration. Usually, The president isthe voice of his administration--in Bush's case, the adminstration is the voice for president Bush.

Let me give you an example. We went to War in Iraq. The president and his administration went to the UN with false data seeking their approval to go to war. When the UN said no, Bush went to congress with the same false data and said let mehave a war. The congress said yes, believing the false data.

Now, some say, "Hey Bush didn't know any better." Ah but a smart president (ie Kerry, Gore, Clinton) would have known the data is susspetible to error.

What parts of the war was congress not involved in? More examples:

Okay weeks before we attacked Irag, we had an opportunity to take out the terrorist that beheaded Nick Berg. Bush didn't do it because that would remove the TERRORIST link to IRAQ. So Bush let this guy live in order to get his war.

Hours before we bombed Iraq, while Bush was on TV telling SADAM "you've got one more chance" Saddam was on the phone asking Bush to halt, giving in to the demands. The Bush administration ignored his pleas and entered into war.

Bush's power comes from feeling no shame in lying to American citizens, American government, and the world. He manipulates the congress, the press, other countries to get what his administration wants.

Oh yea, did I forget to mention that Bush ILLEGALLY moved $700 milion from the Afghanistan war to an operation to look into a war with Iraq.

Yea, there should be seperation of powers, but it is hard to see through all the bullshit.

If he hadn't lied and manipulated the Congress, UN, and the American people, we wouldn't be in Iraq, and eight hundred of our soldiers would still be alive, along with untold thousand of innocent Iraqis.

Secondly, Bush is the Commander in Chief. The buck stops with him, period. While he is not responsible for day to day operations, he is supposed to be informed on ALL that is going on in both theatres of war. And when the shit hits the fan, he is the one who is ultimately responsible.

Third, Bush is ultimately responsible to the people of this country. He is supposed to listen to our wishes, our desires, he is, in effect supposed to be OUR employee. And yet the man callously ignores public opinion, whether it concerns going to war, bringing the troops home, tax cuts for the wealthy, in general minding the store. Instead he is acting like a drunken sailor, throwing money away until our grandchildrens' future is mortaged away, pompusly issuing orders, deciding who is and isn't a citizen of this country, and so forth and so on. He has ruined America's image both abroad and at home.

The blame rests squarely on his shoulders. While I believe that you are correct in thinking that the man is little more than a puppet of others, that still doesn't change the fact that he accepted the selection to the highest office in the land. It is a tragedy that he has yet to accept the responsiblity that comes with it.

I could not have said it any better.

The only question I have is, "What is our oil doing under their sand?" (sarcasms)

all Bush's fault simply because he's too stupid to know the difference in some cases, it is his fault ultimately because he's the commander-in-chief supposedly. Face it: he's managed to find scapegoats for almost every single one of his disasterous undertakings since the beginning, and like John Gotti, he seems to have Teflon coated all over himself to the point where nothing really DOES get blamed on him.

And BTW, just my curious nature: folks who come to DU who are really disgusted with this administration know this stuff already--with such few posts to your screen name, why would you come here even asking such a ridiculous question unless you were really a refugee from the Free Republic? I'd like to see your reasoning why GWB isn't "responsible" for everything that has been going on under his nose since January 20, 2001, when almost any idiot on the street who has even a smidgen of intelligence can tell you all this, and much, much more.

What led me to DU was discussion about Nick Berg. I saw the video and it seemed a bit odd, so I did some searching and stumbled across this site.

Sorry you find my question ridiculous.. I'm sure it seems stupid to most of you. I'm not saying GWB is or isn't responsible for everything that's been going on. I'm just trying to learn more about how things really work, that's all. I used to believe that the president was fully responsible and in charge of things, and then somewhere along the line I picked up that he was mostly a puppet and that others were in control of what happened. So maybe I picked up some bad info along the way?

Anyway, there's the story. My school sucked, gimme a break :) They taught us very basic stuff about the government (people vote, the electoral college gathers the votes, president is executive branch, congress is legislative, blah blah blah). And to be honest, I just never found it too important to pay attention to politics.

for now. :) Truth is, I know what a horrendous education some students are getting, so I can understand to a degree. I think, though, for your own sake, you might try reading some of the literature that is available online here at DU and at other liberal sites (you can find the links here at DU which gives a good range) where some of the right-wing conspiracies and secrets are as blatant as the nose on GWB's face.

