Is GW Bush another Abe Lincoln?

[Accountable]

Raddatz: "Two-thirds of Americans say it's not worth fighting, and they're looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives."

Cheney: "So?"

Raddatz: "So -- you don't care what the American people think?"

Cheney: "No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. Think about what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln had paid attention to polls, if they had had polls during the Civil War. He never would have succeeded if he hadn't had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there."



LINK


I've long held the opinion that Abe Lincoln was not justified in the multiple violations of the Constitution he committed, despite the result. Now here's another administration that "knows better" than the country as a whole.



What say you?

[Galbally]

Accountable;811569 wrote: I've long held the opinion that Abe Lincoln was not justified in the multiple violations of the Constitution he committed, despite the result. Now here's another administration that "knows better" than the country as a whole.



What say you?


I think that the difference is that Lincoln was in a fight for the future of the Union, and whether you agreed with his actions or not, you can argue that the stakes were high enough to warrant extraordinary policies. Whereas (and let me be polite) George and Co entered the country into a unilateral, chosen, war of aggression with Saddam Hussein's Iraq (a non threat to the US on any concieveable scale) for their own sectarian interests and because of the bad blood between the Republican Party and Hussien, at a time of real national emergency and danger from actual enemies.

To do this they have destroyed the country's moral standing in the world, they have lied consistently and systematically to their own people and everyone else and now no one trusts any of them, they have seriously weakened the country and its alliance with its allies (particularly the Brits, who behind the scenes are furious with the US and feel completely betrayed by them, they won't do that again I can assure you, blood debt paid and all that).

The administration has paid for it with loans from 3rd party's that will take decades to replay, and if I was an American I would frankly find their actions unforgiveable, they have brought the US to a moral, intellectual, political and strategic nadir, I just hope the next crew however they are in the business of trying to repair the damage. So I would conclude that apart from the cosmetic similarites, Bush and Lincoln could not be more different.

[qsducks]

RJ, I totally agree with you regarding Bush. Wasn't his line always "I'm a uniter, not a divider"? And I truly believe that Dick is the scariest man in America, far more scarier than Bush. Way too secretive in my book.

[Accountable]

Galbally;811701 wrote: I think that the difference is that Lincoln was in a fight for the future of the Union, and whether you agreed with his actions or not, you can argue that the stakes were high enough to warrant extraordinary policies. Whereas (and let me be polite) George and Co entered the country into a unilateral, chosen, war of aggression with Saddam Hussein's Iraq (a non threat to the US on any concieveable scale) for their own sectarian interests and because of the bad blood between the Republican Party and Hussien, at a time of real national emergency and danger from actual enemies.



To do this they have destroyed the country's moral standing in the world, they have lied consistently and systematically to their own people and everyone else and now no one trusts any of them, they have seriously weakened the country and its alliance with its allies (particularly the Brits, who behind the scenes are furious with the US and feel completely betrayed by them, they won't do that again I can assure you, blood debt paid and all that).



The administration has paid for it with loans from 3rd party's that will take decades to replay, and if I was an American I would frankly find their actions unforgiveable, they have brought the US to a moral, intellectual, political and strategic nadir, I just hope the next crew however they are in the business of trying to repair the damage. So I would conclude that apart from the cosmetic similarites, Bush and Lincoln could not be more different.
Well said, as always, Gal. They're both Machiavellian. They both violated the Constitution and national trust spending citizens' lives in an effort that the people did not support.



"A nation of the people, by the people, and for the people." Abraham Lincoln himself coined that phrase eulogizing soldiers he had ordered to fight against their own brethren. He claimed powers of the people that he was never meant to have, ordered blood to be shed by the people that was arguably unnecessary, and changed the government into something that was a federation and republic in name only ... all for the people.



If he had failed, Lincoln probably would have gone down in history a pariah.

If he had succeeded Bush probably would have gone down in history a hero.



Different destinations, different reasons, same path.

[Clodhopper]

Don't know enough about Lincoln to really comment on anything but his taste in hats (dubious) but think Galbally is spot on about Brits trusting a Republican administration ever again. Democrat...hmmm...yes, but not for a while, and we'd need a lot of convincing. (grin. Says he like he's a member of the govt! Personally wouldn't trust a Republican if he or she said the sun would rise tomorrow)

There's a saying that countries elect the leaders they deserve, and I do wonder what the USA did to deserve Bush.

[mikeinie]

Clodhopper;812462 wrote: Don't know enough about Lincoln to really comment on anything but his taste in hats (dubious) but think Galbally is spot on about Brits trusting a Republican administration ever again. Democrat...hmmm...yes, but not for a while, and we'd need a lot of convincing. (grin. Says he like he's a member of the govt! Personally wouldn't trust a Republican if he or she said the sun would rise tomorrow)

There's a saying that countries elect the leaders they deserve, and I do wonder what the USA did to deserve Bush.

They were fooled.

American’s through propaganda were lead to believe that Iraq was responsible for the attacks of 9/11, and had weapons that could further threat America. I was all lies; they had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no weapons. Bush used the tragedy of the World Trade Center to fulfil the political agenda of his father.

[qsducks]

And John McCain is using the same tired rhetoric.

[Clodhopper]

I have a suspicion that in 100 years (if civilisation hasn't drowned by then) historians will look on the Bush family Administrations as the ones responsible for the collapse of American power and prosperity. It could really be that serious.

I half-heard a report a year or so ago saying that an American on the average wage could no longer afford to rent a home - not buy, rent. Haven't heard anything on the subject since. Anyone know about this?

[Accountable]

Clodhopper;813126 wrote: I have a suspicion that in 100 years (if civilisation hasn't drowned by then) historians will look on the Bush family Administrations as the ones responsible for the collapse of American power and prosperity. It could really be that serious.



I half-heard a report a year or so ago saying that an American on the average wage could no longer afford to rent a home - not buy, rent. Haven't heard anything on the subject since. Anyone know about this?
I couldn't find a definitive answer for what the average cost of living is in the US, But I found this site that says the average salary in the US is $53,100 US, which is about 8K more than I make, and I feel I live comfortably.

[Clodhopper]

Cheers. Thought I must have got this wrong.

[cars]

Where's another John Wilkes Booth when we need him?!:-5