America...

[grawk]

The failures are what they are, but the criticism of him is hyperbolic.

[n_maher]

The failures are what they are, but the criticism of him is hyperbolic.

On that point again we disagree. I think he's been allowed to skate on so much it makes me ill. If you haven't read the anecdotes he likes to add to bills when he signs them into law you should. The degree to which he believes he is above the law and should be able to mold it to suit his ends is insane.

[archosman]

Read this today on the Nashville Scene...

It's tempting right now to say President Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents ever to dis-grace the White House. But is that fair, or even accurate?

Historian renderings of a legacy are often at odds with fluctuating public opinion polls that gauge the heat of the moment. Take Truman. The man had a 22 percent approval rating toward the end of his presidency--due in large part to a highly unpopular Korean War--yet he's among the most popular presidents in history.

I'm going to play the devil's advocate and argue that it is at least in the realm of possibility that history will not lambaste Bush as the fool he's so widely assumed to be. I'll do this because it's useful, because W's reign is nearly at end, and because it might be kinda fun.

Look at what he walked into: 9/11. A presidency in its infancy presided over the most devastating foreign attack on domestic soil in this country's history and suddenly became a war-time presidency. In the wake of the attacks, Bush enjoyed a 90 percent approval rating. An ABC News/Washington Post poll showed 62 percent of Americans cheerleading the invasion into Iraq. The Senate and the House both approved resolutions for the invasion with wide margins.

It proved a costly blunder. But besides the fact that occupations are costly and often doomed to failure, we have learned that the American people rode a wave of emotion into Baghdad, but had neither the tolerance nor the fortitude for the prolonged conflict it would require.

If nothing else, Bush has shown massive cajones in pushing through a hugely unpopular surge that's proven incredibly successful. Whether by blind luck or through the vigilance of the Homeland Security Administration and reorganized intelligence services, we haven't seen another terrorist attack even as they continue to erupt across the globe. In that regard, it's not a huge stretch to say he's not unlike Truman, who developed the NSA, CIA and Department of Defense.

So that's my devil's advocation. Will Bush remain the punchline in history-book perpetuity, or will our collective derision soften as hindsight brings into clearer focus the narrative of his dual-term presidency?

[Sherwood]

Darfur or Rwanda ring any bells? Oh wait they didn't have substantial oil reserves.

So, wait, are you or are you not in favor of being an international police force? You aren't in terms of Iraq, but you seem to be for Darfur and Rwanda. Do you want us to comply with the UN or not? We didn't as regards Iraq, which I doubt you look favorably upon. We did as regards Rwanda and Darfur. Are you happy about the outcome there?

While oil is currently much more affordable than it has been, it was not for the majority of the war. That renders the "we invaded for the oil" argument null. We've been there before, and we didn't bother with the oil the first time except to extinguish fires. Do you have any evidence that we will have a controlling interest over oil after we eventually withdraw our current troops from Iraq?

I'm not of the belief that human rights were a factor in the decision to send troops to Iraq. However, the overthrow of that regime and the subsequent efforts to foster a stable regime representative of the people are admirable things. Nonetheless, I'd prefer to spread some democracy in other ways in the future.

[swt61]

Look at what he walked into: 9/11.

I take exception to the wording here. Your wording implies that this was left over from the past administration. Bush was firmly planted as our President when these attacks took place.

A presidency in its infancy presided over the most devastating foreign attack on domestic soil in this country's history and suddenly became a war-time presidency. In the wake of the attacks, Bush enjoyed a 90 percent approval rating. An ABC News/Washington Post poll showed 62 percent of Americans cheerleading the invasion into Iraq. The Senate and the House both approved resolutions for the invasion with wide margins.

It seems to me that Iraq and the Taliban are being looped together here, and they are two very different things. It still annoys the hell out of me when people put 911 and Iraq together as one and the same. And I also know that the polls you quote were when American's were bullshitted into believing that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Let's do a little research into his popularity once this little detail was found to be false. We were lead into that war on false pretense.

[riceboy]

It seems to me that Iraq and the Taliban are being looped together here, and they are two very different things. It still annoys the hell out of me when people put 911 and Iraq together as one and the same. And I also know that the polls you quote were when American's were bullshitted into believing that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Let's do a little research into his popularity once this little detail was found to be false. We were lead into that war on false pretense.

