• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sarah Palin to Contribute to Fox News

Anyone that believes Bush was a great president must have eaten a lot of paint chips as a kid.

Was Nixon a great President in your mind, too?

Dirty Harry, you are really overthinking this and way to critical of Bush based upon media reports and not the actual facts. Bush wasn't nearly as bad as you thought as the numbers would show.

GW Bush won a disputed election that many including a lot of the media believe he lost and thus held the grudge for 8 years. The fought him tooth and nail and debated every Florida ballot. When the Supreme Court jumped in and declared Bush the winner the loons went nuts and the fringe kooks of the Democratic Party ratcheted up the hate rhetoric and the blogs. Because of the Florida recount it took Bush a couple months to actually establish his Administration.

After taking office he did his best to change the tone in D.C. even having weekly breakfasts with the Democrats in Congress. He had Ted Kennedy over for movie night and had Kennedy help draft the No Child Left Behind Act. Democrats willingly participated in public but behind the scenes were sticking the knife deeper into his back.

The economy wasn't what we were led to believe and Bush inherited a recession. NBER says it started in March but the numbers show it started in November 2000. Regardless it was the Clinton economic policy that was being implemented and Bush didn't have time to do anything to prevent the recession. He tried to get a tax cut through but only got a rebate through and that didn't do the complete job of getting us out of the recession, Bush knew the answer was rate cuts not a rebate check. Democrats were totally and completely opposed as they always are to tax cuts.

Behind the scenes the bloggers and the kooks continued their attack and weren't going to give an inch to President Bush. Congress went on recess and Bush was attacked for going to Crawford in August. Democrats never accepted the fact that the Crawford Ranch was still in this country and equiped to handle any problem that arised but that didn't matter to the "selected not elected" President.

then came 9/11 and the charges that Bush knew, it was an inside job, Bush allowed it to happen, Bush was friends with Bin Laden. You heard them yet the country came together for a short period of time. In October we invaded Afghanistan, Bush poll numbers skyrocketed and the liberal elite couldn't have that so they stepped up the attacks and the conspiracy theories. Throughout it all Bush remained classy but the rhetoric was the worst I ever experienced against the President which showed again that President Bush was never going to be accepted by the elite and the loons.

9/11 according to the GAO cost this country over a trillion dollars which was off budget but part of that debt you are so concerned about and GW Bush took the fight to our enemies. He was fully engaged and fully committed to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan and take the fight to our enemies, something previous Presidents, his father and Clinton didn't do.

The loons never let up and none had the stomach to fight a war let alone win a war. Bush knew that and without the help of Democrats tried to fight the war with as little U.S. Casualties as possible so he engaged the Northern Alliance to do most of the heavy lifting in Afghanistan and realizing it would take hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to fight the war and with limited support from the Congress he got NATO involved like the Democrats wanted but he also knew that al Qaeda wasn't only in Afghanistan. He also recognized correctly this was a war that had been ongoing since the 80's. He lived with the vision of 9/11 ever day and vowed to never let it happen again.

GW Bush fully understood the enemy we have, it was radical Islam and anyone that supported them. He realized that it was Radical Islam's goal to prolong the fight and to do everything in their power to destroy any American. They underestimated this President because he wasn't Bill Clinton and had the resolve to kick their butts. He also had the resolve to take the fight anywhere in the world and all evidence pointed to Iraq.

Clinton knew that Iraq was a problem and had the Iraq Liberation Act passed in 1998. Saddam Hussein was funding terrorists in the region and paying money to suicide bombers in Israel. Saddam Hussein had a WMD Program and had used WMD on his own people. The world changed after 9/11 and Saddam Hussein couldn't be allowed to reconstitute his WMD program and although sanctions were in place China, Russia, and France were putting pressure on the UN to lift those sanctions. GW Bush was told he had to get approval from the Congress and the UN before removing Saddam Hussein. He presented the evidence of violations of the Gulf War ceasefire agreement and put a resolution together explaining the reasons to go to remove Saddam Hussein.

Overwhelming support in both Houses of Congress using evidence available to all and much of it from the Iraq Liberation Act as well as UN Inspectors Richard Butler, Iraq Study Group David Kaye, Wesley Clarke, British and German intelligence, he and Congress realized that Saddam Hussein couldn't be allowed to remain in power. He went to the UN and Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously so a year and a half after 9/11 with support of Congress and the UN he went into Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein.

All this time the loons and the left never let up and with the help of the media continued their assault to destroy GW Bush. then people like you jumped on the bandwagon and piled on totally ignoring the results generated.

Bush took over an economy that generated 9.8 trillion dollars in GDP in 2000 and took it to 14.4 trillion, the largest increase in GDP in U.S. history for an 8 year term. He did that by promoting tax cuts, first the rebate then the rate cut in July 2003. He was confronted by 9//11 and its cost in human life and to our economy. 1 trillion of the debt he is charged with came from 9/11. He removed the Taliban and one of the most evil dictators in the world, Saddam Hussein, he got passed NCLB, cut the unemployment rate, grew the economy, improved personal financials of individuals, didn't have another terrorist attack in his first term and won re-election in 2004.

In 2005 we were hit by Hurricane Katrina. GW Bush took a hit by people who haven't a clue as to state and federal responsibility in an disaster. they ignored that the mayor of New Orleans had buses in storage to help get people out of the city, they ignored that it was the responsibility of the Governor to ask for Federal Help and INVITED the Federal Govt. to help, they ignored state responsibility and blamed Bush. That was a raw deal but fell in line with the rest of the loons attacking Bush. Since Katrina La. has become a Red State again and replaced the Governor. The people of New Orleans remain stupid and re-elected Nagin who was the major source of the problem.

Anyway Katrina cost billions and added to the debt. Hurricane Floyd and Ike also were major Hurricanes that cost debt. In spite of all this the economy grew as did govt. revenue thanks to the job creation from the tax cuts. He passed the Prescription Drug plan as a first step to reform Medicare, lost a bid to reform SS by privatizing a small part of it all without the public support of Congress. The negative press and the ignorance of a large segment of the people took its toll. He lost the Congress in the 2006 elections. In November 2007 thanks to a do nothing Congress that was more interested in regaining the WH the country slipped int recession. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd helped destroy the housing market and threatened the banks. That led to the TARP bailout that the Congress including Obama supported. 700 billion was authorized, Bush spent 350 billion of it and left 350 billion for Obama. That program saved the banks and the economy and most of the money has been paid back after Bush left office but by the terms of the TARP program.
Anyone know where that money went?

Anyway, BEA.gov, BLS.gov, U.S. Treasury, U.S. Census judges Bush a lot better than many Americans and when historians review the Bush legacy they will be kinder than you, Dirty Harry and kinder than those with BDS that ignore his actual results.
 
I agree that Bush inherited a recession and used the housing industry to pull us out of it. That is why we are where we are. All that GDP Bush created was created with debt.
I also believe invading Iraq was one of the greatest and costliest mistakes in history. It not only took resources out of Aghanistan where the real threat was but it replaced one corrupt regime with another corrupt regime that is aligned with Iran. As soon as we leave civil war will break out.
You can judge a president by the condition he leaves the country in. Bush left this country in shambles and unless biased revisionists rewrite history he will go down as one of our worst presidents. Right next to Clinton, Nixon and Obama.
 
Last edited:
I agree that Bush inherited a recession and used the housing industry to pull us out of it. That is why we are where we are. All that GDP Bush created was created with debt.
I also believe invading Iraq was one of the greatest and costliest mistakes in history. It not only took resources out of Aghanistan where the real threat was but it replaced one corrupt regime with another corrupt regime that is aligned with Iran. As soon as we leave civil war will break out.
You can judge a president by the condition he leaves the country in. Bush left this country in shambles and unless biased revisionists rewrite history he will go down as one of our worst presidents. Right next to Clinton, Nixon and Obama.

Neither you or I will judge Bush, history will. The cost of keeping Saddam Hussein in power would have been much greater than it is now and the shape Bush left the country in was out of his control due to a very confrontational and leftwing Congress.

GDP was not created by debt, there are four components of GDP and govt. is a small component. We do not have a socialistic economy yet but if Obama has his way we will, then your point will be valid

No resources were taken from Afghanistan and thousands of al Qaeda including leaders have been killed or captured either in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq.

Your biased, partisan view isn't warranted.
 
I agree that Bush inherited a recession and used the housing industry to pull us out of it. That is why we are where we are. All that GDP Bush created was created with debt.
I also believe invading Iraq was one of the greatest and costliest mistakes in history. It not only took resources out of Aghanistan where the real threat was but it replaced one corrupt regime with another corrupt regime that is aligned with Iran. As soon as we leave civil war will break out.
You can judge a president by the condition he leaves the country in. Bush left this country in shambles and unless biased revisionists rewrite history he will go down as one of our worst presidents. Right next to Clinton, Nixon and Obama.

