Is there anyone left who still supports Bush?

Oh please give me a break. Some of these criticisms are justified. But really, some are way out of line.

1. You cannot blame him for what others do. The Abramoff scandal was the only big one. The Libby incident is hardly a scandal, and it is a joke. The identity of the CIA operative was one of the worst kept secrets in Washington.

2. Bush may not be well-liked overseas, but the United States is still respected. I believe we all will see how much prestige the United States has following the next election, regardless of who is elected. Prestige is not something that comes and goes overnight.

3. No he has not. France and Germany may not agree with out invasion of Iraq, but they remain our allies.

4. What new enemies. Al-Quaida has always been our enemies. Nothing new about that. The people of Iraq may want to see us out, but they respect our roll in getting rid of Saadam and fighting the insurgents and militia as evidenced by the fact that they continue to provide US troops with information. The Iraqi people may not be our bossum bodies, but they are not our enemies.

5. Are you kidding? What has Bush done to get us back into a Cold War with Russia. Whatever strains have occurred between the United States and Russia is due to Putin and his efforts to turn back democracy in Russia.

6. Don't think Bush did not put a lot of pressure on Isreal to work out agreements with the Palestinians that made them autonomous and which will possibly lead to a Palestinian state. Hamas and other terrorist groups have been the big problem in that part of the world.

7. If you mean alienated the public from his administration, I will agree to that.

8. North Korea began its quest for nuclear power during the Clinton Administration. Clinton had signed an agreement with NK by which NK agreed not to build and nuclear arsenal. Then NK promptly broke it. They really played Clinton for a sap. By the time Bush got in office, there was very little he could do short of bombing NK.

9. Oh, okay. The mass of illegal immigrants began in 2001. Okay. Gotcha. I will be the first to admit that Bush has not done what he could have done, or should have done, until the last couple of years of his administration. He should have closed off the border and made some provision to deal with those illegal immigrants in this country. So far he has only made an effort to deal with the second part of that statement. But then, what has anyone else done in the last 30 years?

10. He tried to reform social security by allowing those workers just entering the work force the option to build up private investment accounts using 6% of their income that would have gone into social security. Unfortunately the Demos sabotaged his effort with disinformation and out-and-out lies, misrepresenting what Bush was trying to do.

11. True. That is what you call a footnote in history - if that.

12. True, particularly in regards to FEMA and possibley Homeland Security. You may not like Gonzales, but that is a far cry from saying he is inept.

13. My only complaint on Bush regarding spending is his failure to veto more spending bills. So if that is what you are talking about, I agree.

14. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan was the primary cause of the budget deficit. No president is going to worry about a balanced budget during war time. Victory is the key goal. In my opinion, one of the legitimate criticisms of Bush is that he has been trying to fight the war on the cheap. He should have spent more on men and materials.

15. Reference #13 and 14.

16. Whaaaaat?

 

I feel the same way, but I did vote for him.

But I will always support our President.

 

this "imperial arrogance" stuff is such BS. there is nothing imperial about liberating a country then getting our own guys killed on a daily basis trying to help the country become stable and independent, trying to make their people stop killing each other. when the US starts taking over places and keeping them, then you can call us imperial. as it stands now we are the greatest fighter for freedom that ever was, taking over places and giving those places back to their people.

america is not imperialist, never really was, never really colonized the way our allies have.

red likes to pretend the US is analogous to the roman empire, which is wildly absurd and indefensible, then when pressed, he will change his point to mean cultural imperialism, which is totally different and out of context.

and blaming bush for russia? cmon! putin is a thug wtf are we supposed to do?

 

Okayyyyyyyyyyy, this is gonna be lengthy....

Thanks for the ridiculously easy assignment:
Clinton appeasement -
After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.
Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/21/100353.shtml

World appeasement:
Spain's Socialist Party prime minister-elect says he will pull troops out of Iraq - unless the UN takes charge.
The Socialists won a shock poll victory after voters appeared to turn on the government over its handling of the Madrid bombings that killed 200 people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3512144.stm

Would you like an even dozen of each? I have oodles.

