ABSOLUTELY NOT. George W. Bush is the reason we are in this situation. It is Bush’s fault we are in so many wars. His wars sparked the unrest in the Middle East. We are just seeing the effects of his wars now. This is why so many people hate America because we go and blow their homes and families up. George Bush should not speak out. Regarding Obama’s approval ratings, this happens to Presidents that are forced to deal with so many problems created by the prior administration. I feel bad Obama is so attacked by the public, he is just trying to fix everything from the past. With the Republicans in the house saying no and voting down every initiative that could help our poorest in this country. If Bush were to speak out it would only help Obama because people would remember how we got here and how Obama has had to deal with more problems than any other President in history.
George W. Bush took a public relations beating toward the end of his term, and the Obama administration constantly blamed Bush for everything from the bad economy, to the slow economic recovery, to the wars in the Middle East, and everything else under the sun. However, recently we’ve seen Obama’s poll numbers dropping, and Bush’s poll numbers rising. For the first time since 2005 more Americans have a positive view of George W. Bush than have an unfavorable view of him. President Obama is having a public relations crisis of his own, so many scandals such as the NSA, IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Obamacare, the Associated Press, just to name a few. I wonder if these scandals, combined with the unrest in the Middle East are starting to make American’s realize that Bush wasn’t so bad, especially when compared to Obama.
I’m wondering what everyone else thinks about this. Do you think America is starting to realize Bush’s policies actually helped the US, and kept the Middle East from complete chaos? Or do you think I am wrong?
Do you think Bush should start speaking out? Should he add his knowledge to help the American people better understand what is going on. And should he speak out to add an alternative Presidential opinion to the current Administration?
Well I think the person above me @juliaw who responded is another “sheeple” First of all, the wars in the Middle East were post 9/11 and obviously there was already some “unrest in the middle east” Secondly, I’m sure as being part of the military myself, the military doesn’t just go around shooting up families houses and such (another media filled sheeple comment). Also, Bush left the Presidency with 9 trillion deficit and now Obama has the Country at 16 trillion. Doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure this out!
In my opinion…George W. Bush shouldn’t speak out in public about Obama and his failed policies. G. W. Bush is a far better man than Obama and history will show that. Unfortunately, so many people fell for the propaganda spewed by liberals and the liberal media that Obama’s faliures will always be “some one elses fault” and their minds won’t easily be changed. I am very fond of G. W. Bush, though I am NOT Fond of absolutely everything he has done during his 2 terms but no former or current president should call out past or current presidents. There is enough of that durning election season. George W. Bush is a wise man and could have productive input. Look how much “input” was given by Bill Clinton….a proven liar. Sadly any good advice G W Bush would offer will probably fall upon deaf ears.
The Middle East has had issues with the US before the presidency of GWB. Perhaps the original commenter might remember the first gulf war, the attack on the marine barracks in Beirut, the attack on the Achilles Lauro. A real student of history would go back to the Barbary pirates, and the correction action applied there. Somehow I think that the original poster knows this, and is being a PITA.
Back to the subject at hand, was GWB the perfect President? Acting as I would wish in every case? Preserving not only the union, but more importantly the constitution and the God given rights recognized in that document? Not really, as we learn more about the Patriot Act, he is being tarnished a bit. Would I rather have him than the community organizer ? Yes. Rather than The spender of money on Vacations (Bush paid for his own)? Yes. the liar in chief or the modern example of the Big Lie from Pacepa’s “Disinformation”?…
Yeah in a friggin’ heartbeat.
@juliaw said, “His wars sparked the unrest in the Middle East.” Are you frickin’ kidding me!?! Seriously? Have you ever heard of the USS Cole, or Khobar Towers, or the Iran Contra problem, or the many, many, many wars and battles fought in the Middle East since Israel was established in 1948? And before that… did you know that the Barbary Pirates wars fought in the early 1800s were fought against Muslims in the Middle East?!? Have you ever heard of the Crusades? How about the Moors who took over all of North Africa and invaded and held Spain for 700 years? Did GWB cause all of those too?
GEEZ! Quit blaming all of Obama’s failures on the previous administration. Reagan inherited a mess, and he FIXED IT! He didn’t constantly blame the previous administration!