Bush's tax cuts spurred the economy when it was hit on 9/11 and with Katrina - things were pretty good until the Dems took control of the house and senate in the beginning of 2007, then all went down hill. Injecting Obama into the mix made it even worse. Now we have double deficits and unemployment like you read about.

As for the housing fiascal - two words - Dodd and Frank.

As for being in Afghanistan and Iraq being a costly mistake - LOL - the only mistake is that we didn't also go into Iran and rock the ones in control of their proxy's terrorist activities around the world - we need to cut the head off the snake.

Bush will go down in history for doing a great job while in office.

Clinton and Obama? I don't think so - unless you want to put Clinton in the books as the first president who spoke with a negro accent, and Obama down as the first lightskinned negro president.
 
Last edited:
Excuse me?

Was it just coincide that Saddam Hussein was found more or less right around the 2004 election, and the prevalent mentality of "well, it's not smart to change presidents in a war, I trust Bush" help cement people as patrons of the war on terror?

What party is full of the war hawk political opportunists?

Before rebutting your can of Pure Spittle, let's deconstruct your "thinking", or lack thereof.

1. You assume/believe the R's are Hawks. Not to be trusted even. Yes? At a minimum we can write you down as a believer R's are Hawks from the post above?

2. Your representatives, being so smart would assume the same. R's are Hawks not to be trusted. After all Cheney, a hawk, was #2 and in the minds of Libs had great sway over W.

3. With this knowledge and thought process, Dems would have not supported the war. But they did and we know why. Political expediency. In simpler terms... for political gain.

4. The Dems reversed course on the war for political expediency as well. They went back to their roots and stabbed out troops in the back during their hour of need; This proves Democrats will do anything and everything for power.

5. Saddam was captured December 13, 2003. The war started March 20, 2003. Your first statement about Saddam's capture is very foolish knowing these facts. I guess they left bin Laden for Obama's gain then?... using your twisted logic.

Who played politics with the war in Iraq? Barack Hussein Obama; Thug Chicago School of Politics Practitioner
"Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a drawdown of the American military presence,"

Undermining McCain Campaign Attack, Republicans Back Obama?s Version of Meeting With Iraqi Leaders - Political Punch

.
 
Before rebutting your can of Pure Spittle, let's deconstruct your "thinking", or lack thereof.

1. You assume/believe the R's are Hawks. Not to be trusted even. Yes? At a minimum we can write you down as a believer R's are Hawks from the post above?

2. Your representatives, being so smart would assume the same. R's are Hawks not to be trusted. After all Cheney, a hawk, was #2 and in the minds of Libs had great sway over W.

3. With this knowledge and thought process, Dems would have not supported the war. But they did and we know why. Political expediency. In simpler terms... for political gain.

4. The Dems reversed course on the war for political expediency as well. They went back to their roots and stabbed out troops in the back during their hour of need; This proves Democrats will do anything and everything for power.

5. Saddam was captured December 13, 2003. The war started March 20, 2003. Your first statement about Saddam's capture is very foolish knowing these facts. I guess they left bin Laden for Obama's gain then?... using your twisted logic.

Who played politics with the war in Iraq? Barack Hussein Obama; Thug Chicago School of Politics Practitioner


.

They actually had Osama pinned in the Tora Bora and Bush decided to reallocate resources to Iraq because of those ever so elusive WMD's
 
Let's get a grip here - Palin was a selection from the McCain camp - McCain lost and it's time to move on from that - he's out and so is Palin.

That said - the focus should be on Obama and the Democrat majority controlled house and senate - they have jocked the U.S. economy with their retarded, backward ways.

And that said - anybody looks good compared to those asswipes.

Obviously Palin looks real good - otherwise, the loons wouldn't be pissing in their pants all over the place with their obsession over her.

And their party is sucking so bad they have to divert the attention by whining about Palin.

Trust that there are many more great people just like her who are going to send the Democrat majority to the wood shed in 2010, and then come 2012 - TIMBER Obama.
 
Let's get a grip here - Palin was a selection from the McCain camp - McCain lost and it's time to move on from that - he's out and so is Palin.

That said - the focus should be on Obama and the Democrat majority controlled house and senate - they have jocked the U.S. economy with their retarded, backward ways.

And that said - anybody looks good compared to those asswipes.

Obviously Palin looks real good - otherwise, the loons wouldn't be pissing in their pants all over the place with their obsession over her.

And their party is sucking so bad they have to divert the attention by whining about Palin.

Trust that there are many more great people just like her who are going to send the Democrat majority to the wood shed in 2010, and then come 2012 - TIMBER Obama.

Everyone thinks that the republicans are going to win back to senate/house races. Care to explain?
 
They actually had Osama pinned in the Tora Bora and Bush decided to reallocate resources to Iraq because of those ever so elusive WMD's

Again, we have the a prime example of the looseness of the Liberal mind.

One battle was sacrificed due to Iraq? Really... we couldn't fight in Tora Bora because of Iraq? Oy vey.

No.

Try reading a little Clausewitz.
War isn't a game of Perfect.
There is fog, friction and GENERALS sometimes make decisions that in hindsight could have turned a battle or war.. but don't. That's the nature of the business.

Only Libs run perfect wars.
Oh SNAP!
They can't even get their war votes right... and then piss in the face of our troops in their moment of need.

Please note: We learned from Vietnam... to let the generals run the show.
Bush wasn't pulling a McNamara.

So... BUSH didn't do anything of the sort that you imply.

From the WaPo... not exactly your Bush loving rag:
U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight
Failure to Send Troops in Pursuit Termed Major Error

The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

After-action reviews, conducted privately inside and outside the military chain of command... A common view among those interviewed outside the U.S. Central Command is that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the war's operational commander, misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda's leader.

In the fight for Tora Bora, corrupt local militias did not live up to promises to seal off the mountain redoubt, and some colluded in the escape of fleeing al Qaeda fighters. Franks did not perceive the setbacks soon enough...
U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight (washingtonpost.com)
 
Last edited:
I still recall Osama being at large, and both wars under Bush being failures.
 
I still recall Osama being at large, and both wars under Bush being failures.

Are you "This war is lost" Harry Reid?

Obama is at large, and those wars? Nobody talks about Iraq since Obi came to office, so Bush beat the record for taking down a terror laden region, and Afghanistan has ramped up as Obi stated his desire to focus there.

One bit Libs never want to discuss is the bright idea to concentrate the battle in Iraq... to draw the nuts and defeat them there while eliminating a real threat... Saddam... both of which we accomplished. Instead Libs piss on the troops, giving comfort to our enemies. Good job.

Look, your mind is a steel trap and no logic or facts are going to seep into it.
At least your brain will remain dry.

.
 
Last edited:
Are you "This war is lost" Harry Reid?

Obama is at large, and those wars? Nobody talks about Iraq since Obi came to office, so Bush beat the record for taking down a terror laden region, and Afghanistan has ramped up as Obi stated his desire to focus there.

One bit Libs never want to discuss is the bright idea to concentrate the battle in Iraq... to draw the nuts and defeat them there while eliminating a real threat... Saddam... both of which we accomplished. Instead Libs piss on the troops, giving comfort to our enemies. Good job.

Look, your mind is a steel trap and no logic or facts are going to seep into it.
At least your brain will remain dry.

.

It would be hillarious if you could at least posit civil and coherent ad homs...

Look. I support the troops. I'm saying that Iraq was absolutely a mistake and "we removed a cruel despot" isn't going to cut it. I know most of the infrastructure in Iraq is merely paving roads to natural resources, namely oil. Iraq has no purpose whatsoever, I never supported it, and was an open opposition member in 2003. No one can change my mind to "Iraq is a worthy war".
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is merely a facade to describe whatever the people the U.S. wants to target.

Afghanistan is fine, but targeting civilians is something I have a serious problem with. The "war on terror" is a moronic concept, namely because "terrorism" has so many defintion is basically means war on opposition anything the establishment wants to do. Where's big brother now?

What I do support is a war on Al-Qaeda. Always have, always will. the WMDs(tm) in Iraq don't exist, and international support for Iraq was 10% in 2003, i doubt it's much higher.

Also, I'm a community servant and I donate portions of my time and money to the troops as well as community organizations.

So, whose got the small steel trap mind? I don't process information through a "USA USA USA" lens, so I tend to have more vocal opposition to some foreign policy that the U.S. conducts.

