China Visit - Another Bush Failure

Published on April 21, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

Yes another negative story about King George. The answer as to why so many negative Blogs is that hardly a day passes that does not either reveal another Bush error or show a new mistake that our President has made.

The China visit is a combination of both. It was Bush who expanded the failed trade policy of Clinton to include China. Now we have another $200 Billion trade problem to deal with in this country.

The issues with China are major and run deep. The most apparent is that trade deficit and the refusal of China to stop actions that make it impossible for the trade to come even close to be in balance. In addition to the vast difference in labor costs we have the currency manipulation that makes China's products cheep in this country and our products more expensive in China. We have the lack property rights that causes cheep knock offs made in China competing with our products.

If all that were not enough, we have the largest country in the world that does not allow freedom to their people. In fact China is using our technology and companies to enforce restrictions on individual freedom in China.

We will not deal with Cuba 90 miles from our shore but George W. Bush brings out all the pomp to welcome the leader of the world's largest dictatorship. We send our young people to die in Iraq to spread democracy and then Bush welcomes the President of China.

What is the net result for America from this visit - NOTHING. Way to go George!

Comments (Page 2)

COL Gene

on Apr 21, 2006

I was very disappointed in the lies Clinton told and the fact that he continued to dismantle our military. However, we did move to a balanced budget, we had the strongest economy ever and we were not fighting a war that did not have to be fought. The policies were far more centrist during Clinton and I believe that was because the power was split. It is a BIG ERROR for either the Conservatives or the Liberals to have control of the House, Senate and WH. The majority in this country are not conservative or liberal and we should not be enacting policies or have court appointments that are one sided.

DJBandit

on Apr 21, 2006

I was very disappointed in the lies Clinton told and the fact that he continued to dismantle our military.

Not enough apparently.

However, we did move to a balanced budget, we had the strongest economy ever and we were not fighting a war that did not have to be fought.

True about the budget and economy but we might have been fighting this war had Clinton done something about both Saddam and Osama when he had the chance. Not that you care right?

The policies were far more centrist during Clinton and I believe that was because the power was split. It is a BIG ERROR for either the Conservatives or the Liberals to have control of the House, Senate and WH. The majority in this country are not conservative or liberal and we should not be enacting policies or have court appointments that are one sided.

You're right about this. But, if you only blamed everyone everytime you point something out maybe you would have more credebility. Instead you act as if Bush was a one man party or administration. That he types every letter, pushes every button, talks every talk, makes all the desicions by himself.

COL Gene

on Apr 21, 2006

I NEVER said the actions of China were the fault of Bush. What I said is that the policy of Bush has allowed a bad problem to get much worse.

When Bush took over he had the benefit of seeing a trade policy started by Clinton fail for eight years. It had grown into a $300 plus billion problem. What did Bush do, he expanded that failed policy and turned the problem into an $800 Billion dollar problem.

If George W. Bush were a MD treating his patient for cancer and had prescribed two aspirin that did not control the cancer he would go to four aspirin. Then six and eight aspirin. When the patient died of cancer, Bush would say well, the cancer is not a problem for this patient any more.

Adventure-Dude

on Apr 21, 2006

I NEVER said the actions of China were the fault of Bush.

See where implications go awry?

COL Gene

on Apr 21, 2006

What is taking place is people who do not want to admit King George screwed up TWIST the facts and statement made.

Adventure-Dude

on Apr 21, 2006

What is taking place is people who do not want to admit King George screwed up TWIST the facts and statement made.

Another case and point of how you don't even try to see other's view?

COL Gene

on Apr 21, 2006

You choose to ignore the point I am making. I did not blame Bush for what China is doing to its people. I am saying Bush is NOT LOOKING OUT FOR OUR BEST INTERESTS.

He has ignored the fact that China steals the property rights of Americans and American Companies. He does nothing when China manipulates their currency exchange rate that makes selling our products in China impossible while allowing their products to destroy American companies like our garment industry. I blame Bush for expanding a policy that clearly failed for 8 years just before he took over and making it an even BIGGER FAILURE. This is about how Bush has harmed America NOT what China is doing to its own people!

When I pointed out the lack of human rights China shows toward its people it was to demonstrate the inconsistency in the Bush policies to China, Iraq and Cuba.

COL Gene

on Apr 21, 2006

This may be a bit off subject but it illustrates what is happening with Bush and the results of his policies. Like the fact that trade is worse today the government released data showing that wages between 2001 and 2005 showed that for the Average American after inflation, they make less today then 5 years ago. At the same time, people at the top of the economic ladder had huge increases in their after inflation income.

