Bush's Place in History.

[Stealth694]

[SIZE="6"]A Team of Historians has just rated George W. Bush's Presidency, and compared it to the other 43 Privious Presidents. Its No Suprise that George W. Bush is rated in the bottom 10. What is suprising is that he shares the 37th position with Richard M. Nixon. I think little Georgie will be keeping quiet about his Legacy from now on.. ;) comments anyone? SIZE]

[Stealth694]

Sorry: Forgot to add the articles address : http://news.aol.com/article/president-rankings/344005

[denuseri]

Also included with that article is a poll the results of which I have posted bellow at the time I reviewed the article.

I wonder what the political affiliation of the people who made the rankings was as these things are ussually purely subjective.



What do you think of the top 10 list?
Fairly accurate 59%
Somewhere in between 28%
Way off the mark 13%

What to you think of the bottom 10 list?
Fairly accurate 49%
Somewhere in between 27%
Way off the mark 24%

What do you think of George W. Bush's ranking, tied for fifth worst?
It's too harsh 46%
It's too kind 36%
It's about right 18%

How do you think Obama will be rated after he's out of office?
Somewhere in between 39%
Bottom 10 35%
Top 10 26%


Note the low confidence in Obama's future (belaying the fact he is not pricevied as the messiah after all) and the high amount of people that disagree with Bush's rating.

The article also contained this interesting factoid of opinion on Clinton:

Bill Clinton left office with a high approval rating, but a panel of writers who focus on US politics and foreign affairs at the Times, a British publication, considered him mediocre. The president who passed progressive legislation but who saddled himself with the Monica Lewinsky scandal landed at number 23. As panelist Ben Macintyre put it, Clinton "promised so much, delivered so little and embarrassed everyone."

Additional Kennedy did not make the top ten where as Regan did.

The proof will be in the pudding and I am sure its purely speculative at this point where any of the Presidents should be ranked that held office in the past 50-75 years including Nixion and Bush.

[mkemse]

[SIZE="6"]A Team of Historians has just rated George W. Bush's Presidency, and compared it to the other 43 Privious Presidents. Its No Suprise that George W. Bush is rated in the bottom 10. What is suprising is that he shares the 37th position with Richard M. Nixon. I think little Georgie will be keeping quiet about his Legacy from now on.. ;) comments anyone? SIZE]

I am not suprised, the also left office with the lowest approval rating of any President in History, including Nixon

[orchidsoul]

It is all somewhat subjective. Nixon would probably be much higher on the list if it wasn't for a little thing called watergate. Clinton marred anything he did with blowjobs. I'm sort of surprised at the number of people thinking Bush's rating was too harsh. Just goes to show how divided this country is, and was, about Bush.

Though I don't understand the messiah comment, Denu? As someone who voted for Obama, I never knew people viewed him as a messiah! And I'm honestly not sure what I think quite yet- but I know his job is not easy and it's too soon to judge or criticize imo.

It's probably one of the more difficult shoes any new president has ever had to fill in history. I'll be curious where he ranks after 4 yrs as well. However, the confidence isn't listed as low actually. It's pretty much a three way tie as to top, middle, and bottom- leaning heavier in the middle. Personally I think it would be near impossible for him to land in the top 10. No one could possibly even fix the disaster that our country is in a matter of 4 yrs. Nor will he do it all to the publics liking, my own included at some point I'm sure.



How do you think Obama will be rated after he's out of office?
Somewhere in between 39%
Bottom 10 35%
Top 10 26%


[B][COLOR="pink"]Note the low confidence in Obama's future (belaying the fact he is not pricevied as the messiah after all) and the high amount of people that disagree with Bush's rating.

[fetishdj]

No president is ever popular when he is in power. Everyone will always compare him either to the last one or the next one and he will always come up short.

Frankly I prefer Douglas Adam's view of politics - never give the job to anyone who actually wants it... :)

[mkemse]

How do you think Obama will be rated after he's out of office?
Somewhere in between 39%
Bottom 10 35%
Top 10 26%

Very Hard To say, he has a 4 year term and has only been in office for 6 weeks
Only time anfd Histiry will tell but one has to give him tim,e can't pass any judgmenet on any Presidents Performance after only 6 weeksi n office, but he has said some decions he makes will not be liked by many, other will
let's see where we are and what he has done in say Jan 2010

I may add, be it hypothetical or not, supoose after 8 years searching for him, Obamas Adminstration Captures Bin Laden?? His approval rating would go through the ceiling

[Belgarold]

I, too, am curious about the messiah comment. The messiah myth is one built up by the Republicans during the campaign. He is a man, a good man, I think trying to do an almost insurmountable task.

Bring us back from the brink of disaster that Bush and crew has brought us to. In three weeks he has already done more and gotten more shit for it, than Bush.

THe messiah comment is Republican propaganda.

And the survey still seems to have a right-wing bent.

[Stealth694]

Nice point Mkemse,,, I say wait at least 6 months before we start Judging Obama.
As for Obama catching Bin Laden,,, I doubt it, Personally I think Bin Laden is either dead or so sick he is at deaths door.

[mkemse]

I agree with you on Bin Laden, I was just using that as an example

[mkemse]

I, too, am curious about the messiah comment. The messiah myth is one built up by the Republicans during the campaign. He is a man, a good man, I think trying to do an almost insurmountable task.

Bring us back from the brink of disaster that Bush and crew has brought us to. In three weeks he has already done more and gotten more shit for it, than Bush.

THe messiah comment is Republican propaganda.

And the survey still seems to have a right-wing bent.

My istincts tell me the Republican aare not happy at all and it may be Bush's fault they no longer Control Congress
And if anyone noticed, be it chance or not, during the last election in 2008, very few if any Replicans, SEnetors, Reps or Presidential Cndidates wanted anything to do with Bush, they realy seemed to make it apoint to distance themselves from him, nobody asked him to appear with them ect
I think Bush's Legacy will be a Badly Failed Foreign Policy, Bad Economic Policies ect ans when he was in Office, American International Intelligence was a Contradication in terms, all he ever said was "It was a result of Faulty Intelligence" that seems like he used that everytime he was wrong or we ran into a problem of some kind, if we had that bad of Intellignce why did he do nothing to correct it, he was Commander and Chief, it was his job to correct what was wrong or directthse who needed it to be corrected
And my apolgies to all if i deviated to much from the topic

[mkemse]

According to polls I have Read Including Teagan Woodards Poll taken in September of 2008 was 19%

[Stealth694]

My istincts tell me the Republican aare not happy at all and it may be Bush's fault they no longer Control Congress
And if anyone noticed, be it chance or not, during the last election in 2008, very few if any Replicans, SEnetors, Reps or Presidential Cndidates wanted anything to do with Bush, they realy seemed to make it apoint to distance themselves from him, nobody asked him to appear with them ect
I think Bush's Legacy will be a Badly Failed Foreign Policy, Bad Economic Policies ect ans when he was in Office, American International Intelligence was a Contradication in terms, all he ever said was "It was a result of Faulty Intelligence" that seems like he used that everytime he was wrong or we ran into a problem of some kind, if we had that bad of Intellignce why did he do nothing to correct it, he was Commander and Chief, it was his job to correct what was wrong or directthse who needed it to be corrected
And my apolgies to all if i deviated to much from the topic


It was not so much Faulty Intelligence, it was Bush's attitude that he knew more than anyone and everyone. He didn't listen to people who disagreed with him and usually got rid of them because these people were not on his team. Bush was a Meglo Maniac who felt he was God

[mkemse]

It was not so much Faulty Intelligence, it was Bush's attitude that he knew more than anyone and everyone. He didn't listen to people who disagreed with him and usually got rid of them because these people were not on his team. Bush was a Meglo Maniac who felt he was God

Very Well Said

[Thorne]

It's far too early to bejudging any of these men in terms of history. Perhaps Nixon, it being nearly 40 years ago since he left office, but that's still a little early. It's my feeling that a president would have to be out of office for at least fifty years before we could get a true perspective on his administration. Much less than that and you still have the problem of partisanship.

That doesn't mean people can't have their opinions. Just that there's little justification for claiming an accurate ranking, especially for Bush and Obama, and even for Clinton. History and historians must take a longer view of such things.

[fetishdj]

I agree with Thorne.... this is current events rather than history and it is likely that historians of the future will judge things completely differently. Everyone (even and possibly especially non Americans) alive today has an opinion on Bush and all the other presidents mentioned. This is not good for objectivity.

[mkemse]

If nothing else on Bush, his legacy could very well boli down to his failed foreign policies

[Belgarold]

I think Stealth hit the nail on the head. It was Bush's attitude and secrecy and arrogance that will be his legacy. He valued loyalty over competence and did not like to hear "defeatist" talk even when it was the truth.

Reagan is judged one of the 10 best mainly because of a concerted legacy project in the 1990s. I lived through Reagan's presidency, his was not a great presidency. I feel Bush is waiting for the same type of whitewashing of his administration. He was a bad president and for my money his legacy is our current situation in Irag, the economy and the partisan nature of Washington. LOL< and the fact that the Republicans cannot even utter his name most of the time.

[Thorne]

If nothing else on Bush, his legacy could very well boli down to his failed foreign policies

Again, you're assuming that they have, indeed failed. While it's true that they may appear to have failed over the short term, the long term effects of his presidency have yet to be known.

Abraham Lincoln was considered a terrible president at the time. His significance to history wasn't realized until long afterwards.

Not to say that Bush can be compared to Lincoln. No one would be more surprised than I if he were seen to be anything other than a poor, if not downright bad, president.

[mkemse]

Again, you're assuming that they have, indeed failed. While it's true that they may appear to have failed over the short term, the long term effects of his presidency have yet to be known.

Abraham Lincoln was considered a terrible president at the time. His significance to history wasn't realized until long afterwards.

Not to say that Bush can be compared to Lincoln. No one would be more surprised than I if he were seen to be anything other than a poor, if not downright bad, president.

More so Iraq, when he annouced we were going in he said we would be in and out in 90 days, that was almost 8 years ago, we needed to focus on Afganistan not over through Iraq, Bin Laden and the Taliban are/were in the Tora Bora Mountain, not in Iraq, we had no reason to go into Iraq, they has nothing to do with 911 we should have placed all our forces and efforts in Afghanistan
Even if Iraq had connecion to 911 which Bush addmitted they did not, Bin Ladin was never there, he is who we are after

CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, during a discussion of President Bush’s recent trip to the Middle East on Monday’s "American Morning," cited her discussion with unnamed "analysts and experts," and concluded " it's hard to discern any evidence of any success on this trip whatsoever." "American Morning" substitute co-host Kyra Phillips, following-up to Amanpour’s analysis, remarked, "Well, critics have come forward and said, okay, whether it's his policies in Iraq, Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he's failed everywhere."
The three-minute segment, which was the last in the 6 am Eastern hour of the CNN program, came after a report by CNN correspondent Aneesh Raman, which summarized the President’s trip. Amanpour, in response to Phillips’ "failed everywhere" statement, gave a more nuanced take on President Bush’s foreign policy track record. "Well, events have moved beyond anybody's expectations and control.... If you look in Lebanon, the elected U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is not in control. Hamas is in control because it has a superiority -- rather Hezbollah, in terms of weapons. So the U.S.-backed allies there are not in control, basically, only in name only and de facto."

In her final question to Amanpour, Phillips continued her dour take on the Bush record. "And so is it him, is it his advisors? I mean, a lot of people are saying, he's got to do something for his legacy. He's got this Iraq war that's just tarnished his image and the Republican Party, but he continues to come home empty-handed. So can he even win?"

Amanpour replied, "Well, it's about policy, many of the analysts are saying. Policy is being pursued that has not paid off, in terms of the ends that presumably were imagined." She then concluded by going back to the issue of Lebanon, specifically, talking about the recent flare-up between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah.

The full transcript of the Amanpour/Phillips segment from Monday’s "American Morning:"

KYRA PHILLIPS: CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour joining us now. Did he [President Bush] achieve anything on this five-day tour?

He Samolia Policy FAiled, his Policy on Soviet Georgia Fail, his Policy with the Palastinians failed, their President has NO control there, the Palastianes are controlled by Hama not by
their President
you look in Lebanon, the elected U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is not in control. Hamas is in control because it has a superiority -- rather Hezbollah, in terms of weapons. So the U.S.-backed allies there are not in control, basically, only in name only and de facto
Mahmoud Abbas was elected to lead the Palastinian, yet Hama controls everthin,g anotherfailed US Bush Policy, he was backed bythe Bush Adminstration and chosen by the people of Palastine

[moosehunter]

As bad as Bush's ratings were the congress and senate's ratings were lower. President Obama's Ratings are falling. I think the main reason Our latest politians are rated so low is that we know what they do almost before they do it and judge them before what they did has had a chance to work. Look at the stimulas bill. the congrssional budget office has judged it a bad bill with little or no chance to fix the economy. Let's hope there're wrong.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Presidential Approval Ratings, Since 1950
Below are the highest and lowest approval ratings ever received by a president in a national opinion poll throughout his presidency.

President Highest - Lowest
Harry Truman - 87% - 23%
Dwight Eisenhower - 79% - 48%
John F. Kennedy 83% - 56%
Lyndon Johnson 79% - 35%
Richard Nixon 67% - 24%
Gerald Ford 71% - 37%
Jimmy Carter 75% - 28%
Ronald Reagan 68% - 35%
George H.W. Bush 89% - 29%
Bill Clinton 73% - 37%
George W. Bush 90% - 25% (ABC- 23%, Fox-25%, NBC-27%, Gallup-25%)

Sources: Can West News Service; CNN; "The Ups and Downs of Presidential Popularity," Ron Faucheux, Campaigns and Elections magazine. Rateit.com

I think this reflects the variances the public feels during a presidency and shows the need for time (decades at least) to evaluate and even then its going to be biased since there's no real metric to measure "best". I think I, or anyone else for that matter, could make as good a case for Lincoln being among the worst or conversely make just as good a case for him being among the best. Its all in how you evaluate those facts.

[DuncanONeil]

The issue of seeing Obama as a messiah stems from the refusal to consider or allow any critical review of any part of his progroms, work history, or advisors. His stint in Congress was spent running for a promotion, his position in Il was spent having legislation handed to him, and largely voting "present". Oh Yes and voting to kill newborns.

[DuncanONeil]

Not really!

[DuncanONeil]

I think Stealth hit the nail on the head. It was Bush's attitude and secrecy and arrogance that will be his legacy. He valued loyalty over competence and did not like to hear "defeatist" talk even when it was the truth.

Reagan is judged one of the 10 best mainly because of a concerted legacy project in the 1990s. I lived through Reagan's presidency, his was not a great presidency. I feel Bush is waiting for the same type of whitewashing of his administration. He was a bad president and for my money his legacy is our current situation in Irag, the economy and the partisan nature of Washington. LOL< and the fact that the Republicans cannot even utter his name most of the time.

I take it winning the Cold War counts for nothing?

[DuncanONeil]

More so Iraq, when he annouced we were going in he said we would be in and out in 90 days, that was almost 8 years ago, we needed to focus on Afganistan not over through Iraq, Bin Laden and the Taliban are/were in the Tora Bora Mountain, not in Iraq, we had no reason to go into Iraq, they has nothing to do with 911 we should have placed all our forces and efforts in Afghanistan
Even if Iraq had connecion to 911 which Bush addmitted they did not, Bin Ladin was never there, he is who we are after

CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, during a discussion of President Bush’s recent trip to the Middle East on Monday’s "American Morning," cited her discussion with unnamed "analysts and experts," and concluded " it's hard to discern any evidence of any success on this trip whatsoever." "American Morning" substitute co-host Kyra Phillips, following-up to Amanpour’s analysis, remarked, "Well, critics have come forward and said, okay, whether it's his policies in Iraq, Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he's failed everywhere."
The three-minute segment, which was the last in the 6 am Eastern hour of the CNN program, came after a report by CNN correspondent Aneesh Raman, which summarized the President’s trip. Amanpour, in response to Phillips’ "failed everywhere" statement, gave a more nuanced take on President Bush’s foreign policy track record. "Well, events have moved beyond anybody's expectations and control.... If you look in Lebanon, the elected U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is not in control. Hamas is in control because it has a superiority -- rather Hezbollah, in terms of weapons. So the U.S.-backed allies there are not in control, basically, only in name only and de facto."

In her final question to Amanpour, Phillips continued her dour take on the Bush record. "And so is it him, is it his advisors? I mean, a lot of people are saying, he's got to do something for his legacy. He's got this Iraq war that's just tarnished his image and the Republican Party, but he continues to come home empty-handed. So can he even win?"

Amanpour replied, "Well, it's about policy, many of the analysts are saying. Policy is being pursued that has not paid off, in terms of the ends that presumably were imagined." She then concluded by going back to the issue of Lebanon, specifically, talking about the recent flare-up between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah.

The full transcript of the Amanpour/Phillips segment from Monday’s "American Morning:"

KYRA PHILLIPS: CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour joining us now. Did he [President Bush] achieve anything on this five-day tour?

He Samolia Policy FAiled, his Policy on Soviet Georgia Fail, his Policy with the Palastinians failed, their President has NO control there, the Palastianes are controlled by Hama not by
their President
you look in Lebanon, the elected U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is not in control. Hamas is in control because it has a superiority -- rather Hezbollah, in terms of weapons. So the U.S.-backed allies there are not in control, basically, only in name only and de facto
Mahmoud Abbas was elected to lead the Palastinian, yet Hama controls everthin,g anotherfailed US Bush Policy, he was backed bythe Bush Adminstration and chosen by the people of Palastine

Where did he say in and out in 90 days?
Al Quaida also was seen and likely operating in Iraq, but that is not the reason for going into Iraq. UN resolution 1440 was the proximate reason.

The quotes you use from CNN are disjointed and make no sense.

[Belgarold]

The issue of seeing Obama as a messiah stems from the refusal to consider or allow any critical review of any part of his progroms, work history, or advisors. His stint in Congress was spent running for a promotion, his position in Il was spent having legislation handed to him, and largely voting "present". Oh Yes and voting to kill newborns.

To me this partisan viewpoint shows that the 'messiah' myth is a partisan one. I don't believe that any bill has been put forth, anywhere that was based on killing newborns. COuld you please explain this inflammatory statement.

[DuncanONeil]

As bad as Bush's ratings were the congress and senate's ratings were lower. President Obama's Ratings are falling. I think the main reason Our latest politians are rated so low is that we know what they do almost before they do it and judge them before what they did has had a chance to work. Look at the stimulas bill. the congrssional budget office has judged it a bad bill with little or no chance to fix the economy. Let's hope there're wrong.

Nothing in the Spending bill is designed to stimulate anything. In fact of the 40% claimed to be tax relief at least half of that is going to be spent on things that have their own category in the "plan". Not to mention the fact that the plans call for states that accept money from the Feds must undo Welfare Reform as a result!

[Belgarold]

I take it winning the Cold War counts for nothing?

Reagan did not WIN the cold war. He happened to be President when Gorbachev and powers within Russia brought down the SOviet Union. He made a speech that probably hastened the bringing down of the Berlin Wall.

But, this is one incident and ignores the economical issues that helped to begin the destruction of the middle class. He destroyed government programs that put many homeless on the streets and many of the mentally ill on the streets as well. This served to make our country less safe.

So, No, 'winning' the Cold War does not count for that much.

I have just been informed by a great friend that Bush, Sr. was president during the fall of the Soviet Union. So we are both wrong there. SO how COULD Reagan have WON the Cold War?

[damyanti]

The issue of seeing Obama as a messiah stems from the refusal to consider or allow any critical review of any part of his progroms, work history, or advisors. His stint in Congress was spent running for a promotion, his position in Il was spent having legislation handed to him, and largely voting "present". Oh Yes and voting to kill newborns.

1. There has been and still is a lot of harsh talk against Obamas program and his work and personal history....which is I assume what passes for "critical review" these days.

2. Nobody ever voted "to kill newborns". Abortion views are a private matter. But if you really insist on it....I suppose its much better to raise them and ship them off to Iraq so they can be tortured and killed and all so some very corrupted rich people can get even more rich.

[Belgarold]

Where did he say in and out in 90 days?
Al Quaida also was seen and likely operating in Iraq, but that is not the reason for going into Iraq. UN resolution 1440 was the proximate reason.

The quotes you use from CNN are disjointed and make no sense.

Again I respectfully submit you are wrong, way wrong. Al Quaida was NOT in Iraq, Never in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Hussein's Iraq was very secular and Al Quaida CLAIMS to be a religious organization. Al Quaida became part of Iraq only because we invaded. THESE are the facts.

Bush and Cheney were planning to invade Iraq before 9/11. Our national tragedy was USED by the Bush administration to justify their folly of a War.

[DuncanONeil]

To me this partisan viewpoint shows that the 'messiah' myth is a partisan one. I don't believe that any bill has been put forth, anywhere that was based on killing newborns. COuld you please explain this inflammatory statement.

Nothing partisan about it. That is simply an analysis of how people reacted to Obama and to any criticism of him or ideas.
As a member of the Il Legislature Obama voted for a bill (SB1095eng 92nd General Assembly). This bill would have required that any child that survived an abortion be treated as any other citizen. He voted against the bill in favor of a person not mentioned in the bill. Result he voted to allow the death of newborn.

[DuncanONeil]

Reagan did not WIN the cold war. He happened to be President when Gorbachev and powers within Russia brought down the SOviet Union. He made a speech that probably hastened the bringing down of the Berlin Wall.

But, this is one incident and ignores the economical issues that helped to begin the destruction of the middle class. He destroyed government programs that put many homeless on the streets and many of the mentally ill on the streets as well. This served to make our country less safe.

So, No, 'winning' the Cold War does not count for that much.


Sorry but the proximate cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union was their inability to maintain a parity with the defense programs of the west, driven by the research of this country. Said research was driven by the administration to President Regan!

The Cold War is not much unless it was part of your life. And it is merely one issue.

[Belgarold]

Nothing in the Spending bill is designed to stimulate anything. In fact of the 40% claimed to be tax relief at least half of that is going to be spent on things that have their own category in the "plan". Not to mention the fact that the plans call for states that accept money from the Feds must undo Welfare Reform as a result!

This may be your opinion but it is far from any sort of fact.

[DuncanONeil]

1. There has been and still is a lot of harsh talk against Obamas program and his work and personal history....which is I assume what passes for "critical review" these days.

2. Nobody ever voted "to kill newborns". Abortion views are a private matter. But if you really insist on it....I suppose its much better to raise them and ship them off to Iraq so they can be tortured and killed and all so some very corrupted rich people can get even more rich.



1 Harsh talk about a poorly thought out progrom that is poorly veiled earmarks? No there is no reason to question the "plan". That is point in fact evidence of the messiah syndrome.

2. The bill had nothing to do with abortion, except for the fact that it refers to a child that survives the abortion procedure. The bill granted all rights of the nation to that child and your guy voted to deny those rights. Result those children are set off on the side and allowed to die!

[Belgarold]

Nothing partisan about it. That is simply an analysis of how people reacted to Obama and to any criticism of him or ideas.
As a member of the Il Legislature Obama voted for a bill (SB1095eng 92nd General Assembly). This bill would have required that any child that survived an abortion be treated as any other citizen. He voted against the bill in favor of a person not mentioned in the bill. Result he voted to allow the death of newborn.

mmmhmmm Nothing partisan about it? He voted against a bill, many people vote against bills for many reason. NO ONE voted FOR killing newborns.

[DuncanONeil]

Again I respectfully submit you are wrong, way wrong. Al Quaida was NOT in Iraq, Never in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Hussein's Iraq was very secular and Al Quaida CLAIMS to be a religious organization. Al Quaida became part of Iraq only because we invaded. THESE are the facts.

Bush and Cheney were planning to invade Iraq before 9/11. Our national tragedy was USED by the Bush administration to justify their folly of a War.


Your facts are in error. Members of the Al Quaida hierarchy met with Saddam in Iraq. So there was some complicity there. I note that you completely dismiss the fact that Al Quaida was not the proximate cause of our entry into Iraq, but actions taken by the UN. Seems to me that your desire to denigrate the former President has blinded you to the actual facts of the campaign in Iraq in favor of the "common knowledge" version.

Prior to 9/11 there was no direct desire to invade Iraq. At that time we were still engaged in attempting to secure Saddam's co-operation with the terms of the cease fire of the 1991 conflict. Something he consistently refused to do.

One could make a case that your anger at losing the elections in 2000 and 2004 has colored your evaluation of the world scene since than.

[Belgarold]

Sorry but the proximate cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union was their inability to maintain a parity with the defense programs of the west, driven by the research of this country. Said research was driven by the administration to President Regan!

The Cold War is not much unless it was part of your life. And it is merely one issue.

I would really be interested in where your information comes from. The cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union had little or no relationship with the defense programs of the West or any research we were doing.

Internal forces brought about the fall of the Soviet Union and Gorbachev had more a hand in it than anything that was done in the West.

[DuncanONeil]

This may be your opinion but it is far from any sort of fact.

Sorry not opinion but actual fact. The revelation of the tax relief not being tax relieve comes from "Recovery.gov". In case you do not have the desire to check here is what it says. "Tax Relief - includes $15 B for Infrastructure and Science, $61 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $25 B for Education and Training and $22 B for Energy. Leaving only $165 B for tax relief. I was only guessing at 40% and in that you can say I was wrong as the reduction in relief is 42.7% not 40%.

The statement about "Welfare Reform" was from a news report. I am sure that a careful reading of the plans for the states will reveal the actual wording.

If there is anything I am it is not accepting of everything I hear. I am much more comfortable in reading the original material.

[DuncanONeil]

mmmhmmm Nothing partisan about it? He voted against a bill, many people vote against bills for many reason. NO ONE voted FOR killing newborns.

But that was the result! His stated reason because to vote for it could result in overturn of RoevWade. Yet no one other than the child is mentioned in the bill.

[Belgarold]

Your facts are in error. Members of the Al Quaida hierarchy met with Saddam in Iraq. So there was some complicity there. I note that you completely dismiss the fact that Al Quaida was not the proximate cause of our entry into Iraq, but actions taken by the UN. Seems to me that your desire to denigrate the former President has blinded you to the actual facts of the campaign in Iraq in favor of the "common knowledge" version.

Prior to 9/11 there was no direct desire to invade Iraq. At that time we were still engaged in attempting to secure Saddam's co-operation with the terms of the cease fire of the 1991 conflict. Something he consistently refused to do.

One could make a case that your anger at losing the elections in 2000 and 2004 has colored your evaluation of the world scene since than.


LOL. Well, I see that when you can't justify your 'facts' you turn to personal attacks. And I don't get all my news from Fox News, with their partisan viewpoints.

And it has been proven (unless you are Dick Cheney, who believes what he wants to believe, and damn the facts) that Hussein and Al Quaida hated one another.

AND Bush wanted war with Iraq and, what is more important, CHENEY wanted war with Iraq.

[DuncanONeil]

I would really be interested in where your information comes from. The cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union had little or no relationship with the defense programs of the West or any research we were doing.

Internal forces brought about the fall of the Soviet Union and Gorbachev had more a hand in it than anything that was done in the West.

Internal forces, surely. As a result of external forces!

