Bush's Place in History.

[Belgarold]

[QUOTE=DuncanONeil;823402]

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]

How many died in the superdome and of what cause?

[DuncanONeil]

You misread!

[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.