Let me see if I have this right.

[rightwinger]

Bush put us into not one, but two unwinnable situations

The top exit strategy in both cases was a draw. But to get that draw means we have to keep our troops on the ground indefinitely. Neither region is historically stable. The naive concept of sending the Army, overthrowing the government and having the people happily embrace democracy while singing the praises of the US never had a prayer.

We must choose a point in time where we declare victory and just go home. Both countries will go into eventual civil war but that was the inevitable outcome anyway.

Except we won in Iraq, you dumb ass. And we could solve a few problems in Afghanistan as well if we had the right Leader. If more troops are needed make the fucking Europeans send more troops and then make Countries like France use their troops to fight.

Ohhhhh....we WON Iraq

I remember, Mission Accomplished and all that. I must have missed the parade

We have not won anything yet pal, We have pulled our troops back from the hot zones. Iraqis are still being killed every day. The internal conflicts are still there. Once we pull out, all hell will break out.

Right leader for Afghanistan? You mean like one who pulls out just as we are stabilizing the country in order to attack a country that is not a threat? You mean one who allowed the Taliban to come back and take back most of the country our Army had fought to control?

 

[Care4all]

We won most of the unprecedented oil contracts with iraq, so we did win something....

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

When Bush doubled the deficit in 8 years that was BAD. Obama doubling the new already doubled deficit in 4 years is GOOD.

When Bush agreed to help push for bailing out the banks, that was BAD. Obama creating a bailout for Car companies and not letting anyone read the bill, was GOOD.

When Bush supported the Afghan war that was BAD. When Obama supports the Afghan war, that is GOOD.

When Bush was President and the unemployment rate went to 7 percent, that was BAD. Obama is President, promised it would not pass 8 percent if his stimulus was passed, it is now almost 10 percent and still climbing and that is GOOD.

When Bush was President, giving loans to people that could not pay them back was BAD. ( even though he had nothing to do with it) Obama is President and supports the continued giving of loans to the same people that can not pay the loans back and that is GOOD.

When Bush was President demanding Iran fess up and be stopped from building nukes was BAD. Obama is President and threatens Iran and that is GOOD.

When Bush was President, any domestic terrorists caught were all set up by the Government. Obama is now President and all domestic terrorists are REALLY terrorists. Including people that are not even terrorists, like military veterans, abortion protesters, people that believe in God and being armed and are republican. Anyone that disagrees with Obama on any issue.

When Bush was President indefinite detention of Terror suspects was BAD, Unconstitutional and illegal. Now that Obama is President holding them indefinitely is GOOD. Using, I might add , Congressional Authority passed under Bush when the left said it was BAD.

Under Bush 55 Republican Senators had total control, according to the left, of the Senate. Under Obama the democrats have 58 Democratic Senators, 2 Independents that vote with the Democrats and up to 6 Republicans that will usually vote with the democrats, but the Republicans are blocking all legislation.

Under Obama 265 Democratic House of Representative members are opposed by 170 Republican members. It only takes 218 votes to pass anything in the house, yet the Republicans are blocking all important legislation in the House.

Under Bush Iraq was lost, no chance to ever leave, a quagmire, Under Obama Iraq is a stable Country able to actually preform its own security both internal and on the Borders. Never mind that all the developments that lead to this occurred under Bush's watch.

Under Bush, sending more troops to Afghanistan was the worst idea ever floated. Under Obam not only have thousands more troops been sent, but even more are being asked for and this is GOOD.

I wonder what I have missed?

Change you can believe in.

Yeah Gunny... that pretty well sums the hyocrisy... great OP and SPOT ON!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Bush put us into not one, but two unwinnable situations

The top exit strategy in both cases was a draw. But to get that draw means we have to keep our troops on the ground indefinitely. Neither region is historically stable. The naive concept of sending the Army, overthrowing the government and having the people happily embrace democracy while singing the praises of the US never had a prayer.

We must choose a point in time where we declare victory and just go home. Both countries will go into eventual civil war but that was the inevitable outcome anyway.

Except we won in Iraq, you dumb ass. And we could solve a few problems in Afghanistan as well if we had the right Leader. If more troops are needed make the fucking Europeans send more troops and then make Countries like France use their troops to fight.

Ohhhhh....we WON Iraq

I remember, Mission Accomplished and all that. I must have missed the parade

So you're saying that the Mission wasn't accomplished?

Well that IS news... as that would mean that President Hussein (of Iraq... not the US) remains in power to undermine the Middle East, promote terrorism against the US, her interests and allies and was NOT removed from power, his command and control of his military crushed and forced to flee to a hovel along the Eurprates... where he was later found cowering in a hole in the ground?

Tell us Einstien... what color is the sky in your world?

We have not won anything yet pal,

No? Well that TOO is interesting... because the last time I checked Iraq was operating on the Constitution that it's own freely elected government created...

I suppose we're now responsible for that government as it ebbs and flows for the rest of time; where any conclusion as to pass/fail must be placed on hold until you decide sufficient evidence is on the table...

ROFL...

We have pulled our troops back from the hot zones. Iraqis are still being killed every day. The internal conflicts are still there. Once we pull out, all hell will break out.

Golly... isn't that just AWFUL? Ever been to Detroit or Compton?

Using your reasoning, the US is not a success because 'US citizens are still being killed... and if the Cops pull out... ALL HELL WILL BE BREAKING LOOSE...

Right leader for Afghanistan? You mean like one who pulls out just as we are stabilizing the country in order to attack a country that is not a threat? You mean one who allowed the Taliban to come back and take back most of the country our Army had fought to control?

So the Left's rationalization now states that Bush "Pulled out of Afghanistan"...

ROFLMNAO...

Isn't it adorable when the idiots try to think?

 

[rdean]

When Bush doubled the deficit in 8 years that was BAD. Obama doubling the new already doubled deficit in 4 years is GOOD.

When Bush agreed to help push for bailing out the banks, that was BAD. Obama creating a bailout for Car companies and not letting anyone read the bill, was GOOD.

When Bush supported the Afghan war that was BAD. When Obama supports the Afghan war, that is GOOD.

When Bush was President and the unemployment rate went to 7 percent, that was BAD. Obama is President, promised it would not pass 8 percent if his stimulus was passed, it is now almost 10 percent and still climbing and that is GOOD.

When Bush was President, giving loans to people that could not pay them back was BAD. ( even though he had nothing to do with it) Obama is President and supports the continued giving of loans to the same people that can not pay the loans back and that is GOOD.

When Bush was President demanding Iran fess up and be stopped from building nukes was BAD. Obama is President and threatens Iran and that is GOOD.

When Bush was President, any domestic terrorists caught were all set up by the Government. Obama is now President and all domestic terrorists are REALLY terrorists. Including people that are not even terrorists, like military veterans, abortion protesters, people that believe in God and being armed and are republican. Anyone that disagrees with Obama on any issue.

When Bush was President indefinite detention of Terror suspects was BAD, Unconstitutional and illegal. Now that Obama is President holding them indefinitely is GOOD. Using, I might add , Congressional Authority passed under Bush when the left said it was BAD.

Under Bush 55 Republican Senators had total control, according to the left, of the Senate. Under Obama the democrats have 58 Democratic Senators, 2 Independents that vote with the Democrats and up to 6 Republicans that will usually vote with the democrats, but the Republicans are blocking all legislation.

Under Obama 265 Democratic House of Representative members are opposed by 170 Republican members. It only takes 218 votes to pass anything in the house, yet the Republicans are blocking all important legislation in the House.

Under Bush Iraq was lost, no chance to ever leave, a quagmire, Under Obama Iraq is a stable Country able to actually preform its own security both internal and on the Borders. Never mind that all the developments that lead to this occurred under Bush's watch.

Under Bush, sending more troops to Afghanistan was the worst idea ever floated. Under Obam not only have thousands more troops been sent, but even more are being asked for and this is GOOD.

I wonder what I have missed?

Change you can believe in.

Wow, how misleading and partison. So much is dumb, but I will respond to a few things. Bush did more than double the deficit. Not once did Bush include the cost of the war in his budget. How he was able to get away with that, I'll never know. Guess we ask the Republicans.

Bush NEVER supported the Afgan war, he invaded Iraq instead. He only sent a "token" to Afghanistan.

"Obama is President, promised it would not pass 8 percent if his stimulus was passed" - do you have a link to that?

"supports the continued giving of loans to the same people that can not pay the loans" - I know for a fact that at least 15 billion in interest has been paid "in just intertest" on loans paid back. There is always risk in loans. Who are these people that can't pay back. Only about 480 billion of the stimulus has been paid out.