I suggest MoveOn, for instance, Truthout, People for the American Way, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State or even the American Civil Liberties Union. These all have credibility, and you will find a lot of information about the regime, about Bush himself, and about the horrors going on in this evil administration.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Oh, and if I told you my age, and that I've never ever voted, you'd freak. :) I'm not as young as you think I am. I may LOOK young..and I may be ignorant on some topics..but I'm not young.

is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato (Socrates?)

right?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

EVERYTHING!!!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No, I'm not a flamer or a troll, sorry.

from the guy in charge.

Bush gets just this pass because people think he's a dumbass,
when really he's a gifted tactical politician who uses the
lowered expectations to his advantage.

Bush is president, and bad things have happened. 2+2=4,
the bad things are Bush's fault. His mistakes are legendary.

He has the power. He has the decision making authority. It was his decision to go to war. It was his decision how the war was to be conducted. He is the commander-in-chief.

And he is a dumbfuck and it is all his fault.

Bill Clinton's BJ too.

Now its probable that the PNAC lunatics took advantage of Bush's weak, closed, uninformed mind to convince him the invading Iraq was actually a good idea, but he's the one who was appointed to be President and it was on his orders that we invaded so its his fault, all of it.

You mean like, "We need more troops before we invade Iraq"?

Stuff like that?

But, hey! Now you mention it, the scales have fallen from my eyes. Bush ain't no bad guy! Thanks!!

Puppet or not, he has the pulpit. He could change it if he wanted.

Unfortunately, he seems to really enjoy killing people.

on edit: You mentioned the generals. The generals were AGAINST this war. Pentagon had to be strongarmed by Cheney with his buttboy Chalabi... Chickenhawk Cheney set up the Office of Special Plans for the express purpose of forcing this war down the brass' throats.

And Bu$hco is getting ready to get paid back, in spades.

Can you handle the truth?

Thanks for all the great replies. To the people who thought I was joking: no, I'm not joking. I'll openly admit that I'm a political moron, I don't know much at all. What, do you think every American is really clued in about politics? There are a lot of people like me. Are we uneducated slobs? Whatever..call me whatever you want. My habits include listening to NPR on my morning commute, a couple times a week. Heck, I don't even really read the news. I definitely don't have a firm grasp on how the government works (or should I say, how it's supposed to work).

Anyway..thanks to those who took time to answer with real answers.

because you weren't listening. Or you could be stirring up trouble. The smiley face made me lean in direction that you thought you were being cute with your little query.

Sorry....you don't get much slack around here when you post that kind of sh!t

I don't need slack, pal. And the reason I have so many posts is because I've been contributing to the Nick Berg conspiracy threads, which is what brought me to DU in the first place.

policy objectives? Get real.

Hmm.. how about: I don't know. And that's why I posted my message in the first place, so I could learn something.

Seriously...are you people that much against someone learning something? Yeah, just make fun of me and question my intentions, that's a great way to enlighten people. Just scare the politically-ignorant people back into the shadows.

I'm glad you're here now, and I'm glad you care enough to stick around to be blasted. :)

You must understand that most of us are welcoming and try to be accommodating to those with different views, and those that are just now ridding themselves of the illusions spoonfed to them, usually since birth.

Some of us are traumatized, though, and even though it may not be our usual way, sometimes we can be harsh towards those that have by their inaction aided in the degradation of this country. I'm certainly not innocent -- I was metaphorically fat and lazy until Bu$h showed us all just how bad things can get when no one's minding the minders.

Try to see things from another's point of view and the barbs may lose some of their sting. And welcome to DU! :hi:

absolutely. I've never even voted. So did my missing vote make a difference (in a bad way)? Probably. I'll be sure not to make that mistake again. I'm voting this year, and my vote's going for Kerry.

Potatoboy, I think a lot of folks here misread your question and think that you're an undercover Republican looking to stir up trouble. I apologize if people are coming across as rude or snide to you. I'm very glad to hear that you're going to do the right thing in November and I don't blame you one bit for being confused about what the president is or isn't supposed to be doing.

I've got a little post explaining what the constituion says about the presidency towards the end of this thread, I hope its useful for you.