I think GWB should not go out of his way to comment. Now if he is asked about something, please comment. That drove me crazy when the left would say just ridiculous lies and there was silence..taking the high road, but look what happened? People started to believe the lies…because that is all they heard on the MSM. Low info voters just heard clips and believed it. I did not always agree with his spending habits, but it was obvious that he loves this country, the military, and is proud of the USA, unlike the President now.
One of the characteristics I admire in President Bush is his ability to leave the limelight of the presidency behind. The causes that he supports are because they mean something to him and are not determined by the amount of attention or publicity that he will receive from that support. I would prefer that he continue to operate that way.
I think he should continue on the high road he’s been on since leaving office. Unless and until the administration asks for his help/opinion he should continue you on in his private life and stay out of current politics. Let Obama accept responsibility for the current state of things.
I don’t believe Mr. Bush should speak out. There’s nothing to be gained and frankly, he has too much class to roll around in the muck of the current administration. I admired him particularly when he didn’t want a share of credit for the demise of Bin Laden. He let Obama have full glory. Also, I agree with jscottlambert – George W. Bush is using his time and talent wisely. For this I am personally proud of him. And yes, I miss him and Laura a lot, and it’s not just because I’m from Texas. I literally find it hard to stomach our current chief and his wife.
Julia Wotten, with all due respect, the very foundation of your understanding of geopolitics is flawed at the most basic level and until you understand that you will never prevail in a political debate with an intelligent person. George Bush did not start these wars. We were attacked by terrorists on 9/11/2001 and lost some 3,000 innocent Americans in our own streets. I know this is an inconvenient fact for liberals but the truth needs to be acknowledged before the blame is assigned.
Afghanistan and the Taliban were actively giving aid to and supporting training camps for al Qaeda to plan these attacks against us. Immediately after the attacks we used diplomacy to ask the Taliban to stop providing al Qaeda a safe haven and they refused. These attacks and murders of innocent Americans could NOT go unanswered.
As for Iraq, Saddam Hussein was actively engaged in harboring, financially supporting, and exporting international terrorism. He did have a WMD program and he had used WMDs to kill tens of thousands of his own people and his enemies, this is indisputable fact (just ask the Iranians who lost thousands to Iraq’s WMDs).
With that factual knowledge is it reasonable for the President of the United States, the very person responsible for the safety of all Americans, to take a chance on losing millions of American lives to terrorists with WMDs? No, that would not be reasonable.
We tried, through the U.N. to get inspectors into Iraq to accurately determine the status of the Iraqi WMD program which factually had existed at one time and was suspected to still exist. Iraq, with the support of the French who were in bed with Saddam Hussein and violating the “oil for food” program set up by the United Nations, denied access to the United Nations and the world. This, combined with several other LEGAL reasons is why we went to war with Saddam Hussein.
If you want to say that George Bush should not speak up that is your opinion and you are entitled to your opinion. However, to misrepresent the facts to facilitate your placing the blame on one person (George Bush) you don’t like is dishonest and unpatriotic.
Our reasons for conducting war in Afghanistan and Iraq are valid and legal and absolutely justified. Our reasons were clear and had overwhelming support; in fact regarding Afghanistan the support was nearly unanimous.
Debating the reason for those wars (actually they are one war and that is the war on terrorism) is a waste of your time. However, if you want to debate the conduct of either or both of those wars you will have a great subject of debate and you might be surprised that you and I would probably agree on many things concerning the conduct of war.
If you want to attack George Bush please attack him where he is vulnerable (the conduct of the war, immigration, etc). However, please do not alter the facts to fit your agenda. This reflects poorly on you.
George W. Bush must have heard the proverb ” The Coyotes howl,but the caravan keeps moving along”.
So long as the Main St. Media can’t even follow up on the IRS or Bengazi scandals, among the the many to choose from, why should GWB waste his breath answering fools? The ignorant and uninformed like Wotten will always alter the facts to fit their narrative. Thats being kind by the way. They may not be ignorant or uninformed,they may just be deliberatly misrepresenting the actual facts like good liberals.
GWB’S deeds, quiet dignity, and history will reflect honor upon him in future generations.
Obama, not so much. Another proverb comes to mind for Obama,” An empty can makes the most noise”.
Back to the issue of this thread. W needs to go away and let history show what a disaster the wars and policies really were. Ironic that @kevlar makes the statement about altering facts to fit agenda. His rant is exactly that.
I note that nearly every (maybe all) US embassies are being closed this weekend all across the Middle east and North Africa out of FEAR of Al Quada .