[DuncanONeil]

LOL. Well, I see that when you can't justify your 'facts' you turn to personal attacks. And I don't get all my news from Fox News, with their partisan viewpoints.

And it has been proven (unless you are Dick Cheney, who believes what he wants to believe, and damn the facts) that Hussein and Al Quaida hated one another.

AND Bush wanted war with Iraq and, what is more important, CHENEY wanted war with Iraq.

WHAT PERSONAL ATTACKS?
And you resort to constant repetition of previous iterated statements. With no attempt at support. How does that make your statement stronger? I provide more justification than most.

It has also been proven that Saddam was making concerted effort to convince Iran that he had nuclear capability. He believed the best way to do that was to convince the US.

[mkemse]

Where did he say in and out in 90 days?
Al Quaida also was seen and likely operating in Iraq, but that is not the reason for going into Iraq. UN resolution 1440 was the proximate reason.

The quotes you use from CNN are disjointed and make no sense.

That was all CNN posted it was listed as the complete interview
When Bush annouced our plans to invade IRaq with "Shock and Awe" I belived he said he planned for troops to be in there for about 90 days or so, but no long term stay there:", in an interview a few days before he left office, he said "Yes the war has gone on much, much longer then we had planned, we did not realize how many terrorists we would be dealing with, how many insurents"

Well it would seem to me that if our country to War, you would make it a point to know the size of your enemy and know you are dealing with say 200,000 insurents and knowwhatthey are using to weapons ect

Evertime someone too him to task on this he always seemd to say "Our Inteligence was based on Fault Information" how can you go to war based on Faulty Interligence, you look at what you have, verify it make sure sll the info you have is a current as is avaiialbe at that time and check and if need be recheck it, you don't just go in then 3 years or 5 years later say "Well, we had no idea how many enemy we would be fighting" that makes no sense makes no sense

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Nothing partisan about it. That is simply an analysis of how people reacted to Obama and to any criticism of him or ideas.
As a member of the IL Legislature Obama voted for a bill (SB1095eng 92nd General Assembly). This bill would have required that any child that survived an abortion be treated as any other citizen. He voted against the bill in favor of a person not mentioned in the bill. Result he voted to allow the death of newborn.

Obama opposed the language of this type bill(s) multiple times and his explanation was that the language in the bill(s) would have been a de facto overturning of Roe V Wade through the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. He has said that he supported the similar federal bill that Bush signed into law since the wording protected the right to abortion. When the IL bill added an amendment that precisely mimicked the federal wording in 2005 the bill passed the IL Senate by a 52-0 vote. Obama says he supported that bill as well.

He and others rightly point out that there were already laws on the IL books protecting viable fetuses and that all life is protected by Doctor's Hippocratic Oath requirements.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Your facts are in error. Members of the Al Quaida hierarchy met with Saddam in Iraq. So there was some complicity there..

On June 16, 2004 the 911 Commission reported that it had not found any "collaborative connection" between Hussein's government and Al Qaeda. There was NO complicity between those two.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Your facts are in error. I note that you completely dismiss the fact that Al Quaida was not the proximate cause of our entry into Iraq, but actions taken by the UN. Seems to me that your desire to denigrate the former President has blinded you to the actual facts of the campaign in Iraq in favor of the "common knowledge" version.


The Security Council did agree to one resolution, UNSC Resolution 1441, that called on Iraq to disarm its weapons of mass destruction and cooperate with UN inspectors, but did not include an authorization for the use of force against Iraq. In Resolution 1441, the Security Council indicated that it would remain 'seized' of the matter, meaning that it continued to assert its authority as the final international arbiter of the use of force in the matter.

When the US went back to the Security Council for a second and follow-up resolution to 1441, this one to provide authorization to proceed to war against Iraq, the Security Council refused to comply with the US demand for such authorization on the grounds that it wanted to give the UN inspectors more time to finish their work.

We did not go into Iraq under UN authority.

Cite: May/June 2003 Issue of "Foreign Affairs" magazine article by Dr. Michael Glennon.
"On October 25... After intensive, behind-the-scenes haggling, the council responded to Bush's challenge on November 7 by unanimously adopting Resolution 1441, which found Iraq in 'material breach' of prior resolutions, set up a new inspections regime, and warned once again of 'serious consequences' if Iraq again failed to disarm. The resolution did not explicitly authorize force, however, and Washington pledged to return to the council for another discussion before resorting to arms.

[Thorne]

how can you go to war based on Faulty Interligence, you look at what you have, verify it make sure sll the info you have is a current as is avaiialbe at that time and check and if need be recheck it, you don't just go in then 3 years or 5 years later say "Well, we had no idea how many enemy we would be fighting" that makes no sense makes no sense

Unfortunately, faulty intelligence is one of the hazards of war. There's no way to determine, with absolute certainty, that your intelligence is accurate until you actually have troops on the ground. By then it's too late. That's what is referred to as "the fog of war." Modern intelligence gathering methods may reduce that fog to a heavy mist, but there are still no guarantees.

I think the biggest problem we had in going to war with Iraq was our own leaders' arrogance in believing that such a small country could actually defy the United States. And as for the true reasons for the war, I'm firmly convinced that a major role was played by Bush's attempting to placate those people who felt his father had "chickened out" by not invading Iraq during the first Gulf War. Public opinion may have had more to do with the fall of Sadam than anything else.

[mkemse]

Unfortunately, faulty intelligence is one of the hazards of war. There's no way to determine, with absolute certainty, that your intelligence is accurate until you actually have troops on the ground. By then it's too late. That's what is referred to as "the fog of war." Modern intelligence gathering methods may reduce that fog to a heavy mist, but there are still no guarantees.

I think the biggest problem we had in going to war with Iraq was our own leaders' arrogance in believing that such a small country could actually defy the United States. And as for the true reasons for the war, I'm firmly convinced that a major role was played by Bush's attempting to placate those people who felt his father had "chickened out" by not invading Iraq during the first Gulf War. Public opinion may have had more to do with the fall of Sadam than anything else.

Ok I understand that, but I also believe that Bush's real reason for gfoing intoIraq was NOT alleged WMD but rather to save face and cover and make up for his Father faiire in The Golf War, iI believe and this is only my opnion, that Iraq was done to finish what Bush Senior was not able to
Asfar as Sadam's fall, that may have been an excuse to go in, but Bush was even convinced apparently at 1 time that Sadamwas heavily involed in the 911 attackm but ion what I have read, Sadam and Bin Laden did not care much for each much less be co horts in 911, i just can't see that and I neverday or heard anything indcating that Iraq had anything to so wth the attack except for "What The White House FELT" do you invade a country on fellings or on Intelligence??

[denuseri]

Its not so much what Bush senior wasnt able to do so much as what he was advised NOT to do by the chairman of the joint chiefs.

Full scale invasion and occupation was something which Cheney was allways pushing for and was completely in disagrement of his boss's desicion. (he was in Bush senior's administration under donald rumsfield at the time).

Many people (most of the public not aware of the stategic situation) didnt understand Bush seniors decison at the time and still dont in many instances.

Powell and many advisors pointed out that if an invasion was carried out it had to start with an overthrow from within to secure popular support (hence why the kurds and others were initially being urged to rebel) and that it would ultimately destabilize the region for decades making a power vaccum that Iran would try to fill, unless the US was prepared for a another long term occupation like those in Germany and Japan.

GW along with Chenny (holding more power and influence than any VP ever had before) apparantly decided to go with a long term stratagy. I am certian Chenney had a lot to do with the decison. He has allways had an axe to grind in this area. He went round and round with the CIA on the intellegence and insited several times despite thier disclosure of lacking proper information on pressing the issue. No surprise there for any student of history.

Regan's stratagy for the cold war is a little more off topic and should probably have it's own thread.

[damyanti]

All the propaganda aside even the most zealous Bush supporters are painfully aware how harshly his presidency will be judged. All the revisionist tomes wont change the fact that the more time passes the more harsh History's verdict will be.

However a very intersting question comes to mind....How much different Bush presidency would have been if he had the backbone to pick another VP?

Bush never striked me as a particularly evil person, a spoiled rich brat- yes, juvenile, rude, irresponsible, lacking intelligence and utterly incompetent- omg, Yes.

But can you imagine him without Cheney or Rove?

Then again without Rove there never would have been president G.W.

[damyanti]

What I resent Democrats is their lack of b****. Bill Clinton seems to be the only one among them who has any, lol.

If Bush and co. had been Democrats I doubt Republicans (guys who tried to impeach a president for lying about a BJ, with a woman) would be so forgiving. You can bet there would be an army of Kenneth Starr's at work, collapsing economy or not.

[mkemse]

All the propaganda aside even the most zealous Bush supporters are painfully aware how harshly his presidency will be judged. All the revisionist tomes wont change the fact that the more time passes the more harsh History's verdict will be.

However a very intersting question comes to mind....How much different Bush presidency would have been if he had the backbone to pick another VP?

Bush never striked me as a particularly evil person, a spoiled rich brat- yes, juvenile, rude, irresponsible, lacking intelligence and utterly incompetent- omg, Yes.

But can you imagine him without Cheney or Rove?

Then again without Rove there never would have been president G.W.

Bush himselfwas never EVIL, he had very poor choices for VP. Attorney Genenral and he was neevr complete transparent with the Americna People on any Major issue, the always claim "Excutive Privledge" all the time

Not to mention he took more vacation time then any President in History and had more people in his ADM convicted of crimes then any other President and this includes Nixon, by nature I am sure he is a very nice person, his descions on Cabinet Positions and VP were terrible

[Stealth694]

Bush was more Cheney's puppet than President... Cheney is screaming how Obama is destryoying Bush's ( read Cheney's) Legacy. Personally I would have a mixed committee investigate Cheney, Bush, and Rove. That should prove very interesting.

[MMI]

If you want to know what the Establishment in Britain thinks about anything, you won't do much better than to consult The Times.

But that paper is representative of no other significant group, although it is the Establishment that has the power and the influence, so what it thinks is obviously important when considering Anglo-American matters.

Otherwise, I'm surprised Americans could give tuppence for what we thought.

(The rest of Britain probably holds a harsher opinion about Bush, btw.)

[Thorne]

Otherwise, I'm surprised Americans could give tuppence for what we thought.

Maybe a ha'penny!

But we should be interested in what you think. As the saying goes, keep your friends close.

And your enemies closer!

[denuseri]

I am also not going to delve into Clinton (the president who popularized being crooked and not just over a blowjob eaither btw far worse things went on and IMHO is not all that different from GW Bush two sides of the same dirty coin at any rate).

I would deffinetly suggest another thread for him too. lol

IMHO if a "Bush" was to be in the White House other than Bush Senior (who was very cualified administrativly speaking for the position in many ways that none of the men who have followed after him ever were) it should have been Jeb Bush. My father called me at work and honestly confessed to doing a WTF kind of double take and threw the F bomb around the house a few times when he heard GW was running instead of Jeb.

Later when I studdied things more closely (becuase honestly I was not all that much into politics back then unless its was somthing big deal like `despite my daddy wishing me to be) I could never understand why GW was chosen over his much more competant brother eaither.

When I voted for the first time in a presidential election (I was registered democrat back then just to spite my parents) I voted for Bush. Not to fault Gore all that much but he was boreing and wodden and I didnt like his economics, eaither way sometimes I think the patrician powers decide how its going to be before hand depite whatever we plebs decide in an election.

By the time the second presidential bid came up I was much more knowledgable about such things and I voted for Kerry as an informed desicion and not just another cog in the party wheel (despite my having changed to the republican party lol damm I am contrary). Informed in so much as I just wanted allmost anyone else to replace GW, even if I didnt like some things about the new person.

I really believe GW Bush let things slide with the economy too much as well as giving in to the masications of Chenney. I think he was manipulated to a certian degree by opportunistic advisors, elitist entitlment and his own pride. He didnt make the same kind of sacrifice his father did to obtain his office by hard work and comitment. Spoiled and petulent like most offspring of the upper crust he made many many mistakes.

The attitude prevelant in administrations such as his and Clintons before him (similar backgrounds in many ways coming from pampered elitest society) has allways been one of "I can do what ever I want becuase I am the big cheese and therefore not to be questioned" .Typical of many an Anthenian tyrant during the heydays of that fledgling democracy summed up very well in a paraphrased quote from Xenophon:

" Kill one man and you are tried as a murderer, kill a thousand and you are hailed as a victor."

In other words, I don't believe GW, his imediate predessesor, nor his replacement ever has really had anyone but his own best intrests in mind.

[DuncanONeil]

1. There has been and still is a lot of harsh talk against Obamas program and his work and personal history....which is I assume what passes for "critical review" these days.

2. Nobody ever voted "to kill newborns". Abortion views are a private matter. But if you really insist on it....I suppose its much better to raise them and ship them off to Iraq so they can be tortured and killed and all so some very corrupted rich people can get even more rich.



I may have responded to this already. This is exactly what is meant by his being viewed as a messiah. Any attempt to address his history, experience, or plans is always characterized as a "harsh attack".

[DuncanONeil]

I am supposed to accept your unsupported statement that you are correct.

As for this country having plans to invade any given country, that surprises you? We have plans to invade many places. That is the nature of planning. Not to consider if the planners do not plan they become rusty at it. I would not be surprised if plans exist to invade Mexico and Canada. Does that mean we intend to invade? Try coming up with some support for your claim.

[DuncanONeil]

No intelligence is one hundred percent accurate. Being as it is based on incomplete information and best guess estimates.
Were we to wait for certainty it would be too late.

[DuncanONeil]

Proximate cause for the commencement of action against Iraq was UN resolution 1441. On the strength of that it can be said that it was not Bush's desire to take unilateral action against Iraq.

[DuncanONeil]

There is no language in the bill that even mentions the mother. The only entity mention is the child that survives. In the language of the bill "the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
No where in the bill is the mother mentioned. That being the case how does the fact the the child is born alive and has rights affect anyones abortion decisions?

[DuncanONeil]

"All the propaganda aside even the most zealous Bush supporters are painfully aware how harshly his presidency will be judged. All the revisionist tomes wont change the fact that the more time passes the more harsh History's verdict will be. "

That remains to be seen!

[DuncanONeil]

What I resent Democrats is their lack of b****. Bill Clinton seems to be the only one among them who has any, lol.

If Bush and co. had been Democrats I doubt Republicans (guys who tried to impeach a president for lying about a BJ, with a woman) would be so forgiving. You can bet there would be an army of Kenneth Starr's at work, collapsing economy or not.

I am afraid it is the Democrats that are not forgiving!

[DuncanONeil]

If you want to know what the Establishment in Britain thinks about anything, you won't do much better than to consult The Times.

But that paper is representative of no other significant group, although it is the Establishment that has the power and the influence, so what it thinks is obviously important when considering Anglo-American matters.

Otherwise, I'm surprised Americans could give tuppence for what we thought.

(The rest of Britain probably holds a harsher opinion about Bush, btw.)

Keep the discussion on topic.

Diablo

[DuncanONeil]

I am also not going to delve into Clinton (the president who popularized being crooked and not just over a blowjob eaither btw far worse things went on and IMHO is not all that different from GW Bush two sides of the same dirty coin at any rate).

I would deffinetly suggest another thread for him too. lol

IMHO if a "Bush" was to be in the White House other than Bush Senior (who was very cualified administrativly speaking for the position in many ways that none of the men who have followed after him ever were) it should have been Jeb Bush. My father called me at work and honestly confessed to doing a WTF kind of double take and threw the F bomb around the house a few times when he heard GW was running instead of Jeb.

Later when I studdied things more closely (becuase honestly I was not all that much into politics back then unless its was somthing big deal like `despite my daddy wishing me to be) I could never understand why GW was chosen over his much more competant brother eaither.

When I voted for the first time in a presidential election (I was registered democrat back then just to spite my parents) I voted for Bush. Not to fault Gore all that much but he was boreing and wodden and I didnt like his economics, eaither way sometimes I think the patrician powers decide how its going to be before hand depite whatever we plebs decide in an election.

By the time the second presidential bid came up I was much more knowledgable about such things and I voted for Kerry as an informed desicion and not just another cog in the party wheel (despite my having changed to the republican party lol damm I am contrary). Informed in so much as I just wanted allmost anyone else to replace GW, even if I didnt like some things about the new person.

I really believe GW Bush let things slide with the economy too much as well as giving in to the masications of Chenney. I think he was manipulated to a certian degree by opportunistic advisors, elitist entitlment and his own pride. He didnt make the same kind of sacrifice his father did to obtain his office by hard work and comitment. Spoiled and petulent like most offspring of the upper crust he made many many mistakes.

The attitude prevelant in administrations such as his and Clintons before him (similar backgrounds in many ways coming from pampered elitest society) has allways been one of "I can do what ever I want becuase I am the big cheese and therefore not to be questioned" .Typical of many an Anthenian tyrant during the heydays of that fledgling democracy summed up very well in a paraphrased quote from Xenophon:

" Kill one man and you are tried as a murderer, kill a thousand and you are hailed as a victor."

In other words, I don't believe GW, his imediate predessesor, nor his replacement ever has really had anyone but his own best intrests in mind.

Not to knock your decision to vote for Kerry, it is your choice after all. But the available data, provided by Kerry himself, proved quite clearly that he was not qualified for the job.

[mkemse]

I am supposed to accept your unsupported statement that you are correct.

As for this country having plans to invade any given country, that surprises you? We have plans to invade many places. That is the nature of planning. Not to consider if the planners do not plan they become rusty at it. I would not be surprised if plans exist to invade Mexico and Canada. Does that mean we intend to invade? Try coming up with some support for your claim.

Coorect and I beie;ve Bush had ven discused invading Iran over their Nuclear Program because of their unwillingness to end it
It would neevr suprised me if we invaded any coutry, from my view point our Country (The USA) has alway seemed to have this need to install our Democratic was of life omn eveyone, without asking, do the people of that country want it
We need to stop policing the wolrd and take care of our own just my thoughts ans opinions

[DuncanONeil]

Coorect and I beie;ve Bush had ven discused invading Iran over their Nuclear Program because of their unwillingness to end it
It would neevr suprised me if we invaded any coutry, from my view point our Country (The USA) has alway seemed to have this need to install our Democratic was of life omn eveyone, without asking, do the people of that country want it
We need to stop policing the wolrd and take care of our own just my thoughts ans opinions

Ok explain to me why I must accept unsupported pronouncements as factual, just because they are said?

[Diablo]

Keep the discussion civil or it will be closed.

[mkemse]

Ok explain to me why I must accept unsupported pronouncements as factual, just because they are said?

I never said you did, it was postd on CNN.com, and there was discussion a few years back that the US considered invading Iran as a way of stoppin it's nuclear program
This the enitre article


[COLOR="DarkRed"]

The U.S. Has Plans to Invade Iran Before Bush's Term Ends
By Walter C. Uhler

09/29/05 "ICH" -- -- Bill Gertz is a right-wing national security reporter for the Rev. Sun Yung Moon's neo-fascist newspaper, The Washington Times. He's also a spigot from which flows much classified information illegally leaked by like-minded "patriots" seeking to advance their hawkish agenda in the military-industrial-congressional complex. And, frankly speaking, that's the only reason I pay any attention to him.

So I was hardly surprised when, on September 16, 2005, Gertz reported on the Bush administration's "computer slide presentation." which was aimed at persuading whoever would listen that Iran is working feverishly to build nuclear weapons.

According to Gertz, the report claims: "Iran's nuclear program is well-scaled for a weapons capability, as a comparison to [Pakistan's] nuclear weapons infrastructure shows…When one also considers Iran's concealment and deception activities, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons."

The report also states that "Iran's uranium ore resources are insufficient for Tehran to produce enough fuel for civilian electrical power generating reactors. 'However, Iran's uranium resources are more than sufficient to support a nuclear weapons capability.'" [U.S. Report Says Iran Seeks To Acquire Nuclear Weapons," Washington Times, 16 September 2005]

Unlike the Washington Post's article on the subject two days earlier, Gertz predictably failed to mention that the slide show "dismisses ambiguities in the evidence…and omits alternative explanations under debate among intelligence analysts." He also failed to mention that several diplomats "said the slide show reminded them of the flawed presentation on Iraq's weapons programs made by then-secretary of state Colin L. Powell to the UN Security Council in February 2003" ["US Deploys Slide Show to Press Case Against Iran," Washington Post, 14 September 2005]

Moreover, in order to serve as water boy for the Bush administration, Gertz had to ignore (or discount) the recent report from Britain's prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies, which concluded that Iran "was at least five years away from producing sufficient material for 'a single nuclear weapon,'" Instead, Gertz obediently and dutifully noted that the Bush administration "is pressing the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] to refer the issue… to the United Nations Security Council," which "could then impose economic sanctions against Iran or possibly a future authorization for the use of force." [Ibid.] Ah yes, "authorization for the use of force"—the source of many a neocon and chickenhawk wet dream.

But much more disconcerting than Gertz's piece was one written by Claude Salhani on 22 September 2005 for the same loony "Moonie" scandal sheet. Salhani shamelessly reintroduced the tactics, which proved so successful in inflaming a frightened American public about the threat posed by Iraq. He invoked the words of an Iranian dissident (today's Ahmad Chalabi), as well as former U.S. government officials (seeking to "empower resistance" inside Iran), to make the claim the Iran is, in fact, "gearing for war" with the United States.

No, notwithstanding the inflammatory title that the Moonie editors attached to Salhani's article—"Is Iran Geared For War?"—Iran is not planning to attack the United States. Instead, it is merely taking very prudent measures to defend itself against a possible illegal preventive war instigated by the "war party" in the Bush administration.

Although America's past is riddled with instances in which a "war party"—remember the "War Hawks" Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun?—within a given party or administration labored mightily to con its subjects into wars of aggression, it's America's singular misfortune today to be guided by a "war party" in and around the Bush administration, which consists of neocons and chickenhawks who seek to compensate for personal cowardice or neglect of military duty (especially during the Vietnam war) with martial rhetoric and by sending courageous soldiers to fight, kill, and perhaps die for them. Note President George W. Bush's "Bring 'em on."

But it is America's greater misfortune today to be informed by a so-called "watch dog" mainstream news media that supinely reports this war party's will to kill without insisting upon the hard evidence necessary for justifying war. Although they failed miserably in their 2002-03 coverage of Iraq, unfortunately this is not a recent phenomenon. For as John L. Harper has recently concluded: "The premises on which the United States decided to go to war in 1812, 1846, 1898, 1917, 1950, 1964–65 and 2002–03, were largely false." [John L. Harper, "Anatomy of a Habit: America's Unnecessary Wars," Survival, Summer 2005, p. 79]

But, forget the past. Just a few days ago, on September 26, 2005, The Telegraph of Calcutta, India issued an astounding report that has yet to cause a ripple within America's mainstream news media. In the fifth paragraph of the article, "Gulf factor key to PM's Iran vote decision," were the following words: "Top-ranking Americans have told equally top-ranking Indians in recent weeks that THE US HAS PLANS TO INVADE IRAN BEFORE BUSH'S TERM ENDS" (author's emphasis).

Thoughtful, decent, moral citizens of these United States: I urge you to write to the editors of your local and national news outlets to insist that they authenticate or repudiate the information reported by The Telegraph. And I further urge you to write your congressman (or congresswoman) to inquire about their knowledge concerning this assertion. Finally, I urge you to write to President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and/or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to inquire about their plans to invade Iran before they leave office.

We simply cannot permit the Bush "war party" to run roughshod over America's democracy once again.

Walter C. Uhler <waltuhler@aol.com> is an independent scholar and freelance writer whose work has been published in numerous publications, including The Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military History, the Moscow Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also is President of the Russian-American International Studies Association (RAISA).

Additionally:

Iran - Ready to attack
Dan Plesch

Published 19 February 2007



American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).

The Bush administration has made much of sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf. But it is a tiny part of the preparations. Post 9/11, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's notice. Two carriers in the region, the USS John C Stennis and the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, could quickly be joined by three more now at sea: USS Ronald Reagan, USS Harry S Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well as by USS Nimitz. Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles.

Then there are the marines, who are not tied down fighting in Iraq. Several marine forces are assembling, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and, yes, hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Today, marines have the USS Boxer and USS Bataan carrier forces in the Gulf and probably also the USS Kearsarge and USS Bonhomme Richard. Three others, the USS Peleliu, USS Wasp and USS Iwo Jima, are ready to join them. Earlier this year, HQ staff to manage these forces were moved from Virginia to Bahrain.

Vice-President Dick Cheney has had something of a love affair with the US marines, and this may reach its culmination in the fishing villages along Iran's Gulf coast. Marine generals hold the top jobs at Nato, in the Pentagon and are in charge of all nuclear weapons. No marine has held any of these posts before.

Traditionally, the top nuclear job went either to a commander of the navy's Trident submarines or of the air force's bombers and missiles. Today, all these forces follow the orders of a marine, General James Cartwright, and are integrated into a "Global Strike" plan which places strategic forces on permanent 12-hour readiness.

The only public discussion of this plan has been by the American analysts Bill Arkin and Hans Kristensen, who have focused on the possible use of atomic weapons. These concerns are justified, but ignore how forces can be used in conventional war.

Any US general planning to attack Iran can now assume that at least 10,000 targets can be hit in a single raid, with warplanes flying from the US or Diego Garcia. In the past year, unlimited funding for military technology has taken "smart bombs" to a new level.

New "bunker-busting" conventional bombs weigh only 250lb. According to Boeing, the GBU-39 small-diameter bomb "quadruples" the firepower of US warplanes, compared to those in use even as recently as 2003. A single stealth or B-52 bomber can now attack between 150 and 300 individual points to within a metre of accuracy using the global positioning system.

With little military effort, the US air force can hit the last-known position of Iranian military units, political leaders and supposed sites of weapons of mass destruction. One can be sure that, if war comes, George Bush will not want to stand accused of using too little force and allowing Iran to fight back.

"Global Strike" means that, without any obvious signal, what was done to Serbia and Lebanon can be done overnight to the whole of Iran. We, and probably the Iranians, would not know about it until after the bombs fell. Forces that hide will suffer the fate of Saddam's armies, once their positions are known.

The whole of Iran is now less than an hour's flying time from some American base or carrier. Sources in the region as well as trade journals confirm that the US has built three bases in Azerbaijan that could be transit points for troops and with facilities equal to its best in Europe.

Most of the Iranian army is positioned along the border with Iraq, facing US army missiles that can reach 150km over the border. But it is in the flat, sandy oilfields east and south of Basra where the temptation will be to launch a tank attack and hope that a disaffected population will be grateful.

The regime in Tehran has already complained of US- and UK-inspired terror attacks in several Iranian regions where the population opposes the ayatollahs' fanatical policies. Such reports corroborate the American journalist Seymour Hersh's claim that the US military is already engaged in a low-level war with Iran. The fighting is most intense in the Kurdish north where Iran has been firing artillery into Iraq. The US and Iran are already engaged in a low-level proxy war across the Iran-Iraq border.

And, once again, the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute have a plan for a peaceful settlement: this time it is for a federal Iran. Officially, Michael Ledeen, the AEI plan's sponsor, has been ostracised by the White House. However, two years ago, the Congress of Iranian Nationalities for a Federal Iran had its inaugural meeting in London.

We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran.

[DuncanONeil]

Keep the discussion on topic.

Diablo

Why is this attributed to me?