I understand that my question was so insanely simple that people probably thought it was a joke. I was kinda prepared for that.

Thanks for the info!

We have been inundated by freepers and trolls and many here are edgy. On top of that we all have heard crap without end for 3 years how bunnypants is god and can do no wrong at our workplace, with our friends, at little league games, etc. Most don't want to be questioned on it here, it's our refuge. We may be edgy but for the most part welcome newcomers, as I do. Welcome to DU, potatoboy! Take some time to read, there really is alot of knowledge here and most of it is backed up with facts and links.

:hi:

that ever stupid, but I try not to repeat mistakes?

:shrug:

Group, and it will become clear and you'll be enlightened.



http://www.angelfire.com/indie/pearly/htmls/bush-carlyle.html

You mean the House of Representatives, I assume? Um, no. The legislative branch is probably the least powerful, especially if you count the House separately from the Senate.

As others have stated, Bush is Commander-in-Chief. He bears all the responsibility for whatever happens.

so i think this question is disingenuous. can't separate the man who makes the final decisions from the people who help carry it out, provide all the info, and manage all the details. they are part and parcel of him.

so in essence, it's all his baby! :)

That's if the Constitution hasn't become banned reading material in your neck of the woods yet. Article II addresses what the president is supposed to do (I can't blame you for being confused after 4 years of B*sh). Here's some highlights:

1. The President holds the executive power of the United States government. To me this means that the legislative branch makes the laws and writes the checks, and its the president's job to make sure the laws are executed. In a lot of cases, congress has handed over its power to departments of the executive branch (the president's responsibility) - for instance it allows FEMA to deal with disaster relief rather than have to create a new appropriation ever time a tornado flattens some town in Kansas.

2. The President swears an oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
3. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.

4. He has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the U.S. (except in cases of impeachment)

5. He has the power to make treaties (so long as two-thirds of the Senate concurs)

6. He can appoint ambassadors and federal judges

Of course the big kicker for the President is described in Article I: the power to sign a law into being or to veto it. The upshot of this is that the legislation that hits his desk is usually a law that he's already stated that he will sign. So, pretty much everything congress has done has been with B*sh's encouragement and then outright approval when he signed the bill.

The low point where we are today has been a long-time coming and is the result of a bi-partisan effort to get here.

I HATE, despise, loathe, abhor Bush with a passion but he's just a willing puppet of the same corporations that have been raping & looting the world for the last 50 years.

The Iraq war? It's nothing new. His father started it and Clinton continued it by bombing and starving Iraq during his entire term. Under Bush II, the war just went to a new level because not only was Saddaam not giving in but he was making crazy Chavez-type noises about dumping the dollar and moving to the Euro.

Clinton started a war against Yugoslavia that's still not over & yet we don't talk about that. Israel & Palestine are taboo subjects that Democrats dare not talk about just as Republicans dare not talk about oil. NAFTA? GATT? WTO? Free Trade? And all the other exploitative tools of globalization aren't gifts from Bush; they were put there before him. But I'm digressing... Back to Yugoslavia. One of the primary reasons the Clinton administration went in there, and Albright admitted as much, was to justify NATO's existence (and of course our obscene investment in weapons). NATO has been dead and dying ever since the Soviet Union collapsed but the powers behind the Presidency can't accept that. This is why lately you've been hearing talk of bringing NATO in to Iraq at a time when the Europeans are determined to have their own defense force and do away with NATO. This entire thing is a charade and Bush is just one part of it. Clinton was another. And Kerry will be another.

No one gets near the US Presidency without being vetted and approved by the corporate powers behind the scene. Try looking into the Council of Foreign Relations because they're the one of the ones leading this whole song and dance.

Clinton was ready to start the war against Iraq (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&q=Berger+Albright+OSU+iraq )and the one in his administration who most wanted to take out Saddaam was Gore. All those guys are puppets to the needs of our corporations but there is a major difference between the two parties and that is that the Democrats throw larger crumbs to the people. Crumbs unfortunately are going to be very important for a great deal of American these next few years.

==


Foreign policy team visits OSU
By Mike Spahn
Daily Staff Reporter

COLUMBUS - President Clinton's foreign policy team met yesterday at Ohio State University with a rowdy crowd in a town hall meeting to discuss the current situation in Iraq.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger met for 90 minutes with a crowd that often yelled and chanted in protest of possible U.S. military action against Iraq.


<snip>

Berger said the aim of a possible airstrike would be twofold: to diminish Saddam Hussein's weapons and reduce the threat to Iraq's neighbors.

"We will send a clear message to would-be tyrants and terrorists that we will do what is necessary to protect our freedom," Berger said.

Albright said Iraq will not easily recover from airstrikes if they occur.

<snip>
http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/feb/02-19-98/news/news1.html

==

Clinton, aides meet on Iraq; preparations to attack proceed
By Barry Schweid, Associated Press writer

WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration stepped up preparations to attack Iraq but signaled its interest in a peaceful settlement yesterday, provided U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's talks in Baghdad produce unfettered access to arms sites.
President Clinton met again with senior advisers. Afterward, Sandy Berger, his national security adviser, said "U.S. military preparations are proceeding without regard to these talks" in Baghdad.

<snip>

http://www.s-t.com/daily/02-98/02-22-98/a09wn040.htm
<snip>

and welcome..........to du and to the world of politics. lol. what a reception you got huh. well hey, read your replies down your thread and totally hear where you are coming from. thank you for baring it and saying you just have not followed and do not know. yes, there are many people that dont and havent. i really would like to see more though get informed with this election in particular

again welcome. and enjoy all you are going to learn here. tons

all puppets, only the real power is where the money is -- special interests groups. The president at the time does not know all that goes on, he is only there to take the heat or the credit.

There's your answer. Since the president appoints the administration and has the responsibility for following their advice or not, the Iraq mess lies squarely on Bush.

So when Kerry wins, we get a new panel.. great! Can someone tell me who exactly makes up "the administration," so I know who's getting their asses booted out when Kerry takes over?

There are literally thousands of presidential appointments (although the president doesn't actually hire each and every one of them -- staffers handle most).

But it's a great question because it illustrates just how much the government has the potential to change with a new president.

Some of the appointed positions you are probably familiar with, such as:

Secretary of Defense
Treasury Secretary
Secretary of State
Attorney General
Secretary of Labor
Head of the CIA
Head of the Environmental Protection Agency
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Director of Homeland Security
Foreign Ambassadors

and on and on.

If you want to get a good look at how far-reaching presidential appointments are, check this out: http://www.access.gpo.gov/plumbook/toc.html

(These are the political appointments, the president also appoints federal judges.)

They're kicked to the curb when Bush leaves?

Hmm, is there a more current list of who's holding what position in office? It says Secretary of Defense is William J. Perry. Unless I'm reading it wrong...

of who holds what position, but most of the positions are still there. It was all I could find online, sorry. And yes, Powell and Rumsfeld would very likely be gone under a new president, unless he decided to keep them around for some reason. That's not unheard of, Bush kept Clinton's CIA head.

The House and Senate approved us going to war, including Senator Kerry. The President can't declare war by himself. It was an overwhelming majority of non partisan republicans and democrats who approved the attack on Iraq. Bush just gave the final go-ahead after their approval was given.

Even after their approval, Bush didn't attack right away. He stated to the nation "to be patient" in order to give inspectors more time and for him get as much UN approval as he could.

The President sets the tone for his agenda but the checks and balances of our govt. lay with congressmen and senators. So much hate in this country for whoever the presiding President is tends to blind people in order to justify their political polarity.

Kerry, both Clintons, Gore and a whole host of democrats are on record stating that Sadam is/was an evil man who posseses WMD's, was a threat to the U.S. and needed to be removed from power but politicians on both sides rely on the short-term memory of a forgetful public.

Many, it appears, are right here in this forum.

And it did NOT give bunnypants free hand, there were very strict guidelines. Yes, it ceded more power to the executive but not absolute power. Look up the actual resolution and see the restrictions and specifications the admin had to meet in order to go to war, they were violated.

All the propoganda that was spewed out to the mass media was nothing compared to the private, closed session parade of lies the admin put out for congress, a month before an election with the pressure that anyone voting against would be kicked out from their cloak behind the flag.

Yes, sadaam was/is an evil man, Cheney had no problem doing $87 Mil in business with him from '97 to '00 as cea of Halliburton however, ronnie raygun had no problem selling him WMDs with rummy as his special envoy at the height of his evilness.