What is even more interesting is I know some people personally who loop the Taliban and Iraq together as well. They feel that terrorism has diminished because we went into Iraq. I feel that couldn't it be other issues that stopped us from getting attacked on U.S. soil again like homeland security and other measures taken to lessen the chance of another attack? I agree with you that George Bush's popularity was triggered by the belief when information being fed to us, first by Powell when he presented the CIA finding to the U.N. about weapons of mass destruction to the time we invaded and removed Saddam from power. But again it amazes me when folks think that the war was the right thing to do today when we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, we destabilized the area, took away Saddam who kept Ahmadinejad in check, and cost the U.S., our allies, and the Iraqi people countless lives.

[swt61]

So, wait, are you or are you not in favor of being an international police force? You aren't in terms of Iraq, but you seem to be for Darfur and Rwanda. Do you want us to comply with the UN or not? We didn't as regards Iraq, which I doubt you look favorably upon. We did as regards Rwanda and Darfur. Are you happy about the outcome there?

My sole point was that we chose our battles on much more than human rights violations. My personal stand on Rwanda or Darfur are completely unimportant to my argument.

While oil is currently much more affordable than it has been, it was not for the majority of the war. That renders the "we invaded for the oil" argument null. We've been there before, and we didn't bother with the oil the first time except to extinguish fires. Do you have any evidence that we will have a controlling interest over oil after we eventually withdraw our current troops from Iraq?

So staying in Iraq long enough to see the implementation of a stable regime that we most certainly have helped to select is not in any way tied to the fact that Iraq is sitting on top of one of the worlds largest oil reserves? Hey pull my finger... no really pull my finger.

However, the overthrow of that regime and the subsequent efforts to foster a stable regime representative of the people are admirable things. Nonetheless, I'd prefer to spread some democracy in other ways in the future.

Admirable? In the same way that a car salesman selling you a new car after your old hunk of junk dies is admirable.

Necessary? After invading a country and laying it to waste, I'd be more inclined to go with this argument.

[Knuckledragger]

A guy I know and his 7506s. Not sure who is that dude in the background.

[archosman]

I take exception to the wording here. Your wording implies that this was left over from the past administration. Bush was firmly planted as our President when these attacks took place..

Um, then you should take that up with Brantley Hargrove... as I clearly stated in the first line of my post.

[swt61]

Um, then you should take that up with Brantley Hargrove... as I clearly stated in the first line of my post.

My mistake. I knew you were quoting here, and I meant to type "the wording", not "your wording".

[archosman]

My mistake. I knew you were quoting here, and I meant to type "the wording", not "your wording".

That's cool...

[archosman]

On another note...

Yesterday I went up to Fort Campbell to the Don F. Pratt Museum... specifically to get a shot of the "Davy Crockett" they had on display. There were only about 6 of them made and they happen to have one in their collection.

I was surprised how easy it is to get on the base. Just had to show Driver's license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration. It wasn't exactly what I expected for a military base. Then again I didn't go prancing all over the facility either.

On of the soldiers there noticed my 40D and apologized for the poor lighting in the museum . Most of the displays were quite dim and it also was a pain trying to shoot with a flash.

He and one other guy were talking about Tuesday's election. I could tell they weren't happy with the outcome. However one of them did say this...

"I didn't vote for him, but he's going to be the Commander-In-Chief, I take orders from him, and I will do that to the best of my ability.

So I guess the point is he's willing to work with what we got. I've got a shitload of reservations about him, but we'll have to see what happens after he's in office for a year.

Oh yeah... here's a shot of the Crockett and a little summary of what it is!

[riceboy]

[JBLoudG20]

This thread reminds me of last night's Southpark.

[Beefy]

What is even more interesting is I know some people personally who loop the Taliban and Iraq together as well. They feel that terrorism has diminished because we went into Iraq.

I don't think that most people come even close to understanding Iraq. Saddam was a bad guy, that much is for sure. But he was incredibly far-removed from the Taliban ideals, and there is very good evidence that Al Qaeda tried to assassinate him on numerous occasions.

Saddam's Baath party was made of moderate Sunni Muslims who were violently secular - the exact opposite of the Muslim fanatics being fought in Afghanistan who were responsible for 9/11. Under Saddam's rule, the radical Shiites were kept on a very short leash and as soon as this secular and moderate 'government' started to crumble, the freedoms that Americans would hold so dear started to crumble as well. Al Qaeda moved in and Sharia law came to prominence - a perfect example of this is the destruction of liquor stores run by Catholic Iraqis.

The closest Saddam/Iraq previously came to terrorism was sponsoring the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Not the smartest thing in the world, surely. But I don't see much difference to the US support of the Israeli military - as far as I'm concerned both sides of that particular conflict are completely fucked up, but that is a whole other can of worms I'd rather not fight about......

*

Regarding the whole issue of socialism versus capitalism, the pendulum swings both ways.

It is totally laughable to think that Obama tweaking the progressive tax scale to increase taxes for incomes of greater than $250k is going to bring about an economic or social apocalypse. Just like it is ridiculous to think that another 8 years of the Republic party would see a capitalist paradise complete with child labour.

The way I see it, on the global scale the pendulum has swung to capitalism far further in the US than anywhere else. Swinging back towards the centre for a few years can't possibly be a horrible thing.

[tyrion]

I think if it came down to pure numbers of dead the Iraq war will ultimately have resulted in more deaths over time than not having a war, and I've certainly seen people argue this point. That said, it's never as simple as pure numbers and it's very easy to say this in hindsight. I'm no fan of Bush or the Iraq war, but I do have a degree of sympathy for the backlash he received over starting it. Even today the world turns it's back on human rights violations all too often. Irrespective of how we got here or the collateral damage caused, he and America as a whole did the world a favor removing that regime. It's clear many mistakes were made along the way and if the decision to go to war was being made today it probably wouldn't happen, but again it's easy to say this in hindsight. I think it's too early to really evaluate the results as it will take generations to really see, but all we can do now is look forward and make the best of the situation.

I could not disagree with you more, other than your statement about the world turning it's back on human rights violations all too often and that we need to look forward.

While I don't agree that the Bush administration is solely to blame for not uncovering the 911 plot (Let's not forget that the Trade centers were attacked under Clinton's administration as well) , I do pretty much agree with everything else you've said.

Clinton was in office 33 days when the first WTC attack occurred. He caught those responsible and they are now in prison. Fighting terrorism needs to return to being a law enforcement issue first, imo.

Bush was in office for 9 months and had a briefing August 6, 2001 before that said the Bin Laden was going to strike and hijackings were a possibility. However, I wasn't necessarily blaming Bush for 9/11 but the argument can be made.

[909]

Godspeed President elect Obama...

Day One: Obama faces a Cold War threat and a warning from Israel | Mail Online

[ingwe]

The majority of my Iraqi Kurdish friends disagree with you. Not to be a perennial dick, here, but there are legitimate groups of well informed people who disagree with your assessment, and I see their point.

I sense... a custom slogan!!!

[archosman]

Clinton was in office 33 days when the first WTC attack occurred. He caught those responsible and they are now in prison. Fighting terrorism needs to return to being a law enforcement issue first, imo.

He was also responsible for gutting the military which meant when 9/11 happened we weren't exactly up to strength.

[tyrion]

He was also responsible for gutting the military which meant when 9/11 happened we weren't exactly up to strength.

We had plenty of strength to fight the war in Afghanistan. Instead, Bush all but ignores Afghanistan and invades Iraq. Just brilliant.

[mirumu]

I could not disagree with you more, other than your statement about the world turning it's back on human rights violations all too often and that we need to look forward.

Really it's the first time someone's disagreed with me for supporting Bush in any way since it's not my stance to support him. It's a strange feeling to be honest. As I said, I never was a supporter of the Iraq war, but I do feel in the long term and taking an optimistic view that at least some good may come from removal of Hussein and the Baath party from power in Iraq. Certainly Qusay Hussein looked like he would have continued down the same path as his father. I'm not suggesting for a moment the cost America, their coalition partners or Iraq itself payed to achieve this was worth it, I really don't think it was. It's more a case of the bed having already been made and now we've got to lie in it. Making the best of a bad situation if you will.

Fighting terrorism needs to return to being a law enforcement issue first, imo.

I tend to agree by-and-large. The only complication I see is when you have hostile states in the mix muddying the waters between terrorism and guerrilla warfare. Not that this was the case with Iraq, I've yet to see any credible link made between Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Personally I think that attacking a civilian population should always be considered a criminal act, and dealt with as such. The world as a whole needs to be a bit more pro-active here too. I don't think America would have the same concerns about becoming the world's police force if others pulled their weight. Military spending is not popular in many parts of the world though (until it's too late that is).

[slwiser]

We had plenty of strength to fight the war in Afghanistan. Instead, Bush all but ignores Afghanistan and invades Iraq. Just brilliant.

As a matter of fact it was brilliant if you know anything about strategy. Bush fought the war in Afghanistan where is could be won. Then he changed the battleground to one that was winnable when the enemy ran into the mountains. Sending troupes into mountains of Afghanistan is like sending sausage into a grinder. If you wanted to fight them fight them where you can win. Draw them out and you can deplete their strength. Go in and you deplete yours.

If Obama goes into mountains of Afghanistan's and Pakistan I will take that as Obama only wanting to weaken us as I believe he actually plans to do and to do so to place the blame on someone else such as Bush.

Those here seem to be so smart but yet have no memory of all those Democrats that also supported the war in Iraq because of the intelligence information. Weapons were found after a long investigation. There is no sense in showing the evidence to those with such closed minds. It is on the net just look. Early release of the info would have lead to others hunting for it. Therefore when it was cleared then the info release but then no one wanted to hear about it.

Apparently to some 9/11 is lost in memory as well and it's effect on our country. I could make a case that this latest phase of this centuries long war started under a Democratic president 30 years ago, Mr. Carter with his demonstration of weakness. Will the latest Democratic president elect follow President Carter's rather weak example in foreign affairs and just how much more blood will this weakness cost us in the future? Obama has shown only disrespect toward this wonderful country of ours during his public life. He has no respect for this country's military, it's constitution (his own words) or this country. I fear for her.

[Beefy]

Those here seem to be so smart but yet have no memory of all those Democrats that also supported the war in Iraq because of the intelligence information. Weapons were found after a long investigation. There is no sense in showing the evidence to those with such closed minds. It is on the net just look. Early release of the info would have lead to others hunting for it. Therefore when it was cleared then the info release but then no one wanted to hear about it.

Sorry, but that is a steaming load. There were never WMD's. Saddam was enough of a crackpot that he would have used them, if only to 'salt the earth'.

[tyrion]

As a matter of fact it was brilliant if you know anything about strategy. Bush fought the war in Afghanistan where is could be won. Then he changed the battleground to one that was winnable when the enemy ran into the mountains. Sending troupes into mountains of Afghanistan is like sending sausage into a grinder. If you wanted to fight them fight them where you can win. Draw them out and you can deplete their strength. Go in and you deplete yours.

If Obama goes into mountains of Afghanistan's and Pakistan I will take that as Obama only wanting to weaken us as I believe he actually plans to do and to do so to place the blame on someone else such as Bush.

Those here seem to be so smart but yet have no memory of all those Democrats that also supported the war in Iraq because of the intelligence information. Weapons were found after a long investigation. There is no sense in showing the evidence to those with such closed minds. It is on the net just look. Early release of the info would have lead to others hunting for it. Therefore when it was cleared then the info release but then no one wanted to hear about it.

Apparently to some 9/11 is lost in memory as well and it's effect on our country. I could make a case that this latest phase of this centuries long war started under a Democratic president 30 years ago, Mr. Carter with his demonstration of weakness. Will the latest Democratic president elect follow President Carter's rather weak example in foreign affairs and just how much more blood will this weakness cost us in the future? Obama has shown only disrespect toward this wonderful country of ours during his public life. He has no respect for this country's military, it's constitution (his own words) or this country. I fear for her.

George, is this you? That is dumbest thing I've read in a long time. Sorry but it's not even worthy of responding to someone that could actually spend the time to type the above.

[grawk]

Don'tcha know mike is on the intelligence committee and has all the facts. That's why he can call people he generally likes dumasses in public.