"but the Republicans are blocking all legislation." - who said that? Remember, Republicans are basicly one race, one religion and vote virtually in lockstep. Democrats are a coalition. They have to work things out.

"Iraq is a stable Country able to actually preform its own security" - that's a joke right? Iraq is now a theocratic right wing Islamic country by constitution. Women are now second class citizens who need a male relative with them to go anywhere. The Christian religion, which numbered upwards 1.4 MILLION is now probably less than 500,000 and most of them live in armed camps with no electricity. Iraq is a mess. If they destroyed their own Christians, why would anyone believe they would be friends with us. It's crazy. Got shoes?

"thousands more troops been sent, but even more are being asked for" - troops that should have been in Afghanistan to begin with. Worse, Obama is taking a hard look at the mess he was left with. Our military is devestad and we don't have the money to rebuild it because of the economy left him by the Republicans.

I wonder what I have missed? - the Boat, obviously. It amazes me how Republicans can rewrite history. They see only what they want to see and take responsibility for nothing.

 

[REVxERIK]

i winder if people realize congress makes budget decisions

 

[rightwinger]

So you're saying that the Mission wasn't accomplished?

Well that IS news... as that would mean that President Hussein (of Iraq... not the US) remains in power to undermine the Middle East, promote terrorism against the US, her interests and allies and was NOT removed from power, his command and control of his military crushed and forced to flee to a hovel along the Eurprates... where he was later found cowering in a hole in the ground?

Tell us Einstien... what color is the sky in your world?

Oh...so now the mission has once again been redifined to remove Saddam from power? What ever happened to the mission to find WMDs? Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. Bush invented imaginary WMDs and ignored all evidence indicating there were none. If the mission were to remove Saddam, why are we still there?

No? Well that TOO is interesting... because the last time I checked Iraq was operating on it's the Constitution that it's own freely elected government created...

I suppose we're now responsible for that government as it ebbs and flows for the rest of time; where any conclusion as to pass/fail must be placed on hold until you decide sufficient evidence is on the table...

Iraq is operating on its own with a massive military presence and $2 Billion US dollars a week. Unfortunately, thanks to President Bush, we are responsible for proping up that government. The US can't afford healthcare for its own people, but can afford to deploy US Troops to eliminate an non-threat and prop up a token government

Golly... isn't that just AWFUL? Ever been to Detroit or Compton?

Using your reasoning, the US is not a success because 'US citizens are still being killed... and if the Cops pull out... ALL HELL WILL BE BREAKING LOOSE...

I haven't seen IED or random marketplace bombings in Detroit or Compton. There is quite a differenc in keeping the peace in a US city and keeping the peace in an unsympathetic country on the other side of the globe

So the Left's rationalization now states that Bush "Pulled out of Afghanistan"...

ROFLMNAO...

Isn't it adorable when the idiots try to think?

Bush took his eye off the ball in Aghanistan and allowed the Taliban to reestablish itself. His claim that he could fight both wars at once was proven wrong.

 

[HUGGY]

We won most of the unprecedented oil contracts with iraq, so we did win something....

What's this "we" shit. Those multi national oil corps?

 

[txlonghorn]

It amazes me how Republicans can rewrite history. They see only what they want to see and take responsibility for nothing.

Wow...now THAT is what I call hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

[Wicked Jester]

We won most of the unprecedented oil contracts with iraq, so we did win something....

Yeah, thats why we're paying these amazingly low gas prices.
Christ, liberals are friggin' idiots!

 

[HUGGY]

We won most of the unprecedented oil contracts with iraq, so we did win something....

Yeah, thats why we're paying these amazingly low gas prices.
Christ, liberals are friggin' idiots!

We get roughly 3-4 per cent of our oil from Iraq. Was that worth 5,000 american and a million Iraqi lives?

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

 

[Si modo]

Oh...so now the mission has once again been redifined to remove Saddam from power? ....

Redefined? Source of what YOU think the mission was right before GWB's appearance on the ship.

Source?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

When Bush doubled the deficit in 8 years that was BAD. Obama doubling the new already doubled deficit in 4 years is GOOD.

When Bush agreed to help push for bailing out the banks, that was BAD. Obama creating a bailout for Car companies and not letting anyone read the bill, was GOOD.

When Bush supported the Afghan war that was BAD. When Obama supports the Afghan war, that is GOOD.

When Bush was President and the unemployment rate went to 7 percent, that was BAD. Obama is President, promised it would not pass 8 percent if his stimulus was passed, it is now almost 10 percent and still climbing and that is GOOD.

When Bush was President, giving loans to people that could not pay them back was BAD. ( even though he had nothing to do with it) Obama is President and supports the continued giving of loans to the same people that can not pay the loans back and that is GOOD.

When Bush was President demanding Iran fess up and be stopped from building nukes was BAD. Obama is President and threatens Iran and that is GOOD.

When Bush was President, any domestic terrorists caught were all set up by the Government. Obama is now President and all domestic terrorists are REALLY terrorists. Including people that are not even terrorists, like military veterans, abortion protesters, people that believe in God and being armed and are republican. Anyone that disagrees with Obama on any issue.

When Bush was President indefinite detention of Terror suspects was BAD, Unconstitutional and illegal. Now that Obama is President holding them indefinitely is GOOD. Using, I might add , Congressional Authority passed under Bush when the left said it was BAD.

Under Bush 55 Republican Senators had total control, according to the left, of the Senate. Under Obama the democrats have 58 Democratic Senators, 2 Independents that vote with the Democrats and up to 6 Republicans that will usually vote with the democrats, but the Republicans are blocking all legislation.

Under Obama 265 Democratic House of Representative members are opposed by 170 Republican members. It only takes 218 votes to pass anything in the house, yet the Republicans are blocking all important legislation in the House.

Under Bush Iraq was lost, no chance to ever leave, a quagmire, Under Obama Iraq is a stable Country able to actually preform its own security both internal and on the Borders. Never mind that all the developments that lead to this occurred under Bush's watch.

Under Bush, sending more troops to Afghanistan was the worst idea ever floated. Under Obam not only have thousands more troops been sent, but even more are being asked for and this is GOOD.

I wonder what I have missed?

Change you can believe in.

Bush did more than double the deficit.

And this is based upon what? Be specific...

Not once did Bush include the cost of the war in his budget. How he was able to get away with that, I'll never know. Guess we ask the Republicans.

Wars are not budget items... DUMBASS! How does one budget for a war?

Bush NEVER supported the Afgan war, he invaded Iraq instead. He only sent a "token" to Afghanistan.

Now would those be the token troops that destroyed the Taliban government of Afghanistan and provide for the free Afghani elections of their own government?

Which to be fair, seemed like plenty... given the goal of that 'token force' was to destroy the Taliben Government of Afghanistan and provide for the free elections...

"Obama is President, promised it would not pass 8 percent if his stimulus was passed" - do you have a link to that?

Oh looky there... the projection that such did not happen, and which when a link is produced which validates the assertion, will not provide the least amount of influence...

White House defends stimulus despite rising unemployment - TheHill.com

"supports the continued giving of loans to the same people that can not pay the loans" - I know for a fact that at least 15 billion in interest has been paid "in just intertest" on loans paid back. There is always risk in loans. Who are these people that can't pay back. Only about 480 billion of the stimulus has been paid out.

Yeah... the problem is the Leftist policy which requires banks to set aside sound acturaial lending policies and give loans to those who would otherwise be denied those loans based upon those long standing actuarial policies... and this in the name of 'fairness'...

Such was the basis for the economic meltdown, which we're all now suffering.

"but the Republicans are blocking all legislation." - who said that? Remember, Republicans are basicly one race, one religion and vote virtually in lockstep. Democrats are a coalition. They have to work things out.

ROFLMNAO... The Democrats presently hold super-majorities in both houses of congress... meaning that they do not need any Republican votes to pass anything... thus it is impossible for "Republicans" to block anything... the point was that the widely used phrase is a lie... a tactic which is common to the coalition of the deceptive cultural infection known as anti-American Leftism (pardon the redundancy... but such was necessary to the point...)

"Iraq is a stable Country able to actually preform its own security" - that's a joke right? Iraq is now a theocratic right wing Islamic country by constitution. Women are now second class citizens who need a male relative with them to go anywhere. The Christian religion, which numbered upwards 1.4 MILLION is now probably less than 500,000 and most of them live in armed camps with no electricity. Iraq is a mess. If they destroyed their own Christians, why would anyone believe they would be friends with us. It's crazy. Got shoes?

There is nothing 'rightwing' about a theocracy... It's just that as a humanist, you feel that theology stands against your beliefs... thus you attribute such as being antithetical to your ideology. In truth, Islam is Socialist in nature; operating on the sense of tribal collectivism... and Islamic theology stands distinct from Secular-humanism only in the labels which it provides to it's distinct sacred cows.

Islam, like secular humanism provides for a tiny majority of 'truth knowers' which inform the population of what is best for them, based upon a series of tenets which can only be divined by the high holies of the faith... One example would be the Humanist decree that 'everyone is entitled to healthcare...' there is no sustaining principle which would support this... it requires tyrannical control to implement and must be taken at face value; as any discussion of such immediately exposes the would-be truth as a lie of the damanable variety...

"thousands more troops been sent, but even more are being asked for" - troops that should have been in Afghanistan to begin with. Worse, Obama is taking a hard look at the mess he was left with. Our military is devestad and we don't have the money to rebuild it because of the economy left him by the Republicans.

ROFL... So in one breath you harken back to the Leftist LIE that "Afghanistan is the war of necessity" capping it off with the predicted juicy rationalization which serves as the means to lose that war of necessity...

Idiots...

I wonder what I have missed? ...

Well that's a long list indeed... but the relevant thing that you've missed here; is just the point... that's all.

 

[rightwinger]

Redefined? Source of what YOU think the mission was right before GWB's appearance on the ship.

The war was sold on the pretext that WMDs were an immediate threat

Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed an imminent threat to their security and that of their coalition allies.[51][52][53] United Nations weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD.[54][55][56][57] At the time Hans Blix, the lead weapons inspector, advised the UN Security Council that Iraq was cooperating with inspections and that the confirmation of disarmament through inspections could be achieved within "months"[54] if Iraq remained cooperative[58]. Nevertheless, the US government announced that "diplomacy has failed"[59], abruptly advised the UN weapons inspectors to immediately pull out of Iraq[60] and decided to wage war on Iraq.

After the invasion, the US-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion,



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So you're saying that the Mission wasn't accomplished?

Well that IS news... as that would mean that President Hussein (of Iraq... not the US) remains in power to undermine the Middle East, promote terrorism against the US, her interests and allies and was NOT removed from power, his command and control of his military crushed and forced to flee to a hovel along the Eurprates... where he was later found cowering in a hole in the ground?

Tell us Einstien... what color is the sky in your world?

Oh...so now the mission has once again been redifined to remove Saddam from power?

No? Well that TOO is interesting... because the last time I checked Iraq was operating on it's the Constitution that it's own freely elected government created...

I suppose we're now responsible for that government as it ebbs and flows for the rest of time; where any conclusion as to pass/fail must be placed on hold until you decide sufficient evidence is on the table...

Iraq is operating on its own with a massive military presence and $2 Billion US dollars a week. Unfortunately, thanks to President Bush, we are responsible for proping up that government. The US can't afford healthcare for its own people, but can afford to deploy US Troops to eliminate an non-threat and prop up a token government

Golly... isn't that just AWFUL? Ever been to Detroit or Compton?

Nothing 're' about it shortshank... that was the mission. that you want to deny it, is irrelevant.

Using your reasoning, the US is not a success because 'US citizens are still being killed... and if the Cops pull out... ALL HELL WILL BE BREAKING LOOSE...

I haven't seen IED or random marketplace bombings in Detroit or Compton. There is quite a differenc in keeping the peace in a US city and keeping the peace in an unsympathetic country on the other side of the globe

ROFL... Oh so the technique of the wholesale violence is critical here is it?

LOL... hysterical...

So the Left's rationalization now states that Bush "Pulled out of Afghanistan"...

ROFLMNAO...

Isn't it adorable when the idiots try to think?

Bush took his eye off the ball in Aghanistan and allowed the Taliban to reestablish itself. His claim that he could fight both wars at once was proven wrong.

Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan? ROFLMNAO...

Let's see... now Bush sent a few thousands USSO into Afghanistan... destroyed the Taliban government, replaced that government with a freely elected government and maintained that government against the Talibans attempt to return to government... beyond that he eviscerated Al qaeda in Afghnaistan and chased Osama into hiding...

What would YOU have done differently? and BE SPECIFIC....

 

[Si modo]

Oh...so now the mission has once again been redifined to remove Saddam from power? ....

Redefined? Source of what YOU think the mission was right before GWB's appearance on the ship.

Source?

The war was sold on the pretext that WMDs were an immediate threat. ....

I asked for a source on the MISSION prior to GWB's appearance on the ship. Source?

 

[rightwinger]

Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan? ROFLMNAO...

Let's see... now Bush sent a few thousands USSO into Afghanistan... destroyed the Taliban government, replaced that government with a freely elected government and maintained that government against the Talibans attempt to return to government... beyond that he eviscerated Al qaeda in Afghnaistan and chased Osama into hiding...

What would YOU have done differently? and BE SPECIFIC....

Thanks for asking.

What I would have done differently was I would not have engaged Iraq at that time. Iraq was contained and was not an immediate threat to anyone. More importantly, the US needed to remain focused on the Global War on Terror. I would have maintained focus on Tora Bora while that was the crucial conflict in the war. Cutting off the escape of Taliban and Al Qaeda was critical to the success of the mission. That mission was botched. I would not have pulled troops and more importantly, US Intelligence forces from Afghanistan.
The US needed to maintain its troop strength in Afghanistan. The result of Bush pulling back was to allow the Taliban to regroup and regain strength in the provinces. It is demoralizing to capture territory only to relinquish it through lack of interest.

Afghanistan was the cornerstone of the war on terror not Iraq. Bush dropped the ball and now President Obama needs to reestablish what should have been solidified five years ago.

 

[Si modo]

Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan? ROFLMNAO...

Let's see... now Bush sent a few thousands USSO into Afghanistan... destroyed the Taliban government, replaced that government with a freely elected government and maintained that government against the Talibans attempt to return to government... beyond that he eviscerated Al qaeda in Afghnaistan and chased Osama into hiding...

What would YOU have done differently? and BE SPECIFIC....

Thanks for asking.

What I would have done differently was I would not have engaged Iraq at that time. Iraq was contained and was not an immediate threat to anyone. More importantly, the US needed to remain focused on the Global War on Terror. I would have maintained focus on Tora Bora while that was the crucial conflict in the war. Cutting off the escape of Taliban and Al Qaeda was critical to the success of the mission. That mission was botched. I would not have pulled troops and more importantly, US Intelligence forces from Afghanistan.
The US needed to maintain its troop strength in Afghanistan. The result of Bush pulling back was to allow the Taliban to regroup and regain strength in the provinces. It is demoralizing to capture territory only to relinquish it through lack of interest.

Afghanistan was the cornerstone of the war on terror not Iraq. Bush dropped the ball and now President Obama needs to reestablish what should have been solidified five years ago.

As Tora Bora was in 2001, that has nothing to do with Iraq.

 

[Wicked Jester]

We won most of the unprecedented oil contracts with iraq, so we did win something....

Yeah, thats why we're paying these amazingly low gas prices.
Christ, liberals are friggin' idiots!

We get roughly 3-4 per cent of our oil from Iraq. Was that worth 5,000 american and a million Iraqi lives?

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

That's the point, dumbass. If the war was all about oil, we'd be TAKING ALL OF IT!
And, where do you get a "million Iraqi lives" numbers from?
Seriously, you're not very bright!

 

[rightwinger]

Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan? ROFLMNAO...

Let's see... now Bush sent a few thousands USSO into Afghanistan... destroyed the Taliban government, replaced that government with a freely elected government and maintained that government against the Talibans attempt to return to government... beyond that he eviscerated Al qaeda in Afghnaistan and chased Osama into hiding...

What would YOU have done differently? and BE SPECIFIC....

Thanks for asking.

What I would have done differently was I would not have engaged Iraq at that time. Iraq was contained and was not an immediate threat to anyone. More importantly, the US needed to remain focused on the Global War on Terror. I would have maintained focus on Tora Bora while that was the crucial conflict in the war. Cutting off the escape of Taliban and Al Qaeda was critical to the success of the mission. That mission was botched. I would not have pulled troops and more importantly, US Intelligence forces from Afghanistan.
The US needed to maintain its troop strength in Afghanistan. The result of Bush pulling back was to allow the Taliban to regroup and regain strength in the provinces. It is demoralizing to capture territory only to relinquish it through lack of interest.

Afghanistan was the cornerstone of the war on terror not Iraq. Bush dropped the ball and now President Obama needs to reestablish what should have been solidified five years ago.

As Tora Bora was in 2001, that has nothing to do with Iraq.

No Shit!

Nothing having impact on the War on Terror had anything to do with Iraq.