How has George Bush failed with our enemies? He does not appease them and draws a line in the sand. I understand most liberals equate this with failure, but I don't.

No, you didn't say that cold war posturing was happening or that it is newsworthy. Here is what you said:

That is a definitive statement by you, and I described it as an exaggeration. You replied by quoting newspaper headlines. I said the headlines are sensational and we are not back in a cold war with Russia. Anyone who believes that needs a history lesson.

I don't agree that we are in a cold war again. We can agree to disagree on this I suppose. I also do not agree that Russia is a bigger threat to us than
"any pipsqueak raghead third-world countries in the Middle east". Russia may have the highest potential for destruction to our country, but they are not the threat they used to be. I don't feel threatened by the biggest guy in the room, but by the guy most likely to hit me without warning. If you have ever been in a bar fight, you will understand this principle. Russia has postured with us for years but not attacked. Just as we have done with them. Crazy as the Russians are, they would like to survive for tomorrow. Crazy ragheads have no desire for this and therefor are a bigger threat. That being said, how has Bush ignored the "Russian threat"? Please sight an example.

Preceded by:

It is also in our best interest that the sun keep shining, the last Soprano episode is interesting, and LSU wins a NC next year. What can Bush do about that? About as much as he can do about "solving the Middle East". Yet you fault him because he has not.

That defies the notion of cause and effect. You think our economy is not effected by policies(see taxes) instituted in previous administrations? Everything happens in a vacuum? Are you serious?

So by that logic, the development of nuclear weapons is not nearly as bad as saying "I'm Finished!". How did those kooky Koreans get the bomb Red?

Let me explain the Clinton version of the word "eventually". They were given up to TEN YEARS to stop. That insured that the next president would have to deal with this, not Bill.

"I can't understand it Warren, they promised!"

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Northkorea/Timeline.shtml

That is strange. I have never read anything factually documented that at any time George Bush new of the 9/11 plot, or the whereabouts of bin Laden. But Clinton knew where he was, and had a shot at taking him out. Bill got really red in the face with Chris Wallace explaining that he did EVERYTHING HE COULD. There are several books that detail exactly what Clinton didn't do. Here is an excerpt form the Washington Times:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9721

Here is another opportunity of Bill's:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=644

I guess Monica had him tied up. Thanks Bill. But of course, as you suggest, 9/11 is really Bush's fault because it happened on his watch. Again, defying cause and effect. I doubt you will find many people to agree with you there, outside of Michael Moore.

Newsflash - everyone has wanted cheap Mexicans here or they wouldn't be here. The reason this is big news now is because, like the last four presidents, Bush has let this slide but everything Bush does is from the devil! Nobody cares that Clinton was no better and did nothing, or Bush before him, or Reagan before him. The current sense of entitlement in this country is being extended to illegals now, and many Americans are sick of it. We probably absorbed the first several million with ease but it is reaching a boiling point. However, you can't say that Bush has done nothing, regardless of his motivations, because he has. I live in a town with one of the highest illegal populations in America. Please don't try to tell me they are here because of Bush.

By asking me to name one, you imply that there are none. This is called deduction, and is not a leap of faith. I named some that I think are excellent choices and you picked one of the three I named to attack. I did what you asked.

I struggled in the recession and the initial throes following 9/11, but recovered and have exceeded my value I had under Clinton. But, you believe the recession started the day Bush took office I guess, so we will disagree on this too.

Ahh, yes the God Greenspan. I wondered when someone would invoke his name. Smart guy, I agree but not God. As to my $ being devalued and retirement being ruined, I don't listen to Chicken Little telling me the sky is falling either. Sounds like you worry about the national debt enough for both of us.

