The Bush legacy

[kaz]

And you have several assholes. Bush was and will remain a terrible president.

You and W are both tax and spend liberals, you should like him.

You are just a stupid reactionary outlier, whose opinion is worthless and inaccurate.

Move along.

I am a reactionary, I want to return to the time where we actually followed the Constitution. And proudly so.

 

[Surfer]

They all had their good and bad but Obama is mostly bad.

 

[kaz]

Couple of points here Kaz:

1) Post how you know I "think Obama is one of the greatest in our history", I don't.

Just going by your endless repeating of his points. If you're saying you do that but don't think he's that great anyway I'm fine with that. If you're denying you carry his flag, believe what you want.

2) How do you comport the Foreign and Domestic policies of Bush and Obama?

Bush was an embarrassment on the world stage (and it didn't take a critical mind for that to be apparent), Obama and Hillary mended fences with friends and opened the door of communication to non friends.

Bush was an embarrassment to the International Left, but frankly he had more friends in the world that Obama does. None of this is relevant as I am not referring to perception, I'm referring to results, which you gave zero in favor of Obama.

Bush failed to partially privatize Social Security, Obama was successful in reforming health care.

Doesn't matter what either of them "failed" to do, it's what they did that was the same. I said other than Obamacare. You can believe it's reform if you want to be delusional, but Bush was no friend of freedom in healthcare or anything else either.

Bush invaded and occupied Iraq with a coalition of the willing (Only Great Britain provided more than a handful of personnel) and Obama ended the fiasco in Iraq.

Obama followed Bush's plan and timeline, this is an example of how you delude yourself into thinking they are different.

Bush cut brush and read my Pet Goat in the months and days before 9-11; Obama went to work on day one to fix the Bush Great Recession.

Obama took longer to "fix" the recession than any other in modern history. He'd have done better doing nothing. And my point is their policies are the same, you didn't identify any.

Obama built and repaired bridges and roadways with a stimulus act; Bush destroyed a nation and the lives of tens of thousands of Americans by engaging in a war of choice.

Both were behind the massive, job killing, economy destroying monstrosity of TARP, no difference.

Not all of the stimulus dollars have been spent, we will continue to pay for Iraq until the last wounded warrior dies sometime late in this century.

BTW, a critical thinker doesn't simply parrot the company line.

Then stop doing it, you pointed to nothing that contradicted me.

Anyway, I'm off to vacation my friend, then I have some work to do in my real job. Probably won't be back for a few months, but I will check quotes if you want to continue the debate then. Take care.

- kaz

 

[GWV5903]

That's about right

Bush was the decider. He made the decision without investigating all possible information. His impulsive decision cost 6000 American lives

Yeah, he did it all by himself, no one else believed it...(God Your A ******* Moron)

Yes, as Commander in Chief, he did it all by himself. It was his decision to invade despite advise not to do so

Stick to sewer work, everything else is above your pay grade...

 

[GWV5903]

I don't believe invading Iraq kept us safe. Saddam had been contained for ten years and had not killed a single American

I intentionally left off the Afghanistan casualties because I think they actually involved fighting terrorism

So the Al Qaeda in Iraq along with all the other terror groups that was THE fight in Iraq do not count?
First of all, there simply was no significant difference between the position the Bush administration had on Iraq’s WMD and the position held by prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, or John Kerry. In short, the overwhelming majority of Democrats & Republicans in Washington believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Secondly, given the size of Iraq and the fact that Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian regime was not cooperating with the UN inspectors, there was no way, even had they been there for a hundred years, that Hans Blix and the rest of the UN inspectors could have confirmed to anyone’s satisfaction that Iraq was not producing WMD. Even a year after the war, when our inspectors have had the run of the country, access to “secret documents”, and have been able to interview Iraqi scientists without Saddam’s”minders” being present, our WMD teams have still not been able to definitively say there are no remaining stockpiles of weapons in Iraq although we certainly suspect that to be the case.

Third, it isn’t as if our intelligence agencies and the politicians citing them were totally wrong about WMDs and Iraq. As David Kay revealed, Iraqi scientists were working on weaponizing anthrax “right up until the end” and had restarted a rudimentary nuclear weapons program in 2000 & 2001. Furthermore, Kay said,

“Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons.”
Why We Invaded Iraq | Right Wing News

The UN said not to invade......they were ignored

The UN was right

Yeah they where right, Saddam needed to keep brutalizing his country...

The Middle Eastern Society is so well rounded, beheadings, stoning's, I mean they treat their women so good, is that what you meant about the UN being right????

Stick to sewer work...

 

[GWV5903]

Well so far the historians and presidential experts have rated Bush as America's fifth worst president. But new ratings come out every few years so Republicans should take heart. It is possible that Bush may climb to sixth worst American president in a few years. Then again, maybe fourth worst?

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one...

And you have several assholes. Bush was and will remain a terrible president.

You mean there is more than one Starkey? I thought they broke the mold once you were born...

 

[Unkotare]

That's the dumbest and most dishonest post I've seen all week.

How so?

The idea that because we have a volunteer military that makes it okay for some president to flush their lives down the toilet in some unnecessary war is idiocy.

Your opinion on the war aside, that is not what the poster said.

 

[Stephanie]

Yes, the Commander in Chief who first put them in harm's way.

If they were not there in the first place, would they be dead/maimed?

Not expecting a straight answer.
.

Because the premise is stupid, that's why.
Our Constitution has in it many passages where the federal government is charged with the duty of providing a national defense.
In the US, there is not conscription. That means service to the country's national defense is voluntary. These fine men and women choose to commit to service to their country.
Over the course of our history, it sometimes becomes necessary to deploy our military personnel in harms way.
It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize with impunity.
Think about THAT.

And those volunteer soldiers put a sacred trust in the president......their very lives

That is why it is critical for a President to investigate all available options before putting them in harms way

like Obama has? how many of our military has died under him while he kept them in Iraq and Afghanistan? He is the frikken Comander in Chief or is these military deaths not his fault also?

 

[healthmyths]

Bush did not invade Iraq in violation of UN directives.

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by Iraqi troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

That's the UN resolution.

obama on the other hand is arming al quaeda and supporting cannibals and child killers.

This is what obama wants to give weapons to, at the same time he criminalizes self defense at home.

Syria: 'I saw rebels execute my boy for no more than a joke? - Telegraph

Obama's no prize, I'll give you that. This is what we get stuck with every four years. Hold your nose and vote for which one you think is the least worst. Get money out of politics, taxpayer funded elections only. Keep the big money interests out of elections.

So where do you get your news? It appears you get almost all your information from the MSM right? You believe everything CBS,ABC,NBC NYT put out 100% right?

So if you believe they are correct in the information they put out you tend to form your opinions BASED on that information right?

What if I told you the 85% of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC or 1,160 contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

Do you think those above ABC,CBS,NBC executives,etc. are really dumb?
Do you think they produce news stories that would do :
A) More damage to the Democrats or
B) More damage to the GOP?
If 85% of CHOSE to donate to Democrats/Obama do you really think "journalistic integrity" provided "fair and balanced news"?
Especially when these same donors delivered 7 out of 10 stories being NEGATIVE for Romney in the 2012 campaign?
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

There is no way Obama as a GOP would get away with:
1) While pictured in the Situation Room was no where to be found the night of Benghazi... but the next morning boarding AF1 for a political campaign!
2) NO GOP could ever say as Obama: " I'd like higher gas prices, just not so quickly"
SOURCE: LiveLeak.com - Obama: Id like higher gas prices, just not so quickly
without the MSM badgering the GOP person who said that!
By the way Obama got his wish... At of Bush gas was $1.45 a gallon Today it is $3.88 a gallon!

Obama: “Under my plan....electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

In one interview he said, "If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because
they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

These and more harmful destructive quotes and ACTIONS if said by a GOP would be nightly news head line stories!
Yet we hear /read nothing about that!

 

[Mustang]

In Greek mythology, the Phoenix rose from the ashes. However, if conservatives think that they can rebuild Bush's reputation by stringing together a bunch of opinion pieces which overemphasize his accomplishments while minimizing his shortcoming, they're delusional. The best chance of that ever happening is after everyone is dead who was alive while Bush was president. So, my best advice is to try again in about 70 years. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In Greek mythology, the Phoenix rose from the ashes. However, if conservatives think that they can rebuild Bush's reputation by stringing together a bunch of opinion pieces which overemphasize his accomplishments while minimizing his shortcoming, they're delusional. The best chance of that ever happening is after everyone is dead who was alive while Bush was president. So, my best advice is to try again in about 70 years. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time.

True.

And whether it’s 70 years or 700 years, the Bush Legacy will be accurately perceived as one of failure and corruption:

Two failed, illegal wars

A Federal surplus squandered

Massive deficits created

The size and power of government expanded

DOJ politicized

American intelligence operations and operatives endangered and undermined

“Axis of Evil” and other foreign policy failures

…to note but a few.

 

[rightwinger]

who said this on Jan 23,2003
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real "
Bush? Cheney?

Who said this in 2002? "Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs." "Bush/Cheney"

Who said:
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001

All made these statements BEFORE before Bush/Cheney!

Oh and Kerry and henry waxman said the first two quotes!!!

Did either one advocate immediate invasion?

Well let's see..
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real "

Did you naively think that after dozens of UN resolutions, gassing his own people, starving 50,000 of his people a year.. he would say
"OH so sorry Mr. Bush... HERE we will disarm!"

IF KERRY the so-called war veteran had ANY experiences it was HE KNEW YOU CAN"T DISARM SOMEONE LIKE SADDAM WITH "Pretty please"..
The only way to disarm someone like Saddam was force!
And again... YOU keep forgetting the 1991 CEASE FIRE stipulated "CEASE FIRE" meaning if Saddam agreed to terms, a CEASE FIRE... BUT part of the terms
was Saddam had to abide by the terms! Or else...little school kid who obviously never dealt with nefarious adults... HE WOULD DO what he did... ignore the warnings... the resolutions and I along with 90% of Americans were pretty pissed when Saddam gleefully celebrated our 9/11 tragedy! Clapping as he did at the deaths just didn't seem
to indicate HE would if GWB said "pretty please" disarm???
How naive!

I'm sorry....but in none of your quotes do I see anyone advocating that we invade and take over the country

That was Bush's solution and it didn't work.

 

[rightwinger]

Because the premise is stupid, that's why.
Our Constitution has in it many passages where the federal government is charged with the duty of providing a national defense.
In the US, there is not conscription. That means service to the country's national defense is voluntary. These fine men and women choose to commit to service to their country.
Over the course of our history, it sometimes becomes necessary to deploy our military personnel in harms way.
It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize with impunity.
Think about THAT.

And those volunteer soldiers put a sacred trust in the president......their very lives

That is why it is critical for a President to investigate all available options before putting them in harms way

like Obama has? how many of our military has died under him while he kept them in Iraq and Afghanistan? He is the frikken Comander in Chief or is these military deaths not his fault also?

Obama was dealt two major wars the minute he took office. Neither was well thought out or properly executed. While Bush had an option not to invade, Obama did not have an option of immediate withdrawal

Obama took the advice of his top military advisors on how best to resolve both conflicts and Obama was able to declare "Mission accomplished" where Bush was not

 

[rightwinger]

So the Al Qaeda in Iraq along with all the other terror groups that was THE fight in Iraq do not count?
First of all, there simply was no significant difference between the position the Bush administration had on Iraq’s WMD and the position held by prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, or John Kerry. In short, the overwhelming majority of Democrats & Republicans in Washington believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Secondly, given the size of Iraq and the fact that Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian regime was not cooperating with the UN inspectors, there was no way, even had they been there for a hundred years, that Hans Blix and the rest of the UN inspectors could have confirmed to anyone’s satisfaction that Iraq was not producing WMD. Even a year after the war, when our inspectors have had the run of the country, access to “secret documents”, and have been able to interview Iraqi scientists without Saddam’s”minders” being present, our WMD teams have still not been able to definitively say there are no remaining stockpiles of weapons in Iraq although we certainly suspect that to be the case.

Third, it isn’t as if our intelligence agencies and the politicians citing them were totally wrong about WMDs and Iraq. As David Kay revealed, Iraqi scientists were working on weaponizing anthrax “right up until the end” and had restarted a rudimentary nuclear weapons program in 2000 & 2001. Furthermore, Kay said,

“Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons.”
Why We Invaded Iraq | Right Wing News

The UN said not to invade......they were ignored

The UN was right

Yeah they where right, Saddam needed to keep brutalizing his country...

The Middle Eastern Society is so well rounded, beheadings, stoning's, I mean they treat their women so good, is that what you meant about the UN being right????

Stick to sewer work...

Not our problem. 100,000 Iraqis were killed under Bush, that is more than Saddam was killing.

Saudi Arabia is one of he leading proponent of beheadings and Bush sucked their cock after 9-11

It was not worth 6000 lives and trillions of dollars we did not have to create a banana republic

 

[Wry Catcher]

Because the premise is stupid, that's why.
Our Constitution has in it many passages where the federal government is charged with the duty of providing a national defense.
In the US, there is not conscription. That means service to the country's national defense is voluntary. These fine men and women choose to commit to service to their country.
Over the course of our history, it sometimes becomes necessary to deploy our military personnel in harms way.
It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize with impunity.
Think about THAT.

And those volunteer soldiers put a sacred trust in the president......their very lives

That is why it is critical for a President to investigate all available options before putting them in harms way

like Obama has? how many of our military has died under him while he kept them in Iraq and Afghanistan? He is the frikken Comander in Chief or is these military deaths not his fault also?

Explain how the CIC could remove the troops and all the equipment in short order? If your old enough to remember the final day in Vietnam (broadcast live on TV) you would see the result of an unplanned evacuation.


Obama has replaced troops (and the deaths and horrible wounds of combat) with drones. He is cutting of command and control of AQ without a great loss of American lives. Yet the morons on the right complain.

 

[GWV5903]

In Greek mythology, the Phoenix rose from the ashes. However, if conservatives think that they can rebuild Bush's reputation by stringing together a bunch of opinion pieces which overemphasize his accomplishments while minimizing his shortcoming, they're delusional. The best chance of that ever happening is after everyone is dead who was alive while Bush was president. So, my best advice is to try again in about 70 years. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time.

Rebuilding his reputation and interpreting reality are two different subjects, but if Greek Mythology is your reference point, nothing else needs to be said...

 

[Stephanie]

In Greek mythology, the Phoenix rose from the ashes. However, if conservatives think that they can rebuild Bush's reputation by stringing together a bunch of opinion pieces which overemphasize his accomplishments while minimizing his shortcoming, they're delusional. The best chance of that ever happening is after everyone is dead who was alive while Bush was president. So, my best advice is to try again in about 70 years. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time.

True.

And whether it’s 70 years or 700 years, the Bush Legacy will be accurately perceived as one of failure and corruption:

Two failed, illegal wars

A Federal surplus squandered

Massive deficits created

The size and power of government expanded

DOJ politicized

American intelligence operations and operatives endangered and undermined

“Axis of Evil” and other foreign policy failures

…to note but a few.

lol, ILLEGAL wars? congress APPRROVED Iraq..you all keep trying to sell this as if the Democrats didn't have anything to do it...
and all you listed can now be applied to Obama and worse with what his agencies are doing to the people in this country, damn that has to hurt

 

[Unkotare]

I'm sorry....but in none of your quotes do I see anyone advocating that we invade and take over the country

That was Bush's solution and it didn't work.

Of course it worked. Saddam is dead and Iraq is a democracy.

 

[Unkotare]

Not our problem. 100,000 Iraqis were killed under Bush, that is more than Saddam was killing.

Wrong. Not even close.



87% fewer violent deaths annually in Iraq now than under Saddam Hussein

 

[Stephanie]

I'm sorry....but in none of your quotes do I see anyone advocating that we invade and take over the country

That was Bush's solution and it didn't work.

Of course it worked. Saddam is dead and Iraq is a democracy.

It's only a good thing when Obama takes out Gaddafi with no approval from Congress and then leave the people and the country to fend the wolves off for themselves...they call him a hero