Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 347
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Can we ban this guy? He's just in here trolling all week and making civil discussions uncivil.
I don't know why I bring out so much hate in people.I'm a lover not a fighterOh and I'm rich
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only read one page of this thread, so if this has been addressed already, I apologize. I highly doubt that it has been addressed though. First, I want to establish my credentials. When 9/11, then subsequently the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq happened, I was a Political Science major in college. I thought I knew everything there was to know about International relations, the Middle East and the situation at hand. I believed that we were clearly justified to go into Afghanistan and not the least bit justified in going into Iraq...much like President Obama seems to believe today. Sadly, my education on the situation and the region was actually somewhat lacking. In 2008 I was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Air Force. Since my commissioning date, I've learned more about the history of the region than I did in my college Poli Sci classes. What I didn't know at the time, or didn't understand, and what I think most people don't know is what had been going on in Iraq between the time of Gulf War I and Operation Iraqi Freedom. During those 12 years, the U.S. Air Force was constantly flying sorties over Iraq enforcing no-fly zones that took up most of the country. Saddam's Air Force was restricted to operating in a somewhat narrow swath in the middle of the country. We did this to restrict his ability to torture and murder innocent Kurds in Northern Iraq and to keep him from attempting to expand again from Southern Iraq into Kuwait. Essentially, we were restricting Saddam's actions already. We had imposed economic sanctions on the country and we had attempting to chop off his ability to make war on his neighbors and the citizens in his own country. For over a decade we had been in a holding pattern. The President and Congress were presented with evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons and they chose to act in what they saw as the best interests of the stability of a region that was very important to us. We made some mistakes in prosecuting the war (or more accurately in our estimation of what would happen after we toppled the regime and in the rebuilding effort). We can debate ad nauseum over whether or not it was the right thing to do. Honestly, I just don't know...I never saw all the evidence, got all the briefings and I thank God that I didn't have to make those decisions. Personally, I think we should have done more in Afghanistan and made a stronger effort to get Osama Bin Laden before we ever even considered going into Iraq. But, I doubt that taking out Osama would have ended Islamic terrorism anymore than toppling Saddam promoted stability in Iraq. When all is said and done, I respect Mr. Bush for having the courage of his convictions and doing what he thought was right no matter how unpopular it became. I think he made a lot of mistakes and I HATE the gigantic deficits that he and his "Republican" Congress have saddled us with, but I can't fault him for doing what he thought was right and I think that the war issue is so much more complex than any of us understand and none of us can know what we would have done in that position if we were presented with the same information that Mr. Bush was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've only read one page of this thread, so if this has been addressed already, I apologize. I highly doubt that it has been addressed though. First, I want to establish my credentials. When 9/11, then subsequently the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq happened, I was a Political Science major in college. I thought I knew everything there was to know about International relations, the Middle East and the situation at hand. I believed that we were clearly justified to go into Afghanistan and not the least bit justified in going into Iraq...much like President Obama seems to believe today. Sadly, my education on the situation and the region was actually somewhat lacking. In 2008 I was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Air Force. Since my commissioning date, I've learned more about the history of the region than I did in my college Poli Sci classes. What I didn't know at the time, or didn't understand, and what I think most people don't know is what had been going on in Iraq between the time of Gulf War I and Operation Iraqi Freedom. During those 12 years, the U.S. Air Force was constantly flying sorties over Iraq enforcing no-fly zones that took up most of the country. Saddam's Air Force was restricted to operating in a somewhat narrow swath in the middle of the country. We did this to restrict his ability to torture and murder innocent Kurds in Northern Iraq and to keep him from attempting to expand again from Southern Iraq into Kuwait. Essentially, we were restricting Saddam's actions already. We had imposed economic sanctions on the country and we had attempting to chop off his ability to make war on his neighbors and the citizens in his own country. For over a decade we had been in a holding pattern. The President and Congress were presented with evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons and they chose to act in what they saw as the best interests of the stability of a region that was very important to us. We made some mistakes in prosecuting the war (or more accurately in our estimation of what would happen after we toppled the regime and in the rebuilding effort). We can debate ad nauseum over whether or not it was the right thing to do. Honestly, I just don't know...I never saw all the evidence, got all the briefings and I thank God that I didn't have to make those decisions. Personally, I think we should have done more in Afghanistan and made a stronger effort to get Osama Bin Laden before we ever even considered going into Iraq. But, I doubt that taking out Osama would have ended Islamic terrorism anymore than toppling Saddam promoted stability in Iraq. When all is said and done, I respect Mr. Bush for having the courage of his convictions and doing what he thought was right no matter how unpopular it became. I think he made a lot of mistakes and I HATE the gigantic deficits that he and his "Republican" Congress have saddled us with, but I can't fault him for doing what he thought was right and I think that the war issue is so much more complex than any of us understand and none of us can know what we would have done in that position if we were presented with the same information that Mr. Bush was.
This is a fantastic post.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Good Post
The problem to me is that within months of 9/11 every "war on terror" speech gradually shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. This is clearly shown if you look at all the polls from right after 9/11 where most Americans felt as though Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks to the polls taken when we invaded Iraq where most Americans now believed Saddam/Iraq played a part in 9/11. I'm not commenting on whether you should've been there or not but the lies that got you there went far beyond documents of wmd's.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem to me is that within months of 9/11 every "war on terror" speech gradually shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. This is clearly shown if you look at all the polls from right after 9/11 where most Americans felt as though Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks to the polls taken when we invaded Iraq where most Americans now believed Saddam/Iraq played a part in 9/11. I'm not commenting on whether you should've been there or not but the lies that got you there went far beyond documents of wmd's.
It's been documented that within days of 9/11, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was recommending that we use this as an opportunity to go into Iraq. There's a big part of me that still think that we never should have done it, we should have focused on Osama and the Al Quaeda threat instead. But, all I was saying in the above post is that it's a lot more complicated than I realized at the time and I'm glad I didn't have to make the decisions that Mr. Bush and his advisers, and for that matter, many Democratic U.S. Senators, had to make.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's been documented that within days of 9/11, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was recommending that we use this as an opportunity to go into Iraq. There's a big part of me that still think that we never should have done it, we should have focused on Osama and the Al Quaeda threat instead. But, all I was saying in the above post is that it's a lot more complicated than I realized at the time and I'm glad I didn't have to make the decisions that Mr. Bush and his advisers, and for that matter, many Democratic U.S. Senators, had to make.
I agree with you, clearly it was a tough call to make. I think for some people it's not just that you went in to Iraq its the pretense that you went in under as well. I don't if the general public would've been behind it if all the facts were layed out but when the government lies the way they did it was only a matter of time before people clued in and started to turn.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What I didn't know at the time, or didn't understand, and what I think most people don't know is what had been going on in Iraq between the time of Gulf War I and Operation Iraqi Freedom. During those 12 years, the U.S. Air Force was constantly flying sorties over Iraq enforcing no-fly zones that took up most of the country. Saddam's Air Force was restricted to operating in a somewhat narrow swath in the middle of the country.Thank you for your dedication and service to our country.But don't believe everything the military tells you, or should I say, forgets to tell you.I was in Saudi during Desert Storm. And at the end, we sold out the Kurds when we allowed the Iraqis to continue to fly their helicopters. Poppa Bush encouraged the Kurds to revolt and then sold them out. Yes, the USAF flew their fighters, but the Iraqis had no more fighters. What they had was choppers. We put no restrictions on them. And those choppers killed thousands and thousands of Kurds while the jet jockeys flew at 25,000 feet looking for bogies that would never come.War is hell. People die and people lie.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I truly respect you for your service in the Gulf War. I totally get what you're saying in your post. Personally, I had heard of no-fly zones, but I didn't understand them at all until I learned about them in military PME courses. I do know that we made some efforts to stop helicopters in the Northern no-fly zone because there is at least one documented case where two American choppers were shot down in that area because the fighter pilots thought they were Iraqi Hinds and the AWACS operator dropped the ball. It was in the news, so I'm pretty sure I'm not revealing anything classified. Here's a NY Times article about the court-martial in 1995.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...757C0A963958260My point in bringing that story up is simply that efforts were made to enforce the Northern no-fly zone, even against helicopters. I have no idea how successful they were in helping the Kurds, but I'd say they were probably more successful than if we'd done nothing and let Saddam have his way with those people. The atrocities that he committed against the Kurdish people, even prior to Gulf War I when we didn't care, are well documented. I'm sure that the Kurds of Northern Iraq are much better off with Saddam out of power. I honestly don't know whether our nation is more secure, or whether the country of Iraq as a whole is better off. It's probably less stable, but of course nothing provides stability in a country quite like fear of a brutal dictator. People are still dying because of the insurgency and Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism. There's no doubt that we made some very big mistakes in the cleanup phases after the war. Removing Saddam from power proved easy, stabilizing the country afterward was much harder and we went about it all wrong in the beginning which caused continuous problems. Those issues can absolutely be laid at the feet of Mr. Bush and the people he appointed. However, I'm no longer ready and willing to say that going in was a major mistake in the first place and it never should have been done. For years, I was the guy that would tell anybody who would listen that we never should have gone into Iraq, and what a huge mistake it was. I'm no longer sure of anything regarding that situation. It's complicated and I don't have all the facts (probably never will), I'm not sure Bush and his advisers had all the facts either and they made some pretty big mistakes, but in the end they may have done the right thing and that's all I was trying to say in my original post. The situation is way more complex than I ever imagined and way more complex than most people have any idea of. I at least respect Mr. Bush for sticking to his guns and doing what he thought was right no matter how unpopular it became. The choice between doing what is right and doing what is popular is never easy, and I have great respect for those who make that choice towards right. Unfortunately, none of us know whether Mr. Bush was right in what he did, and we may never know, but at least he can rest easy in the knowledge that he made the tough decisions and did what he thought was right, even when it became unpopular.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Before I get banned,Here's a link to an article you might find interesting:http://www.slate.com/id/2210059/Fun Stuff. I'm a grad too. And people wonder why I'm so unstable.
I haven't attended SERE training...probably never will due to my job...but I've talked to several aircrew who have. I don't think any of them consider themselves worse off for it and in fact, I think many consider it a good thing. Keep in mind that the threat that we currently face isn't necessarily the only threat we will ever face. 25 years ago, everyone thought that the next war would be a conventional (or nuclear God-forbid) war against the Soviet Union. They never would have imagined the Towers falling on 9/11 or the war on terrorism in it's current form. The military must always train for the future and be ready for every eventuality. Even as we are developing newer and better tactics to deal with terrorism and the insurgents in Iraq (such as General Petraeus' Counterinsurgency Field Manual), we must be preparing for other potential future wars. It's very possible that in the next 10 or 20 years we could be fighting North Korea, or even, God-forbid, China. We need to be ready as a military for these eventualities and training our aircrew and special forces to survive behind enemy lines and be able to resist if captured is paramount.
Link to post
Share on other sites

To TheCincikidI was in Saudi, but not serving actively in the military at the time. You seem like a smart young man who is willing to dedicate a part of his life to our country. I salute you.You also realize that it is a complex situation that has no easy answers.I take heart knowing that there are young people like yourself who care enough to volunteer and yet are smart enough to question.This truly is a great country.Take care. I will sleep better tonight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

This always happens...someone posts a long, documented (or documentable) set of positions against BG's, and he blows it off with a witty comment and never addresses a single verifiable point, but does open the battle by attacking a straw man argument. The wit is fine and always appreciated, but it does not win the argument, it only softens the clear fact of losing it.Bush inherited a country with the largest surplus in its history, projections that it should continue to grow, a country at peace, a network of allies around the world, nearly full employment, and civil liberties. All he had to do was not touch anything. Eight years later, he left the nation in tatters. Republicans in 1992 criticized Clinton's proposed economic stimulus because of its "disastrous, socialist, budget-busting" size of $19 billion. Now, they passed one worth over $700 billion in the waning days of Bush and concede that it won't undo the damage that's already been wrought -- at best it might keep the banking system from total collapse, and much more will be needed for other industries. They got from there to here under the leadership of one man and until recently one party.There used to be a decent Republican party -- Eisenhower, Rockefeller, nowadays represented by Christy Todd Whitman in New Jersey and Olympia Snowe in Maine. But Bush was a disaster of epic proportions. You can be a proud Republican and still admit that Bush was a mistake, BG. He didn't even do your party's most deeply-held principles any favors. You could use your eloquence and connections to steer the party back to its fine Lincolnian roots. Don't bother wasting your breath trying to rewrite history to defend an incompetent. The "party of personal responsibility" doesn't seem able to admit that it screwed up this time.As for the war, we're still many years from being able to tell whether it was right or wrong in the long term. It was without a doubt sold to the public with deliberate lies (about Saddam's link to 9/11). Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals and followers of Wahhabism, which is dominant in Saudi Arabia, yet the Saudi royal family remains close friends of the Bush family and SA remains our ally without any discussion in this country at all about its role. We accepted the royal family's assurance that "oh, yeah, they were ours but we didn't support them" at face value. If 15 hijackers had been Iraqis or Iranian, would we have taken their country's leaders at the same face value? I don't give Bush credit for doing what's right over what's popular, since it remains to be seen whether he was right at all or whether the popular view turns out to be the right one as well. Right now, it looks to me like we fought the wrong war against the wrong enemy. In twenty years, if the Mideast has stablilized and is peaceful and allied with the West, then we can say Bush deserves credit for sticking to his ideas of what was right. If it's still an unstable powder keg fueled by anti-American hatred, then he deserves blame for continuing with a bad policy long after it became quite clear to others that it was bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This always happens...someone posts a long, documented (or documentable) set of positions against BG's, and he blows it off with a witty comment and never addresses a single verifiable point, but does open the battle by attacking a straw man argument. The wit is fine and always appreciated, but it does not win the argument, it only softens the clear fact of losing it.Bush inherited a country with the largest surplus in its history, projections that it should continue to grow, a country at peace, a network of allies around the world, nearly full employment, and civil liberties. All he had to do was not touch anything. Eight years later, he left the nation in tatters. Republicans in 1992 criticized Clinton's proposed economic stimulus because of its "disastrous, socialist, budget-busting" size of $19 billion. Now, they passed one worth over $700 billion in the waning days of Bush and concede that it won't undo the damage that's already been wrought -- at best it might keep the banking system from total collapse, and much more will be needed for other industries. They got from there to here under the leadership of one man and until recently one party.There used to be a decent Republican party -- Eisenhower, Rockefeller, nowadays represented by Christy Todd Whitman in New Jersey and Olympia Snowe in Maine. But Bush was a disaster of epic proportions. You can be a proud Republican and still admit that Bush was a mistake, BG. He didn't even do your party's most deeply-held principles any favors. You could use your eloquence and connections to steer the party back to its fine Lincolnian roots. Don't bother wasting your breath trying to rewrite history to defend an incompetent. The "party of personal responsibility" doesn't seem able to admit that it screwed up this time.As for the war, we're still many years from being able to tell whether it was right or wrong in the long term. It was without a doubt sold to the public with deliberate lies (about Saddam's link to 9/11). Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals and followers of Wahhabism, which is dominant in Saudi Arabia, yet the Saudi royal family remains close friends of the Bush family and SA remains our ally without any discussion in this country at all about its role. We accepted the royal family's assurance that "oh, yeah, they were ours but we didn't support them" at face value. If 15 hijackers had been Iraqis or Iranian, would we have taken their country's leaders at the same face value? I don't give Bush credit for doing what's right over what's popular, since it remains to be seen whether he was right at all or whether the popular view turns out to be the right one as well. Right now, it looks to me like we fought the wrong war against the wrong enemy. In twenty years, if the Mideast has stablilized and is peaceful and allied with the West, then we can say Bush deserves credit for sticking to his ideas of what was right. If it's still an unstable powder keg fueled by anti-American hatred, then he deserves blame for continuing with a bad policy long after it became quite clear to others that it was bad.
I better leave before I start crying.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This always happens...someone posts a long, documented (or documentable) set of positions against BG's, and he blows it off with a witty comment and never addresses a single verifiable point, but does open the battle by attacking a straw man argument. The wit is fine and always appreciated, but it does not win the argument, it only softens the clear fact of losing it.Bush inherited a country with the largest surplus in its history, projections that it should continue to grow, a country at peace, a network of allies around the world, nearly full employment, and civil liberties. All he had to do was not touch anything. Eight years later, he left the nation in tatters. Republicans in 1992 criticized Clinton's proposed economic stimulus because of its "disastrous, socialist, budget-busting" size of $19 billion. Now, they passed one worth over $700 billion in the waning days of Bush and concede that it won't undo the damage that's already been wrought -- at best it might keep the banking system from total collapse, and much more will be needed for other industries. They got from there to here under the leadership of one man and until recently one party.There used to be a decent Republican party -- Eisenhower, Rockefeller, nowadays represented by Christy Todd Whitman in New Jersey and Olympia Snowe in Maine. But Bush was a disaster of epic proportions. You can be a proud Republican and still admit that Bush was a mistake, BG. He didn't even do your party's most deeply-held principles any favors. You could use your eloquence and connections to steer the party back to its fine Lincolnian roots. Don't bother wasting your breath trying to rewrite history to defend an incompetent. The "party of personal responsibility" doesn't seem able to admit that it screwed up this time.As for the war, we're still many years from being able to tell whether it was right or wrong in the long term. It was without a doubt sold to the public with deliberate lies (about Saddam's link to 9/11). Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals and followers of Wahhabism, which is dominant in Saudi Arabia, yet the Saudi royal family remains close friends of the Bush family and SA remains our ally without any discussion in this country at all about its role. We accepted the royal family's assurance that "oh, yeah, they were ours but we didn't support them" at face value. If 15 hijackers had been Iraqis or Iranian, would we have taken their country's leaders at the same face value? I don't give Bush credit for doing what's right over what's popular, since it remains to be seen whether he was right at all or whether the popular view turns out to be the right one as well. Right now, it looks to me like we fought the wrong war against the wrong enemy. In twenty years, if the Mideast has stablilized and is peaceful and allied with the West, then we can say Bush deserves credit for sticking to his ideas of what was right. If it's still an unstable powder keg fueled by anti-American hatred, then he deserves blame for continuing with a bad policy long after it became quite clear to others that it was bad.
I personally was against the Clinton Budget bailout, the Bush one, by the way there was a Democratic Congress 3 months ago that you are leaving out of this, and the Obama stimulus package of 09...We as a nation didn't get here due to one party or one man. The biggest weakness Bush had was the spending of drunken sailor...I have to assume that he was trying to and I quote our newest President "reach across party lines" and it didn't work. The reality is we got he from not letting the free markets work, we will continue to prolong it due to not letting free markets work and we will be a poorer nation over the long haul for not letting free markets work. When Uncle Sam is in charge of everythingwe are officially dead...we just won't know it right away.I heard BHO say last night the there is nobody left to help "the only thing left to rescue us is government"...to me that was an OMG momment. He truely believes it!! He thinks that he is the mesiah and he is going put the whole world in his hands. He just doesn't get it. He and the government aren't going to rescue anyone. They have no money, they create no money, every $$ they spend costs more to make then what is gets...they are running at a net loss and don't know it....it is so sad. Here is the math tax $1.00 create, .80 (if you are lucky), tax 50 percent or more of the 80 percent you created from the 1.00 you had....and say "wow we got it going now"...the light at the end of the BHO tunnel....it is a train!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
This always happens...someone posts a long, documented (or documentable) set of positions against BG's, and he blows it off with a witty comment and never addresses a single verifiable point, but does open the battle by attacking a straw man argument. The wit is fine and always appreciated, but it does not win the argument, it only softens the clear fact of losing it.Bush inherited a country with the largest surplus in its history, projections that it should continue to grow, a country at peace, a network of allies around the world, nearly full employment, and civil liberties. All he had to do was not touch anything. Eight years later, he left the nation in tatters. Republicans in 1992 criticized Clinton's proposed economic stimulus because of its "disastrous, socialist, budget-busting" size of $19 billion. Now, they passed one worth over $700 billion in the waning days of Bush and concede that it won't undo the damage that's already been wrought -- at best it might keep the banking system from total collapse, and much more will be needed for other industries. They got from there to here under the leadership of one man and until recently one party.There used to be a decent Republican party -- Eisenhower, Rockefeller, nowadays represented by Christy Todd Whitman in New Jersey and Olympia Snowe in Maine. But Bush was a disaster of epic proportions. You can be a proud Republican and still admit that Bush was a mistake, BG. He didn't even do your party's most deeply-held principles any favors. You could use your eloquence and connections to steer the party back to its fine Lincolnian roots. Don't bother wasting your breath trying to rewrite history to defend an incompetent. The "party of personal responsibility" doesn't seem able to admit that it screwed up this time.
This always happens, SB posts a long post about something we stopped discussing and moved on from weeks later and we are all supposed to go back and get in that mind frame.Next time waste a little more of your life and be on the forums every day lady!Although I am tempted to leave the response at this, because it would drive you crazy, I will instead respond a little to all the things you are wrong about( in the post, not in life, the internet might not be big enough :club: )
As for the war, we're still many years from being able to tell whether it was right or wrong in the long term. It was without a doubt sold to the public with deliberate lies (about Saddam's link to 9/11).
Actually there was not a single lie told by Bush. You are just caught up in the leftist mantra of "Bush lied people died" because it is catchy and rhymes. Bush was given the same reports and intel that the democrat leadership recieved, and came to the same conclusions.I guess if you change your rant to "Every Intelligence Agency in the World LIED and people died", then you would at least be consistant in what you are wrong about. Blaming Bush means you are either uninformed, or naive.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals and followers of Wahhabism, which is dominant in Saudi Arabia, yet the Saudi royal family remains close friends of the Bush family and SA remains our ally without any discussion in this country at all about its role. We accepted the royal family's assurance that "oh, yeah, they were ours but we didn't support them" at face value.
I guess I can understand your thinking if you were constitant and requested we invade Saudi Arabia. But the fact is the Royal Family is an ally of the USA. not a good one, in fact they are swine, but they do a ton towards stabilizing the oil in the region and supplying us with intel. Yes, they pay off terrorist to leave them alone, which funnels millions of dollars into the terrorist organizations. But in hat region the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Of course since some people who attacked us were Suadi, we should definately topple their government, and spend 8 years helping them elect people. After all, their leadership has fired rockets at our planes, declared their intentions to kill Americans, been active in harboring, training and rewarding terrorist, and declared as a national policy to seek WMDs in order to bring the Great Satan to it's knees.
If 15 hijackers had been Iraqis or Iranian, would we have taken their country's leaders at the same face value? I don't give Bush credit for doing what's right over what's popular, since it remains to be seen whether he was right at all or whether the popular view turns out to be the right one as well.
The popular view? Oh yea, the popular view. The one that pretends they were against the war in the beginning, and also pretend that once in Iraq, just cutting and running would be a viable policy. That we can just leave the region, and it will stabilze itself and all the oil fields would end up in the hands of good people. That's not called the popular view, that's called the Democrat Leadership view. It's proven itself to be a failure by everyone including themselves. Can't believe you didn't get the memo. Yea...we basically won in Iraq and have a timetable to leave. Bush gave us that.
Right now, it looks to me like we fought the wrong war against the wrong enemy. In twenty years, if the Mideast has stablilized and is peaceful and allied with the West, then we can say Bush deserves credit for sticking to his ideas of what was right. If it's still an unstable powder keg fueled by anti-American hatred, then he deserves blame for continuing with a bad policy long after it became quite clear to others that it was bad
So if Obama through ineptitude and inexperience sends Hillary, the Shrill One, to hug the wife of the Hamas leadership (again), and that angers Israel, who feels a little worried that America doesn't have it's back, and they start defending themselves and sparks a middle east conflict, that gets laid on Bush?Oh yea, as the rest of your post clearly laid out. Bush is ALWAYS at fault. Blaiming Bush was a good way to keep you sheep in line, keep you focused on something much like a magician snapping his fingers: "Look over here." But you guys run both houses and the President. You're about to get a new Supreme Court judge picked by the most liberal jr. senator from Chigaco, ( wonder how much it will cost him/her) In the first 2 weeks he is going to spend more pork than Bush did in his 8 years, so eventually....you might want to take a little ownership of the direction of this country.What am I saying? How dumb.It's all Bush's fault.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're right about this theory, then Bush kinda wasn't doing his job so well. It's a bit of a catch-22, isn't it?
Is this a theory of mine or a response to another person's theory?I forgot
Link to post
Share on other sites

And if Bush is responsible for nothing that went wrong during his tenure, how could Obama possibly be responsible for anything that goes wrong in his? I guess he won't be, and since BG is so objective, we get to watch him spend the next few years arguing just that.BG, you're right that I should spend more of my life in here. Point taken.It's this very argument -- that Bush is responsible for nothing -- that is costing Republicans credibility. The country is NOT better off today than it was eight years ago. Virtually anybody with eyes can see that, including Democratic partisans, the swing voters who supported Bush last time and Obama this time (oh, those voters -- so wise in your view four years ago, so foolish today), non-voters, and several thousand Republican voters who crossed party lines. So when we see the remaining 20% of hardcore Republican partisans waste time continuing to polish his turd of a presidency rather than offer ideas beyond tax cuts for themselves, it leaves us thinking they have nothing to offer but repeated attempts to piss in voters' mouths and tell them it's raining gold.I probably am naive, because despite my entire life as a voter, I still believe that Republicans are capable of offering good ideas. I'd like to hear them someday.I'm perfectly willing to take ownership of what happens over the next eight years. But it's time for you to take ownership of the last eight, instead of saying Bush was a genius, but responsible for nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And if Bush is responsible for nothing that went wrong during his tenure, how could Obama possibly be responsible for anything that goes wrong in his? I guess he won't be, and since BG is so objective, we get to watch him spend the next few years arguing just that.BG, you're right that I should spend more of my life in here. Point taken.It's this very argument -- that Bush is responsible for nothing -- that is costing Republicans credibility. The country is NOT better off today than it was eight years ago. Virtually anybody with eyes can see that, including Democratic partisans, the swing voters who supported Bush last time and Obama this time (oh, those voters -- so wise in your view four years ago, so foolish today), non-voters, and several thousand Republican voters who crossed party lines. So when we see the remaining 20% of hardcore Republican partisans waste time continuing to polish his turd of a presidency rather than offer ideas beyond tax cuts for themselves, it leaves us thinking they have nothing to offer but repeated attempts to piss in voters' mouths and tell them it's raining gold.I probably am naive, because despite my entire life as a voter, I still believe that Republicans are capable of offering good ideas. I'd like to hear them someday.I'm perfectly willing to take ownership of what happens over the next eight years. But it's time for you to take ownership of the last eight, instead of saying Bush was a genius, but responsible for nothing.
No, you had it, you're naive. Ignore the fact that Democrats unanimously supported the war, as a matter of fact ignore all of the statements in the late 90's made by various Dems, recorded testimony that Saddam had WMD's and needed to be taken out in some manner. Ignore it- it never happened. Ignore the fact that Clinton passed on taking out Bin Laden 4 times, officially documented, took a pass. Just ignore it, never happened. Ignore the fact that this helped to lead to 9/11, and Bush had to deal with that mess, right off the bat- it never happened. Ignore the fact that we had 6 years of incredible prosperity under Bush- it never happened- despite the war. THIS NEVER HAPPENED. Ignore the fact that Obama became wealthy during those 6 crap years of awful economic prosperity. Ignore it. Ignore the fact that much of that prosperity was built off of dangerous legislation designed and implemented by Democrats, and when approached repeatedly by Bush they refused to listen or deal with it. Repeatedly. IGNORE IT, it never happened. I could do this for hours. Hours, and it wouldn't mean shit, because so many people are so blinded by what they think they know from what they hear from the MSM they will never, ever be able to see truth. Ever. You're incapable. I would say it's sad but truthfully I could not care less- wallow in it. It makes you that much easier to slaughter after the U.S. allows itself to be subjected with your spineless bullshit for 4 years here and there, and it's reminded,"Oh, yeah, they are terrible at this. Time to get back to real business."
Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore the fact democrat backed "community reinvestment act" started under carter, super charged in the clinton administration forced banks into making risky loans... This bubbled up and over during the last term of Bush...But I supposed it is Bush's fault per usual

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...