They compared the Bush results with the same data for the Clinton period and found that Averages wage after inflation went up almost 10%. For the Bush period they have dropped 1.4%. In addition, the impact of gas prices hurts the poor and middle income workers while the wealthy can easily deal with the gas price increases. This was just on CNN TV and demonstrates WHY the Average American does not give Bush credit for the economy. Bush points to GDP and the Stock market growth. He points to job creation but those jobs are paying 21% less then the jobs that were lost at the start of his administration and we are still 1.5 Million jobs less then needed to be at the same place as Jan 2001. The things impacting the vast majority do NOT SHOW IMPROVEMENT and they are not happy with the job Bush is doing with the economy.

Rightwinger

on Apr 21, 2006

fact that he continued to dismantle our military

A sent it everywhere in the world as long as it was at the behest of the UN. Kosovo with no exit strategy leaps to mind. Also, he spent the whole decade squandering our status as sole superpower.

However, we did move to a balanced budget, we had the strongest economy ever

And Clinton did it all, right? Just came into office and waved his wand and made it all good. It had nothing whatever to do with the 12 years of Republican leadership and Reaganomics, right? He just moved into the White House and it was all good. Ooookaaaay.

and we were not fighting a war that did not have to be fought.

If he'd taken some, any, stand or action during his term, rather than bending and swaying with the opinion polls and the whims of the UN, maybe it could actually have been avoided. Saddam spent most of the 90s dodging and completely flouting UN sanctions with no real consequences (of course, since March of 2003, we've come to see and understand the why and how).
Clinton had all the reasons he needed to take him out then. War, though, like taking a firm stand in anything, is often unpopular, and in turn often results in negative numbers, and he couldn't have that.

Being a peacenik hippie from the Vietnam Era, Clinton distrusted, and paid literally no attention whatever to, the CIA for the first 3 or 4 years of his presidency.
They were talking about this the other day on the radio, as a matter of fact. When that guy crashed his plane into the White House grounds in the mid-90s, the joke went around that it was the CIA director trying to get an appointment with the president.
The CIA actually had plans to kidnap bin-Laden sometime in the late 90s, but Clinton's lawyers advised him not to okay it, lest bin-Laden die in custody. Could have been embarrassing.
"No Risks Shall Be Taken"----that could have been the motto of the Clinton White House. That's also why he has no legacy to speak of. No pain, no gain.

The policies were far more centrist during Clinton and I believe that was because the power was split.

This actually has a ring of truth, and I salute you for that, Col.
The problem, though, lies in partisanship. When power is split, nothing really gets done because of conflicting agendas; unless of course you have a real statesman in office who can work with both sides. Clinton was not a statesman.
Besides that, in recent years we've seen the Left drifting more and more to the Liberal Left, which is a problem in itself. That only serves to kind of make the Right the "Center".
Sad to say it, but monopoly (or even sadder, a dictatorship, though no one wants that) is much more efficient.

The majority in this country are not conservative or liberal and we should not be enacting policies or have court appointments that are one sided.

True as well. But, speaking of court appointments, let's not forget that it was still a fairly liberal Supreme Court that gave Bush its approval in 2000.

drmiler

on Apr 21, 2006

I never said Bush is responsible for ANYTHING China is doing. What I said is that OUR reaction and policy toward China is what is wrong because it does not mitigate the actions of China that are harming the United States.

Awful funny here col klink....GW's reation is the EXACT same as "Slick Willie's" But I do not see one sentence that even comes close to saying that!

COL Gene

on Apr 21, 2006

Right winger
Let’s take a look at the points you made:

The process of dismantling our military began with Bush 41 and continued through the Clinton Admin. We were all blinded by the peace dividend and did not understand the other dangers that the end to the Soviet Union allowed in the Moslem World. Gen Zinni talks about that in his book.

The two reasons the budget was finally balanced in 2000 was because of the tax increases in the latter Reagan Admin and the Bush 41, read my lips, tax increases. That coupled with the extent that Clinton implemented the military cutback and the economic growth in the 1990's did the job. The initial Reagan tax cuts however did not do as he promised and bring the budget into balance by 1985. That was his promise in 1981. What he did was create a structural deficit because the growth rate needed to replace the loss in revenue from his tax cuts was not sustainable even with the growth in the 1990's.

In Match 2003 the military assessment of Iraq and Saddam when ALL the capabilities, both conventional military and WMD were considered showed that Saddam was not able to attack or did he present any danger to the United States. That is clear from the total information that was available in late 2002 and early 2003. The Zinni and Trainor books are the latest to document that fact. Thus when we attacked Iraq we did so against a nonexistent threat.

Just before Bush took office in late December 2000 Clinton warned Bush the biggest threats were North Korea, Iran, the Palestine/ Israeli conflict and Al Qaeda. Bush told Clinton he believed the greatest security issues were Iraq and a missile defense system. Looks as if Clinton was correct and Bush was dead wrong!

Moderateman

on Apr 21, 2006

gene? please! I really like Bill, but his blatant cowardice allowing the 1993 twin tower bombing, the attacks in Tanzania and Kenya that destroyed our embassies, the attack in Beirut that killed hundreds of marines and what did bill do as way of punishment? he blew up a pill factory.