[DuncanONeil]

"it was postd on CNN.com, and there was discussion a few years back that the US considered invading Iran as a way of stoppin it's nuclear program
This the enitre article"

You simply do not understand the process of military planning! It is a constant daily exercise covering many ideas that would probably surpirse the heck out of you.

[mkemse]

"it was postd on CNN.com, and there was discussion a few years back that the US considered invading Iran as a way of stoppin it's nuclear program
This the enitre article"

You simply do not understand the process of military planning! It is a constant daily exercise covering many ideas that would probably surpirse the heck out of you.

You asked for documenttion, so i posted what I found that The US was resdy to invaeIraw a few posts back, simply replying to your request for doumentation

Bush's Legacy will be his Lack of timely response to Katrinam 3 years later they are not alot better off then they are now, His failure in Somolia, his "need" to Invade Iraq rather then concenrtate of Bin Lafen in Afghistan after 911, his search for non exsistant WMD in Iraq which never existed as Colin Powel even addmitted prior to leaing his postion in the Adm. He lack of any type of support for Soviet Georgia beyond telling Russia to leave, his inability to deal with the Palastine, he was supporting a pouppet goverment that did not control anything, Hamas did andstill does
he left office with one of the lowest approval ratings of any President and even lower then Nixon's prior to leaving office the polled 109 Poitical Historian 45% said he was the worst President in US jhistoiry, 35% said his is among the top 10 qorst pPresident in history

This will be his legacy his failued Foreighn Policies:

Bush Foreign Policy – How Deep is the Failure?

By G. John Ikenberry - December 1, 2006, 8:53AM
Bush’s war in Iraq has been repudiated, the midterm elections did this. There is now wide open intellectual space to debate America’s next foreign policy. Jackson Diehl made this point in his commentary on the Princeton Project in Monday’s Washington Post.

The debate now is really over how deeply flawed Bush foreign policy is. Is Bush failure primarily about Iraq or is it rooted more deeply in philosophy and grand strategy? And if the failure is about philosophy and grand strategy, is this an indictment only of neo-conservative ideas or of liberal internationalism itself?

Two groups are narrowing the critique. First, neo-conservatives are arguing that Bush failure is, well, because of Bush – incompetence and the failure to fully push their ideas. The debacle of today’s foreign policy does not discredit neo-conservatism – the ideas were never fully implemented. This is Bill Kristol's view, expressed last May: “Much of the U.S. government no longer believes in, and is no longer acting to enforce, the Bush doctrine. . . the United States of America is in retreat.” Soon it will be the weak-kneed Democratic congress that will also be implicated in Bush failure. Second, some liberal hawks who supported the war are also making a very limited critique. To be sure, the war itself is now seen as a mistake – certainly its conduct – but the general Bush orientation toward terrorism and the use of force is taken as essentially valid. Indeed, these liberals would say that the primary challenge for Democrats is to convince voters that they can “do national security” like Republicans can. This political imperative makes a thorough-going critique of Bush failure difficult -- and unwise.

But the flaws run deep.

Now is the time for an honest post mortem of Bush foreign policy. Bush foreign policy has failed not just because of incompetence or bad luck in Iraq. The entire intellectual edifice of Bush foreign policy – such as it is – is deeply flawed. And let’s be clear. The Bush administration’s grand strategy is not simply a variation on earlier postwar liberal internationalist grand strategies – as some conservatives and liberals suggest. It was a radical departure from America’s postwar liberal hegemonic orientation – and the world has bitten back.

Martin Wolf makes this point in a column in Wednesday’s Financial Times, drawing on the arguments that Charles Kupchan and I made in a 2004 article in The National Interest.

“The signal feature of this administration has not been merely its incompetence, but its rejection of the principles on which U.S. foreign policy was built after the Second World War. The administration's strategy has been based, instead, upon four ideas: the primacy of force; the preservation of a unipolar order; the unbridled exercise of U.S. power; and the right to initiate preventive war in the absence of immediate threats.

"The response to the terrorist outrage of September 11, 2001, reinforced the hold of all these principles. The notion of an indefinite and unlimited ‘war on terror’ became the fulcrum of U.S. foreign policy. It led to the idea of an "axis of evil" connecting Saddam Hussein's Iraq to theocratic Iran and Kim Jong-il's North Korea. It brought about the justified invasion of Afghanistan, but also the diversion into Iraq. Not least, the idea of the war on terror led to the indefinite imprisonment of alleged enemy combatants without judicial oversight, toleration of torture, "extraordinary rendition" of suspects, the extra-territorial prison at Guantánamo Bay, and, by indirect means, the abuses at Abu Ghraib. All this has been bad enough.

"It is made worse by what John Ikenberry of Princeton University and Charles Kupchan of Georgetown aptly describe as the ‘sloppy intelligence, faulty judgment, and ideological zealotry’ that marked implementation, above all in Iraq. Yet the poor implementation is not an accident. A belief in the primacy of the military naturally led to the transfer of responsibility to the Department of Defense; a belief in the efficacy of force created the conviction that victory meant peace and a swift transition to democracy; and disdain for allies guaranteed the absence of co-operation in postwar occupation.

"The U.S. must now start again. It must design a foreign policy for the current age. In doing so, it should discard almost everything the Bush administration has proclaimed.“

Additionaly:

U.S.: Bush Foreign Policy Legacy Widely Seen as Disastrous
Analysis by Jim Lobe*

WASHINGTON, Jan 13, 2009 (IPS) - While in a farewell press conference Monday George W. Bush once again expressed the belief that his eight-year presidency, particularly his foreign-policy record, will be vindicated by history, the portents are not particularly good.

Already last spring, nearly two thirds of 109 professional historians polled by the 'History News Network' rated Bush the worst president in the nation's history, while another 35 percent said he was among the ten worst of the 42 who preceded him.

And that was six months before the mid-September financial crisis that most economists agree will turn out to be the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930's!

Bush leaves office next Tuesday with the lowest sustained approval ratings of any modern president.

With the exception of hard-line neo-conservatives and other far-right hawks who ruled the roost in Bush's first term, the overwhelming consensus of veteran analysts here is that his "global war on terror" - for which he is likely to be most remembered - has inflicted unprecedented and possibly permanent damage on Washington's image abroad.

The latter problem may not matter to those who, like Vice President Dick Cheney and the "neo-cons", have long disdained diplomacy and other forms of "soft power".

But the unexpected difficulties confronted by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq - as well as the transparent failure of "hard power" to have the desired effect in other "terror-war" theatres, such as Somalia and Pakistan (or Lebanon, in Israel's case) - have exposed the limits of a U.S.-dominated "unipolar world", and the ability of the U.S. armed forces to enforce it on their own.

"The elementary truth that seems to elude the experts again and again - Gulf War, Afghan war, next war - is that power is its own reward," chortled the ‘Washington Post’s’ neo-conservative columnist and champion of "unipolarity", Charles Krauthammer, after U.S.-backed forces chased the Taliban and al Qaeda out of Afghanistan in late 2001 in a concise - and now highly ironic - statement of the administration’s first-term worldview and strategic intent. "...The psychology in the region is now one of fear and deep respect for American power."

Particularly destructive to Washington's image, of course, were the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the use of "aggressive interrogation techniques" - which most human-rights experts call torture - against terrorist suspects at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and secret U.S.- controlled prisons around the world.

Uncritical backing for Israel, even when it waged a series of military campaigns, most recently in Gaza, that appeared to give scant regard to the welfare of the civilian population, were also damaging.

"The Bush administration has left you (the U.S.) a disgusting legacy and a reckless position towards the massacres and bloodshed of innocents in Gaza...," declared no less a friend than former Saudi ambassador and intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal, in a speech last week that created quite a sensation among experts here.

"Neither Israel nor the U.S. can gain from a war that produces this reaction from one of the wisest and most moderate voices in the Arab world," remarked Anthony Cordesman, a highly regarded Middle East specialist at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) last week, who once called Bush’s hopes of democratising the Arab world by invading Iraq as "cross(ing) the line between neo-conservative and neo-crazy."

In fairness, the unilateralism and militarism that dominated most of Bush's first term, when Cheney, then-Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and their neo-conservative advisers were in the saddle, softened considerably in his second.

This softenign was due to both the discrediting of pre-war assumptions about Iraq and the ascendancy of administration realists led initially by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and, after Rumsfeld's resignation in November 2006, his successor, Robert Gates.

While the hawks strongly opposed any engagement with the surviving members of the "Axis of Evil", North Korea and Iran, the realists successfully persuaded Bush that pressure, isolation and military threats had actually proven counter-productive to U.S. interests.

The realists also convinced him that diplomatic engagement would have the benefit of demonstrating to the rest of the world that Washington was prepared to exhaust at least some diplomatic remedies before resorting to war.

In fact, the second term witnessed a notable softening - hawks would say "appeasement" - in Washington's position in a number of areas, including, remarkably, limited co-operation with the previously-despised International Criminal Court (ICC), a more forthcoming rhetoric - if not actual policy - on global warming, and even deference to Washington's European allies in dealing with a resurgent Russia, notably during last August's conflict in Georgia.

With the military bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, multilateralism and diplomacy ceased to be dirty words.

Indeed, the administration spent considerable effort in its second term patching up ties with what Rumsfeld had once contemptuously referred to as "Old Europe" - that part of the globe that had been most alienated by the neo-imperialist trajectory of the first term.

This is apart from the Arab and Islamic worlds and, to a lesser extent, Latin America, where old resentments flared over Washington's endorsement of, if not complicity with, a failed military coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2002.

Judging by opinion polls and expert opinion here, Bush fared considerably better in Asia, where, to the disappointment of Rumsfeld and Cheney, he built on the progress made by his father and Bill Clinton in deepening ties with China, and did so without alienating Washington’s closest regional ally, Japan.

In addition, Bush's courtship of India, capped by the controversial nuclear-energy accord ratified by Congress last summer, is considered by many analysts here as his greatest foreign-policy achievement.

Bush’s five-year, 15-billion-dollar AIDS initiative - launched in part to highlight his "compassionate conservatism" on the eve of the Iraq invasion - also helps explain his not-insignificant popularity in sub-Saharan Africa (although 15 billion dollars is currently what his administration is spending each month on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

He is also given credit for his role in ending the long-standing civil war between Khartoum and the insurgency in south Sudan, although that diplomatic success, however fragile, stands in rather stunning contrast to failures in Darfur, eastern Congo, and Somalia where, if anything, the U.S. efforts to keep Islamist forces from gaining power have been little short of disastrous.

To his defenders, Bush’s finest moment – and one on which he appears to pin the greatest hope for his legacy - came two years ago when, despite the unprecedented popular disapproval of the Iraq war and the advice of foreign-policy establishment, he "surged" some 30,000 more U.S. troops into Iraq as part of a new counter-insurgency strategy designed to halt the country’s precipitous slide into all-out sectarian civil war.

While favourable trends within the Sunni community were already well underway at the time as former insurgents, backed by U.S. funding and weapons, had turned against al Qaeda in Iraq, the Surge clearly helped reduce the violence in Baghdad.

But whether the Surge has set the stage for its strategic goal of national reconciliation, or even the kind of democratic state that Bush had hoped would become a model for export to its Arab neighbours and Iran, remains far from certain.

If it has, Bush may yet be hailed as a 21st century Harry Truman, whose low approval ratings at the time of his departure from the White House in 1953 nearly rivals Bush’s but whose sponsorship of NATO and the Marshall Plan, among other early Cold-War initiatives, are now recognised as significant achievements.

If, on the other hand, Iraq falls back into chaos or splits apart or evolves into a new dictatorship or becomes even more closely tied to Iran than it already is, then Bush’s fate as the worst U.S. president would almost certainly be sealed. History will have to decide.

[wmrs2]

I am not suprised, the also left office with the lowest approval rating of any President in History, including Nixon
Of course you are not surprised! Bush left office at a time in history when the judging press was 93% liberal, communistic, socialistic, and far left in their interpretation of things. Jesus Christ had the same liberals judging him and look what his approval rating was. Following generations and more fair judges will rate G.W. Bush very favorable.

Jesus Christ and Bush received the same treatment. Jesus saved the world and Bush saved the USA from more 9/11 attacks. Neither person was given credit for what they did by the contemporary judges of historical accomplishments. Only a fool would expect today's press wound rate Bush at the top but his day will come and the hard hearted liberals of today will be judged in the same light as Jesus Christ's judges. History is not interpreted by any panel of contemprary judges assembled at this time. The interpretation of history is left to future generations who will be more fair than the Bush haters of today.
I am back, wmrs2

[wmrs2]

I never said you did, it was postd on CNN.com, and there was discussion a few years back that the US considered invading Iran as a way of stoppin it's nuclear program
This the enitre article


[COLOR="DarkRed"]

The U.S. Has Plans to Invade Iran Before Bush's Term Ends
By Walter C. Uhler

09/29/05 "ICH" -- -- Bill Gertz is a right-wing national security reporter for the Rev. Sun Yung Moon's neo-fascist newspaper, The Washington Times. He's also a spigot from which flows much classified information illegally leaked by like-minded "patriots" seeking to advance their hawkish agenda in the military-industrial-congressional complex. And, frankly speaking, that's the only reason I pay any attention to him.

So I was hardly surprised when, on September 16, 2005, Gertz reported on the Bush administration's "computer slide presentation." which was aimed at persuading whoever would listen that Iran is working feverishly to build nuclear weapons.

According to Gertz, the report claims: "Iran's nuclear program is well-scaled for a weapons capability, as a comparison to [Pakistan's] nuclear weapons infrastructure shows…When one also considers Iran's concealment and deception activities, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons."

The report also states that "Iran's uranium ore resources are insufficient for Tehran to produce enough fuel for civilian electrical power generating reactors. 'However, Iran's uranium resources are more than sufficient to support a nuclear weapons capability.'" [U.S. Report Says Iran Seeks To Acquire Nuclear Weapons," Washington Times, 16 September 2005]

Unlike the Washington Post's article on the subject two days earlier, Gertz predictably failed to mention that the slide show "dismisses ambiguities in the evidence…and omits alternative explanations under debate among intelligence analysts." He also failed to mention that several diplomats "said the slide show reminded them of the flawed presentation on Iraq's weapons programs made by then-secretary of state Colin L. Powell to the UN Security Council in February 2003" ["US Deploys Slide Show to Press Case Against Iran," Washington Post, 14 September 2005]

Moreover, in order to serve as water boy for the Bush administration, Gertz had to ignore (or discount) the recent report from Britain's prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies, which concluded that Iran "was at least five years away from producing sufficient material for 'a single nuclear weapon,'" Instead, Gertz obediently and dutifully noted that the Bush administration "is pressing the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] to refer the issue… to the United Nations Security Council," which "could then impose economic sanctions against Iran or possibly a future authorization for the use of force." [Ibid.] Ah yes, "authorization for the use of force"—the source of many a neocon and chickenhawk wet dream.

But much more disconcerting than Gertz's piece was one written by Claude Salhani on 22 September 2005 for the same loony "Moonie" scandal sheet. Salhani shamelessly reintroduced the tactics, which proved so successful in inflaming a frightened American public about the threat posed by Iraq. He invoked the words of an Iranian dissident (today's Ahmad Chalabi), as well as former U.S. government officials (seeking to "empower resistance" inside Iran), to make the claim the Iran is, in fact, "gearing for war" with the United States.

No, notwithstanding the inflammatory title that the Moonie editors attached to Salhani's article—"Is Iran Geared For War?"—Iran is not planning to attack the United States. Instead, it is merely taking very prudent measures to defend itself against a possible illegal preventive war instigated by the "war party" in the Bush administration.

Although America's past is riddled with instances in which a "war party"—remember the "War Hawks" Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun?—within a given party or administration labored mightily to con its subjects into wars of aggression, it's America's singular misfortune today to be guided by a "war party" in and around the Bush administration, which consists of neocons and chickenhawks who seek to compensate for personal cowardice or neglect of military duty (especially during the Vietnam war) with martial rhetoric and by sending courageous soldiers to fight, kill, and perhaps die for them. Note President George W. Bush's "Bring 'em on."

But it is America's greater misfortune today to be informed by a so-called "watch dog" mainstream news media that supinely reports this war party's will to kill without insisting upon the hard evidence necessary for justifying war. Although they failed miserably in their 2002-03 coverage of Iraq, unfortunately this is not a recent phenomenon. For as John L. Harper has recently concluded: "The premises on which the United States decided to go to war in 1812, 1846, 1898, 1917, 1950, 1964–65 and 2002–03, were largely false." [John L. Harper, "Anatomy of a Habit: America's Unnecessary Wars," Survival, Summer 2005, p. 79]

But, forget the past. Just a few days ago, on September 26, 2005, The Telegraph of Calcutta, India issued an astounding report that has yet to cause a ripple within America's mainstream news media. In the fifth paragraph of the article, "Gulf factor key to PM's Iran vote decision," were the following words: "Top-ranking Americans have told equally top-ranking Indians in recent weeks that THE US HAS PLANS TO INVADE IRAN BEFORE BUSH'S TERM ENDS" (author's emphasis).

Thoughtful, decent, moral citizens of these United States: I urge you to write to the editors of your local and national news outlets to insist that they authenticate or repudiate the information reported by The Telegraph. And I further urge you to write your congressman (or congresswoman) to inquire about their knowledge concerning this assertion. Finally, I urge you to write to President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and/or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to inquire about their plans to invade Iran before they leave office.

We simply cannot permit the Bush "war party" to run roughshod over America's democracy once again.

Walter C. Uhler <waltuhler@aol.com> is an independent scholar and freelance writer whose work has been published in numerous publications, including The Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military History, the Moscow Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also is President of the Russian-American International Studies Association (RAISA).

Additionally:

Iran - Ready to attack
Dan Plesch

Published 19 February 2007



American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).

The Bush administration has made much of sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf. But it is a tiny part of the preparations. Post 9/11, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's notice. Two carriers in the region, the USS John C Stennis and the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, could quickly be joined by three more now at sea: USS Ronald Reagan, USS Harry S Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well as by USS Nimitz. Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles.

Then there are the marines, who are not tied down fighting in Iraq. Several marine forces are assembling, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and, yes, hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Today, marines have the USS Boxer and USS Bataan carrier forces in the Gulf and probably also the USS Kearsarge and USS Bonhomme Richard. Three others, the USS Peleliu, USS Wasp and USS Iwo Jima, are ready to join them. Earlier this year, HQ staff to manage these forces were moved from Virginia to Bahrain.

Vice-President Dick Cheney has had something of a love affair with the US marines, and this may reach its culmination in the fishing villages along Iran's Gulf coast. Marine generals hold the top jobs at Nato, in the Pentagon and are in charge of all nuclear weapons. No marine has held any of these posts before.

Traditionally, the top nuclear job went either to a commander of the navy's Trident submarines or of the air force's bombers and missiles. Today, all these forces follow the orders of a marine, General James Cartwright, and are integrated into a "Global Strike" plan which places strategic forces on permanent 12-hour readiness.

The only public discussion of this plan has been by the American analysts Bill Arkin and Hans Kristensen, who have focused on the possible use of atomic weapons. These concerns are justified, but ignore how forces can be used in conventional war.

Any US general planning to attack Iran can now assume that at least 10,000 targets can be hit in a single raid, with warplanes flying from the US or Diego Garcia. In the past year, unlimited funding for military technology has taken "smart bombs" to a new level.

New "bunker-busting" conventional bombs weigh only 250lb. According to Boeing, the GBU-39 small-diameter bomb "quadruples" the firepower of US warplanes, compared to those in use even as recently as 2003. A single stealth or B-52 bomber can now attack between 150 and 300 individual points to within a metre of accuracy using the global positioning system.

With little military effort, the US air force can hit the last-known position of Iranian military units, political leaders and supposed sites of weapons of mass destruction. One can be sure that, if war comes, George Bush will not want to stand accused of using too little force and allowing Iran to fight back.

"Global Strike" means that, without any obvious signal, what was done to Serbia and Lebanon can be done overnight to the whole of Iran. We, and probably the Iranians, would not know about it until after the bombs fell. Forces that hide will suffer the fate of Saddam's armies, once their positions are known.

The whole of Iran is now less than an hour's flying time from some American base or carrier. Sources in the region as well as trade journals confirm that the US has built three bases in Azerbaijan that could be transit points for troops and with facilities equal to its best in Europe.

Most of the Iranian army is positioned along the border with Iraq, facing US army missiles that can reach 150km over the border. But it is in the flat, sandy oilfields east and south of Basra where the temptation will be to launch a tank attack and hope that a disaffected population will be grateful.

The regime in Tehran has already complained of US- and UK-inspired terror attacks in several Iranian regions where the population opposes the ayatollahs' fanatical policies. Such reports corroborate the American journalist Seymour Hersh's claim that the US military is already engaged in a low-level war with Iran. The fighting is most intense in the Kurdish north where Iran has been firing artillery into Iraq. The US and Iran are already engaged in a low-level proxy war across the Iran-Iraq border.

And, once again, the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute have a plan for a peaceful settlement: this time it is for a federal Iran. Officially, Michael Ledeen, the AEI plan's sponsor, has been ostracised by the White House. However, two years ago, the Congress of Iranian Nationalities for a Federal Iran had its inaugural meeting in London.

We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran.

It just did not happen. This is proof that you listen too much to the condemning left wing press, is it not? Try thinking middle of the road interpretation of facts by moderate writers.

[mkemse]

Of course you are not surprised! Bush left office at a time in history when the judging press was 93% liberal, communistic, socialistic, and far left in their interpretation of things. Jesus Christ had the same liberals judging him and look what his approval rating was. Following generations and more fair judges will rate G.W. Bush very favorable.

Jesus Christ and Bush received the same treatment. Jesus saved the world and Bush saved the USA from more 9/11 attacks. Neither person was given credit for what they did by the contemporary judges of historical accomplishments. Only a fool would expect today's press wound rate Bush at the top but his day will come and the hard hearted liberals of today will be judged in the same light as Jesus Christ's judges. History is not interpreted by any panel of contemprary judges assembled at this time. The interpretation of history is left to future generations who will be more fair than the Bush haters of today.
I am back, wmrs2

True, but his saving us from more 911 attacks does not change his Failures on Foreign Policy
The Poll taken was among BOTH Neo Conservatives and Liberals, even Fox News rated him at less then a 21% approval rating and I certainly do not comsider Fox News a Liberal Network


True fair Judgement on Bush as you said will take a few years, I assume (based on age) neither of us will be around when that happens
Thereality still is that his total Foreign Policy failers are big as they were will over shadow his saving us from more attacks, and for the most part his policies have cause most countries on theworld to have GREAT distain towards the United STates, we havevery few allies now, far fewer then when he took office, I also have issue with a President be they Democratic or Repbilcn that are NOT transpartent to those who supported and voted forthem, I saw NO transpareny in the Bush Adm.

And aside from the Mardi Gra this year and Lat, 3 years after the fact, New Prleans is not much better off now then they were then a Demestic Policy Failure
It is hard to support ANY President regardless of Party who is not honest with the voters of this country
Yes I am a LIberal, but I hadrly consider myself either a Communist or a Socialist, you cab be a Lerbal Democrat and not be a Communist or Socialist
And Micheal Steele the new RNC chairman sais 1 week ago, don't blame the DEmocrats for the mess we are in now, it is current and was NOT there there doing and if we want to attract our base bac we need to chage the image of our Party now orwe will continue to loose election we have to broade our base of supporters and platform (he did not give specifics on thechanges in the platform they ned to change only that changes had to be madefor the RNC to go anywhere now, as he put it the 2006 & 2008 elections were a clear mandate for change, Domesticly and Foreign

,

[wmrs2]

Again I respectfully submit you are wrong, way wrong. Al Quaida was NOT in Iraq, Never in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Hussein's Iraq was very secular and Al Quaida CLAIMS to be a religious organization. Al Quaida became part of Iraq only because we invaded. THESE are the facts.

Bush and Cheney were planning to invade Iraq before 9/11. Our national tragedy was USED by the Bush administration to justify their folly of a War.
Your observation is correct about Al Quaida not being in Iraq. Your conclusions miss the point that Al Quaida is a world enemy of the USA. Wherever the presence of the USA is, that is where Al Quaida will attack us. That is the way it has always been with Al Quaida. When Al Quaida attacks us again, I hope the liberal press and anti war liberals will give Obama more support than they gave Bush. He will need our support to protect the country and keep it free.
wmrs2

[mkemse]

The easiest way to take Al Quaida out, and most ( Tee Leader Of Pakastan ect) feel Bib Laden is hiding in the Tora Bora Mountains is send in bombers and Flatten that whole region, distroy the mountains and surrounding area and as far as those who say "We can't there will be too much Colleteral Damage" yes there will be, but there tremous collateral Dameage on 911
In any war their will be civilian deaths no way to avoid that, if you level that mountain area it won't take Al Quaida out 100% but it will certain severly hamper theirr efforts

[wmrs2]

LOL. Well, I see that when you can't justify your 'facts' you turn to personal attacks. And I don't get all my news from Fox News, with their partisan viewpoints.

And it has been proven (unless you are Dick Cheney, who believes what he wants to believe, and damn the facts) that Hussein and Al Quaida hated one another.

AND Bush wanted war with Iraq and, what is more important, CHENEY wanted war with Iraq.

It is a good idea to not damn the facts but it is pure prejudice speculation that Cheney and Bush wanted war with Iraq. Hussein and Al Quaida hated each other, no doubt about it. But they both hated the USA more and both called for the destruction of the USA. Iraq would be a great enemy of the USA if we had not taken them down. That is a reason we should not allow Al Quaida to take over Iraq with an oppositional attitude to the USA.

Obama will be forced to eventually take the middle of the road approach like Bush did if he is going to protect us from a world wide attack on our global interest, don't you think?

[wmrs2]

That was all CNN posted it was listed as the complete interview
When Bush annouced our plans to invade IRaq with "Shock and Awe" I belived he said he planned for troops to be in there for about 90 days or so, but no long term stay there:", in an interview a few days before he left office, he said "Yes the war has gone on much, much longer then we had planned, we did not realize how many terrorists we would be dealing with, how many insurents"

Well it would seem to me that if our country to War, you would make it a point to know the size of your enemy and know you are dealing with say 200,000 insurents and knowwhatthey are using to weapons ect

Evertime someone too him to task on this he always seemd to say "Our Inteligence was based on Fault Information" how can you go to war based on Faulty Interligence, you look at what you have, verify it make sure sll the info you have is a current as is avaiialbe at that time and check and if need be recheck it, you don't just go in then 3 years or 5 years later say "Well, we had no idea how many enemy we would be fighting" that makes no sense makes no sense

Counties going to war rarely have the true picture of their enemy. Evil dictators go to war when their intelligence tells them they will win. The USA goes to war over principles of freedom and justice no matter what the odds are. That is the way our country has survived and will survive if Obama does the same as Bush did, don't you think? We must decide if we are going to act on principle like Bush did or only defend freedom when we have enough money or power like the liberals do today. It comes down to a way of thinking, doesn't it?

[wmrs2]

On June 16, 2004 the 911 Commission reported that it had not found any "collaborative connection" between Hussein's government and Al Qaeda. There was NO complicity between those two.
Yes, this might be true but does that mean that neither was a threat to the UBA? The attack of 9/11 proves this false and the dancing in the streets in Iraq showed which side Iraq was on. Your statement of no complicity has less meaning when view from this perspective, is that not true?

[wmrs2]

The Security Council did agree to one resolution, UNSC Resolution 1441, that called on Iraq to disarm its weapons of mass destruction and cooperate with UN inspectors, but did not include an authorization for the use of force against Iraq. In Resolution 1441, the Security Council indicated that it would remain 'seized' of the matter, meaning that it continued to assert its authority as the final international arbiter of the use of force in the matter.

When the US went back to the Security Council for a second and follow-up resolution to 1441, this one to provide authorization to proceed to war against Iraq, the Security Council refused to comply with the US demand for such authorization on the grounds that it wanted to give the UN inspectors more time to finish their work.

We did not go into Iraq under UN authority.



Cite: May/June 2003 Issue of "Foreign Affairs" magazine article by Dr. Michael Glennon.
"On October 25... After intensive, behind-the-scenes haggling, the council responded to Bush's challenge on November 7 by unanimously adopting Resolution 1441, which found Iraq in 'material breach' of prior resolutions, set up a new inspections regime, and warned once again of 'serious consequences' if Iraq again failed to disarm. The resolution did not explicitly authorize force, however, and Washington pledged to return to the council for another discussion before resorting to arms.
It comes down to this, do we only go to war under UN authority or do we go to war in defense of democratic principle when our interest are in danger?:dont:

[wmrs2]

Unfortunately, faulty intelligence is one of the hazards of war. There's no way to determine, with absolute certainty, that your intelligence is accurate until you actually have troops on the ground. By then it's too late. That's what is referred to as "the fog of war." Modern intelligence gathering methods may reduce that fog to a heavy mist, but there are still no guarantees.

I think the biggest problem we had in going to war with Iraq was our own leaders' arrogance in believing that such a small country could actually defy the United States. And as for the true reasons for the war, I'm firmly convinced that a major role was played by Bush's attempting to placate those people who felt his father had "chickened out" by not invading Iraq during the first Gulf War. Public opinion may have had more to do with the fall of Sadam than anything else.

Admittedly a lot of people think like you. But these are your opinions of Bush's arrogance. Even if true, these are your opinions. Father Bush had pledged to the UN and allied nations that he would not invade Baghdad. He was honor bound to stop and did not "chickened out" as you call it. Think how the liberal press would have crucified Father Bush had he finished the job in 1991. It seems to me that liberal thinkers are going to damn a Bush no matter what direction is taken. Do you agree that there is truth in what I say?

[wmrs2]

Ok I understand that, but I also believe that Bush's real reason for gfoing intoIraq was NOT alleged WMD but rather to save face and cover and make up for his Father faiire in The Golf War, iI believe and this is only my opnion, that Iraq was done to finish what Bush Senior was not able to
Asfar as Sadam's fall, that may have been an excuse to go in, but Bush was even convinced apparently at 1 time that Sadamwas heavily involed in the 911 attackm but ion what I have read, Sadam and Bin Laden did not care much for each much less be co horts in 911, i just can't see that and I neverday or heard anything indcating that Iraq had anything to so wth the attack except for "What The White House FELT" do you invade a country on fellings or on Intelligence??
It is a fact that the USA was 100% successful in the Golf War in that the USA accomplished what it set out to do. So to criticize Bush for doing what he said he was not going to do is not fair. You do want to be fair, don't you?

[wmrs2]

All the propaganda aside even the most zealous Bush supporters are painfully aware how harshly his presidency will be judged. All the revisionist tomes wont change the fact that the more time passes the more harsh History's verdict will be.

However a very intersting question comes to mind....How much different Bush presidency would have been if he had the backbone to pick another VP?

Bush never striked me as a particularly evil person, a spoiled rich brat- yes, juvenile, rude, irresponsible, lacking intelligence and utterly incompetent- omg, Yes.

But can you imagine him without Cheney or Rove?

Then again without Rove there never would have been president
G.W.
It comes across to me that you do not like Republicans. That's ok and fair. I don't like Democrats and I think Jack Kennedy was the most corrupt president of all time and he was a complet failure. I can not think of one thing he did for our country and I believe his own party participate in his death to protect the country from his evil influence. I admit that I have no proof of this at all. It is just my opinion but it is as fair as your opinion of Rove and Cheney.

[wmrs2]

Bush was more Cheney's puppet than President... Cheney is screaming how Obama is destryoying Bush's ( read Cheney's) Legacy. Personally I would have a mixed committee investigate Cheney, Bush, and Rove. That should prove very interesting.
An investigation of Bush, Cheney, and Rove would take the pressure historically off B. Clayton, JFK, and the rest of the the over sexed politicians but it would do nothing to promote the country. Demonstrates have 4 years to save the country from the Bush influence. They need all the support they can muster up so why don't you do the responsible thing and forget about revenge. The Democrats did lose to Bush in 1990 and 1994. did they not? It is over. Democrats need to get over it too.

[mkemse]

I do not recall which one it was right off hand, but one of our Presidents back in the 180''s wasrankedas the worst ever, I believei t was Harding not sure
You are coorect, Buah was a puppet to Cheney and Rove, cheeny made decisons not Bush
But I still feel Bush's legacy will be genenrations down the road and will be based on his Foriegn Policy Failures
And remember, Bush was NOT elected to but 1 term his first trerm was gievn to him by the Supremem Court not by voters, and to the best of my knowledged and feel free to correct me ifi am wrong, he won hissecond term becuase no President I recall in History was ever voted out while we were at War
Interstingly enough someone asked me the other Day how I now compare Obama to Bush, simple "Bush was in office for 8 years, Obama just barely 1 month, way, way to early to judge Obama

[wmrs2]

True, but his saving us from more 911 attacks does not change his Failures on Foreign Policy
The Poll taken was among BOTH Neo Conservatives and Liberals, even Fox News rated him at less then a 21% approval rating and I certainly do not comsider Fox News a Liberal Network


True fair Judgement on Bush as you said will take a few years, I assume (based on age) neither of us will be around when that happens
Thereality still is that his total Foreign Policy failers are big as they were will over shadow his saving us from more attacks, and for the most part his policies have cause most countries on theworld to have GREAT distain towards the United STates, we havevery few allies now, far fewer then when he took office, I also have issue with a President be they Democratic or Repbilcn that are NOT transpartent to those who supported and voted forthem, I saw NO transpareny in the Bush Adm.

And aside from the Mardi Gra this year and Lat, 3 years after the fact, New Prleans is not much better off now then they were then a Demestic Policy Failure
It is hard to support ANY President regardless of Party who is not honest with the voters of this country
Yes I am a LIberal, but I hadrly consider myself either a Communist or a Socialist, you cab be a Lerbal Democrat and not be a Communist or Socialist
And Micheal Steele the new RNC chairman sais 1 week ago, don't blame the DEmocrats for the mess we are in now, it is current and was NOT there there doing and if we want to attract our base bac we need to chage the image of our Party now orwe will continue to loose election we have to broade our base of supporters and platform (he did not give specifics on thechanges in the platform they ned to change only that changes had to be madefor the RNC to go anywhere now, as he put it the 2006 & 2008 elections were a clear mandate for change, Domesticly and Foreign

,
What foreign failures? It still comes down to your opinion which I think is very flawed by liberal interpretations. The USA is still a free country and many foreigners have lost many more freedoms than we have. Bush has been more successful in foreign affairs than his predecessors in my opinion. But again, it comes down to opinion. I happen to like the way I think than the way you think.

[mkemse]

Question, if Bush's Legacy was Great and is Considered by Some to have been a Great Prsident, and John McCain was going to follow in his footsteps Policy wise on most, not all but most issues, then why was McCain trounced last November in the elction? the elction was not even close

[wmrs2]

Question, if Bush's Legacy was Great and is Considered by Some to have been a Great Prsident, and John McCain was going to follow in his footsteps Policy wise on most, not all but most issues, then why was McCain trounced last November in the elction? the elction was not even close
The answer is simple. But, it will not make you feel better. The liberal press elected Obama and the bad economy hurt the Republicans too. These facts do not make either candidate better but the liberals are now on the scales of judgment. Let's see if they can deliver better than their last representatives have delivered. Don't forget Congress is Democratic and has a historically low approval rating. Tell me, how are you fellers going to improve this image and legacy?

[mkemse]

The answer is simple. But, it will not make you feel better. The liberal press elected Obama and the bad economy hurt the Republicans too. These facts do not make either candidate better but the liberals are now on the scales of judgment. Let's see if they can deliver better than their last representatives have delivered. Don't forget Congress is Democratic and has a historically low approval rating. Tell me, how are you fellers going to improve this image and legacy?

!st Welcome back 2nd who Legacy & Image??

Interestingly enough I read a CBS Interview with William F Buckely Jr shortly before his death and he was asked what George Bush's Legacy would be, his reply "He won't have one, he didn't do anything worth having a Legacy For, intresting comment from an conservative lke Buckely, I was even shocked t read it
I might also add, his Son an ultra Conservative, more to the right of his Father said "I am voting For Obama, 8 years of Bush Policies is enough, even for me
So much for some well know Ulra Conservartives voting Republcan in 2008

Th Liberal Press did not elect him the voters of America elected him, voters vote based on what a Candidate stands for not on what the media says, i have a bunch of very conservative Repubublican friends who would never, ever vote Democratic but they all said "8 years of Bush Politics is enough, no I will not vote for McCain"

Lets see, remember Obama has only been in office 4 weeks can't do a whole lot in that time, NO President regardless of Party Afflitations can
The reality is upon reading many, many articles online is most political insiders and pundent say his real legacy won't be know for years to come

But as I said welcome back despte our differences plus we areway off the topic, sorry about that

[Belgarold]

An investigation of Bush, Cheney, and Rove would take the pressure historically off B. Clayton, JFK, and the rest of the the over sexed politicians but it would do nothing to promote the country. Demonstrates have 4 years to save the country from the Bush influence. They need all the support they can muster up so why don't you do the responsible thing and forget about revenge. The Democrats did lose to Bush in 1990 and 1994. did they not? It is over. Democrats need to get over it too.


It is far from over, there is a lot to get the country back to the true America. Habeas Corpus needs to be reinstated. Bush instituted a lot of Executive Orders and signing statements that took away much needed regulation and civil rights of real Americans. It is NOT over. The Republicans of course want Americans to forget. But they want one party rule, to take away the separation between Church and State and other marks of an UnAmerican way of governing.

And Bush was given the presidency by the Supreme COurt in 2000 NOT 1990.

[Belgarold]

The answer is simple. But, it will not make you feel better. The liberal press elected Obama and the bad economy hurt the Republicans too. These facts do not make either candidate better but the liberals are now on the scales of judgment. Let's see if they can deliver better than their last representatives have delivered. Don't forget Congress is Democratic and has a historically low approval rating. Tell me, how are you fellers going to improve this image and legacy?


I think it is amazingly hypocritical that Republicans tend to forget they ahd the Congress for six of Bush's administration and the Democratic Party was not in major control of either the House or Senate. It is amusing that the GOP has such little faith in the intelligence of the American Public that they think we don't notice that it was Republicans that took the budget surplus and built a bigger government than Clinton had.

It was a Republican Congress that built in so much Pork and earmarks and let corporations write legislation of their own companies.

But the polls should show these corrupt politicians that they can't get away with their lies anymore. The public is behind the President. And Congress, Democratic AND Republican is at an all-time low. You can't fool all the people all the time as the GOP believes.

[wmrs2]

It is far from over, there is a lot to get the country back to the true America. Habeas Corpus needs to be reinstated. Bush instituted a lot of Executive Orders and signing statements that took away much needed regulation and civil rights of real Americans. It is NOT over. The Republicans of course want Americans to forget. But they want one party rule, to take away the separation between Church and State and other marks of an UnAmerican way of governing.

And Bush was given the presidency by the Supreme COurt in 2000 NOT 1990.
In the future people will lough at the effort to reinstate the mythical loss of Habeas Corpus and other American freedoms when not one person has been prosecuted or mistreated by the added protection given to the country by the actions Pres. Bush has taken to protect the country during a time of war. What did you expect Bush to do? You can not open the door wide for terrorist to walk right in. They have shown us what they will do. Be specific, what freedoms do you want reinstated?

[Thorne]

Admittedly a lot of people think like you. But these are your opinions of Bush's arrogance. Even if true, these are your opinions
Yes, this is my opinion, and I clearly stated that it was so.


Father Bush had pledged to the UN and allied nations that he would not invade Baghdad. He was honor bound to stop and did not "chickened out" as you call it. Think how the liberal press would have crucified Father Bush had he finished the job in 1991. It seems to me that liberal thinkers are going to damn a Bush no matter what direction is taken. Do you agree that there is truth in what I say?
I agree that G.H. Bush did exactly as he should have done: he abided by the UN mandate to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait. Going beyond that would have been illegal in the first place and risked having our Arabian allies turn against us in the second.

The "liberal press" would have - and did - crucify Bush no matter what he did. It was primarily his conservative base that wanted him to continue to Baghdad and destroy Hussein, along with those in the American public who weren't intelligent enough to understand that he'd done the right thing. And it is my opinion that GW Bush was influenced by that conservative base, probably including his vice president, when he decided to attack. That may not have been his only reason, but I believe it played a significant part.

[mkemse]

The issue of seeing Obama as a messiah stems from the refusal to consider or allow any critical review of any part of his progroms, work history, or advisors. His stint in Congress was spent running for a promotion, his position in Il was spent having legislation handed to him, and largely voting "present". Oh Yes and voting to kill newborns.


Killing newborn is not right, but it is ok to send 18 year olds to war to be killed, what is the difference killing is killing

I believe thier is a there are 10 Commanments 1 of which is "Thall Shall Not Kill" is this mean exclusely for new borns?? if not, then again sending 18 years olds off to war to be killed is just as bad, killing is killing regardless of age

[Thorne]

It comes across to me that you do not like Republicans. That's ok and fair. I don't like Democrats and I think Jack Kennedy was the most corrupt president of all time and he was a complet failure. I can not think of one thing he did for our country
If you want to see something he did for our country, and the world, just look at how you are able to communicate these ideas and discussions with people all over the world from the comfort of your own home. The basic technology which led to the personal computer, cell phones, medical technology, etc., etc., etc. all have their bases in the space program. It was Kennedy who propelled NASA from a sideline of the Defense Dept. to one of the most successful government agencies in history. If for no other reason, that makes Kennedy's presidency a success.

[Thorne]

voters vote based on what a Candidate stands for not on what the media says

What world does this happen in? Certainly not this one!

Edit: I should point out that I am not impugning all voters. Certainly many people, perhaps even most, will vote their conscience and base their decisions on issues. But many voters, far too many in my opinion, will base their decisions on party lines and/or media bias, whether liberal or conservative. It's easier to believe that a celebrity/talkshow host/columnist is always right than it is to research the issues and come to your own decision.

[wmrs2]

Yes, this is my opinion, and I clearly stated that it was so.


I agree that G.H. Bush did exactly as he should have done: he abided by the UN mandate to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait. Going beyond that would have been illegal in the first place and risked having our Arabian allies turn against us in the second.

The "liberal press" would have - and did - crucify Bush no matter what he did. It was primarily his conservative base that wanted him to continue to Baghdad and destroy Hussein, along with those in the American public who weren't intelligent enough to understand that he'd done the right thing. And it is my opinion that GW Bush was influenced by that conservative base, probably including his vice president, when he decided to attack. That may not have been his only reason, but I believe it played a significant part.
I agree completely. Thanks for putting things in fair perspective.

[mkemse]

just for the records James Buckanan is viewed as the worst President ever followed very closley by Warren G Harding and as many have said it is too early to pass real judgement og Bush
But Bush was able to take the $365 Billion Dollar Surplus let by Bill Clinton and turn it into a defect faster then any President in History,, and least we forget he had by far and away took more vacation time at camp David ect then any President ever has

[wmrs2]

If you want to see something he did for our country, and the world, just look at how you are able to communicate these ideas and discussions with people all over the world from the comfort of your own home. The basic technology which led to the personal computer, cell phones, medical technology, etc., etc., etc. all have their bases in the space program. It was Kennedy who propelled NASA from a sideline of the Defense Dept. to one of the most successful government agencies in history. If for no other reason, that makes Kennedy's presidency a success.
Thank you. I do agree, this is an example of success. That goes to show that we can find something good about everybody if we are willing to look. There is a lot of good about Pres. Bush too.

[Belgarold]

In the future people will lough at the effort to reinstate the mythical loss of Habeas Corpus and other American freedoms when not one person has been prosecuted or mistreated by the added protection given to the country by the actions Pres. Bush has taken to protect the country during a time of war. What did you expect Bush to do? You can not open the door wide for terrorist to walk right in. They have shown us what they will do. Be specific, what freedoms do you want reinstated?

Just want it stated that the above is simply your opinion as well. It does not bear up to the facts that are still coming out. So just be aware, the info you posted to Thorne bear true for you as well. Just an opinion.

And I would like privacy rules reinstated, It has been proven that the collection of data from phone calls was NOT just for Terrorist phone calls, it was EVERYBODY's phone calls.

And I don't know, we could start by reinstating Habeas Corpus, your Opinion does not bear up to scrutiny. And we could start by re-instating the Bill of Rights. You remember the Bill of Rights don't you. It is for ALL Americans, the right to a speedy trial, to face your accusers, etc. etc.

[wmrs2]

just for the records James Buckanan is viewed as the worst President ever followed very closley by Warren G Harding and as many have said it is too early to pass real judgement og Bush
But Bush was able to take the $365 Billion Dollar Surplus let by Bill Clinton and turn it into a defect faster then any President in History,, and least we forget he had by far and away took more vacation time at camp David ect then any President ever has
Was not the so called surplus a projection only? It never accumulated did it?

[mkemse]

Just want it stated that the above is simply your opinion as well. It does not bear up to the facts that are still coming out. So just be aware, the info you posted to Thorne bear true for you as well. Just an opinion.

And I would like privacy rules reinstated, It has been proven that the collection of data from phone calls was NOT just for Terrorist phone calls, it was EVERYBODY's phone calls.

And I don't know, we could start by reinstating Habeas Corpus, your Opinion does not bear up to scrutiny. And we could start by re-instating the Bill of Rights. You remember the Bill of Rights don't you. It is for ALL Americans, the right to a speedy trial, to face your accusers, etc. etc.


Very well said, I forgot about the Bill of Right... Oh yes, Bush was President then, now i remember them BEFORE he took office, while he served where did they go???

And Bush's Administration, being honest with the American People nd letting people know what he planned to do ect (not including sesitive Security ifo, ) was a transparent as a brick wall you can see NOTHING beyond it

[Belgarold]

The whole liberal media bias myth has been debunked as well. One of the many citations for this is:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

And I propose that for the last eight years there has been a decidedly CONSERVATIVE and BUSHIAN bias to the news. And Bush had his affect on free speech as well. Another of the Bill of Rights issues that needs to be looked into.

[wmrs2]

Just want it stated that the above is simply your opinion as well. It does not bear up to the facts that are still coming out. So just be aware, the info you posted to Thorne bear true for you as well. Just an opinion.

And I would like privacy rules reinstated, It has been proven that the collection of data from phone calls was NOT just for Terrorist phone calls, it was EVERYBODY's phone calls.

And I don't know, we could start by reinstating Habeas Corpus, your Opinion does not bear up to scrutiny. And we could start by re-instating the Bill of Rights. You remember the Bill of Rights don't you. It is for ALL Americans, the right to a speedy trial, to face your accusers, etc. etc.
As far as I can see, there are more opinions on this forum than you would expect especially since the Bill of Rights have been tossed aside. I can't think of any of my Rights that have been taken away. Maybe you could name a few for me that you once had and are now gone. I would be interested in knowing how you suffered personally during the Bush administration. Bush can listen to any phone call of mine. I like the way he kept the country safe. There are no complaints there. Sometimes I thought the Dems. wanted to lose the war just so they could say Bush did it. Do you think there is any truth to that at all?

[mkemse]

As far as I can see, there are more opinions on this forum than you would expect especially since the Bill of Rights have been tossed aside. I can't think of any of my Rights that have been taken away. Maybe you could name a few for me that you once had and are now gone. I would be interested in knowing how you suffered personally during the Bush administration. Bush can listen to any phone call of mine. I like the way he kept the country safe. There are no complaints there. Sometimes I thought the Dems. wanted to lose the war just so they could say Bush did it. Do you think there is any truth to that at all?

None, accoding tothe Unisted States Consitution for the US to go to war a Delelaration of War is supposed to be passed by Congress, ie WW1,WW11, i sd not rmember any Declaration for Invading a Soverien Country, I rmember hw was go to show Iraqi's "Shock and Awe" but I do not recall him asking Congress (which i might ad was REPUBLICAN controled at the time) permission to go into Warwith Iraq, oh thats right he didn't he just decided on his own to invade that right
As far as the wiretaping goes I can hardlybelieve that ever single person in the United States needs thier phone taped for "National Security Rasons" if we do that mean we have 256,00,00 terrorists in this country th entire population plus if Citzens, if they hasd reason, yes but not anyone and everyon they wanted to that is a violation of my Fredom of Speach Rights,

But on thing peole will learn as time goes on, DO NOT MESS WITH THE US but if you do, know ahead of time that once we distroy your country will be more then happy to send you billions upon billions to rebulid what we distroyed, name 1 country we did not rebuild after a war with them??
There used to be and my very well still be alive thesaying "Hey, you want to rebuld your country, make it more modern, then go to war with the United States, they'll rebuild it for you"

[wmrs2]

None, accoding tothe Unisted States Consitution for the US to go to war a Delelaration of War is supposed to be passed by Congress, ie WW1,WW11, i sd not rmember any Declaration for Invading a Soverien Country, I rmember hw was go to show Iraqi's "Shock and Awe" but I do not recall him asking Congress (which i might ad was REPUBLICAN controled at the time) permission to go into Warwith Iraq, oh thats right he didn't he just decided on his own to invade that right
As far as the wiretaping goes I can hardlybelieve that ever single person in the United States needs thier phone taped for "National Security Rasons" if we do that mean we have 256,00,00 terrorists in this country th entire population plus if Citzens, if they hasd reason, yes but not anyone and everyon they wanted to that is a violation of my Fredom of Speach Rights,

But on thing peole will learn as time goes on, DO NOT MESS WITH THE US but if you do, know ahead of time that once we distroy your country will be more then happy to send you billions upon billions to rebulid what we distroyed, name 1 country we did not rebuild after a war with them??
There used to be and my very well still be alive thesaying "Hey, you want to rebuld your country, make it more modern, then go to war with the United States, they'll rebuild it for you"

Are you saying that the Obama admin. should not spend more money in Afghanistan? Just asking? What are you going to do if he does?

[mkemse]

Are you saying that the Obama admin. should not spend more money in Afghanistan? Just asking? What are you going to do if he does?

Yes and No, wewill need to spend money on tropps, suppies, tanks arms ect but also rembmerthat BinLaden launch 911 from Afghinstand NOT Iraq, soe even say we went into Iraq to distract the attention from Afghistan, i have no opion on that, i do know that on sept 11, 2001 e lost 3,200 peole in the attack onthe World Trade center and the Al Quaida was based in Afganistan then and probably are now in the Tora Bora Mountains, the issue is the mountainsare to roughto do much with duringther winter season and they enompases a huge amount of area, Binladen and his follwers survive there inthrwinter because they live there, they have adapted to it, our solders have no
Yes, invest, monwy for troops. ffod ect and the similar but not torebulid to ge trid of Bin Laden, NO DO NOT INVEST to rebuild the country when we finish, they provoked ys not us them, why shoud we pay to rebuld thier country??
If your neighbors house urns down are yo going to pay to help rebuld it, i don't think os (excluding insurance) so why should we rebuld Afghanistan, or Iraq ect ect
We help everyone rebuld hw many countire or Nation ever loaned the United STates anyhing after a MAJOR disaster, like Katrina, or California Wildfires thsat distroyed thought of acs of lad and high priced home, not oe country offer to liift afingerto help us, we help everyone nobody ever offer us help
It is time this country says, "you provoked us, you attacked us, BUTyou rebild youf own country,
Iraq has over $500 Billion in money from oil, why sre we rebulding thier country they have the oney let them rebuld thier own country, let us us our money to take care of issues at home, to many to list but the UnitedStates has finiacial issues we have to address here at home, but ratherthen doin that, money was spent on Iraq ect ect
We do not or did not atthe time have the money to insure every child in this country had medical insurance, Bush said it expansion of CHIP was to expsensive, but 3 days later he had NO problem asking Congress for $150 BILLION Dollars for Iraq, Obama is gonig o make sure thatevery child has medical insurace in thiis country, if they raise my taxes to cover that I have no issue withthat, if they raise my Taxes to raise another $100 Billoin for Iraq i hacwa HUGE problem with tha,t let's take care of ouer own before wetake car of others
1 last point, you are out with a Friend, you only have money for 1 Ice Cream cone, you buy it, your friend wants part of it, you say when i am done, you get say 1/2 through and have had your fill of it, and give it to him or her, you have taken care of YOURSELF before you did your firend which is the way to do things, let the USA take care of it's own before we offer Billions upon Billions to other nation who probably never did anything or offer us anything to us except ask fo OUR money, TAX PAYER MONEER money

Simply put, invest what mony we have to to find Bin Laden and Al Quaida, theyattacked us we didn't attack them to take them out, DO NOT INVEST money to rebuld Afghanistan after that si done let them rebuld themselves, they made thier bed they can sleep in it

Do I support Obama, yes, did I vote for him YES, will I supoort everything he wants to do or plans to do NO, but you are not goinig to please everyone all the time no matter who you are or what you do as thesaying goes "You can please all the people some of the time, and some ofthe people all the time, but you will never ever please ALL THE PEOPLE ALLTHE TIME it will never happen Bush had alot of stauch supporters til then end, I seriously doubt they all supported him `100% of the timeon ever single thing he did, say or wanted to do, it isn't realistic or possible to please 100% of the peole 100% of the time
But if you happen to find Uptopia please let me know

[Belgarold]

As far as I can see, there are more opinions on this forum than you would expect especially since the Bill of Rights have been tossed aside. I can't think of any of my Rights that have been taken away. Maybe you could name a few for me that you once had and are now gone. I would be interested in knowing how you suffered personally during the Bush administration. Bush can listen to any phone call of mine. I like the way he kept the country safe. There are no complaints there. Sometimes I thought the Dems. wanted to lose the war just so they could say Bush did it. Do you think there is any truth to that at all?

The same tired old accusations? Democrats are unAmerican? Democrats wanted Bush to lose? Bush NEVER supported the troops, but supported the corporate interests in Iraq. KBR made more people sick with bad water, Several soldiers were electrocuted due to bad wiring by KBR, Blackwater put our Military in harms way multiple times. There were soldier's family raising money to buy body armor for the soldiers. And this is Pro-American?

And I thought the Bill of Rights was for ALL Americans. You seem to have the attitude that if it doesn't affect me who is it really hurting. More than 200 people kept at Guantanamo, Americans, and Canadaians and Germans sent to prisons in other countries without being charged.

Torturing prisoners hurts our military. BY torturing our prisoners we give the enemy the feeling that they can torture ours. And our actions cause us to lose our reputation in other countries.

Now a lot of Isolationist Conservatives say it doesn't matter what others think of us. But that is naive and dangerous. We need support from allies. If you want to stick your head in the sand and not care what rights were or are taken away from us so be it. But I am trying to look at the big picture.

And Bush did NOT make us safer, he put us in more danger.

[Belgarold]

Was not the so called surplus a projection only? It never accumulated did it?

There WAS a surplus.

[DuncanONeil]

[QUOTE=mkemse;822940]You asked for documenttion, so i posted what I found that The US was resdy to invaeIraw a few posts back, simply replying to your request for doumentation

Bush's Legacy will be his Lack of timely response to Katrinam

You think that prepositioned supplies and the USCG on scene before the storm abates qualifies as untimely?
3 years later they are not alot better off then they are now, His failure in Somolia,

My memory tells me that Somalia was an issue of the previous administration.

his "need" to Invade Iraq

This was a UN issue, not just US
rather then concenrtate of Bin Lafen in Afghistan after 911,

If bin Laden is ineffectual has he not been taken care of?
his search for non exsistant WMD in Iraq which never existed as Colin Powel even addmitted prior to leaing his postion in the Adm.

Evidence of WMD was found and reported in my local paper. There is also sufficient evidence that actions were taken by Iraq that could have been the removal of materials from the country. Were suchs devices not in fact in country why obstruct the inspectors? Add to that the fact, spoken by Saddam himself, that he ensured intellegence was made available to the world for the purpose of convincing Iran that he was more capable than Iran thought.
He lack of any type of support for Soviet Georgia beyond telling Russia to leave,

Why interfere here when y'all were taking him to task for being involved in Iraq? Isn't that a bit two facecd?
his inability to deal with the Palastine, he was supporting a pouppet goverment that did not control anything, Hamas did andstill does

I will not discuss the Palestine issue. The Palestinians have no desire for a solution other than the elimination of Israel.
he left office with one of the lowest approval ratings of any President and even lower then Nixon's prior to leaving office the polled 109 Poitical Historian 45% said he was the worst President in US jhistoiry, 35% said his is among the top 10 qorst pPresident in history

My suggestion on this issue, although actual approval ratings will not change, is that it is too soon to make such a determination. As for the difference with Nixon the rating is just about inside the standard margin of error, making it a toss up. It is also entirely possible that the figures were adversely affected by animosity in the press.

This will be his legacy his failued Foreighn Policies:

We should make a note of that and check back in about 10 years.

[DuncanONeil]

"Of course you are not surprised! Bush left office at a time in history when the judging press was 93% liberal, communistic, socialistic, and far left in their interpretation of things."

Don't forget that at the same times as these ratings, that are constantly trumpeted Congress consistently posted worse ratings!

[DuncanONeil]

Not to say you are wrong but I must ask. What foreign policy failures?

[DuncanONeil]

"we havevery few allies now, far fewer then when he took office,"

Then how do you explain the coalition in Iraq?

[DuncanONeil]

Ansar al-Islam formed in 1998 as a breakaway faction of Islamist Kurds,
splitting off from a group, the Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan (IMIK). Both
Ansar and the IMIK were initially composed almost exclusively of Kurds. U.S.
concerns about Ansar grew following the U.S. defeat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda
in Afghanistan in late 2001, when some Al Qaeda activists, mostly Arabs, fled to Iraq and associated there with the Ansar movement. At the peak, about 600 Arab fighters
lived in the Ansar al-Islam enclave, near the town of Khurmal.18 Ansar fighters
clashed with Kurdish fighters from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), one of
the two mainstream Iraqi Kurdish parties, around Halabja in December 2002. Ansar
gunmen were allegedly responsible for an assassination attempt against PUK “prime
minister” of the Kurdish region Barham Salih (now a deputy Prime Minister of Iraq)
in April 2002.

It appears that there was in fact some presence in Iraq.

[Belgarold]

[QUOTE=mkemse;822940]You asked for documenttion, so i posted what I found that The US was resdy to invaeIraw a few posts back, simply replying to your request for doumentation

Bush's Legacy will be his Lack of timely response to Katrinam

You think that prepositioned supplies and the USCG on scene before the storm abates qualifies as untimely?
3 years later they are not alot better off then they are now, His failure in Somolia,

My memory tells me that Somalia was an issue of the previous administration.

his "need" to Invade Iraq

This was a UN issue, not just US
rather then concenrtate of Bin Lafen in Afghistan after 911,

If bin Laden is ineffectual has he not been taken care of?
his search for non exsistant WMD in Iraq which never existed as Colin Powel even addmitted prior to leaing his postion in the Adm.

Evidence of WMD was found and reported in my local paper. There is also sufficient evidence that actions were taken by Iraq that could have been the removal of materials from the country. Were suchs devices not in fact in country why obstruct the inspectors? Add to that the fact, spoken by Saddam himself, that he ensured intellegence was made available to the world for the purpose of convincing Iran that he was more capable than Iran thought.
He lack of any type of support for Soviet Georgia beyond telling Russia to leave,

Why interfere here when y'all were taking him to task for being involved in Iraq? Isn't that a bit two facecd?
his inability to deal with the Palastine, he was supporting a pouppet goverment that did not control anything, Hamas did andstill does

I will not discuss the Palestine issue. The Palestinians have no desire for a solution other than the elimination of Israel.
he left office with one of the lowest approval ratings of any President and even lower then Nixon's prior to leaving office the polled 109 Poitical Historian 45% said he was the worst President in US jhistoiry, 35% said his is among the top 10 qorst pPresident in history

My suggestion on this issue, although actual approval ratings will not change, is that it is too soon to make such a determination. As for the difference with Nixon the rating is just about inside the standard margin of error, making it a toss up. It is also entirely possible that the figures were adversely affected by animosity in the press.

This will be his legacy his failued Foreighn Policies:

We should make a note of that and check back in about 10 years.

I don't see any figures here and everything you have mentioned is not a fact and without citation. All of these opinions are subject to debate. When someone disagrees with these opinions they are DEBATING you.

Just to take a couple of the issues: Katrina, New Orleans is STILL suffering from Bush's response. The Coast Guard was doing their job. The fanastic job they have always done. Bush was having a birthday party for McCain and clearing brush while people were dying in the Superdome.

Not soundbites, facts. Now I will stop this back and forth, it doesn't get anywhere. Dr. BuzzCzar has answered your opinions much better than I ever could and I see you will never see reason.

[DuncanONeil]

"Bush was NOT elected to but 1 term his first trerm was gievn to him by the Supremem Court not by voters"

Does that not really count as just an opinion? The election went to Bush and the Dems demanded a recount. They had several, all recounts had the same outcome -- Bush. The Supremes became involved because the Dems could not accept to inevitable.

Add to that the fact that the recount was a restricted effort, in traditional Dem counties. And a number of absentees were probibited from being counted.

Sorry can not agree that the election was not the will of the people.

[DuncanONeil]

McCains opponent was a better speechifier!

[mkemse]

McCains opponent was a better speechifier!


There are wsome who say that his choice of sara palin, not as a women bur who she s and what she represents cost him the lection, as well as 8 years of Bush, after his failures peole apparently decided enough waenough h was going to conitnu on Bush's path, Obama won the elctroal count which pt him into office no matte how old that system is by almost a 3-1 margin, that has to mean something
The Media does not elect Presidents, voters do an duing th campaign and debates people got to see who each candidate was,what they stood for and obvioulsy decide that 8 years of Republican Rule was enough

Also most Republicans who ran for ant ofice, be it the House, or Senate were non to eager to have Bush Appear with him, and i didnot see Bush activly campagining for McCain, yes he endorsed him with McCain at the White House, but one would excpet a same party Prsident to endorse the Candate of his Party for President, i never saw Bush on the trail with McCain if he was it was very lmited appaerances

whatthis Country needs to do, whether it happens or not is another question is abolish the electral college and elect the Prsident based soely on Popular vote, as i said the electroal college is old, outdated ect, byt the current realuity is that you need thos votes to win the White House what you get Popular vote wise means nothing right now,

[mkemse]

I still find it very intresting, that before he die, conservative or ultra conservative Columnist & Editor of THe Nation REview which he founded, William F. Buckley Jr. was asked by CBS news what Bush's legacy would be, Buckely replied "He will have no legacy, he did not do anything worth having a legacy for"
Pretty strong words from a very, very well know very conservative Republiczn
It should also be noted, his Son Chris, said he would NOT support McCain he was voting for Obama

[mkemse]

Here is a more comprehensive list, but no complete of Bush's failure as President both Domestic And Foreign Policy Failures this is only through as indicted Feb 20, 2006, this will all be part of his legacy

Who's Counting Bush's Mistakes and Failures?
By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real. Posted February 20, 2006.


Given how ambitious and wide-ranging the incompetence of this administration has been, it's high time we started keeping track of its many failures.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best, "The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." And no administration in U.S. history has spoken louder, or as often, of its honor.
So let us count our spoons.
Emergency Management: They completely failed to manage the first large-scale emergency since 9/11. Despite all their big talk and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on homeland security over the past four years, this administration proved itself stunningly incompetent when faced with an actual emergency. (Katrina Relief Funds Squandered)
Fiscal Management: America is broke. No wait, we're worse than broke. In less than five years these borrow and spend-thrifts have nearly doubled our national debt, to a stunning $8.2 trillion. These are not your father's Republicans who treated public dollars as though they were an endangered species. These Republicans waste money in ways and in quantities that make those old tax and spend liberals of yore look like tight-fisted Scots.
This administration is so incompetent that you can just throw a dart at the front page of your morning paper and whatever story of importance it hits will prove my point.
Katrina relief: Eleven thousand spanking new mobile homes sinking into the Arkansas mud. Seems no one in the administration knew there were federal and state laws prohibiting trailers in flood zones. Oops. That little mistake cost you $850 million -- and counting.
Medicare Drug Program: This $50 billion white elephant debuted by trampling many of those it was supposed to save. The mess forced states to step in and try to save its own citizens from being killed by the administration's poorly planned and executed attempt to privatize huge hunks of the federal health safety net.
Afghanistan: Good managers know that in order to pocket the gains of a project, you have to finish it. This administration started out fine in Afghanistan. They had the Taliban and al Queda on the run and Osama bin Laden trapped in a box canyon. Then they were distracted by a nearby shiney object -- Iraq. We are now $75 billion out of pocket in Afghanistan and its sitting president still rules only within the confines of the nation's capital. Tribal warlords, the growing remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda call the shots in the rest of the county.
Iraq: This ill-begotten war was supposed to only cost us $65 billion. It has now cost us over $300 billion and continues to suck $6 billion a month out of our children's futures. Meanwhile the three warring tribes Bush "liberated" are using our money and soldiers' lives to partition the country. The Shiites and Kurds are carving out the prime cuts while treating the once-dominant Sunnis the same way the Israelis treat the Palestinians, forcing them onto Iraq's version of Death Valley. Meanwhile Iran is increasingly calling the shots in the Shiite region as mullahs loyal to Iran take charge. (More)
Iran: The administration not only jinxed its Afghanistan operations by attacking Iraq, but also provided Iran both the rationale for and time to move toward nuclear weapons. The Bush administration's neocons' threats to attack Syria next only provided more support for religious conservatives within Iran who argued U.S. intentions in the Middle East were clear, and that only the deterrent that comes with nuclear weapons could protect them.
North Korea: Ditto. Also add to all the above the example North Korea set for Iran. Clearly once a country possesses nukes, the U.S. drops the veiled threats and wants to talk.
Social Programs: It's easier to get affordable -- even free -- American-style medical care, paid for with American dollars, if you are injured in Iraq, Afghanistan or are victims of a Pakistani earthquake, than if you live and pay taxes in the good old U.S.A. Nearly 50 million Americans can't afford medical insurance. Nevertheless the administration has proposed a budget that will cut $40 billion from domestic social programs, including health care for the working poor. The administration is quick to say that those services will be replaced by its "faith-based" programs. Not so fast...
"Despite the Bush administration's rhetorical support for religious charities, the amount of direct federal grants to faith-based organizations declined from 2002 to 2004, according to a major new study released yesterday....The study released yesterday "is confirmation of the suspicion I've had all along, that what the faith-based initiative is really all about is de-funding social programs and dumping responsibility for the poor on the charitable sector," said Kay Guinane, director of the nonprofit advocacy program at OMB Watch.." (More)
The Military: Overused and over-deployed.
Former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright warned in a 15-page report that the Army and Marine Corps cannot sustain the current operational tempo without "doing real damage to their forces." ... Speaking at a news conference to release the study, Albright said she is "very troubled" the military will not be able to meet demands abroad. Perry warned that the strain, "if not relieved, can have highly corrosive and long-term effects on the military. (More)
With military budgets gutted by the spiraling costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration has requested funding for fewer National Guard troops in fiscal 2007 -- 17,000 fewer. Which boggles the sane mind since, if it weren't for reserve/National Guard, the administration would not have had enough troops to rotate forces in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 40 percent of the troops sent to those two countries were from the reserve and National Guard.
The Environment: Here's a little pop quiz: What happens if all the coral in the world's oceans dies? Answer: Coral is the first rung on the food-chain ladder; so when it goes, everything else in the ocean dies. And if the oceans die, we die.
The coral in the world's oceans are dying (called "bleaching") at an alarming and accelerating rate. Global warming is the culprit. Nevertheless, this administration continues as the world's leading global warming denier. Why? Because they seem to feel it's more cost effective to be dead than to force reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. How stupid is that? And time is running out.
Trade: We are approaching a $1 trillion annual trade deficit, most of it with Asia, $220 billion with just China -- just last year.
Energy: Record high energy prices. Record energy company profits. Dick Cheney's energy task force meetings remain secret. Need I say more?
Consumers: Americans finally did it last year -- they achieved a negative savings rate. (Folks in China save 10 percent, for contrast.) If the government can spend more than it makes and just say "charge it" when it runs out, so can we. The average American now owes $9,000 to credit card companies. Imagine that.
Human Rights: America now runs secret prisons and a secret judicial system that would give Kafka fits. And the U.S. has joined the list of nations that tortures prisioners of war. (Shut up George! We have pictures!)
I could go on for another 1,000 words listing the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration and its GOP sycophants in Congress. But what's the use? No seems to give a fig. The sun continues to shine in this fool's paradise. House starts were up in January. The stock market is finally back over 11,000.
But don't bother George W. Bush with any of this. While seldom right, he is never in doubt. Doubt is Bush's enemy. Worry? How can he worry when he has no doubts?

[wmrs2]

I could go on for another 1,000 words listing the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration and its GOP sycophants in Congress. But what's the use? No seems to give a fig. The sun continues to shine in this fool's paradise. House starts were up in January. The stock market is finally back over 11,000.
But don't bother George W. Bush with any of this. While seldom right, he is never in doubt. Doubt is Bush's enemy. Worry? How can he worry when he has no doubts?

You need to be more original with your criticisms and less influenced by miss represented facts. Lost in the many facts you present is the application of respect that is due every president. Bush has done his best and does receive credit for many successes from fair minded people. My opinion is that the liberal minded people who blame Bush for all the evils in the world, including the bleaching of the oceans (how trait), think that the American people do not know that the Democrats have been equally responsible for things that have gone wrong in the world as the Republicans.

Most of American failures in the world have been world wide failures. The USA has not failed alone but other countries have too. when it comes down to the facts, it will not make any difference who is president if Iran decides to nuclear bomb Israel. Any wise person must be against Iraq having WMD. We can not alone in our opposition to WMD in Iran, although you say we have no allies standing with us in foreign affairs.

It is a myth that our allies have turned against us. Our friends are still our friends. The fact is that most counties in the world are opposed to democracies and have allied with the liberals to exert their power. What we see is the liberals in foreign countries ranting their failed political philosophies in the press. Bush did not turn the world against America. The liberal world has always been against our freedom. American liberals are too engrossed with taking their country back that they can not get their heads out of the sand.

Exp., did France change from liberal philosophies to conservative philosophies in one day? No, the conservative people tired of the liberal criticism of the USA while thugs were burning their country down under the name of tolerance of liberal views. Soon, I believe the complete world will tire of political correctness of the liberal philosophies and for the sake of survival will cast the "holier than thous" out.

It scares me that the liberals think they are going to accomplish all that is on their agenda. Ironically, if they do, it will cost Americans their freedoms and the middle class will perish in a classless society offered by Obama and his liberal, communistic and social co-hearts. I for one am not willing to give up the capitalistic philosophy for the complete exchange to socialism.
wmrs2

[mkemse]

You need to be more original with your criticisms and less influenced by miss represented facts. Lost in the many facts you present is the application of respect that is due every president. Bush has done his best and does receive credit for many successes from fair minded people. My opinion is that the liberal minded people who blame Bush for all the evils in the world, including the bleaching of the oceans (how trait), think that the American people do not know that the Democrats have been equally responsible for things that have gone wrong in the world as the Republicans.

Most of American failures in the world have been world wide failures. The USA has not failed alone but other countries have too. when it comes down to the facts, it will not make any difference who is president if Iran decides to nuclear bomb Israel. Any wise person must be against Iraq having WMD. We can not alone in our opposition to WMD in Iran, although you say we have no allies standing with us in foreign affairs.

It is a myth that our allies have turned against us. Our friends are still our friends. The fact is that most counties in the world are opposed to democracies and have allied with the liberals to exert their power. What we see is the liberals in foreign countries ranting their failed political philosophies in the press. Bush did not turn the world against America. The liberal world has always been against our freedom. American liberals are too engrossed with taking their country back that they can not get their heads out of the sand.

Exp., did France change from liberal philosophies to conservative philosophies in one day? No, the conservative people tired of the liberal criticism of the USA while thugs were burning their country down under the name of tolerance of liberal views. Soon, I believe the complete world will tire of political correctness of the liberal philosophies and for the sake of survival will cast the "holier than thous" out.

It scares me that the liberals think they are going to accomplish all that is on their agenda. Ironically, if they do, it will cost Americans their freedoms and the middle class will perish in a classless society offered by Obama and his liberal, communistic and social co-hearts. I for one am not willing to give up the capitalistic philosophy for the complete exchange to socialism.

That was supposed to be a quote from somesome else, and by th time i got back to try and edit it the edit option was gone
wmrs2

I hardly view o
Obama s a Communist, weel wold you rasther see changed or have our ecoomy keep sliding way, 1 of the 3 Republcans that voted for the Stimuls Bill said "I do not like it at all, but somethingdone is better then nothing done"

Our Freedoms will not be lost, if they were we would have most likely lost them during the psas 8 years, warrant less wiretaps, ect ect
We are not going Socialist, he already said Banks for example under his term in office WILL NOT be Nationlized
And interingly enough there was a buiness in Chicago called Nation Glass" they mde windows dorrs ,ect, they shut down 4 weeks ago went bankkrumpt, but a seatle company said with the stimuls package he was able to buy them out and rehire all the emplyess thsat lost their jobs only 250 byt that is 250 less that live off the government. Obama could very well be a complete failure, but keep in mind he has only been in offce 4 weeks as oppsed tohis predessor who was for 8 years you can't compare the 2 and the house andsenate want to pass another bill, both are controlled by DEMOCRATS. Obama hasalready said if the bill cometyo his desk he will veto it
I believe in giving people achance andwith only 1 monthunder his belt ina 4 year term is is entiled to sometime 6-12 months to realy show not only what he can do but how it will effect everyones everyday life, some people may be suprised, but I bet those 250 are glad to be back at work, it is a very tiny begining but that i also a starting point and Ialso do not believe for 1 second ANYONE in Congress is a Communist

[mkemse]

You need to be more original with your criticisms and less influenced by miss represented facts. Lost in the many facts you present is the application of respect that is due every president. Bush has done his best and does receive credit for many successes from fair minded people. My opinion is that the liberal minded people who blame Bush for all the evils in the world, including the bleaching of the oceans (how trait), think that the American people do not know that the Democrats have been equally responsible for things that have gone wrong in the world as the Republicans.

Most of American failures in the world have been world wide failures. The USA has not failed alone but other countries have too. when it comes down to the facts, it will not make any difference who is president if Iran decides to nuclear bomb Israel. Any wise person must be against Iraq having WMD. We can not alone in our opposition to WMD in Iran, although you say we have no allies standing with us in foreign affairs.

It is a myth that our allies have turned against us. Our friends are still our friends. The fact is that most counties in the world are opposed to democracies and have allied with the liberals to exert their power. What we see is the liberals in foreign countries ranting their failed political philosophies in the press. Bush did not turn the world against America. The liberal world has always been against our freedom. American liberals are too engrossed with taking their country back that they can not get their heads out of the sand.

Exp., did France change from liberal philosophies to conservative philosophies in one day? No, the conservative people tired of the liberal criticism of the USA while thugs were burning their country down under the name of tolerance of liberal views. Soon, I believe the complete world will tire of political correctness of the liberal philosophies and for the sake of survival will cast the "holier than thous" out.

It scares me that the liberals think they are going to accomplish all that is on their agenda. Ironically, if they do, it will cost Americans their freedoms and the middle class will perish in a classless society offered by Obama and his liberal, communistic and social co-hearts. I for one am not willing to give up the capitalistic philosophy for the complete exchange to socialism.
wmrs2

The quote I posted was pushlished by a Right Wing Oranization called the RightWing Way is it NOT a Democratic publication and i simply postd what they had posted, no necessarily my views but view none the less

[wmrs2]

The quote I posted was pushlished by a Right Wing Oranization called the RightWing Way is it NOT a Democratic publication and i simply postd what they had posted, no necessarily my views but view none the less
What I said was:"You need to be more original with your criticisms and less influenced by miss represented facts." The rebuttal you offer proves my point but, like I said, you confuse the facts looking thru liberal eyes. You are preaching socialism (communism) whether you know this or not. Liberals need to go ahead and admit this fact. It is not against the law to do so and it is your right of freedom of speech. What is difficult to understand is your reluctance to admit that you hold a left wing philosophy in spite of any facts to the contrary that the world is not totally liberal.

[mkemse]

ok please prove me wrong on those item I have posted I welcome true real facts as oppsed to personal points of view which none of my posts were, they are NOT my original words

And please refran from calling me a Communist just because our views are different and I am a Democrat, you may not like Democrats or Liberals but i AM NOT a Communist or Scialist please refrain from calling me thatIf my facts are incorrect kindly post the correct ones not your point of but those of who you supported and Document, at least I supported my feelings

In either even have a wonderfull evening

[mkemse]

This is the Definition Of a Communist and Socialism, I am as far away from that as I can be, I do not believe in ANY Goverment Control Of Businees, Nationalizing Banks ect ect
Please don't confuse A Communist with being a Democrat , they are 2 entirely different types of people system and beliefs
The Defination is courtesy of Wikipedia

Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.[1][2][3] Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism; a broad group of economic and political philosophies that draw on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.[4] Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems with the capitalist market economy and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Marx states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class (proletariat), who according to Marx are the main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the Capitalist-class (bourgeoisie), to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in order to establish a free society, without class or racial divisions.[2] The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarcho-communism) also exist.

Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as an economic system, but it is understood that a communist economy would consist of common ownership of the means of production, culminating in the negation of the concept of private ownership. Unlike socialism, which is compatible with a market economy, a communist economy consists of local or communal democratic planning.

[mkemse]

my apologies to all from getting away from the topic of the thread, simply reply to posts addressed to me

[DuncanONeil]

Habeas Corpus was never eliminated!
Please to show me where the separation of Church and State resides?

[DuncanONeil]

I do believe that the Dems had enough votes to prevent closure. Which power they used regularly and repeatedly to obstruct. Precisely because they did not have the power.

[DuncanONeil]

Soldiers in war are not sent to be killed. The newborn has no control of their life those that CHOOSE to join the military made an informed choice.

[DuncanONeil]

"But many voters, far too many in my opinion, will base their decisions on party lines and/or media bias, whether liberal or conservative."

That is why those voters are referred to as the base. All campaigning is directed at those that are in the camp of undecided.

[wmrs2]

Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.

There is nothing wrong with you or people who hold your socialist views. I certainly do not intend to insult you by calling you a communist but that is what your views tend to support. The answer as to whether you have socialist and communistic beliefs is in the research you presented here. Your research is fine. The fact is that you miss read it.

I am not sure about your beliefs but Oboma's beliefs and those of the Democratic Party are most certainly on the left significantly enough that these are rightly termed as socialistic. The above statement that you quote certainly agrees with Oboma's point of view. He wants to spread the wealth around and have a classless society. Our country is certainly headed towards the nationalization of the factors of production under Democratic leadership much more than the Republican view for the country to be more capitalistic. I am broad minded enough to admit neither party is 100% capitalist or 100% socialist. But, if there were to be a socialist party in the USA, it would be the Democratic Party to which you belong.

It may come to pass that the socialist in the Democratic Party will win out and America will become a socialist state like the majority of European countries. Those people in the Democratic Party who say America has lost respect and creditability with our allies are actually referring to the socialist and liberal politicians in Europe who sometimes do not speak for the majority of the people in their own countries. France is a great example of this fact. One election and suddenly the French love America.

Democrats like to say we have lost respect in the eyes of the world but that is simply the opinion of liberals, socialist, and communist foreign and domestic. You can say about anything and back it up with facts, as you often do, but that does not mean that you are telling the whole story. Telling the truth to spin your political view may not be the way the real world is.

You obviously resent being classified as a socialist. Perhaps you should review your beliefs then to decide whether or not you want to remain in the Democratic Party. We certainly could use a fine fellow like you in our party. If I can help you understand your point of view better, or I should say, the point of view of the Democratic Party's point of view. just let me know. The help will always be here for you.

[mkemse]

There is nothing wrong with you or people who hold your socialist views. I certainly do not intend to insult you by calling you a communist but that is what your views tend to support. The answer as to whether you have socialist and communistic beliefs is in the research you presented here. Your research is fine. The fact is that you miss read it.

I am not sure about your beliefs but Oboma's beliefs and those of the Democratic Party are most certainly on the left significantly enough that these are rightly termed as socialistic. The above statement that you quote certainly agrees with Oboma's point of view. He wants to spread the wealth around and have a classless society. Our country is certainly headed towards the nationalization of the factors of production under Democratic leadership much more than the Republican view for the country to be more capitalistic. I am broad minded enough to admit neither party is 100% capitalist or 100% socialist. But, if there were to be a socialist party in the USA, it would be the Democratic Party to which you belong.

It may come to pass that the socialist in the Democratic Party will win out and America will become a socialist state like the majority of European countries. Those people in the Democratic Party who say America has lost respect and creditability with our allies are actually referring to the socialist and liberal politicians in Europe who sometimes do not speak for the majority of the people in their own countries. France is a great example of this fact. One election and suddenly the French love America.

Democrats like to say we have lost respect in the eyes of the world but that is simply the opinion of liberals, socialist, and communist foreign and domestic. You can say about anything and back it up with facts, as you often do, but that does not mean that you are telling the whole story. Telling the truth to spin your political view may not be the way the real world is.

You obviously resent being classified as a socialist. Perhaps you should review your beliefs then to decide whether or not you want to remain in the Democratic Party. We certainly could use a fine fellow like you in our party. If I can help you understand your point of view better, or I should say, the point of view of the Democratic Party's point of view. just let me know. The help will always be here for you.

Simply put I am neither a Communist or Socialst, I can't say it any clear, I am neither, I do not believe in Nationalzation I believe the less Goverment control on everything the better we all are, can't be any clear then that

[mkemse]

I have no reason NOT to remain a Democrt for the last time I am NOT a Socialst, maybe Obama is maybe other DEmocrats are, let's noyt classify EVERY Democrat as a Socialist their are many Democrats that are right of the party and almost Qualify as Repubilcans, McCain is a RINO (Republican In Name Only) if he was more tothe left as a Repub;ican many consider him a Democrat, and he cerainly is not a Socialst

We realy need to stay on the topic of the thread Bush's Legacy

[mkemse]

To keep this thread soley on Bush's Legacy which is what it started out as, I started a new Thread to Debate Obama and the 2 Parties and beliefs, please lets keep this thread just Bush as it was intenended to be, and use the other thread just for Obama and what peole feel about things he is working on and has done or attepmting to do

Just rspect everyones point of view, you may not agree with them but at least afford them the courtesy to expreess their views, that is what these threads are for to express your view point and remember it is YOUR POINT of view not everyones point of view in most cases

[wmrs2]

To keep this thread soley on Bush's Legacy which is what it started out as, I started a new Thread to Debate Obama and the 2 Parties and beliefs, please lets keep this thread just Bush as it was intenended to be, and use the other thread just for Obama and what peole feel about things he is working on and has done or attepmting to do

Just rspect everyones point of view, you may not agree with them but at least afford them the courtesy to expreess their views, that is what these threads are for to express your view point and remember it is YOUR POINT of view not everyones point of view in most cases
The majority of my post are on topic. You are the one that gets off topic in trying to defend your distorted view of world politics. The statement of one's political philosophy has everything to do with the legacy of GW Bush. You do not take as seriously the criticism of a Russian Communist of Ronald Regan because a serious communist is going to hate Regan for what he did to the socialist. The legacy of Bush as presented by Bush haters is flawed with bigotry. Don't you see, your opinion of Bush is not going to change because he beat you so many times. You call his legacy stupid but he outsmarted you. The Democrats never did defeat Bush but now they are attempting to spoil his legacy.

Why do you not respond to the quote about the frame of reference that Bush is judged by? Here it is:
"It may come to pass that the socialist in the Democratic Party will win out and America will become a socialist state like the majority of European countries. Those people in the Democratic Party who say America has lost respect and creditability with our allies are actually referring to the socialist and liberal politicians in Europe who sometimes do not speak for the majority of the people in their own countries. France is a great example of this fact. One election and suddenly the French love America."

"Democrats like to say we have lost respect in the eyes of the world but that is simply the opinion of liberals, socialist, and communist foreign and domestic. You can say about anything and back it up with facts, as you often do, but that does not mean that you are telling the whole story. Telling the truth to spin your political view may not be the way the real world is."

These statements have everything to do with Bush's place in history. Why do you not respond to these statements instead of lecturing us about staying on topic? The answer is that Bush's place in history is being framed by the liberals who control the news media. Your research is always going to be negative about Bush. Why?

No one cares that you say you are not a socialist or a communist. Since you are trying to frame Bush's place in history, it is fair to point out the frame of reference by which you judge the man. Like I stated, you have a right to your opinion but my opinion is that you are a liberal politician with liberal points of view; therefore, you are going to judge Bush harshly like the liberal Europeans do. You can do that. It is you right to do so.However, Bush's legacy may not be written by a liberal interpretation of history. If it is written by a conservative media, he will be considered among the great presidents.

I hope this is on topic enough for you to respond to what is actually said about Bush's place in history.

You obviously resent being classified as a socialist. Perhaps you should review your beliefs then to decide whether or not you want to remain in the Democratic Party. We certainly could use a fine fellow like you in our party. If I can help you understand your point of view better, or I should say, the point of view of the Democratic Party's point of view. just let me know. The help will always be here for you.

[mkemse]

The majority of my post are on topic. You are the one that gets off topic in trying to defend your distorted view of world politics. The statement of one's political philosophy has everything to do with the legacy of GW Bush. You do not take as seriously the criticism of a Russian Communist of Ronald Regan because a serious communist is going to hate Regan for what he did to the socialist. The legacy of Bush as presented by Bush haters is flawed with bigotry. Don't you see, your opinion of Bush is not going to change because he beat you so many times. You call his legacy stupid but he outsmarted you. The Democrats never did defeat Bush but now they are attempting to spoil his legacy.

Why do you not respond to the quote about the frame of reference that Bush is judged by? Here it is:
"It may come to pass that the socialist in the Democratic Party will win out and America will become a socialist state like the majority of European countries. Those people in the Democratic Party who say America has lost respect and creditability with our allies are actually referring to the socialist and liberal politicians in Europe who sometimes do not speak for the majority of the people in their own countries. France is a great example of this fact. One election and suddenly the French love America."

"Democrats like to say we have lost respect in the eyes of the world but that is simply the opinion of liberals, socialist, and communist foreign and domestic. You can say about anything and back it up with facts, as you often do, but that does not mean that you are telling the whole story. Telling the truth to spin your political view may not be the way the real world is."

These statements have everything to do with Bush's place in history. Why do you not respond to these statements instead of lecturing us about staying on topic? The answer is that Bush's place in history is being framed by the liberals who control the news media. Your research is always going to be negative about Bush. Why?

No one cares that you say you are not a socialist or a communist. Since you are trying to frame Bush's place in history, it is fair to point out the frame of reference by which you judge the man. Like I stated, you have a right to your opinion but my opinion is that you are a liberal politician with liberal points of view; therefore, you are going to judge Bush harshly like the liberal Europeans do. You can do that. It is you right to do so.However, Bush's legacy may not be written by a liberal interpretation of history. If it is written by a conservative media, he will be considered among the great presidents.

I hope this is on topic enough for you to respond to what is actually said about Bush's place in history.

You obviously resent being classified as a socialist. Perhaps you should review your beliefs then to decide whether or not you want to remain in the Democratic Party. We certainly could use a fine fellow like you in our party. If I can help you understand your point of view better, or I should say, the point of view of the Democratic Party's point of view. just let me know. The help will always be here for you.

I do resent it because I am not a Socialist, being a Democrat does NOT make me a socialist regasdless of how you view it
Again I am NOT a Socialist I am not a Communist can't be any clearer then that

[mkemse]

I applaud Bush for goingin to Afghanistann after 911, my issue with him is we had rason to go into Iraq except to take attention away from Afghanistan, we should have kept all our efforts ans attention focued their asnd not on Hussein but on Bin Laden id is respoinsible forthe desth of 3.500 from 911 Saddam had nothing to do with it ans Saddam and Binladen had a large hatred towards each other to boot. which Washington now seems to understand we need more trops there go after Bin Ladin he s responable for 911 not the Iraq's Flatten The Tora Bora Mountain where everyone beleve he is hiding, andforthose who say wecan't there will be to much collertal damage, seems to me we had alot of colleteral dame as a rsult of 911, We flatten the Toroa Bora Mountains and getrid of Binladen and all his close allies, NO that will notbe the end of international terrorism which now is world wide, but is will put one major hurt onthem having lost their leaser

I ppluaf Bush for hisd tax rebate last year my only wish is he had issued largerchecks rather then just $300 maybe $500
Is emi Appluad him for Medicare D my issue with that is I use it being disabledand, i reguire maintance medication for life, but less and less of my medicationis now covered by it, they cover meduication for my sitution but nothing I use serves me no good but i wtill have to pay $96.00 a month for coverage that i can't use and part of Medicare D as HEwrote into law it that the prices people patyfor their medication to Pharmactical Companies can not be nefotiated, so they can charge what everthey want
I just wish medicare D was more comprehensive

When I first started using it iI paid $20 a month foe my gneric meidcation, now i pay closer to $100 becuase my meds are no longer covered by it, tough to live on a fixed incme in our economy right now
So no, i do not completely dislike Bush but his failures out weight his positives and it should be the other way around
And NO I do not support everything Obama has done or will be doing
I have never supported or agreed with any President 100% of the time regardles of who they were, or what Party they are with, and i know of few people who would agreee with and support every decsion any Prssident makes, no Prseidnt will ever get a 100% approval rating on everything the do or or plan to do, they never have and never will
I know stauch ultra conservtive Republicans who would not even consider voting Democratic, and even they said to me No we did not agree 100% on everything thing Bush did or said, that is not realistic
And no I am not changing my view point on anything, simply making my beliefs a a bit clearer

[wmrs2]

I applaud Bush for goingin to Afghanistann after 911, my issue with him is we had rason to go into Iraq except to take attention away from Afghanistan, we should have kept all our efforts ans attention focued their asnd not on Hussein but on Bin Laden id is respoinsible forthe desth of 3.500 from 911 Saddam had nothing to do with it ans Saddam and Binladen had a large hatred towards each other to boot. which Washington now seems to understand we need more trops there go after Bin Ladin he s responable for 911 not the Iraq's Flatten The Tora Bora Mountain where everyone beleve he is hiding, andforthose who say wecan't there will be to much collertal damage, seems to me we had alot of colleteral dame as a rsult of 911, We flatten the Toroa Bora Mountains and getrid of Binladen and all his close allies, NO that will notbe the end of international terrorism which now is world wide, but is will put one major hurt onthem having lost their leaser

I ppluaf Bush for hisd tax rebate last year my only wish is he had issued largerchecks rather then just $300 maybe $500
Is emi Appluad him for Medicare D my issue with that is I use it being disabledand, i reguire maintance medication for life, but less and less of my medicationis now covered by it, they cover meduication for my sitution but nothing I use serves me no good but i wtill have to pay $96.00 a month for coverage that i can't use and part of Medicare D as HEwrote into law it that the prices people patyfor their medication to Pharmactical Companies can not be nefotiated, so they can charge what everthey want
I just wish medicare D was more comprehensive

When I first started using it iI paid $20 a month foe my gneric meidcation, now i pay closer to $100 becuase my meds are no longer covered by it, tough to live on a fixed incme in our economy right now
So no, i do not completely dislike Bush but his failures out weight his positives and it should be the other way around
And NO I do not support everything Obama has done or will be doing
I have never supported or agreed with any President 100% of the time regardles of who they were, or what Party they are with, and i know of few people who would agreee with and support every decsion any Prssident makes, no Prseidnt will ever get a 100% approval rating on everything the do or or plan to do, they never have and never will
I know stauch ultra conservtive Republicans who would not even consider voting Democratic, and even they said to me No we did not agree 100% on everything thing Bush did or said, that is not realistic
And no I am not changing my view point on anything, simply making my beliefs a a bit clearer
Sir, I will do my best to not refer to you as a Communist or a Socialist. However, if you give an idea that is basic Communist or Socialist, it must be considered fair play that the idea is basic communism or Socialism, ok?

This being said, after your lecture on keeping on the thread topic, what in your response here relates to Bush's legacy in history? I missed that.

One more thing (in your opinion) how is the Democratic Party not the socialist party in America? And, what is a Democrat? And, how can a Dem. be objective in the historical evaluation of Bush? These are reasonable questions and on topic. I hope you will answer these so we can find some common ground for discussion.

[Belgarold]

I think in your smug smirky manner you are throwing names around that you cannot support wmrs.

I COULD say, with the same amount of support that you display, (i.e. your opinions) that the Republican Party is the party of Fascists and Nazis. It would not be productive or TOTALLY appropriate but it could be supported as much as you can support calling the Democratic Party members socialist or Communist.

Now if you can get back on topic without acting superior and all-knowing that would be good. Your opinions are no more valid than anyone else's no matter how much name-calling and self-righteous venom you spew.

If you cannot respect the people and views you are debating, then I, for one, cannot respect you or your opinionated, wrong-headed views.

[Belgarold]

The majority of my post are on topic. You are the one that gets off topic in trying to defend your distorted view of world politics. The statement of one's political philosophy has everything to do with the legacy of GW Bush. You do not take as seriously the criticism of a Russian Communist of Ronald Regan because a serious communist is going to hate Regan for what he did to the socialist. The legacy of Bush as presented by Bush haters is flawed with bigotry. Don't you see, your opinion of Bush is not going to change because he beat you so many times. You call his legacy stupid but he outsmarted you. The Democrats never did defeat Bush but now they are attempting to spoil his legacy.

Why do you not respond to the quote about the frame of reference that Bush is judged by? Here it is:
"It may come to pass that the socialist in the Democratic Party will win out and America will become a socialist state like the majority of European countries. Those people in the Democratic Party who say America has lost respect and creditability with our allies are actually referring to the socialist and liberal politicians in Europe who sometimes do not speak for the majority of the people in their own countries. France is a great example of this fact. One election and suddenly the French love America."

"Democrats like to say we have lost respect in the eyes of the world but that is simply the opinion of liberals, socialist, and communist foreign and domestic. You can say about anything and back it up with facts, as you often do, but that does not mean that you are telling the whole story. Telling the truth to spin your political view may not be the way the real world is."

These statements have everything to do with Bush's place in history. Why do you not respond to these statements instead of lecturing us about staying on topic? The answer is that Bush's place in history is being framed by the liberals who control the news media. Your research is always going to be negative about Bush. Why?

No one cares that you say you are not a socialist or a communist. Since you are trying to frame Bush's place in history, it is fair to point out the frame of reference by which you judge the man. Like I stated, you have a right to your opinion but my opinion is that you are a liberal politician with liberal points of view; therefore, you are going to judge Bush harshly like the liberal Europeans do. You can do that. It is you right to do so.However, Bush's legacy may not be written by a liberal interpretation of history. If it is written by a conservative media, he will be considered among the great presidents.

I hope this is on topic enough for you to respond to what is actually said about Bush's place in history.

You obviously resent being classified as a socialist. Perhaps you should review your beliefs then to decide whether or not you want to remain in the Democratic Party. We certainly could use a fine fellow like you in our party. If I can help you understand your point of view better, or I should say, the point of view of the Democratic Party's point of view. just let me know. The help will always be here for you.

ANd please stop whining and blaming everyone and everything else but where the responsibility for the Bush legacy belongs. In Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Karl Rove and all the people who helped to make mistakes and never take any responsibility. Cowards and whiners all.

It is ALWAYS someone else's fault. It would be hilarious if it hadn't destroyed the ecoonomy, our reputation in the world and our constitution. Blame whomever you want. Real Americans KNOW where the fault lies and they expressed that knowledge on Nov. 4.

[wmrs2]

ANd please stop whining and blaming everyone and everything else but where the responsibility for the Bush legacy belongs. In Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Karl Rove and all the people who helped to make mistakes and never take any responsibility. Cowards and whiners all.

It is ALWAYS someone else's fault. It would be hilarious if it hadn't destroyed the ecoonomy, our reputation in the world and our constitution. Blame whomever you want. Real Americans KNOW where the fault lies and they expressed that knowledge on Nov. 4.
Belgarold, I do not wish to be unkind. I am not smug and I do not call names, nor do I refer to people who present opposing views as "cowards whiners." Irue intellectuals on this forum have agreed that no one person or party is responsible for the world recession. Talk about whining,the best thing you could do for the country is to get over Bush, Cheney, Rove and all the people who beat you fair and square in the election of 2000 and 2004 just like I must put the election of 2008 behind me and do what is best for the country.

It is a myth that Bush destroyed the economy, our reputation, and the Constitution of the USA. However, liberals all over the world agree with you but that does not make it true. But fact is, liberals are the ones who have whined for 8 years, not Rove, Cheney and Bush. You are angry at them because they have not whined but have taken responsibility for their actions.
Democrats are not kind or objective enough just yet to write the legacy of Bush into history.

For too many Democrats it is difficult to be gracious in victory after spouting the venom of Bush hate all these years but be patient, Bush is gone now. He can not hurt you any more. Your sores will heal in time and you can channel your efforts into helping Obama save the country.

Can you not be gracious in victory? That is what true Americas do. When the election is over, they pull together. That is what real Americans know. Real Americans are good sports and seek ways to bind the country together in a mighty force. Part of Bush's legacy will be that he did that whereas the Democrats failed that test in 2000. You could do the country more honor by being gracious rather than continuing the rant towards Bush's legacy. I guarantee you that his legacy will be written different than you want it to be written.
Thank you for listening to my point of view and thank you for yours.
wmrs2

[Belgarold]

Belgarold, I do not wish to be unkind. I am not smug and I do not call names, nor do I refer to people who present opposing views as "cowards whiners." Irue intellectuals on this forum have agreed that no one person or party is responsible for the world recession. Talk about whining,the best thing you could do for the country is to get over Bush, Cheney, Rove and all the people who beat you fair and square in the election of 2000 and 2004 just like I must put the election of 2008 behind me and do what is best for the country.

It is a myth that Bush destroyed the economy, our reputation, and the Constitution of the USA. However, liberals all over the world agree with you but that does not make it true. But fact is, liberals are the ones who have whined for 8 years, not Rove, Cheney and Bush. You are angry at them because they have not whined but have taken responsibility for their actions.
Democrats are not kind or objective enough just yet to write the legacy of Bush into history.

For too many Democrats it is difficult to be gracious in victory after spouting the venom of Bush hate all these years but be patient, Bush is gone now. He can not hurt you any more. Your sores will heal in time and you can channel your efforts into helping Obama save the country.

Can you not be gracious in victory? That is what true Americas do. When the election is over, they pull together. That is what real Americans know. Real Americans are good sports and seek ways to bind the country together in a mighty force. Part of Bush's legacy will be that he did that whereas the Democrats failed that test in 2000. You could do the country more honor by being gracious rather than continuing the rant towards Bush's legacy. I guarantee you that his legacy will be written different than you want it to be written.
Thank you for listening to my point of view and thank you for yours.
wmrs2

You know, saying something does not automatically mean it is magically true.

You HAVE called ALL Democrats Socialists and Communists. Is this true? Not by a long shot. THIS IS CALLING NAMES.

LOL. In this post alone you say you do NOT call people who hold opposing views cowards and whiners and then you state, "Talk about whining . . ." THIS IS CALLING SOMEONE WHO HOLDS AN OPPOSING VIEW A WHINER.

"True intellectuals . . ." SMUGNESS AND SUPERIORITY by definition. I hope, you are not calling yourself elitist. LOL.

And that is just the first few sentences of your post. It does not even mention the ridiculous notion that Bush and company took ANY responsibility for ANY of the many mistakes they made.

And HOW are republicans being gracious in defeat. They are all fighting the president every step of the way. Some, like Alan Keyes, have leveled veiled threats of assassination.

Joe the Plumber (Sam the Opportunist) has proposed armed military action against members of Congress. Rush Limbaugh wants the American Economy to fail.

Now I KNOW from the evidence of your previous posts that you will just deny these things ever happened. So this will be my last post on the subject. "True Intellectuals" know when someone is not worth their time.

[DuncanONeil]

Various studies agree that Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson, were the worst. Only three studies include G. W. Bush. The rank him from a high of 18 and a low of 36, far from the worst.

One can not speak to surplus and deficit as a measure of Presidential effectiveness as it is a one year figure. People seem to want to discount that the country has been on a war footing since 2003.

[DuncanONeil]

Habeas Corpus was not dispensed with! To do so would require an Amendment.

What is the evidence that all phone calls were intercepted? Just look at the feasibility of doing that. There are 330 million people in the country. For discussion let us postulate that half of them have phones. I know my phone usage is below average, but using that will give an understanding of the magnitude of the difficulty of what you believe. That below average phone usage gives us 710 million hours of phone calls per month.
I know you will suggest that computers are used to scan for stuff but that does not fit with your original premise, but even so. Such a progrom, assume the most efficient, can not leave you with less than 10% or 71 million hours PER MONTH. The manpower does not exist to deal with that kind of input. Even using all of our military assets it would take a month and a half to go over that much material.

[Diablo]

wmrs2, Belgarold keep it civil and on topic or take it elsewhere. If this thread can not stay on topic and continues to produce flames it WILL BE CLOSED.

DIABLO

[DuncanONeil]

Figures in the 2008 Federal Budget report that at the end of 2001 there was a surplus of $128.2 million. Followed by a deficit of $157.8 million in 2002.
The same study projects a surplus of $61 million by 2012. Now were I cynical does that not mean that President Obama's pledge to cut the deficit to $500 million mean that he will be taking a projected surplus of $61 million down to a deficit of $500 million, an increase of $561 million?

[DuncanONeil]

Really? What news do you consume?

[DuncanONeil]

I would like to discuss this but you will have to wait until I can find my book "debunked".

[DuncanONeil]

"None, accoding tothe Unisted States Consitution for the US to go to war a Delelaration of War is supposed to be passed by Congress"

You are a little bit out of date here. Congress gave the President the authority to take action as the CIC for troop concentrations of up to 200,000. And in spite of that Congress authorized military action against Iraq.

[DuncanONeil]

"As far as the wiretaping goes I can hardlybelieve that ever single person in the United States needs thier phone taped for "National Security Rasons":"

But that is not happening! It is logistically impossible!

[DuncanONeil]

"rembmerthat BinLaden launch 911 from Afghinstand NOT Iraq"

So you are of the opinion that terrorists exist only in Afghanistan?

[DuncanONeil]

I would have a lot to say here but since you would not care .......

[DuncanONeil]

How many died in the superdome and of what cause?

[DuncanONeil]

You misread!

[mkemse]

You know, saying something does not automatically mean it is magically true.

You HAVE called ALL Democrats Socialists and Communists. Is this true? Not by a long shot. THIS IS CALLING NAMES.

LOL. In this post alone you say you do NOT call people who hold opposing views cowards and whiners and then you state, "Talk about whining . . ." THIS IS CALLING SOMEONE WHO HOLDS AN OPPOSING VIEW A WHINER.

"True intellectuals . . ." SMUGNESS AND SUPERIORITY by definition. I hope, you are not calling yourself elitist. LOL.

And that is just the first few sentences of your post. It does not even mention the ridiculous notion that Bush and company took ANY responsibility for ANY of the many mistakes they made.

And HOW are republicans being gracious in defeat. They are all fighting the president every step of the way. Some, like Alan Keyes, have leveled veiled threats of assassination.

Joe the Plumber (Sam the Opportunist) has proposed armed military action against members of Congress. Rush Limbaugh wants the American Economy to fail.

Now I KNOW from the evidence of your previous posts that you will just deny these things ever happened. So this will be my last post on the subject. "True Intellectuals" know when someone is not worth their time.




THANK YOU
Apparently if our view do not coincide with their we are Liberaal Comunist Democrats, that is beyond Laughable

[DuncanONeil]

Obama won the elctroal count which pt him into office no matte how old that system is by almost a 3-1 margin, that has to mean something

Actually there is not much store one can put in the margin in the College. You do realize that the college exists because the founders did not think the people would be able to decide on their own?
The Media does not elect Presidents, voters do

True the people cast the ballots but that cast is, in my opinion, unduly influenced by the choices the media makes.

whatthis Country needs to do, whether it happens or not is another question is abolish the electral college and elect the Prsident based soely on Popular vote,

As much as I think the reason for the College is a poor one I am not sure that relying solely on the popular vote would be much better. The last three major elections were all essentially dead heats with one of them ending in court and another nearly so. Do you really think that is a better solution?
as i said the electroal college is old, outdated ect, byt the current realuity is that you need thos votes to win the White House what you get Popular vote wise means nothing right now,

Do you understand how the College works? Delegates to the College are selected from the states. They are pledged to vote in the College to mirror the election outcome in the State. All votes in the College go to the winner of the State even if that margin of win was one vote

[mkemse]

Sir, I will do my best to not refer to you as a Communist or a Socialist. However, if you give an idea that is basic Communist or Socialist, it must be considered fair play that the idea is basic communism or Socialism, ok?

This being said, after your lecture on keeping on the thread topic, what in your response here relates to Bush's legacy in history? I missed that.

One more thing (in your opinion) how is the Democratic Party not the socialist party in America? And, what is a Democrat? And, how can a Dem. be objective in the historical evaluation of Bush? These are reasonable questions and on topic. I hope you will answer these so we can find some common ground for discussion.

Thank you please don't because I am a Democrat does not make me either Communist or a Socialist

[mkemse]

"rembmerthat BinLaden launch 911 from Afghinstand NOT Iraq"

So you are of the opinion that terrorists exist only in Afghanistan?

No there are terrorist world wide, but at thetime of 911 Al Quisa and Bin Laden were based in Afghanistan in the Tora Bora Mountains as many have suggested but never proved

[mkemse]

"None, accoding tothe Unisted States Consitution for the US to go to war a Delelaration of War is supposed to be passed by Congress"

You are a little bit out of date here. Congress gave the President the authority to take action as the CIC for troop concentrations of up to 200,000. And in spite of that Congress authorized military action against Iraq.

Ok never read of hear about a Delclaration War Declared, justthat we planned to invadewith 25,00 tropps which now is over 150,000

als I postes earlier in this thread the Definition of Communism as you asked, It was post last night (March 2, 2009) t is hre somewhere justnot sure now with all the after psosts were it is located

[wmrs2]

You misread!
My friend, you are doing a good job at debunking the liberals' rhetoric strategy. You are sticking to the facts and giving simple, correct examples of the truth. Eventually this type of fact giving and questioning will break through.

It is a very popular theory that if you continue to see what you are by having it pointed out to you that you are a certain way, this will make you want to change to being the person you would really like to be. This is the "looking glass theory" and you use it very well.

Americans do not want to be labeled with certain names which have historically been rejected by the American public. We have experienced this resentment on this thread as members don't like being labeled as socialist and communist. They have a point in stating this resentment and I suppose we should try to honor their request not to be so labeled.

Yet, does this mean that we should not describe how their political views come across to us? We have witnessed the criticism of capitalism in relation to what President Obama is attempting with the economy. Honestly, very few people know what to do about the economy. The opinion of most Americans, I believe, is to allow the economy to cycle out. In the meantime, Obama's effort at reconstruction seems to be a good thing. But, if his agenda is to replace the capitalist system to a socialist system, like Rush said, I hope he fails.

I look for liberals to jump on this statement like they did Rush this morning on all news channels. In their criticism of Rush they deliberately left out his reference to "But if." Clearly Rush wants socialism to fail but just as clearly he wants Oboma to succeed. "But if" changes everything. The liberal press and many Democrats would rather demonize Rush for saying the President should fail and then come back with the statement that he is the head of the Republican Party to make all anti-socialist Republicans demonized. I think when it comes down to it, most Democrats would like to see Karl Marx. and the tenants of communism fail.

Part of the positive legacy of G. Bush will be that he supported Obama's efforts to rebuild the country by not being critical or revengeful about how he was treated. There has to come a time when the Democrats and Republicans set aside the type of rhetoric such as that cited above and really do what is best for the country. If we continue to seize on every petty word that is said, only the true enemies of our country will win. My suggestion is that we raise the level of debate and stick to the facts with less personal attacks and more accurate descriptions of what we truly are - all Americans.

[Belgarold]

From what I have witnessed it seems the Republicans have their own messiah complex. They worship Limbaugh. He who will not brook any dissenting opinions. He who is so UnAmerican that he wants the country to fail, the President to fail.

[mkemse]

From what I have witnessed it seems the Republicans have their own messiah complex. They worship Limbaugh. He who will not brook any dissenting opinions. He who is so UnAmerican that he wants the country to fail, the President to fail.

I believe but I could be wrong but Micheal Steele the Charman of the RNC Last Night told people to ignore Rush that he does not speak for the vast majority of Republicans and he is just expressing his view, but he did emphisise for peole to pay no attention to Rush and the Party will distance itself from him as they can
But Rush does love oxicondin :)

[Thorne]

All campaigning is directed at those that are in the camp of undecided.

Except they are not undecided! They decided months, years, decades ago that they were Republicans or Democrats and they will fight tooth and nail against anyone who tries to gainsay them. Facts mean nothing, statistics mean nothing, legality or illegality mean nothing. "If he's in my Party, he's right!"

[wmrs2]

Except they are not undecided! They decided months, years, decades ago that they were Republicans or Democrats and they will fight tooth and nail against anyone who tries to gainsay them. Facts mean nothing, statistics mean nothing, legality or illegality mean nothing. "If he's in my Party, he's right!"
It is unclear to whom you refer as I have seen both Dems and Reps behave in a very irrational manner. But slur them all; that way you get them all. What was pointed out about what Rush said, "But if" did not mean anything to many Dems who refuse to be fair in their judgment. The ignoring the facts is not the monopoly of any one party. I think that is the nature of politics and broad minded people will understand this, don't you agree?

[mkemse]

It is unclear to whom you refer as I have seen both Dems and Reps behave in a very irrational manner. But slur them all; that way you get them all. What was pointed out about what Rush said, "But if" did not mean anything to many Dems who refuse to be fair in their judgment. The ignoring the facts is not the monopoly of any one party. I think that is the nature of politics and broad minded people will understand this, don't you agree?


Very, Very true on the "What If", but Micheal Steele of RNC Chairmsan said last night on FOX News that Rush does not speak for the Republican Party as a whole, that he needs to as he put it "shut up" and he wants to try and distance the Party from Rush, the interviews was on one of the Fox News Channels last night, not a liberal netowrk at but Rush as said on his radio show countless time nothing ould make him happier thenl and to have the Obama Admistration fail completey so America can elect a REAL President, Ann Coulter supported him on this John MccAin said both are way out fo line and thei rremarks to do speak for him or most Republicians he knows

[wmrs2]

I believe but I could be wrong but Micheal Steele the Charman of the RNC Last Night told people to ignore Rush that he does not speak for the vast majority of Republicans and he is just expressing his view, but he did emphisise for peole to pay no attention to Rush and the Party will distance itself from him as they can
But Rush does love oxicondin :)

M. Steele apologized fo Rush this morning for the remarks he made. Mr.Steel was slow to catch on to the strategy of the liberal commentators who refuse to recognize "But if." Liberal commentators will never stop twisting the facts if they can keep the two parties divided. What Oboma is trying to do is include everybody in the government. Right now I believe that but the die hards will not let go of their criticisms of the past.

Every broad minded American knows that it is time to forget the past and look to the future. If the liberal press keeps smarting off about Bush, Rove, and Republican leaders, Rep will be forced to eventually fight back. Once we start fighting like before the election it can do no good for the country.

[Thorne]

It is unclear to whom you refer as I have seen both Dems and Reps behave in a very irrational manner. But slur them all; that way you get them all. What was pointed out about what Rush said, "But if" did not mean anything to many Dems who refuse to be fair in their judgment. The ignoring the facts is not the monopoly of any one party. I think that is the nature of politics and broad minded people will understand this, don't you agree?

I was not referring to any one party, but to all those people, of any party, any race, any religion, who will follow the pronouncements of some so-called celebrity as if they were gospel without bothering to check the facts for themselves.

Granted, there are variations within this broad group, some who are fanatical followers and some who are much less so.

As for what Rush said being taken out of context, I think fair-minded people would have to admit that he is the king of doing the very same thing. From the little that I have heard, or read, he will consistently twist people's words to fit his own ideology, and when that might prove difficult to do, he will expound pompously on "what this really means!"

And certainly, he is not alone in this, nor is it a strictly conservative, or liberal, failing. It's a valid, recognized propaganda technique, which works quite well with an undereducated population, and works even better with fanatical followers who wouldn't dream of questioning their glorious leaders.

[mkemse]

M. Steele apologized fo Rush this morning for the remarks he made. Mr.Steel was slow to catch on to the strategy of the liberal commentators who refuse to recognize "But if." Liberal commentators will never stop twisting the facts if they can keep the two parties divided. What Oboma is trying to do is include everybody in the government. Right now I believe that but the die hards will not let go of their criticisms of the past.

Every broad minded American knows that it is time to forget the past and look to the future. If the liberal press keeps smarting off about Bush, Rove, and Republican leaders, Rep will be forced to eventually fight back. Once we start fighting like before the election it can do no good for the country.


I just located that apology which to me means the Rush LImbough runs the RNC not Steele, just my opinion but limbough also said he would rather commit Hari Kari then Run a Party in the sad shape the RNC is in right now, he woule stop being a Repubican if he was approached about the RNC
But I did see Micheal Stelles apology

[Thorne]

Every broad minded American knows that it is time to forget the past and look to the future. If the liberal press keeps smarting off about Bush, Rove, and Republican leaders, Rep will be forced to eventually fight back. Once we start fighting like before the election it can do no good for the country.

Well put. But don't just condemn the "liberal press"; include the conservative media (Rush, et al) in your statement.

It's time to stop being liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. It's time to start being Americans! Brothers and sisters united in defense of our country and our way of life. Find common ground in the middle of our belief systems and work from there. We are all seeking the same goals! Don't let corrupt politicians, over-paid industrialists, or loud-mouthed talk show hosts steal our heritage from us! Question everything, don't take anyone's word, search out the FACTS. Everyone in this forum (I presume) has a connection to the Internet. USE that to learn the truth, not just the propaganda.

[mkemse]

the biggest issue with the RNC is nobody in the Hieracxhy of the GOP has the GUTS to stand up to Rush Limbough

[mkemse]

As President Obma said "We are The UNITED States of America, not the Blue States, Red State, Yellow States of America but the United States Of America all people in one Nation"

[wmrs2]

From what I have witnessed it seems the Republicans have their own messiah complex. They worship Limbaugh. He who will not brook any dissenting opinions. He who is so UnAmerican that he wants the country to fail, the President to fail.
Don't bite on that worm. Commentators live to get you upset. Limbaugh gets a kick out of making Dems and Liberals go off half cocked accusing people of being UnAmerican and judgmental. You play into his hands with such responses, he makes money off your anger and is motivated to say more to incite you.

Let us try to be bigger than both the rhetoric of the liberal and conservative commentators. They probably call each other tonight to plan their next argument to upset as many people as they can. I wish I could make money off everybody's anger like they do. Look, point out the facts and leave it at that.

[Belgarold]

Well put. But don't just condemn the "liberal press"; include the conservative media (Rush, et al) in your statement.

It's time to stop being liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. It's time to start being Americans! Brothers and sisters united in defense of our country and our way of life. Find common ground in the middle of our belief systems and work from there. We are all seeking the same goals! Don't let corrupt politicians, over-paid industrialists, or loud-mouthed talk show hosts steal our heritage from us! Question everything, don't take anyone's word, search out the FACTS. Everyone in this forum (I presume) has a connection to the Internet. USE that to learn the truth, not just the propaganda.

Well-said Thorne. And until we can put aside the bickering and posturing we will get nowhere. Yes, Rush and his ilk, and that includes some on my side of the aisle as well, have an AGENDA and it is a personal agenda. Calculated to gain ratings and more power.

For instance, as I have said, I dont agree with you Thorne on every issue. But I believe you have the best interests of the country at heart. As I feel I do and the President. And until we can all join hands, even with those we don't agree with, we will not get out of this mess.

Anyway, thank you for your reasoned post.

[mkemse]

Don't bite on that worm. Commentators live to get you upset. Limbaugh gets a kick out of making Dems and Liberals go off half cocked accusing people of being UnAmerican and judgmental. You play into his hands with such responses, he makes money off your anger and is motivated to say more to incite you.

Let us try to be bigger than both the rhetoric of the liberal and conservative commentators. They probably call each other tonight to plan their next argument to upset as many people as they can. I wish I could make money off everybody's anger like they do. Look, point out the facts and leave it at that.

Yes we are I agree let's all live together as 1

[wmrs2]

Well put. But don't just condemn the "liberal press"; include the conservative media (Rush, et al) in your statement.

It's time to stop being liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. It's time to start being Americans! Brothers and sisters united in defense of our country and our way of life. Find common ground in the middle of our belief systems and work from there. We are all seeking the same goals! Don't let corrupt politicians, over-paid industrialists, or loud-mouthed talk show hosts steal our heritage from us! Question everything, don't take anyone's word, search out the FACTS. Everyone in this forum (I presume) has a connection to the Internet. USE that to learn the truth, not just the propaganda.
I can buy that, although it is difficult to put the past behind us. It can be done.

[wmrs2]

the biggest issue with the RNC is nobody in the Hieracxhy of the GOP has the GUTS to stand up to Rush Limbough
Now see! Just when we were getting off to such a good start, you start with your Guts theory. You need to try harder than this.

[wmrs2]

As President Obma said "We are The UNITED States of America, not the Blue States, Red State, Yellow States of America but the United States Of America all people in one Nation"
Now, that is a little better. Keep trying and we'll all get there together.

[wmrs2]

Yes we are I agree let's all live together as 1

Great! All Bush haters, all Rush haters, all liberal press haters, all broad minded Rep. and Dems, we finally love each other. I hope this last but, the question is, who will be first among us to break the unity. Not me. Fight the temptation, please.

[mkemse]

Now see! Just when we were getting off to such a good start, you start with your Guts theory. You need to try harder than this.

It is just my opinion, which i am intitled you , some may no like it, by my Freedom of speach allows me to sat that

[DuncanONeil]

"This is the Definition Of a Communist and Socialism"

so⋅cial⋅ism
   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

com⋅mu⋅nism
   /ˈkɒmyəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

While there are similarities there are significant differences in these two systems!

[DuncanONeil]

"I believe the less Goverment control on everything the better we all are, can't be any clear then that "

That being the case how them would you describe yourself?

[DuncanONeil]

"I have no reason NOT to remain a Democrt"

But your stated belief system does not agree with that of the Democrat party!
"I believe the less Goverment control on everything the better we all are, can't be any clear then that "

[DuncanONeil]

"my issue with him is we had rason to go into Iraq"

The whole world had reason to go into Iraq. The person at fault for that was Mr Hussain.

[DuncanONeil]

"I COULD say, with the same amount of support that you display, (i.e. your opinions) that the Republican Party is the party of Fascists and Nazis."

fas⋅cism
   /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.

Nazi = National Socialist German Workers' party

Seems that the Nazis were in fact Socialist as were the Fascists, except that they have a dicator rather than a ruling party.

[DuncanONeil]

"(A)ll the people who helped to make mistakes and never take any responsibility. Cowards and whiners all."

You mean like Teddy Kennedy?

[DuncanONeil]

And?

[DuncanONeil]

"Ok never read of hear about a Delclaration War Declared"

THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE VOTE; CONGRESS AUTHORIZES BUSH TO USE FORCE AGAINST IRAQ, CREATING A BROAD MANDATE
By ALISON MITCHELL and CARL HULSE
Published: Friday, October 11, 2002
New York Times

The Senate voted overwhelmingly early this morning to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq, joining with the House in giving him a broad mandate to act against Saddam Hussein.

[DuncanONeil]

"als I postes earlier in this thread the Definition of Communism as you asked,"

I did not ask!

[DuncanONeil]

From what I have witnessed it seems the Republicans have their own messiah complex. They worship Limbaugh. He who will not brook any dissenting opinions. He who is so UnAmerican that he wants the country to fail, the President to fail.

Again you are incorrect. There is no worship of Limbaugh among his listeners. Being correct, succinct, and entertaining does not make one a messiah. To revere a person as a messiah requires a certain amount of faith. A faith that overlooks anything that could lessen the reverence for the figure.

Unlike many main stream outlets dissension is welcomed by Limbaugh. But that does not mean that he will not attempt to show that person where they may be mistaken. In fact Limbaugh will move a self described liberal to the head of the queue.

I have a question, have you spent any time listening to the Limbaugh show? Or are you relying on reports of what he has said? Be careful with the answer, there may be a test.

[DuncanONeil]

Except they are not undecided! They decided months, years, decades ago that they were Republicans or Democrats and they will fight tooth and nail against anyone who tries to gainsay them. Facts mean nothing, statistics mean nothing, legality or illegality mean nothing. "If he's in my Party, he's right!"

Don't understand how you can say that. Each party clearly refers to their "base" that part of the electorate will vote that party, just like Libertarians vote Libertarian. The election revolves around those in the camp of "undecided" "In an election, there are "certain" or "lock" votes - voters who are solidly behind or partisan to a particular candidate and will not consider changing their minds whatever the opposition says.

Swing voters are undecided about how they will vote. They are sometimes referred to as undecideds or undecided voters, but floating voter is now the more common term used for this kind of voter.

In the United States, they may be dissatisfied Republicans or Democrats who are open to the idea of voting for other parties, or they could be people who have never had a strong affiliation with any political party, and will vote depending on certain things that influence them - e.g. healthcare, benefits, election campaign etc.

Some might be people who have never exercised their right to vote before, such as those just reaching voting age.

Because the votes of swing voters are considered to be "up for grabs", candidates direct a fair proportion of campaign effort towards them, although they must also be concerned with voter turnout among their political base."

"updated 11:06 a.m. CT, Wed., Sept. 24, 2008

WASHINGTON - Nearly a fifth of U.S. voters remain undecided about presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, still unsure which man can put out the fire raging through the American financial marketplace and save them from an economic meltdown."

It is clear that this block of voters exists and is the focus of political campaigns.

[DuncanONeil]

"Rush as said on his radio show countless time nothing ould make him happier thenl and to have the Obama Admistration fail completey so America can elect a REAL President, Ann Coulter supported him on this"

I have reason to believe that you are pulling your data from, at best, secondary sources.

[DuncanONeil]

"Once we start fighting like before the election it can do no good for the country."

But you think random throwing of vast sums of money in all kinds of random directions IS good for the country?

[DuncanONeil]

I just located that apology which to me means the Rush LImbough runs the RNC not Steele, just my opinion but limbough also said he would rather commit Hari Kari then Run a Party in the sad shape the RNC is in right now, he woule stop being a Repubican if he was approached about the RNC
But I did see Micheal Stelles apology

Interesting! You say the apology is because Limbaugh runs the RNC. yet admit that he has said he would have nothing to do with the RNC. Yet you still believe that "Micheal Stelles apology" is proof to the contrary. Verrrrry interesting!

[DuncanONeil]

Well put. But don't just condemn the "liberal press"; include the conservative media (Rush, et al) in your statement.

It's time to stop being liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. It's time to start being Americans! Brothers and sisters united in defense of our country and our way of life. Find common ground in the middle of our belief systems and work from there. We are all seeking the same goals! Don't let corrupt politicians, over-paid industrialists, or loud-mouthed talk show hosts steal our heritage from us! Question everything, don't take anyone's word, search out the FACTS. Everyone in this forum (I presume) has a connection to the Internet. USE that to learn the truth, not just the propaganda.

Some of what you said bothers me a very basic level, but I will let that slide.
I have found a number of people across various forums that even when presented with factual information simply refuse to consider that information. How would you propose to get them to consider the information?

[DuncanONeil]

the biggest issue with the RNC is nobody in the Hieracxhy of the GOP has the GUTS to stand up to Rush Limbough

Close but no cigar. No one in the hierarchy of the RNC have the guts to stand up, period!

[DuncanONeil]

"he makes money off your anger and is motivated to say more to incite you."

Limbaugh does not make money off anyone's anger, he makes it by people listening.

[Belgarold]

Again you are incorrect. There is no worship of Limbaugh among his listeners. Being correct, succinct, and entertaining does not make one a messiah. To revere a person as a messiah requires a certain amount of faith. A faith that overlooks anything that could lessen the reverence for the figure.

Unlike many main stream outlets dissension is welcomed by Limbaugh. But that does not mean that he will not attempt to show that person where they may be mistaken. In fact Limbaugh will move a self described liberal to the head of the queue.

I have a question, have you spent any time listening to the Limbaugh show? Or are you relying on reports of what he has said? Be careful with the answer, there may be a test.

As a matter of fact I have. I go by the adage "know your enemy." I listen to O'Reilly spin as well. Limbaugh, to gain ratings, is angry, spewing lies and half-truths, racism, inciting violence. He is a hate-monger and power-hungry opportunist.

Do YOU listen to anyone but Fox News or the conservative controlled media?

And I am still waiting for any real facts that support your position. THAT is my test.

[Thorne]

I have found a number of people across various forums that even when presented with factual information simply refuse to consider that information. How would you propose to get them to consider the information?
That doesn't surprise me at all. As I said in an earlier post, "Except they are not undecided! They decided months, years, decades ago that they were Republicans or Democrats and they will fight tooth and nail against anyone who tries to gainsay them. Facts mean nothing, statistics mean nothing, legality or illegality mean nothing."

There is absolutely nothing you can do or say to change the minds of this type of fanatic. And they exist everywhere, in every political party, in every religion, in every country. There is always, and will always be, a certain type of person who knows beyond any doubt that his point of view is the only right one. Beating him over the head with the truth or with facts only makes him condemn you for your brutality. This is the kind of person who will don a white sheet and kidnap, torture and kill innocent people simply because of their color. This is the kind of person who will kill dozens of innocent people simply because they happen to work at an abortion clinic. This is the kind of person who flies planes loaded with civilians into buildings. Whether you label them as terrorists, fanatics, patriots or "dittoheads," their hatred and anger towards anything which opposes them marks them as ignorant and dangerous.

[wmrs2]

"Once we start fighting like before the election it can do no good for the country."

But you think random throwing of vast sums of money in all kinds of random directions IS good for the country?
Hell no! Continue please, you are doing great.

[wmrs2]

"he makes money off your anger and is motivated to say more to incite you."

Limbaugh does not make money off anyone's anger, he makes it by people listening.
I know, you are correct. I was trying to point out that being angry over truthful statements does not help get the opposing idea across. Most people who criticize Rush never listen to him. I may be a little sadistic here,but it gives me rush (pun intended) when liberals flip their lid over Rush.

[wmrs2]

That doesn't surprise me at all. As I said in an earlier post, "Except they are not undecided! They decided months, years, decades ago that they were Republicans or Democrats and they will fight tooth and nail against anyone who tries to gainsay them. Facts mean nothing, statistics mean nothing, legality or illegality mean nothing."

There is absolutely nothing you can do or say to change the minds of this type of fanatic. And they exist everywhere, in every political party, in every religion, in every country. There is always, and will always be, a certain type of person who knows beyond any doubt that his point of view is the only right one. Beating him over the head with the truth or with facts only makes him condemn you for your brutality. This is the kind of person who will don a white sheet and kidnap, torture and kill innocent people simply because of their color. This is the kind of person who will kill dozens of innocent people simply because they happen to work at an abortion clinic. This is the kind of person who flies planes loaded with civilians into buildings. Whether you label them as terrorists, fanatics, patriots or "dittoheads," their hatred and anger towards anything which opposes them marks them as ignorant and dangerous.
Brother, I am glad that we are not like that. People who act like they know what they believe should be shot. I am glad to get that off my chest. That's what Rush does too when he points out dittoheads; he agrees with us. He does not tolerate people who think they know what they believe either.

[wmrs2]

That doesn't surprise me at all. As I said in an earlier post, "Except they are not undecided! They decided months, years, decades ago that they were Republicans or Democrats and they will fight tooth and nail against anyone who tries to gainsay them. Facts mean nothing, statistics mean nothing, legality or illegality mean nothing."

There is absolutely nothing you can do or say to change the minds of this type of fanatic. And they exist everywhere, in every political party, in every religion, in every country. There is always, and will always be, a certain type of person who knows beyond any doubt that his point of view is the only right one. Beating him over the head with the truth or with facts only makes him condemn you for your brutality. This is the kind of person who will don a white sheet and kidnap, torture and kill innocent people simply because of their color. This is the kind of person who will kill dozens of innocent people simply because they happen to work at an abortion clinic. This is the kind of person who flies planes loaded with civilians into buildings. Whether you label them as terrorists, fanatics, patriots or "dittoheads," their hatred and anger towards anything which opposes them marks them as ignorant and dangerous.

Pardon me please but I just can not let this go. You don't really think that Rush would done a white sheet, kidnap, torture and kill innocent people do you? You are exaggerating to make a point, are you not? I don't see a mass of conservatives or liberals, who are firmly trenched in their beliefs flying plains into anything. It is just human nature, a carnal nature, to dislike people who disagree with us and I don,t like those people who are enlightened like us either. I just think God that I am not like other men. The thing that bothers me is that other men think God that I am not like them either. I am not going to get upset about it. What do those dumb bastards know anyway?

[Belgarold]

Rush would do ANYTHING that would get him more ratings. And I think the point is, he incites fanatics. And with recent events, has delusions of grandeur. An analogy would be the cowardly leaders of groups like Al Quaida. He incites those crazy fanatical people to don a white sheet, and torture and kill innocent people, if it would further his aims. Just like Al Quaida convinces crazy fanatical people to blow themselves up for their sick aims.

I swear, this messiah complex is SO interesting.

In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Third president of the United States.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Winston Churchill (1874-1965) British politician.

[Thorne]

Brother, I am glad that we are not like that. People who act like they know what they believe should be shot. I am glad to get that off my chest. That's what Rush does too when he points out dittoheads; he agrees with us. He does not tolerate people who think they know what they believe either.

I didn't say that! I said that these people think their beliefs are the ONLY truth.

[Thorne]

Pardon me please but I just can not let this go. You don't really think that Rush would done a white sheet, kidnap, torture and kill innocent people do you?
No! Absolutely not! I was talking about some of the KINDS of people who will take every word that Rush, and others like him, says as gospel.

I haven't listened to him in years, but when I did I found him to be dangerously seductive. His "facts" always seemed self-evident, and his opinions sounded logical, especially when delivered in that enthusiastic, pompous rhetoric of his. But when I checked those "facts" independently (which is something I always felt he would not want me to do) I found them to be subtly different from what he claimed. He didn't lie, precisely. It wasn't blatant. But he always added that little twist, or neglected that one word or phrase, which seemed to change the meaning of what he was ranting about.

But the kinds of people I was talking about, the fanatics, the white sheet crowd, won't bother to check the facts. If what he says falls in line with what they already want to believe it will reinforce those beliefs.

And no, I don't think that all Rush's followers are this kind of person. It's only a small minority, a few fanatics. But they are the most dangerous, and he knows perfectly well that they are out there, and that they listen to him religiously.

[wmrs2]

Rush would do ANYTHING that would get him more ratings. And I think the point is, he incites fanatics. And with recent events, has delusions of grandeur. An analogy would be the cowardly leaders of groups like Al Quaida. He incites those crazy fanatical people to don a white sheet, and torture and kill innocent people, if it would further his aims. Just like Al Quaida convinces crazy fanatical people to blow themselves up for their sick aims.

I swear, this messiah complex is SO interesting.

In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Third president of the United States.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Winston Churchill (1874-1965) British politician.

Brother, I hope you will re-read what you just said. Will your criticism of Bush never end? Who do you think you are inciting with your continual abuse of President Bush? Thomas Jefferson knew what he was talking about. I wish you would listen to him. Change the subject!

[wmrs2]

No! Absolutely not! I was talking about some of the KINDS of people who will take every word that Rush, and others like him, says as gospel.

I haven't listened to him in years, but when I did I found him to be dangerously seductive. His "facts" always seemed self-evident, and his opinions sounded logical, especially when delivered in that enthusiastic, pompous rhetoric of his. But when I checked those "facts" independently (which is something I always felt he would not want me to do) I found them to be subtly different from what he claimed. He didn't lie, precisely. It wasn't blatant. But he always added that little twist, or neglected that one word or phrase, which seemed to change the meaning of what he was ranting about.

But the kinds of people I was talking about, the fanatics, the white sheet crowd, won't bother to check the facts. If what he says falls in line with what they already want to believe it will reinforce those beliefs.

And no, I don't think that all Rush's followers are this kind of person. It's only a small minority, a few fanatics. But they are the most dangerous, and he knows perfectly well that they are out there, and that they listen to him religiously.
I am pleased with your response to my sarcasm. You are indeed a good sport. The way you feel about Rush is the same way I feel about most of the liberal commentators. I lean more to the right than the left politically, although I like to think I am broad minded. There are not too many conservative commentators but Rush is the leader. He has to take a lot of guff for his leadership.But, he does make people think and question, especially the liberals.

The liberals do not have a Rush like person. I always thought the reason they did not have a Rush person was that they did not want people to think and ask too many questions. Liberals, I think have a difficult time defending their positions on most things. They seem to borrow the Marxing concept that it is ok to say anything no matter if its the truth or not as long as it serves their greater good. To them truth is relative and to Rush it is absolute.That is the difference between the two positions. Those who study philosophy know this is true.
Thanks for being a good sport.
wmrs2

[GearJammer]

post removed by poster

[GearJammer]

post removed by poster

[GearJammer]

post removed by poster

[mkemse]

I also wonder if Obama is getting the "Grief" he is nott because the is doing what he i doing,but if anyone is playing the "Race Card" because he is our First Afican American Prsident" and I do not remember any other President in history who has recieived so much flack, and critism after beinging office for just 4-5 weeks, nobody did this to Either Bush's Or Clinton, Or Carter ect ect after they were only in office for 4-5 weeks, maybe after thier 1 years but cetaibly not with their first 100 days, if anythin there wer critisized for not have done anything

we need to concetrate more on getting thins done and worry less about who's fault it is
up til 2006 The Republicans Controlled Congres and the White House and even when the Democrats took control in 2006 they still had a Conversative President who had veto rights over their actions

as someone in washington said the other day "The Repulicans drove us into this ditch, and now theyare complaiing about the size of the tow truck to pull us out" this is NOT MY PERSONAL OPINON but simpy lwhat I heard on the Radio
No Bush is not responsble for the Sub Prime Crisis, the Banks are, if a person wants to buy a house and only earns $2,000 a month, you don't sell them a house who's mortage will be $1.500, they need money for goods and other nescessaties, so to me most of the blame for this goes to the Banks not the goverment, and outside of FDIC insurance the Goverment does not own most banks unless the bank failed and was taken over. Banks are unregulated and they use terrible judgment is making loans even credit card
I have a 14 month old Guiness PIg, yes guinea pig, he recieved a Gold Visa Card from Citibank the other day,not a pre apprved appication but the acutal card itself his name ect was on it I called the bank told them the card was issued to a 14 mont old guinea pig,, their reply was "Oh, guess we made a mistake"
This is the reason our Banks are in trouble, for sending a college kid a via or Master card WHILE they are still in school with a $5,000 on it, and the kid did not even apply for it, it was just sent to him, he does not have the abilit to pay one off, yes he can and did throw it out,the point is this shows how incredably reckless banks are on extending credit to people who can't afford it, not to mention to a Guinea Pig of all things, this is why are banks are in the mess today that they are in, reckless extention of credit to those who they know can't afford to pay back, the need to run credit chaecks on people before they send cards out, if they had done that with my Guinea Pig he never would have gotten a Gold Vsa with a $10,000 line of Credit

[DuncanONeil]

"Bush is not responsble for the Sub Prime Crisis, the Banks are,"

Sorry I can not agree that the fault lies with the banks. I must lay the blame on the Democrat Congress that required banks to set aside sound loan practices and lend money to people that were a poor risk for paying the loan off.
Then there are the people that took advantage of attractive rates to refinance their home to put money in their pocket. Being "underwater" in a home is not the same as other things. Underwater in a car you are on the wrong side of a liability. A home is an asset.

[Belgarold]

"Bush is not responsble for the Sub Prime Crisis, the Banks are,"

Sorry I can not agree that the fault lies with the banks. I must lay the blame on the Democrat Congress that required banks to set aside sound loan practices and lend money to people that were a poor risk for paying the loan off.
Then there are the people that took advantage of attractive rates to refinance their home to put money in their pocket. Being "underwater" in a home is not the same as other things. Underwater in a car you are on the wrong side of a liability. A home is an asset.

um, The Congress was decidedly Republican when the regulations were stripped from the banking industry. And No laws REQUIRED lenders to lend to poor risk lenders.

The poor risk lending was made by unscrupulous lenders wishing to make a fast book over making loans to ignorant lendees.

Your information here is COMPLETELY false.

[denuseri]

One of my friends sent me this little excert with a picture of the people involved. If I could figure out how to post pics in the forums here I would have attached it. lol


"A doctor had his tv on in his office when the news of the military base shootings came on. The husband of one of his employees was stationed there.

He called her into his office and as he told her what had happened, she got a text message from her husband saying, "I am okay." Her cell phone rang right after she read the message. It was an ER nurse,"I'm the one who just sent you a text, not your husband. I thought it would be comforting but I was mistaken in doing so. I am sorry to tell you this, but your husband has been shot 4 times and he is in surgery."

The soldier's wife left Southern Clinic in Dothan and drove all night to Ft.Hood. When she arrived, she found out her husband was out of surgery and would be OK. She rushed to his room and found that he already had visitors there to confort him. He was just waking up and found his wife and the visitors by his side The nurse took a picture.

It was George W. Bush!

He had heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort, apparently they did not have time to react, and drove to Fort Hood. He was stopped at the gate and the guard could not believe who he had just stopped.. Bush only ask for directions to the hospital then drove on. The gate guard called that "The president Is on Fort Hood and driving to the hospital." The base went bananas looking for Obama. When they found it was Bush they immediately offered escort and Bush simply told them to shut up and let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead. He stayed at Fort Hood for over six hours and was finally asked to leave by a message from the White House.. Obama flew in days later and held a "photo " session in a gym and did not even go to the hospital. "

[steelish]

I didn't agree with most of Bush's policies while he was in office, but I think he's a much better PERSON than Obama is.

[MMI]

Call me a cynic, but I cannot believe even Bush did not understanad that political capital would be made out of his visit. Pity he didn't react like that on 9/11 or when Hurricane Katrina struck. So just how good a person is he really?

Which would you bet on: did he take the opportunity to comfort the people injured in the shooting, or did he take the opportunity to get there before Obama?

[denuseri]

I believe that if he was there for a photo op, he would have came in with the reporters running hilly nilly in his wake if not there before him.

[Seroquel]

Bush will be insignificant as history goes, he's not popular enough to be worth remembering, he started to be seen as a joke by a majority. After this generation no one will remember him, Obama at least has potential. If nothing else he'll be remembered as the first black president, much as Thatcher (for those who don't know, practically everyone in the north of England and most of the rest of Britain despises her) will be remembered as the first female Prime Minister.

I don't think it's fair to judge a leader on how they respond to disasters, in my opinion letting politicians "help" usually ends up being a waste of time and manpower that can be put to better use elsewhere. Not much of what Obama has done has reached me over here but from what I've heard he seems to be working to change the "people are poor because they don't work as hard as me" mentality some Americans have.

[DuncanONeil]

There are two governing laws:

The Fair Housing Act of 1968
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977


The make up in both of the Congresses of the time was majority Democrat in both houses! By ratios even higher than today;

90th Congress


Senate -- 64(D) 36(R)
House -- 247 (D) 187 (R)

95th Congress


Senate -- 61(D) 39(R)
House -- 292(D) 143(R)


So to try to blame this on the Republican party does not comport with the facts.

Further, to make it a violation of law to not give loans to persons in a certain area or certain type, without regard to any reason, is exactly the same as saying; "you must lend even if they look like a bad risk. Fail to do so at your own peril! Do not forget we control your existence as a business!"


um, The Congress was decidedly Republican when the regulations were stripped from the banking industry. And No laws REQUIRED lenders to lend to poor risk lenders.

The poor risk lending was made by unscrupulous lenders wishing to make a fast book over making loans to ignorant lendees.

Your information here is COMPLETELY false.

[DuncanONeil]

So then which is the compassionate man?


One of my friends sent me this little excert with a picture of the people involved. If I could figure out how to post pics in the forums here I would have attached it. lol


"A doctor had his tv on in his office when the news of the military base shootings came on. The husband of one of his employees was stationed there.

He called her into his office and as he told her what had happened, she got a text message from her husband saying, "I am okay." Her cell phone rang right after she read the message. It was an ER nurse,"I'm the one who just sent you a text, not your husband. I thought it would be comforting but I was mistaken in doing so. I am sorry to tell you this, but your husband has been shot 4 times and he is in surgery."

The soldier's wife left Southern Clinic in Dothan and drove all night to Ft.Hood. When she arrived, she found out her husband was out of surgery and would be OK. She rushed to his room and found that he already had visitors there to confort him. He was just waking up and found his wife and the visitors by his side The nurse took a picture.

It was George W. Bush!

He had heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort, apparently they did not have time to react, and drove to Fort Hood. He was stopped at the gate and the guard could not believe who he had just stopped.. Bush only ask for directions to the hospital then drove on. The gate guard called that "The president Is on Fort Hood and driving to the hospital." The base went bananas looking for Obama. When they found it was Bush they immediately offered escort and Bush simply told them to shut up and let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead. He stayed at Fort Hood for over six hours and was finally asked to leave by a message from the White House.. Obama flew in days later and held a "photo " session in a gym and did not even go to the hospital. "

[DuncanONeil]

Perhaps not cynical, but merely somewhat biased!


Call me a cynic, but I cannot believe even Bush did not understanad that political capital would be made out of his visit. Pity he didn't react like that on 9/11 or when Hurricane Katrina struck. So just how good a person is he really?

Which would you bet on: did he take the opportunity to comfort the people injured in the shooting, or did he take the opportunity to get there before Obama?

[DuncanONeil]

It appears that you are of the opinion that the "poor" can be eliminated as a category of people.

Just how do you propose that this happen if they do not have to work hard to not be poor?

Just how do you define "poor", in concrete terms?


Bush will be insignificant as history goes, he's not popular enough to be worth remembering, he started to be seen as a joke by a majority. After this generation no one will remember him, Obama at least has potential. If nothing else he'll be remembered as the first black president, much as Thatcher (for those who don't know, practically everyone in the north of England and most of the rest of Britain despises her) will be remembered as the first female Prime Minister.

I don't think it's fair to judge a leader on how they respond to disasters, in my opinion letting politicians "help" usually ends up being a waste of time and manpower that can be put to better use elsewhere. Not much of what Obama has done has reached me over here but from what I've heard he seems to be working to change the "people are poor because they don't work as hard as me" mentality some Americans have.

[SadisticNature]

There are two governing laws:

The Fair Housing Act of 1968
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977


The make up in both of the Congresses of the time was majority Democrat in both houses! By ratios even higher than today;

90th Congress


Senate -- 64(D) 36(R)
House -- 247 (D) 187 (R)

95th Congress


Senate -- 61(D) 39(R)
House -- 292(D) 143(R)


So to try to blame this on the Republican party does not comport with the facts.

Further, to make it a violation of law to not give loans to persons in a certain area or certain type, without regard to any reason, is exactly the same as saying; "you must lend even if they look like a bad risk. Fail to do so at your own peril! Do not forget we control your existence as a business!"

http://seekingalpha.com/article/71265-the-credit-bubble-deregulation-gone-wild

This is a partial list of some of the policies that led to the too big to fail situation that caused the bailouts.

It starts with the 1982 Garn -St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.

As the eighties wore on the economy appeared to grow. Interest rates continued to go up as well as real estate speculation. The real estate market was in what is known as a "boom" mode. Many S&L's took advantage of the lack of supervision and regulations to make highly speculative investments, in many cases loaning more money then they really should. Not because they were required to, but motivated by profits.

When the real estate market crashed, and it did so in dramatic fashion, the S&L's were crushed. They now owned properties that they had paid enormous amounts of money for but weren't worth a fraction of what they paid. Many went bankrupt, losing their depositors money. This was known as the S&L Crisis. In 1980 the US had 4,600 thrifts, by 1988 mergers and bankruptcies left 3000. By the mid 1990's less than 2000 survived.

The S&L crisis cost about 600 Billion dollars in "bailouts." This is 1500 dollars from every man woman and child in the US. This was the February 1989 bailout under the first Bush.

Despite this deregulation causing a huge crash and bailout, the process of deregulation was continued leading to the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act by 1998 (After 25 attempts and $300 million in lobbying).

In the spring of 1987, the Federal Reserve Board votes 3-2 in favor of easing regulations under Glass-Steagall Act, overriding the opposition of Chairman Paul Volcker. Thomas Theobald, then vice chairman of Citicorp, argues that three "outside checks" on corporate misbehavior had emerged since 1933: "a very effective" SEC; knowledgeable investors, and "very sophisticated" rating agencies. Volcker is unconvinced, and expresses his fear that lenders will recklessly lower loan standards in pursuit of lucrative securities offerings and market bad loans to the public. For many critics, it boiled down to the issue of two different cultures - a culture of risk which was the securities business, and a culture of protection of deposits which was the culture of banking.

Volcker had it right, but this opposition led to him being replaced by Alan Greenspan.

The problem was the banks owned too much property. Why? Because people removed the regulations preventing it. It's not one or two property acts that are trying to limit discrimination that caused the problems.

If the banks were giving out loans they knew in advance were bad, they never would have appealed to have more and more restrictions reduced. They were giving out loans they thought they could make money on, and were leveraged beyond belief. Yet the record shows the continuously appealed to the government to let them leverage more and more.

It's no surprise that the first to go was Bear Stearns, one of the first to lobby for and get limits removed.

http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=cabal-elite/w-administration/big-money/lobbyist-defends-800k-contingency-fee.txt

CHICAGO -- In a CNSNews (www.CNSNews.com) nationally-syndicated story published on Monday, Illinois Republican National Committeeman Bob Kjellander once again defended the $800,000 contingency fee he received earlier this year from Bear Stearns, the bond house that handled Governor Rod Blagojevich's $10 billion mortgage to balance Illinois' FY 2004 budget.

It's also a matter of fact that the lobbyists for Bear Stearns and the deregulation involved in the matter were active republican party members.

So yes, it does correspond to the facts to blame the republican party for this. It just doesn't correspond to your personal world view.

[mkemse]

His place in History will probably not be known for years

[DuncanONeil]

You absolutely refuse to consider the fact that Congressional action REQUIRING banks to lend in areas where the residents could not meet the standard of being an acceptable risk.
This categorical refusal to consider a proximate cause and only deal with the after effects is disingenuous at best.


http://seekingalpha.com/article/71265-the-credit-bubble-deregulation-gone-wild

This is a partial list of some of the policies that led to the too big to fail situation that caused the bailouts.

It starts with the 1982 Garn -St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.

As the eighties wore on the economy appeared to grow. Interest rates continued to go up as well as real estate speculation. The real estate market was in what is known as a "boom" mode. Many S&L's took advantage of the lack of supervision and regulations to make highly speculative investments, in many cases loaning more money then they really should. Not because they were required to, but motivated by profits.

When the real estate market crashed, and it did so in dramatic fashion, the S&L's were crushed. They now owned properties that they had paid enormous amounts of money for but weren't worth a fraction of what they paid. Many went bankrupt, losing their depositors money. This was known as the S&L Crisis. In 1980 the US had 4,600 thrifts, by 1988 mergers and bankruptcies left 3000. By the mid 1990's less than 2000 survived.

The S&L crisis cost about 600 Billion dollars in "bailouts." This is 1500 dollars from every man woman and child in the US. This was the February 1989 bailout under the first Bush.

Despite this deregulation causing a huge crash and bailout, the process of deregulation was continued leading to the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act by 1998 (After 25 attempts and $300 million in lobbying).

In the spring of 1987, the Federal Reserve Board votes 3-2 in favor of easing regulations under Glass-Steagall Act, overriding the opposition of Chairman Paul Volcker. Thomas Theobald, then vice chairman of Citicorp, argues that three "outside checks" on corporate misbehavior had emerged since 1933: "a very effective" SEC; knowledgeable investors, and "very sophisticated" rating agencies. Volcker is unconvinced, and expresses his fear that lenders will recklessly lower loan standards in pursuit of lucrative securities offerings and market bad loans to the public. For many critics, it boiled down to the issue of two different cultures - a culture of risk which was the securities business, and a culture of protection of deposits which was the culture of banking.

Volcker had it right, but this opposition led to him being replaced by Alan Greenspan.

The problem was the banks owned too much property. Why? Because people removed the regulations preventing it. It's not one or two property acts that are trying to limit discrimination that caused the problems.

If the banks were giving out loans they knew in advance were bad, they never would have appealed to have more and more restrictions reduced. They were giving out loans they thought they could make money on, and were leveraged beyond belief. Yet the record shows the continuously appealed to the government to let them leverage more and more.

It's no surprise that the first to go was Bear Stearns, one of the first to lobby for and get limits removed.

http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=cabal-elite/w-administration/big-money/lobbyist-defends-800k-contingency-fee.txt

CHICAGO -- In a CNSNews (www.CNSNews.com) nationally-syndicated story published on Monday, Illinois Republican National Committeeman Bob Kjellander once again defended the $800,000 contingency fee he received earlier this year from Bear Stearns, the bond house that handled Governor Rod Blagojevich's $10 billion mortgage to balance Illinois' FY 2004 budget.

It's also a matter of fact that the lobbyists for Bear Stearns and the deregulation involved in the matter were active republican party members.

So yes, it does correspond to the facts to blame the republican party for this. It just doesn't correspond to your personal world view.

[DuncanONeil]

No matter to whom; "His place" refers, the sentiment is absolutely correct!


His place in History will probably not be known for years

[SadisticNature]

You absolutely refuse to consider the fact that Congressional action REQUIRING banks to lend in areas where the residents could not meet the standard of being an acceptable risk.
This categorical refusal to consider a proximate cause and only deal with the after effects is disingenuous at best.

You categorically refuse to consider the fact that the institutions that failed were trying to make more of these high risk lousy loans to the point where they were lobbying to have lending limits repealed.

You blame government for businesses making bad loans when the entirety of the evidence on record says those businesses wanted to make those loans, to the point of spending $300 million on lobbying to repeal regulations preventing them from making risky loans.

I've also addressed the evidence you and others have presented on this point repeatedly. The only categorical denial occurring here is the one you are making.

[SadisticNature]

You might want to actually read these laws before you cry foul.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm

The conditions of the fair housing act merely say you can't refuse a loan based on race. This means if a bank extends a loan to a white person who has a certain risk factor you can't refuse to extend the same loan to a black person with the same risk factor.

There is a difference between refusing a loan BASED on race, and refusing a loan to a minority.

The community reinvestment act of 1977 is more complicated, and there are some potential concerns here. That being said, the assets resulting from such practices were graded AAA, and sold around the financial world like hotcakes.

I have a specific questions for you Duncan, so stop the dodging and try and give them honest answers:

1) If these assets were as toxic as you describe why were banks trying to buy them from each other, well beyond their legal obligations to any act?

2)Why were they lobbying (successfully) to get their credit limits increased and then buying up more and more of these assets?

The only answer I've found that's consistent with the facts is this one:

Subprime loans were so profitable, that they were aggressively marketed in low-and moderate-income communities, even over the objections and warnings of housing advocacy groups like ACORN.

Which you can find either here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

or

http://www.innercitypress.com/cra1bailout092808.html


Even more telling is this:

There's a major factual problem, though: with a single exception, no bank sought CRA credit for its subprime loans. And the investment banks which were purchasing, bundling and securitizing the loans were not covered by CRA.


There are two governing


laws:

The Fair Housing Act of 1968
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977


The make up in both of the Congresses of the time was majority Democrat in both houses! By ratios even higher than today;

90th Congress


Senate -- 64(D) 36(R)
House -- 247 (D) 187 (R)

95th Congress


Senate -- 61(D) 39(R)
House -- 292(D) 143(R)


So to try to blame this on the Republican party does not comport with the facts.

Further, to make it a violation of law to not give loans to persons in a certain area or certain type, without regard to any reason, is exactly the same as saying; "you must lend even if they look like a bad risk. Fail to do so at your own peril! Do not forget we control your existence as a business!"

[DuncanONeil]

Were it true that lenders "wanted to make those loans" there would have been no need for legislation to require lenders to grant loans to those they had determined were high risk! Because it happened after said legislation has no bearing on how it came about!

Your choice to refuse to consider the underlying legislation is troubling. Seems as if you, like others, are inclined to demonize a specific entity for some specific purpose.

The head of GMAC (controlled by the Government) received a compensation package exactly the same as, I believe, head of Smith Varney. Yet The head of Smith Varney was excoriated for his salary. Not one word about the head of GMAC, even though it is hemoraging money in the smae fashion!


You categorically refuse to consider the fact that the institutions that failed were trying to make more of these high risk lousy loans to the point where they were lobbying to have lending limits repealed.

You blame government for businesses making bad loans when the entirety of the evidence on record says those businesses wanted to make those loans, to the point of spending $300 million on lobbying to repeal regulations preventing them from making risky loans.

I've also addressed the evidence you and others have presented on this point repeatedly. The only categorical denial occurring here is the one you are making.

[DuncanONeil]

You might want to actually read these laws before you cry foul.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm

The conditions of the fair housing act merely say you can't refuse a loan based on race. This means if a bank extends a loan to a white person who has a certain risk factor you can't refuse to extend the same loan to a black person with the same risk factor.

That is not quite accurate. The requirement was to grant loans in specific neighborhoods that were determined to be underserved at the same rate as the neighborhoods that were deemed appropriately served.

By the way your citation is not the law!


There is a difference between refusing a loan BASED on race, and refusing a loan to a minority.

The community reinvestment act of 1977 is more complicated, and there are some potential concerns here. That being said, the assets resulting from such practices were graded AAA, and sold around the financial world like hotcakes.

I have a specific questions for you Duncan, so stop the dodging and try and give them honest answers:

1) If these assets were as toxic as you describe why were banks trying to buy them from each other, well beyond their legal obligations to any act?

2)Why were they lobbying (successfully) to get their credit limits increased and then buying up more and more of these assets?

The only answer I've found that's consistent with the facts is this one:

Subprime loans were so profitable, that they were aggressively marketed in low-and moderate-income communities, even over the objections and warnings of housing advocacy groups like ACORN.

Which you can find either here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

or

http://www.innercitypress.com/cra1bailout092808.html


Even more telling is this:

There's a major factual problem, though: with a single exception, no bank sought CRA credit for its subprime loans. And the investment banks which were purchasing, bundling and securitizing the loans were not covered by CRA.

[SadisticNature]

Again, more dodging the question and inaccuracies. I don't refuse to consider the underlying legislation, I have read and addressed your concerns. You refuse to consider any arguments why these legislations aren't relevant to the issue.

In particular, you ignore evidence that the CRA is not at fault. Namely subprime mortgages were almost entirely driven by investment banks NOT SUBJECT TO THE CRA.

In 1977 it might have been true that the lenders were not making these loans at appropriate rates. However, by 2007 the situation was largely changed. I consider the most important information here to be:

(I) The 1968 Fair Housing Act is not actually relevant to the situation.

(II) The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act does not actually cover investment banks who were by far the largest dealers in subprime mortgages.

Your coverage of these laws is highly inaccurate. Nothing says anything about refusing an individual loan without regard to reason. Furthermore, conditions of the CRA are only a condition for mergers and takeovers. The CRA does not have any enforcement powers except when the bank is trying to reduce competition in the marketplace. I personally believe it is not unreasonable to test whether a community is being served adequately when considering reducing competition in a market. Particularly one with such limited competition as the banking sector.


Were it true that lenders "wanted to make those loans" there would have been no need for legislation to require lenders to grant loans to those they had determined were high risk! Because it happened after said legislation has no bearing on how it came about!

Your choice to refuse to consider the underlying legislation is troubling. Seems as if you, like others, are inclined to demonize a specific entity for some specific purpose.

The head of GMAC (controlled by the Government) received a compensation package exactly the same as, I believe, head of Smith Varney. Yet The head of Smith Varney was excoriated for his salary. Not one word about the head of GMAC, even though it is hemoraging money in the smae fashion!

[SadisticNature]

You absolutely refuse to consider the fact that Congressional action REQUIRING banks to lend in areas where the residents could not meet the standard of being an acceptable risk.
This categorical refusal to consider a proximate cause and only deal with the after effects is disingenuous at best.

This statement is outright false. I have addressed why those legislations are not the problem. Your attempt to blame select legislation on flimsy and inaccurate evidence so that you can avoid the actual source of blame is disingenuous at best. The fact is deregulation caused these problems, not specific regulations you point to, which don't even apply to INVESTMENT BANKS, the actual organizations pushing subprime mortgages.

You refuse to even address any of the issues I raised as relevant to the cause. I'd suggest taking a long hard look at the quality of your sources.

Relying on information presented by the only "NEWS" organization to win a Whistleblower case (on appeal) on the basis of "falsifying the news is not a crime" is problematic at best.

[mkemse]

And I doubt hisreal place in History wil even be know durig our live times, just too soon it wil takes years and year to determine that

[DuncanONeil]

Investment banks are not prime generators of notes. They deal in the secondary markets enabling the lenders to have their capital at hand.


Again, more dodging the question and inaccuracies. I don't refuse to consider the underlying legislation, I have read and addressed your concerns. You refuse to consider any arguments why these legislations aren't relevant to the issue.

In particular, you ignore evidence that the CRA is not at fault. Namely subprime mortgages were almost entirely driven by investment banks NOT SUBJECT TO THE CRA.

In 1977 it might have been true that the lenders were not making these loans at appropriate rates. However, by 2007 the situation was largely changed. I consider the most important information here to be:

(I) The 1968 Fair Housing Act is not actually relevant to the situation.

(II) The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act does not actually cover investment banks who were by far the largest dealers in subprime mortgages.

Your coverage of these laws is highly inaccurate. Nothing says anything about refusing an individual loan without regard to reason. Furthermore, conditions of the CRA are only a condition for mergers and takeovers. The CRA does not have any enforcement powers except when the bank is trying to reduce competition in the marketplace. I personally believe it is not unreasonable to test whether a community is being served adequately when considering reducing competition in a market. Particularly one with such limited competition as the banking sector.

[SadisticNature]

Investment banks bought up all the subprime loans, even if they weren't the prime generators of the notes, they did create the market for them.

The point about the CRA still stands, as only one bank applied for CRA credit for their subprime mortgage loans. If the CRA was driving these loans more banks would have applied for CRA credit as a result of making subprime loans.

Also secondary markets can easily drive primary markets. It's fair to say the investment banks were the main players in the subprime crisis because they were the ones buying up bad loans at incredible rates.

The reasons the initial lenders didn't care about making bad loans is they knew they could sell the toxic capital at a profit. As long as they aren't left holding toxic assets and made money at some point along the process they would continue to make these loans.

In summary, initial lenders made bad loans because there was a market for them, not because they had to under some policy. These loans were sold at a profit to investment banks, who believed these instruments to be profitable (which they were until the housing prices underwent cascade failure).

The problem was the investment banks were allowed to leverage exorbitantly. Previous caps of 5 to 1 leveraging under regulation were replaced by exemptions allowing 50 to 1 leveraging. This meant a hugely profitable company that forms a critical part of the banking sector could be instantly bankrupt due to a small price drop in the housing market (If one is leveraged 50 to 1 on an asset that drops 5% one is bankrupt twice over).

This leveraging process allowed the investment banks to continue to "free up capital" to buy excessive amounts of subprime loans, and with the market for loans available, banks continued to make them. Bundled instruments ended up preventing a lot of examining of the quality of individual loans by investors, and as such the initial lenders got away with having frighteningly bad standards for loans. Again, this was a sound business practice because they were able to sell these loans at a profit easily, not dealing with the consequences of them being bad loans.



Investment banks are not prime generators of notes. They deal in the secondary markets enabling the lenders to have their capital at hand.

[DuncanONeil]

I think your logic is flawed!


Investment banks bought up all the subprime loans, even if they weren't the prime generators of the notes, they did create the market for them.

The point about the CRA still stands, as only one bank applied for CRA credit for their subprime mortgage loans. If the CRA was driving these loans more banks would have applied for CRA credit as a result of making subprime loans.

Also secondary markets can easily drive primary markets. It's fair to say the investment banks were the main players in the subprime crisis because they were the ones buying up bad loans at incredible rates.

The reasons the initial lenders didn't care about making bad loans is they knew they could sell the toxic capital at a profit. As long as they aren't left holding toxic assets and made money at some point along the process they would continue to make these loans.

In summary, initial lenders made bad loans because there was a market for them, not because they had to under some policy. These loans were sold at a profit to investment banks, who believed these instruments to be profitable (which they were until the housing prices underwent cascade failure).

The problem was the investment banks were allowed to leverage exorbitantly. Previous caps of 5 to 1 leveraging under regulation were replaced by exemptions allowing 50 to 1 leveraging. This meant a hugely profitable company that forms a critical part of the banking sector could be instantly bankrupt due to a small price drop in the housing market (If one is leveraged 50 to 1 on an asset that drops 5% one is bankrupt twice over).

This leveraging process allowed the investment banks to continue to "free up capital" to buy excessive amounts of subprime loans, and with the market for loans available, banks continued to make them. Bundled instruments ended up preventing a lot of examining of the quality of individual loans by investors, and as such the initial lenders got away with having frighteningly bad standards for loans. Again, this was a sound business practice because they were able to sell these loans at a profit easily, not dealing with the consequences of them being bad loans.

[SadisticNature]

I think your logic is flawed!

When I point out flaws in your logic, I bother to provide details.

You are making a vague statement that avoids the question by not making any specific criticism, but instead a fuzzy generality that can't be debated in any meaningful way.

And you continue to refuse to answer questions that are asked of you, or even express why you think those questions are bad.

Before you accuse someone of committing a "categorical refusal to consider a proximate cause and only deal with the after effects" you really ought to consider some serious introspection.

[denuseri]

Please do get a room you two....lol.

How about we debate the topic...without making things personal...for a change.

Does anyone here seriously think Bush is "personally" responsible for the bursting economic bubble?

Do you all really think that it will be the economey that defines his administration in history...or will it be oh, I don't know...the war perhaps?

[Torq]

And yet ANOTHER good thread RUINED, with personal attacks in lieu of

STAYING ON TOPIC!!!

T