Bush getting a bum rap?

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by SabanFan, Mar 12, 2007.

  1. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Again, taking into account the way things were in late 2001, Saddam had to be taken out and everybody agreed. I'll concede that they did not foresee the difficulties in getting a democratic government up and running, but I do not think a Democrat administration would have done any better. They would have cut and run long ago and we'd be paying the price now for the "victory" the terrorists would have claimed.

    So America was the darling of France, Germany, Canada, Mexico, etc prior to Iraq? I don't think so. We have long been despised by our so-called allies.

    Meaningless. It's all paper. War is hell...and expensive.

    That one is on Clinton. Bush had to work with what the previous left him. Do you blame Manieri for LSU baseball's slow start?

    Yeah. Before Bush, there were no illegal Mexicans streaming into the US. The term "wetback" was coined during the Bush Administration.:dis:

    Don' know no Harriet Meyer:confused:

    All media smoke. No fire.

    I still wonder how Bush turned that hurricane. The Katrina debacle can be blamed on Blanco, Nagin and the New Orleans residents who refused to take responsibility for their own safety and recovery (see Rita victims). Once the Feds tried to help, the situation was out of control and political concerns obstructed all real efforts at rectifying it.
     
  2. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    No they didn't. Saddam was defanged by 10 years of sanctions and was no threat to anybody, possessed no WMD's, and no Iraqi has attacked America.

    Not at all. We have long been respected by our allies and our enemies. Now neither do.

    Cop-out. Bush's non-military spending exceeds Clintons by far. It ain't all paper. Bush is spending money he doesn't have and it will eventually reseult in inflation, reducing the value of your savings in your retirement.

    Untrue. Clinton had been out of office for three years when Bush's own intelligence people either gave him bad intelligence or, as the CIA suggests, misread and selective used the intelligence that suppoorted what he wanted to do. It was Bush that said "I'm the decider". You can't blame Iraq on Clinton.

    You can't deny that Bush is soft on illegal aliens. Even his own party is not backing him on it. And illegal immigration is WAY up, since they know that they won't be jailed and probably not even be deported.

    Harriet Miers, my mistake. You remember when Bush tried to appoint his personal lawyer to the Supreme Court despite her having zero qualifications. His own party rebelled. This president appoints people based on their support of HIM, rather than their competence and ability to do the job.

    Nonsense. It ain't about the hurricane itself or how well prepared Louisiana was. It was about his responsibility for FEMA, which was responsible for federal emergency management. They absolutely blew it, mostly because Bush appointed a unqualified fool to run the agency . . . and then thanked him for doing a "hell of a job".
     
  3. DRC

    DRC TigerNator

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,745
    Likes Received:
    374
    What in the world are you talking about Red? Almost all the western world believed Saddam was a major threat with Europeans at the fore front of that claim. If you blame Bush for Iraq you must also blame Bill Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy and a whole hose of others on both sides of the isle.

     
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Then why didn't they all go to war with us? Where are the WMD's that he was supposed to have? How is it that no Iraqis have ever attacked America? His military was pathetic, what kind of threat did they pose?

    Nonsense. Bush was President. It was an executive decision to go to war. Bush is the "decider". All those quotes from the 90's were about keeping Saddam contained with sanctions, which obviously worked, since all of the WMD's were destroyed during 10 years of sanctions. Clinton conducted airstrikes when it was required and kept up the pressure with sanctions. Saddam was defanged. Bush just overreacted after 9/11 and the success of the Afghanistan operation and thought a new Bogeyman had to be taken down.
     
  5. DRC

    DRC TigerNator

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,745
    Likes Received:
    374
    You havent read all those quotes Red if you think they were about keeping Saddam contained. You need to read them, that would be a start.

    History will be the main judge as it relates to President Bush and what he accomplished or didnt accomplish. Arguing now may be fun but in the big scheme of things its nothing but a bunch of hot air.
     
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    On this we can agree. :thumb:

    But I don't think you will like it much. Some history books are already out on the topic . . . and they are pretty harsh on "The Decider".

    Three by Bob Woodward: Bush at War, Plan of Attack, and State of Denial.

    Fiasco by Thomas Ricks

    Cobra II by Micahel Gordon

    Hubris by Micahel Isikoff
     
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    And the percentage of them that are acknowledged supporters of the Bush Iraq War policy are even less than that! The fact is, and you know it, that the vast majority of retired generals have not expressed anything on the matter. Most of them never served in the middle east in this war or under Rumsfeld.

    Lets just look at those retired generals who have spoken out. SabanFan lists Tommy Franks as a Bush/Rumsfeld guy. OK That's one. Franks was the CINC of Central Command during the invasion.

    Lets see, these generals were active participants in Iraq and have harshly criticised Rumsfeld and Bush for the managment of the war.

    Obviously there was General Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, who told Congress a month before the 2003 invasion of Iraq that occupying the country could require "several hundred thousand troops,". He was in fact the Army's senior ranking officer when we went to war. He was forced into early retirement by Rumsfeld. His replacement does and says only as ordered . . . for the present. Serving officers cannot criticize a political decision. You know this.

    General Anthony Zinni, USMC, former CINC of Central command, Frank's predecessor and the man who drew up the original plans for war with Iraq that were dismissed by Rumsfeld. You should really read Zinni's book. "Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission."

    General Joseph P. Hoar, a former CINC of Central Command. “Too little and too late”.

    General Jack Keane, who was Army vice chief of staff in 2003. "Generals in Iraq were not really given the freedom to say how many troops they needed because when Shinseki said this is going to take a couple of hundred thousand troops ... he was cashiered."

    General Barry R. McCaffrey, commanded the 24th Infantry division in the Gulf War. "A fools errand".

    Lt. General Gregory Newbold of the Marine Corps. "My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results."

    Lt. General William E. Odom, former director of the National Security Agency. "the principal beneficiary of the war was Iran and Al Qaeda, not the United States".

    Maj. General Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. "I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him"

    Maj. General John Batiste, who commanded the First Infantry Division in Iraq. "We served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who didn't build a strong team."

    Maj. General John Riggs, "They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda.

    Maj. General Paul Eaton, US Army, was responsible for training the Iraqi military and later for rebuilding the Iraqi police force "He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. ... Mr. Rumsfeld must step down."


    The retired generals are 11-1 against Rumsfeld/Bush.
     
  8. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    my numbers show there are 4600 or so retired generals. 11 are outspoken against bush. i know a general, my stepbrother's dad. he is for the war, so he cancels out one of yours.

    also,some of your guys expressed that they wanted rumsfeld replaced. done. that bush administration is right on top of things.
     
  9. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Speaking just for myself, Red's anti-Bush act is getting a little tired. Give it a rest. It's like Alan F***ng Colmes, 24/7.
     
  10. DRC

    DRC TigerNator

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,745
    Likes Received:
    374
    All grossly premature. History has not been made yet and only time will reveal the outcome. Anything written now and calling it history is speculative and irrelevant. You cant write many chapters of this book with the situation being as fluid as it is.
     

Share This Page