By the way, I said Osama is at large, not Obama. :lamo
 
Last edited:
They actually had Osama pinned in the Tora Bora and Bush decided to reallocate resources to Iraq because of those ever so elusive WMD's

This is exactly the kind of misinformation that led to the Bush Derangement syndrome that continues to infect people today. Iraq did not occur until over a year later after Afghanistan. No resources were moved to attack Iraq.
 
It would be hillarious if you could at least posit civil and coherent ad homs...

Look. I support the troops. I'm saying that Iraq was absolutely a mistake and "we removed a cruel despot" isn't going to cut it. I know most of the infrastructure in Iraq is merely paving roads to natural resources, namely oil. Iraq has no purpose whatsoever, I never supported it, and was an open opposition member in 2003. No one can change my mind to "Iraq is a worthy war".
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is merely a facade to describe whatever the people the U.S. wants to target.

Afghanistan is fine, but targeting civilians is something I have a serious problem with. The "war on terror" is a moronic concept, namely because "terrorism" has so many defintion is basically means war on opposition anything the establishment wants to do. Where's big brother now?

What I do support is a war on Al-Qaeda. Always have, always will. the WMDs(tm) in Iraq don't exist, and international support for Iraq was 10% in 2003, i doubt it's much higher.

Also, I'm a community servant and I donate portions of my time and money to the troops as well as community organizations.

So, whose got the small steel trap mind? I don't process information through a "USA USA USA" lens, so I tend to have more vocal opposition to some foreign policy that the U.S. conducts.

By the way, I said Osama is at large, not Obama. :lamo

No, Obama is at large, not Osama who may already be dead. Been paying any attention lately, Obama is launching missiles into small towns and cities in Pakistan, think any civilians are getting killed there?

Obama kept the Bush Secretary of Defense and the Bush policy in Iraq as well as Afghanistan so hardly a change.

As for the facts regarding Afghanistan, read the Book American Soldier by Tommy Franks then get back to us.
 
This seems like the perfect gig for Sarah Palin. She should fit right in at Fox News.
 
No, Obama is at large, not Osama who may already be dead. Been paying any attention lately, Obama is launching missiles into small towns and cities in Pakistan, think any civilians are getting killed there?

Obama kept the Bush Secretary of Defense and the Bush policy in Iraq as well as Afghanistan so hardly a change.

As for the facts regarding Afghanistan, read the Book American Soldier by Tommy Franks then get back to us.

I'm not going to read what is most likely a very partisan book. I've read, from multiple accounts, the political history of afghanistan, and to state that I have no knowledge or I need to read a book when I know almost everything there is to know about Afghani history is ill-founded
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to read what is most likely a very partisan book. I've read, from multiple accounts, the political history of afghanistan, and to state that I have no knowledge or I need to read a book when I know almost everything there is to know about Afghani history is ill-founded

Now why would anyone read a book by the commander of U.S. Forces on the ground in Afghanistan? Hmmm, maybe to get first hand knowledge of what happened? Naw, that doesn't make any sense for it would destroy the personal opinions and ideology that has been fed to you by absolute loons.
 
This is exactly the kind of misinformation that led to the Bush Derangement syndrome that continues to infect people today. Iraq did not occur until over a year later after Afghanistan. No resources were moved to attack Iraq.

Given that you have no knowledge of, nor interest in, the facts about Mr. Bush's happy little wars, I'd say you're the one suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. :lamo


Afghanistan Has Long Been Neglected By The Bush Administration

The Bush administration’s failure to commit ground troops in Tora Bora enabled bin Laden to escape and develop a terrorist enclave in Pakistan. "The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora... and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al-Qaeda.” [Washington Post, 4/17/02]

Iraq has consistently diverted attention from the greatest danger in Afghanistan and Pakistan. While the war in Iraq has received $608 billion over the past five years, Afghanistan has received just $140 billion over the past seven. On average Iraq receives over $120 billion per year, while Afghanistan receives just $20 billion. [NY Times, 6/30/08. CRS, 2/08/08]

Iraq distracted the U.S. and siphoned off resources from rebuilding Afghanistan. While Iraq has received a total of $34.2 billion in reconstruction funding over five years, Afghanistan by comparison has received just $11.5 billion over the more than seven years that U.S. forces have been on the ground and just $1.1 billion for 2008. [CRS, 02/08]


Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions

WASHINGTON — In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.

The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered.

Did opening a second front hurt the main effort to defeat terrorism?

Bob Andrews, former head of a Pentagon office that oversaw special operations, says that removing Saddam Hussein was a good idea but "a distraction." The war in Iraq, Andrews notes, entailed the largest deployment of special operations forces — about 10,000 —since the Vietnam War. That's about 25% of all U.S. commandos.

It also siphoned spy aircraft and light infantry soldiers. Iraq proved such a drain, one former Pentagon official notes, that there were no AWACS radar jets to track drug-trafficking aircraft in South America.

Saddam was not an immediate threat. "This has been a real diversion from the longer struggle against jihadists," especially in the intelligence field, he says.

Stan Florer, a retired Army colonel and former Green Beret, agrees that Iraq diverted enormous military and intelligence assets.
 
Should Afghanistan be won or not?

If your answer is no, and we should pull out, then what difference does it make if resources were diverted (if they were)? And no, blaming Bush for leaving a "big mess" doesn't hold water -- the principle is still the same. If it ever needed to be won, then it still does, and if doesn't now, it never did.

If your answer is yes, then where's the hue and cry for Obama's own diverted attention? He gave every appearance of being dragged kicking and screaming to a decision on the matter while the clock ticked. And those were very crucial months.
 
Given that you have no knowledge of, nor interest in, the facts about Mr. Bush's happy little wars, I'd say you're the one suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. :lamo

Let's face it, nothing that GW Bush did or does is ever going to make you support him. A Closed mind is a terrible thing to have. Had Bush gone fully into Afghanistan to win you would have complained about the loss of civilian life. He did was was politically correct and the fact is he went into Iraq with the same attitude, to protect civilian life.

He cannot win with you so why should anyone try to convince you he wasn't as bad as you believe?
 
Let's face it, nothing that GW Bush did or does is ever going to make you support him. A Closed mind is a terrible thing to have. Had Bush gone fully into Afghanistan to win you would have complained about the loss of civilian life. He did was was politically correct and the fact is he went into Iraq with the same attitude, to protect civilian life.

He cannot win with you so why should anyone try to convince you he wasn't as bad as you believe?

Iraq CANNOT be reasoned with "removing a despot" logic. I, as well as most of the country, refuses to believe that conveniently the lack of WMD's turned into a war on Al-Qaeda in Iraq, as opposed to what it really was-- war hawking and political opportunism. "Well, he's killing alot of people, and Iraq wants democracy" will not phase me or anyone else with half a brain. Iraq is merely about nation building and wealth extraction, time will tell.
 
Iraq CANNOT be reasoned with "removing a despot" logic. I, as well as most of the country, refuses to believe that conveniently the lack of WMD's turned into a war on Al-Qaeda in Iraq, as opposed to what it really was-- war hawking and political opportunism. "Well, he's killing alot of people, and Iraq wants democracy" will not phase me or anyone else with half a brain. Iraq is merely about nation building and wealth extraction, time will tell.

What you believe is absolutely irrelevant to what is happening today and to continue to focus on GW Bush is a waste of time. What is it exactly that you want or expect right now? Obama kept the Bush Sec. of Defense and the Bush Iraq Policy so your focus or concerns are mute.
 
What you believe is absolutely irrelevant to what is happening today and to continue to focus on GW Bush is a waste of time. What is it exactly that you want or expect right now? Obama kept the Bush Sec. of Defense and the Bush Iraq Policy so your focus or concerns are mute.

They most certainly are not mute. Obama is tabling troop withdraw in 2011. Thank god. It's ironic that all the fiscal conservatives are worried about is money and economics, when a vast majority of our revenue is geared towards military endeavors.

The Federal Pie Chart
 
They most certainly are not mute. Obama is tabling troop withdraw in 2011. Thank god. It's ironic that all the fiscal conservatives are worried about is money and economics, when a vast majority of our revenue is geared towards military endeavors.

The Federal Pie Chart

The two main things that motivate fiscal conservatives are the economy and national security. Without a strong national security there is nothing positive in the economy.

I don't see an answer to my question, what is it exactly that you expect now with Bush out of office? You and others keep bringing him up and ignore anything positive that he did. He is gone, now what?
 
The two main things that motivate fiscal conservatives are the economy and national security. Without a strong national security there is nothing positive in the economy.

I don't see an answer to my question, what is it exactly that you expect now with Bush out of office? You and others keep bringing him up and ignore anything positive that he did. He is gone, now what?

Now we have to deal with the monster Bush left us. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom