Bush - fej.org

The project as related to Bush :
There have been a number of things that have been blamed on president Bush, and much criticizing of his abilities in his job function.
The project should help develop more communication among the citizens of the usa in developing questions about these things and find the answers to those questions.
Questions such as : how can we have one job function that can either be mis-used, or used in error, causing so much trouble? What happened to backup systems to prevent one branch from getting out of hand? What happened to the fact that the people of the usa are in supposed to be in control - so how did something happen that they didn't want?
And to me, it's also about questioning and getting people thinking and talking about how the usa government was developed, and it was maybe not flexible enough to ward off unwanted effects and change with technological and other developments in the world, and maybe it's time to change things around. (Also see usa - but don't forget to read my comments about Bush below!)

Further, the project is to model all of the things around Bush and the things he is blamed for. This modeling can be used for effective planning of gathering evidence of this, and determining responsibility. Then the project can be used to examine how these things happened and design ways to prevent similar or other unwanted occurances. The project makes communicating these things easy, so for example, my friend who is telling me of some of these things about Bush would be able to share social models that he's found or created, that I could then easily read and understand the situation. Or I would be able to take notes and put together a model (a
Many people seem to think that Bush (not sure which one, or if it's both in combination) is a genius mastermind who managed to somehow found a terrorist organization named Al Quada with a puppet leader to use as a scape goat. And then Bush further figured out the plan and even used the u.s.a. military to carry out the attacks on the "World Trade Center". And even further, made money in the process, especially stealing huge amounts of gold or something.

I don't follow this malarky. To me Bush is just one person. Whenever which ever one was president, they had no more capability to do anything than any other human being could do. I do not get the feeling that this guy (either one) is so sinister and so complex in thinking and planning to be anything more than just someone doing his job.

Of course an extremely rich guy in the upper class, so someone I would never get to befriend or get to know really well in any way. So I don't really care much about him or his opinions, etc.

Bush is a hero...

I admire (sort of) the Bush guy (which ever one who's u.s.a. president in the early/mid 2000's) for managing to put up with so much crap from the public.

How the guy doesn't tell all the "Bush bashers" to just f-off I don't know. He's just a rich guy playin' around with the world as best as he can. That's what the rich people do... The rich selected him as president, and too bad, if you don't like it you're probably just jealous or something.

And what's annoying to me is to think of how probably every "Bush basher" makes more mistakes than him, when it comes to the grade/type of mixing saying one hand and gestering with the other.

I highly suspect I do.

The following is some of my old content. I still want to re-work this text before really "publishing".

Here are a few random comments I have about the presidents Bush.

Bush is a mastermind?
Bush is against war.
Bush is a liar, duh.
Bush maintains status everything ok.
Who's war?
Incestuous government.
The constitution is just a piece of paper.
Bash Bush, bash me.

Bush is a mastermind?

One interesting thing that I've run into often, and especially was pushed by my friend Brian, either actually or jokingly, is that Bush is a genius mastermind. Specifically that he masterminded things such as the sept. 11 attacks, the oil-war
or usually specifically the Iraq war(s) part of that war, or even that there is no group such as Al Quada and that he masterminds that perception.

I find this very hard to believe, and very far fetched. But I cannot prove it to not be true, and will be very surprised and interested if one person was able to pull off such an elaborate plan. The project though is very thorough in how to work with information, and how to sort facts from suppositions, etc. This will enable the fastest and most effective means for determining if and how anyone masterminded anything.

What I find most interesting in this concept that Bush was able to mastermind a plan to overpower the government, and the people of the united states of america... is that then these people are calling for a revolution to over throw the u.s.a. government.

Bush is against war.

Although I feel a speech given as president really reflects that function in society - still in a speech given by Bush, was a statement that citizens should cut back on oil and fuel consumption, in a general way. To me this is a clear statement against the war for oil, so this seems to contradict accusations of him being a war monger. If the citizens had taken that to heart and worked hard on drastically cutting back consumption, there probably have been no wars as there have been. But instead, the citizens continued to cry for cheaper gas, which can only be achieved by the government by war.

Bush is a liar, duh.

And I'm baffled by so many people who get excited when they realize that president Bush lied. Really baffled. It's like, uh, he's a politician. Wake up, don't you realize that? Of course he lies, that's a big part of his occupation and any position in the government. And in general, life in the usa is full of lies, and very few people live completely honest lives, and certainly not those in the media pointing fingers at Bush calling him a liar!

One clear lie to me, but probably most people just let slide by, is the one (and similar ones) from Jan. 22, 2007 where he states that technology will resolve global warming. It's actually an opinion, but stated as a fact, and therefore a lie. Even if technology does resolve the issue, it's a lie because he did not have solid conclusive proof that this would occur. If he had the proof then the technology would already be known, and a plan, including calculations of predictions, for implementing it would be available.

Bush maintains status everything ok.

But as far as a president for the u.s.a., I would say they both seem to be doing ok. They're bombing the middle-east like mad to keep the price of gas down and oil company profits up. Just as the citizens clearly want, since they constantly complain about gas prices (even though they are extremely cheap), knowing that without telling the government of an alternative solution, their only choice is to use war tactics to drive the prices down.

But to fill the role of the scapegoat/fall guy for all of the wrong things (war, etc.) that the united states of america does, both of the Bushes seem to do o.k. This is seemingly apparent as the u.s.a. continues to function normally year after year, and there is no indication of even any kind of a shake up (overthrowing the government, or reforming it's systems).

What makes it clear to me that the people of the u.s.a. are considering the Bush president during the early 2000's as a useful scapegoat, is that they are not saying the military aggressions are wrong, and demanding the u.s.a. make apologies and repayment to the middle east, and reform the government to prevent future wrong doing. The citizens of the u.s.a. seem to be unhappy because one of the military campaigns is not happening fast and smooth enough, and is making the country look weak, because the usa is already involved in one messy long clean up. The citizens seem to just consider Bush as a scape goat for that, and just want to blame everything on him, and continue to go forward as have been. So, I guess he violated the unspoken "only one mess at a time" rule or something. Of course if things went smoothly, and aggressions subsided and gas prices were reduced, he would have been considered one of the best presidents. And no one would have cared about the old mess still needing cleaning up.

Who's war?

The thing that comes to my mind the most every time people bring up Bush is the simple principle I call actions not blame.

This principle is detailed in my list of principles.

When the name Bush is brought up, I often think about how people seem to blame an entire war on one person. Even though it takes an entire infrastructure to create and pursue war, somehow one person can be responsible for the actions of an entire country. My thought on this whole concept is that if he had such tremendous power over people, then isn't it extremely dangerous? For example, if he suddenly decides that all Wisconsinites should be killed, since he has this power, that means lots of people die. I often think of how in this example how that would mean as soon as he announces this, his staff of generals or whoever have to look at each other, figure out who is or was from Wisconsin and then kill them first, then go through all the military, and government, and then go kill everyone in the state, except tourists. What a lot of work, but apparently one man has that kind of power.

Seriously, no one person can or should have that kind of power. The people have to take responsibility for all of their actions individual and collectively, and work to insure that there are mechanisms to insure that nothing can just happen because of a mistake of one person. If it really was a mistake. To me a person can only give their own opinion, and take their best guesses at things, like what to do. If other people don't help clarify errors someone else is making, then they too are to blame as they either allowed the "mistake" to occur if they were aware, or did not make an effort to determine if there might be an error.

See also my comments on the oil war for more comments about Bush.

And to try to make this clear, if I haven't somewhere else - I think of it this way as well sometimes... If there was no oil in the middle east including under Iraq (2nd biggest puddle of oil remaining according to some sources), would Bush be ordering an invasion just like that, and would the usa people just pack up and go invade a country they never heard of before, has never been in the news (no oil), etc.??
I highly suspect not...

It's all and only about the oil. The citizens know about it, and support the oil war, whether or not each sub-war works out well or not. And evidence of this is simply the lack of true protesting, etc. and continued support (cars, etc.) as mentioned elsewhere.

Incestuous government.

Another thing I find interesting about the presidents Bush, is how the people of the u.s.a. still do not seem to be concerned at all with what I call "incestuous government". Strange term, but with that I refer to how so much of government is staffed with people who are relatives of others, and are at least part of the rich elite (who are related in many non-blood ways). For such a big country, that's pretty wild chances if everything was on a purely fair basis (random or qualification based), so it really seems like a clear reason to be alarmed. Of course there are many other examples in government of this.

The constitution is just a piece of paper.

One slip up Bush made was when he pointed out that the constitution is just a piece of paper (or words on paper or whatever the quote exactly was). I don't know why people got upset over that, instead of realizing that he was making a valid point. That people treat some old archaic document as though it is some supernatural phenomenon. It is just words on paper, and further has no meaning other than what one interprets from reading those words. It has no magical powers, and is nothing more than a document, which is very outdated, and has no application in the real modern day world. Further, the constitution was abandoned very shortly after it's creation, as it is so poorly and vaguely worded, with no real substance, that the only way of knowing and following the intention of the document was with the efforts of the drafters of the document. Once they were dead or no longer active in government, the document became open to broad mis-interpretation, as there was no one left to accurately interpret the intent.