WAKE UP!!!

Did I read that right?? Why Kerry why?

I guess we're good teachers.

Or something.

:)

"Why Kerry why?

You didn't know he voted for it, huh? For someone who listens to NPR, I think I'll just go quazi-Inhofe here and say that "I'm shocked at your shock!". Or is it, " I find your shock, shocking!"? :-)




Anyway.......

he did.


Days before the Administration announced N Korea had nukes.

Did he assume that meant authority to trash our credibility in the world by lying their ass off to the UN, as well as spying on our allies in the UN? To low-ball the cost of the war by 90%+? To trash old and important allies in Europe insuring we would have to pick-up the majority of the bill and then to further add billions to our costs and further loss in our credibility by forming a "Coalition of the Bribed"? To purge the Pentagon of any and all dissent and to go in with literally no postwar plan to implement? Authority to do all the numerous things that have turned our unprecedented world support after 9/11, into an unprecedented loss of respect?


I doubt he thought he was giving authority for all those things, but he did. They had the Big Mo after Afghanistan being such a "pushover", and afterall, this is an Administration of self-proclaimed, "grown-ups".


" Did I expect George Bush to f*** it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did. "

power or influence outside his very contained country.

Rumdrinker and the rest of the gang didn't create an airtight plan, yet alone a plan of any sort. * and co changed their story in order to keep the masses supporting him. And the masses, I believe, GAVE him the "liberator Iraq" bullshit as well.

They are ALL responsible. They created the problem, justice is waiting to collect on their heinous and unjustified crimes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1618798

Those who yell the loudest about personal responsibility will always be the ones who don't have any of their own.

Those who wear their religion on their sleeves will be the first to violate their religion's moral code.

Those who threaten war and violence toward others will be the first to get a deferment from the draft - or decide they have other priorities when the bullets start flying.

In general, whenever someone starts telling others how to live their lives, what is right and what is wrong, hold on to your ass because you're about to get screwed.

Now apply those principles to the whole Republican Party and you'll start to understand what is happening to this nation.

Cheating, lying, deceit, corruption, bribery, unprovoked violence - to most people throughout history those were recognized as evil - as behavior to be avoided in yourself and condemned in others.

Today, those are just the means to the end for those true believers who are so certain they have all the answers - because of course, God speaks to them.

As expected, the end they have in mind, is their own power and personal wealth. They haven't the slightest idea of what public service or humility means in a democracy. If more Americans had studied history and were aware of what was going on in the world they would have known that this is the oldest story in the books - and Bush would not have received 30% of the vote in most states.

It's good you are asking some questions. It would be even better for you to start reading and learning about the world you live in. There are several good current books offered at www.buzzflash.com There are also some good TV programs. Like "Now, With Bill Moyers" on PBS Friday nites, and Frontline - PBS - Thursday nite, to name a couple.

You can also start spending more time here at DU. I don't know of any place on the web that provides such a broad set of (admittedly left leaning) opinions on what's happening in the world - minute to minute. Some of the posters here are very sharp about politics and what's happening behind the scenes. The best thing about this forum is if you don't understand something, you can ask them directly to explain - as you're doing now.

The survival of both of us - and our nation's democracy depends on it.

not responsible for his actions. Don't you dare spew that crap! He is in charge, no matter how stupid he is. That's why you all shouldn't select blithering idiots for president.

or go to pbs.org and look for the transcript for "The Jesus Factor." It's an enlightening look behind how the evangelicals made a concerted effort to grab the reins of government, and how they're succeeding.

Now, why that is important is because Bush is creating another government boondoggle in federal funding for faith-based initiatives. It's a concerted effort, and that's just for starters.

More than that however, Bush is seen by many to be a de facto head of church and state and he delights in the role. And that's un-American.

In a country run by the fundamental evangelical right wing partriarchy I'd be wearing a burka, if they had their way. So I don't want them here.

Yep, I've already got ReplayTV set up to record it.. It's going to air again this weekend.

.........pass Emergency Presidential Powers which give him unprecendented powers.
With those powers come responsibilities.....even if he thinks that is a foreign concept.
It was the Bush WH that decided that the Pentagon was best placed to manage Iraq.....and that decision more than any other has led to the current 'mess'.