:rofl::rofl: If I really was that guy, I probably would agree with you about all of this. Thanks for ending that with a good chuck. :thumb:

 

The Somalis were appeased and bin Laden was emboldened and learned how to deal with Americans. Bloody our nose and we will run. Clinton is the president that did this and Bush is blamed for correcting this trend. In this age of microwave popcorn, mtv and video games, we Americans have no stomach for wars that last more than two weeks. If you and I begin to fight and I suddenly stop because you hit me hard, that is appeasement. If I continue to fight until you are vanquished, that is not appeasement. It's a simple principle. Now if you want to get into a debate about whether we should fight in xyz country or not, that is another debate. If our troops are there, it is our fight.

I could pick this apart on many points, but the most obvious is that this is a work in progress. The insurgency was not correctly calculated and adjustments are being made. Took us four years and quite a few more men to finish World War 2, and I am pretty sure that was a result of two bombs. That and Hitler's lunatic idea for two fronts.

I think the time frame given was ridiculous and so does most of the diplomatic community. We are not talking about reducing a nuclear arsenal. It was about stopping further development. They not only got a laughable amount of time, they promptly ignored it and continued development. Clinton did nothing.

You said:

If you mean "worsened" by definition that one more illegal got here than was here under Clinton, than yes, it is worse. Has Bush allowed illegals here at a greater rate than Clinton? No, he hasn't and I would love statistics to prove that beyond some voodoo estimates based on the increase of taco purchases in the southwest.

The statement above means that this is Bush's fault. You blame nobody else. This is simply not the case. Meet some of my neighbors and they will explain to you how they came here years before "Bush wanted them here".




You can blame everything that has happened under Bush's watch on him but that does not make it so. Even you recognize that there is cause and effect to the future as a result of the past.

you said:

you also said:

Since there will be a new president shortly, who will inherit the debt, what if China devalues their monetary system under that president? Will it be Bush's fault for our predicament or the current president? You can't have it both ways Red, yet you switch to fit your dislikes about Bush.

 

*Sigh*, this is really starting to cut into my drinking time, and I do that for a living!

Yes, it did cost us - HUGE. OBL unequivocally stated that this emboldened his fighters and encouraged them to further attacks on the US. Oh, and how about that much vaunted prestige you love to blame Bush for losing. What prestige did we gain from pulling out of Somalia in the manner we chose? This isn't rocket science. Links have been provided in earlier posts.

You falsely assume that appeasement only happens to forestall a fight. It also happens to end one. If being hit in the face is not a belligerent demand, I don't know what is. Spain removed their troops after the bombing/elections. Please don't paint yourself into such a myopic corner.

before you said:

Does his progress suck or has he failed? You can keep modifying your position, I don't mind at all.

In many ways I agree with that. Though the failure of Vietnam was ultimately a matter of political will. If we fail in Iraq it will be because of this too. Regardless, we have not pulled out yet and are still fighting. Thus, a work in progress.

That's funny. Only once did I claim that the diplomatic community agreed with me and not provide a link. I have provided numerous links to defend my position, and have watched the number of points you debate me on diminish. I don't see you giving me credit for those either so I won't continue to waste my time. This is really cutting into my drinking time. You can try to go off on a tangent but you won't convince anyone here that Clinton's dealings with Korea was not an outright joke.

Perhaps you have forgotten the chronology of this debate. You claimed that the situation has worsened and not provided any stats to back it up, first. I disagreed, but I am the one who must give stats?

You still didn't respond. Calling me confused won't deflect from the situation. If the president is only responsible for what happens on his watch, and the Chinese change their monetary policy with the next president, than why worry about the debt today? Yet you worry, and you blame Bush. It's not Bush's fault, cause nothing bad has happened yet. You got caught playing both sides here.

Responsibility and fault are not mutually exclusive, though blame seems to be. When an airman's plane goes down because of a factory defect, is he at fault? The plane was his responsibility. It was his watch, therefor he is at fault? You are blaming Bush for being around when conclusions to events happened during his presidency. This is an unfair standard to hold to anyone. Bush cannot control everything that happened before he took office, and he cannot immediately fix those mistakes either. In some cases, he may be unable to fix any of them. This is just incredibly short sighted.

If you had just used the argument that Bush kept you from getting laid, we would have finished this long ago. :rofl::rofl: