Bush's Place in History.

[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.