Bush's Place in History.

**mkemse** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by Belgarold

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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by mkemse

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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by Thorne

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** · 03-01-2009

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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by Thorne

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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by 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

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

**mkemse** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by Belgarold

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** · 03-01-2009

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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by Belgarold

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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by 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, 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** · 03-01-2009

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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** · 03-02-2009

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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** · 03-02-2009

Originally Posted by wmrs2

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

There WAS a surplus.

**DuncanONeil** · 03-02-2009

[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** · 03-02-2009

"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** · 03-02-2009

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

**DuncanONeil** · 03-02-2009

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

Then how do you explain the coalition in Iraq?

**DuncanONeil** · 03-02-2009

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** · 03-02-2009

[QUOTE=DuncanONeil;823402]

Originally Posted by mkemse

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