The attack of sept.11th is because he had the worse foreign policies ever! maybe peanut boy had a worse one. I grant you he had a wonderful domestic plan jobs everywhere, but the death of 3000 innocent Americans lie directly on bills head, all the while he was getting his dick sucked in the oval office, disgracing the 'OFFICE' of the presidency and getting himself impeached to boot.

Rightwinger

on Apr 21, 2006

The process of dismantling our military began with Bush 41 and continued through the Clinton Admin.

Think so? Hm. The force that rolled into Iraq in '91 looked pretty rough n' ready to me. The "Peace Dividend" thing was a Clinton-Era buzz phrase.
The USSR didn't collapse for all and good until 1991, the year before Clinton was elected. That's what gave us the aforementioned "dividend". Bush may have started scaling things down a little, maybe, but Clinton took a machete to the military even while he sent them to hotspots everywhere around the globe, plugging holes.

The two reasons the budget was finally balanced in 2000 was because of the tax increases in the latter Reagan Admin and the Bush 41, read my lips, tax increases. That coupled with the extent that Clinton implemented the military cutback and the economic growth in the 1990's did the job. The initial Reagan tax cuts however did not do as he promised and bring the budget into balance by 1985. That was his promise in 1981. What he did was create a structural deficit because the growth rate needed to replace the loss in revenue from his tax cuts was not sustainable even with the growth in the 1990's.

Well, I'm not an economist by any stretch, but I do remember that things started to slide more than a bit in the late 90s.
Of course, the slide only really picked up force in April 2001, so Bush took the hit even though he was only about 4 months in office. Not long enough to have caused anything.
You'll never convince me that the Bull market we had in the 90s had almost nothing to do with Reagan/Bush and all with Clinton. It doesn't work like that. As far as Reagan's promise of a balanced budget by '85, political promises, especially those dealing with something as fickle as economics, often hold about as much water as a Dixie cup with a hole in it. I think the world of Ronald Reagan, but he did want to be President.

In Match 2003 the military assessment of Iraq and Saddam when ALL the capabilities, both conventional military and WMD were considered showed that Saddam was not able to attack or did he present any danger to the United States. That is clear from the total information that was available in late 2002 and early 2003

Then why did the whole Beltway crowd spend the 90s sweating and wringing its hands in worry and fear, wishing (or at least pretending to, as we saw with the revelation of "Oil for Food") someone would do something about Saddam and his weapons capabilities?

The Zinni and Trainor books are the latest to document that fact.

Books by biased(?) authors, and published before certain documents captured in the war were translated.

Thus when we attacked Iraq we did so against a nonexistent threat.

Perhaps, now I know this is just a personal opinion, but sometimes we do the right things for the wrong reasons. Was it wrong to take Saddam down? No. The way it was done? Who knows?
I do know that the mass graves filled with innocent obstacles to his power will no longer be a problem. I know that the rape and torture rooms will no longer be a problem. I know that dissent will, if all goes well, at least, be tolerated without the annoying consequence of violent death. Is that wrong? I don't think so.

Just before Bush took office in late December 2000 Clinton warned Bush the biggest threats were North Korea, Iran, the Palestine/ Israeli conflict and Al Qaeda.

Then why did Clinton play footsie with N. Korea and let them push us around? Give them everything they wanted?
Because, as in all things, Clinton wouldn't take a stand that might affect his popularity, and played it off for someone else to worry about. Same with Iran, Palestine/Isreal and al Qaeda. And Kosovo, for that matter. He did nothing more than hold things together just long enough, until he got away, and left it for the next guy. In this case it was Bush, who at least wasn't afraid to be unpopular and make hard decisions.
But, somehow, he STILL got reelected. Wow. Maybe people like and appreciate a strong leader, huh?

That's what many people hate about Bush. He stands his ground whether you like it or not. He has character they way Clinton had charm.
People got used to a president who smiled and did what the polls said because he wanted to keep everyone happy so they'd like him, and the hell with what's right or wrong.

Who's the better president? I know what I think, but I'll leave it for history to decide.

COL Gene

on Apr 21, 2006

9/11 happened because we did not understand the danger posed by terrorists groups. Clinton did bring that to the attention of Bush in December 2000 and Bush did nothing either. 9/11 was NOT just a Clinton failure.

The real failure is the way Bush chose to fight the 9/11 type danger- attacking a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and did not present any real danger to the United States. In so doing he has diverted our limited resources to the WRONG fight and made many new enemies willing to try another 9/11 or worse.

Rightwinger

on Apr 21, 2006

, the attack in Beirut that killed hundreds of marines

Though I agree with the gist of your post, MM, I think this was in 1984, though I could be thinking of something else. One of Reagan's (few) missteps.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!