Bush: The Stupidest Modern President?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
They do get Secret Service protection.

Zap, which political figures children get this type of protection?

Pres, VP and candidates for these offices get protection for their family as well as othe politicians depending on circumstances.

When Gore went to Vietnam as a Senators son he had bodyguards, although I believe they were Army, not Secret Service.

I would imagine the head of the CIA would have security for his family provided by the CIA although I am not positive.[/quote]

Interesting. Makes sense to me that he’d have bodyguards.

162

[quote]vroom wrote:
Bullshit - you got caught being a dumbass. Now you are telling everyone that you understand. Classic vroom. Too bad your MO is all too played out.

Are you on crack? Seriously.

There is a difference between the POTUS and every other dumbass rich person or simple member of congress.

Perhaps you wish to idolize those people, and I’m sure they would be all for it, but short of your hero worship, except for the very top, nobody deserves or needs special treatment.[/quote]

I agree with your basic premise Vroom. But the director of CIA is certainly at the very top so as to require security. Anybody whose kids face a threat needs special treatment. That probabably doen’t apply to Nancy Pelosi or Arlen Specter

163

JS,

It is arguable whether the children of top officials need and deserve special exemptions.

Any member of the public can have their kids face threat - for example kidnapping and beheading in Iraq. How come it is allowed to happen to your children and mine, but not the children of certain others?

These are difficult issues to navigate. Privilege in washington is something that generally isn’t seen very highly by the populace, as far as I’m aware.

Does this discussion imply that top officials would take inappropriate actions if their children were threatened?

Again, this implies they are happy to put other peoples children at risk, but that theirs should be exempt.

164

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Let me ask you, what will that child be worth? War secrets? Directions to where we keep unofficial technology? The point being made to you, is that if in war time, anyone gives up important government intel to save one rich kid, that puts all of America at risk. Further, it implies that all of those people who made claims that politicians wouldn’t send their own children to fight this war actually had a point. You have just given Micheal Moore more ammunition for another documentary.

So tell us, when you wrote, “the Dir. of the CIA’s kid presents more of a problem if kidnapped than say, my kid”, what are these problems? Is the key to selling out America all in kidnapping the right kid? Are you saying that the children of the Director of the CIA are walking casually with random government secrets? Shit, it looks like we have a larger problem than anyone realized.

That, my friend, is your premise taken to the logical conclusion. [/quote]

Let me ask you…

Question:
What did the US (military mostly) do when those government contractors/employees were kidnapped (before they were beheaded)?

Answer: NOTHING

Question:
What would be the reaction to a Bush girl being kidnapped in the same manner?

Answer: I don’t really know. But you can bet your ass that you wont see the same non-reaction. It’d be a partial pull-out, pull-back, complete withdrawal, SOMETHING, ANYTHING. The point is, it’d be a WHOLE lot different than when the “no name” guys were held hostage.

And THAT is my point. It’s too much of a risk knowing that such a situation could not be (mostly, except by the media) ignored the same way.

You read into what I wrote as me saying the CIA Director’s kids may have access to vital intel? You really need to get your head screwed on straight. I mean this is elementary.

My wife just read our relevant posts… she is as apolitical as one can be and she sees the point quite clearly. As smart as she is, she’s no “Professor” right?

And please refrain from using the phrase “logical conclusion” in your arguments". They seem to be neither logical nor conclusions.

165

[quote]vroom wrote:
Again, this implies they are happy to put other peoples children at risk, but that theirs should be exempt.[/quote]

I find it hilarious that this is being implied by many of the same people who would have raised holy hell if this was pointed out during elections. It seems that concepts are only wrong if “the other side” came up with them.

166

[quote]derek wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Let me ask you, what will that child be worth? War secrets? Directions to where we keep unofficial technology? The point being made to you, is that if in war time, anyone gives up important government intel to save one rich kid, that puts all of America at risk. Further, it implies that all of those people who made claims that politicians wouldn’t send their own children to fight this war actually had a point. You have just given Micheal Moore more ammunition for another documentary.

So tell us, when you wrote, “the Dir. of the CIA’s kid presents more of a problem if kidnapped than say, my kid”, what are these problems? Is the key to selling out America all in kidnapping the right kid? Are you saying that the children of the Director of the CIA are walking casually with random government secrets? Shit, it looks like we have a larger problem than anyone realized.

That, my friend, is your premise taken to the logical conclusion.

Let me ask you…

Question:
What did the US (military mostly) do when those government contractors/employees were kidnapped (before they were beheaded)?

Answer: NOTHING

Question:
What would be the reaction to a Bush girl being kidnapped in the same manner?

Answer: I don’t really know. But you can bet your ass that you wont see the same non-reaction. It’d be a partial pull-out, pull-back, complete withdrawal, SOMETHING, ANYTHING. The point is, it’d be a WHOLE lot different than when the “no name” guys were held hostage.

And THAT is my point. It’s too much of a risk knowing that such a situation could not be (mostly, except by the media) ignored the same way.

You read into what I wrote as me saying the CIA Director’s kids may have access to vital intel? You really need to get your head screwed on straight. I mean this is elementary.

My wife just read our relevant posts… she is as apolitical as one can be and she sees the point quite clearly. As smart as she is, she’s no “Professor” right?

And please refrain from using the phrase “logical conclusion” in your arguments". They seem to be neither logical nor conclusions.

[/quote]

Ahh, so you ARE saying that this government doesn’t care about its soldiers and will sell them out for a war long before their own kids will ever be affected. Thanks for clearing that up. So we now know that you believe the following concept:

“Soldier who puts his life on the line for his country but is not related to a high ranking government official”=Dead if captured, or better yet, completely fucked.

“Soldier who is the son of a high ranking government official”=RESCUED and negotiated with terrorists for his release if he ever gets into that position to begin with what with daddy’s connections. Either that, or some unequal benefits that you beleive will lead to his release long before Soldier A was even thought about.

Thanks for clearing that up.

167

I hate to be cynical, but i love to be happy. The white house is communicating that it may substantially reduce troop levels or pull out soon, as in 2006. Even though Bush says he doesn’t want to give a timetable, this is a timetable, he is bending to the will of the american people. Bush you shouldn’t have done it in the first place but you are at least leaving.

Here’s the link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_1;_ylt=An78YnwTFK4kcaoijJiHhdRsbEwB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

168

[quote]vroom wrote:
I agree with your basic premise Vroom. But the director of CIA is certainly at the very top so as to require security. Anybody whose kids face a threat needs special treatment. That probabably doen’t apply to Nancy Pelosi or Arlen Specter.

JS,

It is arguable whether the children of top officials need and deserve special exemptions.

Any member of the public can have their kids face threat - for example kidnapping and beheading in Iraq. How come it is allowed to happen to your children and mine, but not the children of certain others?

These are difficult issues to navigate. Privilege in washington is something that generally isn’t seen very highly by the populace, as far as I’m aware.

Does this discussion imply that top officials would take inappropriate actions if their children were threatened?

Again, this implies they are happy to put other peoples children at risk, but that theirs should be exempt.[/quote]

 Yes, it does imply that top officials would at least be tempted to take inappropriate actions if their children were threatened. They are human just like everyone else.I'm unsure as to what risk you're speaking of that's imposed on other peoples children. Billy Bob isn't going to be tortured or used as a means of extortion to find out the secrets of his mother's first grade class. If you're talking about using their power and connections to give there kids every advantage, everyone does this. Some just have less power and connections. Perhaps it's a question of being government funded protection as opposed to being paid out of pocket. If anyone's really worried about their kids getting kidnapped getting and beheaded, they can higher their own security. But most won't even if they could afford to because the risk to the average person is extremely small. 
But I would argue that the President, Senators, Congressman, the Director of the CIA, etc... DO pay for this in a sense by virtue of their jobs. I don't think it's altogether wrong to say that high level government officials aren't entitled to protection as part of compensation for their job. The Director of the CIA, among others, performs an important service to this country. And if his family's put at risk and that's not accounted for, who wants that job. I wouldn't. IF the same applies for senators, the same should hold. Think of it as part of their salary which is pretty damn low comparitively (though most are wealthy from private ventures). High level employees of companies may get use of company cars. Low level employees dont, but there's little ground to bitch and say it's not fair.  Government salaries are in fact grossly out of whack with the importance of the job and its responsibilites. It's precisely the perks that make it somewhat reasonable.
169

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ahh, so you ARE saying that this government doesn’t care about its soldiers and will sell them out for a war long before their own kids will ever be affected. Thanks for clearing that up. So we now know that you believe the following concept:

“Soldier who puts his life on the line for his country but is not related to a high ranking government official”=Dead if captured, or better yet, completely fucked.

“Soldier who is the son of a high ranking government official”=RESCUED and negotiated with terrorists for his release if he ever gets into that position to begin with what with daddy’s connections. Either that, or some unequal benefits that you beleive will lead to his release long before Soldier A was even thought about.

Thanks for clearing that up.[/quote]

And what exactly are you saying. The government should pay for the private security of every single soldier we have? It is unforunately unfeasible to prevent every single soldier from being caputured and tortured or killed. However, a soldier who is captured and used as a means of extortion to get information from top officials jeopardizes everyone: you, me, and those very soldiers you’re talking about.

170

If family of politicians start to get targeted by terrorists, i am sure that protection would be put into place. This hasn’t happened yet thankfully

171

If a congressman, the V.P., the President, the president of a large corp, a popular entertainer, a highly compensated athlete, An world famous actor, or any of our richest americans want to go somewhere, are they demanding preferential treatment because they use their own planes to travel?

Do they demand preferential treatment becasue they put their children in the finest schools?

Are they skirting the system and instilling resentment in the common folk because they have armed security surrounding their estates?

There is a difference in the way they live their lives and the way others live theirs.

If you are going to get jealous and cry injustice because of this - you are a sadly disillusioned person.

SHould the government GIVE preferential treatment to those public servants (and their families) that serve in sensitive areas? Absolutely. Is it fair? No. But life isn’t fair. I think it is wise and prudent to protect the the families of those that are in high profile, sensitive positions.

172

[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
If family of politicians start to get targeted by terrorists, i am sure that protection would be put into place. This hasn’t happened yet thankfully[/quote]

I agree. If it did, they’d be entitled to it, too.

173

Cool, so next time there is a draft (if there ever is) politicians families should be exempt, right?

174

[quote]vroom wrote:
Cool, so next time there is a draft (if there ever is) politicians families should be exempt, right?[/quote]

No, its a different set of circumstances. In reality they probably will be able to get past the draft ala GWB in some way or another but it shouldnt have to happen.

175

[quote]vroom wrote:
Cool, so next time there is a draft (if there ever is) politicians families should be exempt, right?[/quote]

Nope

178

Weren’t you just arguing they shouldn’t be in the military because they could be captured and used as hostages?

179

By the way, it’s obvious there are at least two discussions going on here.

  1. Privilege with respect to exemptions or special treatment.

  2. Using resources (private or public) to protect some people.

180

[quote]vroom wrote:
Nope

Weren’t you just arguing they shouldn’t be in the military because they could be captured and used as hostages?[/quote]

No. I was addressing having a guard. Referencing Zap’s Al Gore comment.I don’t think people should be exempt from military service simply because of who their parents are. But I do think they should, in many cases, have protection. Whether or not they’re in the armed forces.

181

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
As human life is concerned, there is equality with either child. But I was refering to NATIONAL SECURITY not “human” value!

Hmm, are you saying the Bush twins are privy to issues of NATIONAL SECURITY? That’s a laugh.

If someone was to kidnap you - how much would you be worth? Who would really care outside your immediate family

Now - If someone were to kidnap the Bush girls, or Chelsea Clinton, or back in the day Amy Carter - I think they would be a much more profitable endeavor. Maybe even to the point of getting political concessions, or perhaps some intelligence info.

Get pissed, name-call, and do any of your usual 5-D’s - but at the end of the day, I am right. Powerful people have kids that are treated much differently than most all of the kids at P.S. 133 in Queens.

Hey, look at JFK junior. Think that search would have gone on very long if it was one of us?

Is there some provision about this? It seems only right that the parent/politician in question would have to immediately give up all responsibilities to the government - by law, I mean- and have to step down. To put Bush, CLinton, hell, any man ever in such a position could lead to some serious shit.
[/quote]

Keep in mind that Bill Clinton, who was President at the time was in love with the Kennedy mistake…oops I mean mystique…

182

[quote]vroom wrote:
By the way, it’s obvious there are at least two discussions going on here.

  1. Privilege with respect to exemptions or special treatment.

  2. Using resources (private or public) to protect some people.[/quote]

I think they are the same issue. Private people will use private funds to protect thme and theirs. All public public servants will have access to public asstes to do the same thing.

Currently, it is required by ALL 18 year old males to register for the draft. Since there is no foreseeable plan to institute the draft - I think arguing about who will and will not be drafted is just argument for arguments sake. But I am willing to bet that since the draft was ended after Viet Nam, there will have to be a whole new set of guidlines drafted to address deferments, and exclusions.