Is this an example of Obama’s foreign policy enhancing America’s respect around the world that he promised? I mean after all he won a Nobel Prize,right!
First recall it is THE RESPONSIBILITY of the foreign countries to protect our embassies. This is international law.
The Embassy closures are in virtually every country in that part of the world.
Will none of them honor their obligations?
What does that say about our foreign policies or the esteem in which we are held.
Leave the Embassies open. Stage our military and if our Embassies are attacked give them a fearful lesson to be remembered for generations.
Thay may not love us ,buy they will for damn sure fear us. Our Embassies with be safe!
It is interesting to note that you were unable to analyze any of my post and provide us with your understanding of this very important issue. Instead you had to resort to a series of questionable sources. MSNBC is very liberal and has little care about reporting the truth. Rachel Maddow is one of the more liberal people on that liberal network. However, you have the right to rely on inaccurate sources for your political knowledge. This is how the uninformed stay uninformed.
You were unable to offer any supporting evidence on your attack of the Afghanistan portion of my post. The Afghanistan portion is a substantial portion of the post but I can imagine that small detail probably escaped you. However, you unwisely and without purpose deemed it to all be fallacious so I will offer support for my position and hope that I hit on the point or points that irritated you.
We were attacked by terrorists on 9/11/2001. Since you can breath and you can type on a computer I am going to assume that I don’t need to provide evidence to support that. If I have overestimated your intelligence please let me know and I will provide evidence of the obvious.
Taliban giving sanctuary to al Qaeda, taken from the 9/11 Commission Report:
“Upon this political and ideological foundation, Bin Ladin built over the course of a decade a dynamic and lethal organization. He built an infrastructure and organization in Afghanistan that could attract, train, and use recruits against ever more ambitious targets. He rallied new zealots and new money with each demonstration of al Qaeda’s capability. He had forged a close alliance with the Taliban, a regime providing sanctuary for al Qaeda.” http://www.c-span.org/pdf/911finalreportexecsum.pdf
Evidence to support using diplomacy in order to avoid war:
Again, from the nonpartisan 9/11 Commission Report: “President Bush also tasked the State Department, which on the following day delivered to the White House a paper titled “Game Plan for a Political-Military Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan.” The paper took it as a given that Bin Ladin would continue to act against the United States even while under Taliban control. It therefore detailed specific U.S. demands for the Taliban: surrender Bin Ladin and his chief lieutenants, including Ayman al Zawahiri; tell the United States what the Taliban knew about al Qaeda and its operations; close all terrorist camps; free all imprisoned foreigners; and comply with all UN Security Council resolutions.” http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/911comm-sec10.pdf
If you choose to not believe the 9/11 Commission Report because you think they have a political bias (which I believe they have but the bias is to the left, which by the way, is your side) you can find overwhelming evidence of this elsewhere.
Additionally, in reference to your unsupported conclusion on Iraq I will offer this – Iraq did have WMD and used them to kill tens of thousands:
From an article from the PBS website, an organization with enough left-leaning people that you should be overjoyed to believe them. “Human Rights Watch estimates that between 50,000 and 100,000 people were killed during al–Anfal; Kurdish officials have put the number as high as 182,000. When presented with this figure, “Chemical” Ali Hassan al–Majid took exception. “It could not have been more than 100,000,” he said. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq501/events_anfal.html
Kurdish officials put the number as high as 182,000. Iraq’s “Chemical Ali” said that it could not be more than 100,000. What a relief, only 100,000 people killed by Saddam Hussein’s use of WMDs. You gotta admit that 100,000 innocent people being murdered is a heck of a lot better than 182,000 innocent people being killed. But alas that doesn’t even count the tens of thousands of Iranians murdered by Saddam Hussein’s use of WMD. Evidence of this is abundant and you are welcome to research it on your own if you know how.
The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and had a proven track record of using them to kill scores of innocent people. Should the President of the United States take a chance that this might happen in America? If it happens there is no turning back the clock because dead is dead. One more thing, if you are no longer making WMDs as many on the left believe and this could actually be true, any remaining stock of WMDs are just as deadly, oh and yes, we did find some after the invasion.
Again, should the President, in the face of numerous intelligence agencies saying that the WMDs exist, both ours and our allies, say “no, I am not going to err on the side of safety for the American people – instead I am going to wait for concrete proof?” Waiting for concrete proof could result in thousands of dead Americans. Would that make you happy? You have the luxury of waiting for concrete proof because you are not held constitutionally responsible for the protection of our freedoms. Presidents don’t have that luxury.
Here is a link to a video by your beloved NBC (not quite as irresponsible as MSNBC) about an active plan by Saddam Hussein to make the world believe he had WMD even while he was publicly denying it. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=wmd+found+in+iraq&mid=F417B714EB091F39D90BF417B714EB091F39D90B&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1
As far as Cheney making claims of linkages, there is plenty evidence to show that Saddam Hussein had links to terrorist groups and activities. For one thing he was paying $25,000 to the family of anyone who would give his life in jihad. Saddam was definitely linked to terrorists and terrorists were definitely linked to the attacks of 9/11. However, other than a suspicion there has been no credible claim by Cheney or anyone else in the Bush administration linking Saddam Hussein directly to the attacks of 9/11. Regardless of any supporting evidence liberals like to make that erroneous claim all the time. They just cannot take the truth for an answer.
Interesting to note that the word Hubris means overconfidence and that is surely what Maddow had when she attacked the Bush administration
Your “Hubris” article that you offer as your source uses General Zinni as rock-solid evidence against the administration’s position on Iraqi WMDs. It states that General Zinni “literally bolted” when he heard Cheney mention Iraqi WMDs. It goes on to say that General Zinni “never saw one piece of credible [CIA] evidence that there was an ongoing program.” What it doesn’t tell you is that Zinni had been retired in excess of two years when he made that statement and that his work since then had been in diplomatic concerns that had nothing specifically to do with Iraq’s war capability. This is from his own website: http://www.generalzinni.com/
The “Hubris” article goes on to say that General Zinni was “struck by how thin the agency’s actual knowledge of Iraqi weapons programs was.” This is contradictory in nature and either General Zinni is stupid (which I doubt) or Rachel Maddow and the article author are stupid or you are, shall we say “less than smart” (trying to be politically correct because I know that goes over well with liberals).
One last thing. President Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. This Act declared that it was the official policy of the United States to support “regime change” in Iraq. So please, if you need to blame someone for defending the freedom of the United States and all Americans then by all means give credit to George Bush, but if you need to find fault in those who dare to take steps to defend the lives of innocent Americans please include all those who had a hand in it, including Bill Clinton and many other Presidents before him.
Next time you decide to attack facts presented by someone please make sure you can support your position. By the way, in reference to your rebuttal to a third-person’s post, Bradley Manning is not a hero. He is a criminal and a threat to national security which makes him an enemy of the United States and for you to call him a “hero” speaks volumes about your character and dare I say it – your patriotism!
Really great , detailed response.
Just what is needed to counter the uninformed opinions of the chanters who mouth “Bush lied to us”, like Parrots who need fresh newspapers in the cage bottom.
I hope you have better luck than I have had getting the thought across.
The reaction I usually get is a glazing of the eyes as their brain struggles with reality, followed with louder chanting.
Liberal views are more religion than ideas in my experience. They “FEEL” the correctness of their opinions.
Again great post.
@kevlar Classic post on fitting facts to your agenda. Nice. It is not worth my time attempting to get blind men to see. Have fun living in your fantasy paranoid world as we spend our way to oblivion and to be a 2nd rate country. AQ seems to be winning, as noted in other posts.
No response on the killing of civilians in the videos released from our hero, Mr Manning, eh? Did not think so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbqmr5rtdOs
Thanks for taking the time to identify what you believe to be in error in my post. That is what a knowledgeable person would and should do to help others, myself included, learn. After all, you believe that your point is true and my point is false.
As I said, a person who really cared for their country especially when you consider that I vote and my vote has an impact on your life, would help me to see and understand exactly where I am wrong. Not only would that person tell me where I’m wrong but he would tell me why I am wrong and then explain it as he understands it in hopes that I might then be as well informed as him so that I might cast a more intelligent vote next time.
Oh, wait a minute John, none of that applies to you. Your post is nothing but a drive-by shooting because you attacked my entire post and were unable to provide ANY EVIDENCE or even rational discussion to support your position. My goal here is not to attack you but to get you to think about what you are saying and if you disagree with someone then offer a reason why and give your specific analysis.
By the way, I did address your treasonous “hero” Bradley Manning. You just didn’t read it.
@Kevlar Ha! Your response to the brave Mr Manning is typical of most (albeit not all) of your responses. That is to attack the messenger and medium. i.e. all them liberal bias or some other such thing. When you can’t argue the facts, argue the messenger. You are too blinded by the right and of an ideological military world view to attempt to change.
Your “facts” are as biased as your view. Yup, a drive by bumper sticker attack. That is what wins elections, sorry to say.
History will tell us if the >$1,000,000,000,000 was worth it. Even if all you say is true and rational reasons for war, the only winner was the military industrial complex. The rest of us lost. Bush will go down as the worst President this country has ever seen.
Your “hero” Bradley Manning is not a hero. As I explained before he is a traitor and a threat to national security. I have provided a couple definitions for you, perhaps these will help. By the way these definitions are backed up by law and deviations are punishable by law.
SECRET: Applied to information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.
TOP SECRET: Applied to information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
Bradley Manning DID NOT have any authority to release ANY of this, but he released it anyway.
I know these definitions and the laws supporting them meant absolutely nothing to Manning but I wouldn’t have guessed that you were unable to understand them either. I know that Manning has zero regard for the national security of the United States but I would not have guessed that you have zero regard for the national security of the United States.
You might think that is an odd statement because I do not know you. However, it is inconceivable to me that a citizen of the greatest nation in the world would have zero regard for the security of that nation.
If you think that Manning, or Snowden for that matter, is a hero then you are in the wrong country and should leave as soon as possible before your status as a potential traitor is investigated (it won’t be investigated because this administration doesn’t concern itself much with national security).
You probably think he is a “hero” because he is a “whistle blower.” There are avenues for whistle-blowers to take and Wiki-leaks is not one of them, nor are China and Russia in the case of Snowden.
Re-read those definitions above and think on them for a while. If you are a patriotic American you will stop calling these guys heroes.
Perhaps you think Manning is a hero because he informed the public as to what the government was doing and you believe what they were doing was wrong. This is exactly why it is incumbent on each of us to be as informed as we can be and elect a government we can trust to act in OUR best interest. Instead you just voted for the coolest candidate regardless of whether you can trust him or not and later when you found that you could not trust him you give a villain the status of “hero” instead of accepting some of the blame for your misplaced vote.
Oh, and don’t blame those programs on George Bush either. If some of them were started on his watch the only thing you can do is go get him and prosecute him. If they are bad programs you can rest assured that the next president will do whatever is best for the American people and terminate them. Oh, what’s that? Obama didn’t do what is best for the American people? Even though you elected him because you knew he was the best? See what I mean, don’t blame Bush for a bad program that the current President didn’t stop immediately when he could.
Thank you for identifying to us all who you really are, a political hack who has but one purpose and that is to win an election. I had you all wrong; I thought you were here because you cared about your country. Your following quote gives you away: “Yup, a drive by bumper sticker attack. That is what wins elections, sorry to say.” Not only did you make that statement but it so accurately describes your modus operandi.
Silly me, I thought our purpose for discussing and debating politics was all about making a “more perfect union.” Our country is in turmoil because of people like you. However, I encourage you to stick around and you might learn something from some of the other good posts I have seen here.
I don’t know what kind or logic you used to change the subject to one trillion dollars but most liberals will change the subject when they know they are wrong. What do you want to talk about next?
And Mr Snowden, a true American hero, might suggest that we are not free of the government watching over us.
With all due respect I would like to point out a fundamental flaw in your research.
When we broke ranks with the British back in the 18th century our founding fathers documented the reasons for such a bold move. They documented it in a paper called the Declaration of Independence, a document I’m sure you have heard of but one I doubt you have ever read.
In this document our founding fathers acknowledged that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights (freedoms). The beauty of this is that you don’t have to believe in God (as liberal as you are I imagine that you don’t) to see the value in this.
It simply means that we have certain rights that come to us from a source that is not man itself (therefore no prejudice regarding possession of these rights). And that among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That sir tells all of us that we have these rights and freedoms before you even put one single government restriction on anything because at this point in the Declaration of Independence we don’t even have a government. That comes later.
We are a free people, free to do whatever we want to do so long as my practice of my freedom does not deprive you of your practice of your freedom. This is all done BEFORE any type of government. The problem is that your Wikipedia page, yes the one you thought so highly of that you sent me the link, admits that they do not rate freedom by itself but freedom with the restriction of government oversight.
By the admission of the chart itself “it produces annual scores representing the levels of POLITICAL rights and civil liberties in each state and territory…” It goes on to say “the report is often used by researchers in order to MEASURE DEMOCRACY [my emphasis] and correlates highly with several other measures of democracy…”
John, we are not talking about how “free” different democracies may or may not be. If you think that was the point you are sadly mistaken. Nobody needs a democracy of any type to be “free.” In fact a true democracy at a basic level actually deprives the people of their rights and freedoms because in a true democracy everyone gets to vote and the majority wins over any objections of the minority.
Even at that, from the chart the United States holds perfect scores across the board. You seem to have acknowledged that as well but I think your point is that some other countries match that “perfect score.” It is interesting to note that nobody beats that score but several do match it (hence the term “perfect score”). I think this is your point and it is a fair point but one that misses a substantial ideal, making the point not applicable to the discussion.
That ideal is that while most other free countries (as indicated by that “perfect score” from your website) try to not interfere with the freedoms of their citizens even though many of them stipulate in their constitutions that your rights are subject to “certain limitations”, our country guarantees non-interference in our freedom. That guarantee is in the form of the Constitution of the United States. That guarantee is re-acknowledged/reaffirmed every four years when the President is sworn in because he swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
The Constitution is also the Supreme Law of the Land. There is no higher authority among men. We subject ourselves to that Constitution and to NOBODY ELSE, EVER. If our government passes a law that has no Constitutional authority to exist then that law is unconstitutional.
The Preamble of the Constitution states the purpose of the Constitution (which defines the government) and that is to protect those liberties, nothing more. In other words, our freedom comes to us from a power higher than man and the Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land, places no restrictions on those freedoms. The only restriction on our freedom is our freedom itself.
This is very important for you to understand. “The only restriction on our freedom is our freedom itself.” The federal government cannot legally restrict our rights/freedoms. I can do whatever I want to do, whenever I want to do it, and so can you. What then restricts those rights? They restrict themselves.
Quick example: You have the right to have a gun (this specific one is listed in the bill of rights). You also have the freedom to load that gun with ammunition. Furthermore you have the freedom to shoot that gun. Now a specific question and please answer it from a technical standpoint (not reading anything into it and without knowledge of any laws other than the Constitution and Declaration of Independence).
Laws notwithstanding, can you point that loaded gun at your neighbors head and pull the trigger? The answer is “yes, you can” and that is why I asked you to ignore any laws for this question. Why then, if you have a right to point the loaded gun and shoot it at your neighbor, is there a law against it?
Because even though it might be your right to load, point, and shoot at your neighbor, the minute that bullet enters the body of your neighbor you will have denied him his rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) and you cannot do that. Shortly after the first firearm was invented it was determined that once that trigger is pulled the bullet cannot be stopped and therefore a law was constructed to prevent that from happening. The only restrictions on your rights are my rights and vice versa.
Why do I go through this long scenario? To illustrate to you the thing that actually makes this country the BEST country in the world. These freedoms are ours, yours and mine. They are neither given nor limited by government. They are older than our government itself. Bottom line – unlike other “free” countries we don’t need government to have rights; we need government ONLY to protect those rights.
I took a round-about way to get here but your research that tells you we are not the best country in the world is fundamentally flawed because the chart/table you used to determine that makes a false comparison if the question, as put forth by you is “Name one great thing the US is #1 in the world in, that does not involve guns or prisons?”
Hey @Kevlar how is this number 1 in FREEDOM for ya.
Really? The NSA is shutting down and threatened by tea-shirt sales? That is Freedom for you. #1? You are kidding, right? Makes China seem like a free country.
This country is falling apart before our eyes. We are shredding the Constitution. We are contemplating an illegal war and illegal use of our military and the associated murder that will come of that.
Our economy is in shambles. The American Dream is now the American Memory. Our elected leaders who have brought us to this tipping point are frustrated only by the notion that they can’t destroy this country even faster.
And you are worried about tee-shirts? Are you kidding? Please tell me that you love this country more than that!
Here’s the problem I have with this site. Too little substance. Too much attack on the messenger and the messenger’s presumed affiliations. How about dealing with the actual substance of the issues brought up by posters such as John & Julia? Otherwise, what are you doing here, bolstering & validating your own fragile egos and positions?
The topic of this thread is “are Americans starting to miss George W. Bush” and everything the current administration is doing is relevant to that topic. Particularly relevant is everything the current administration is doing in contrast to that of GWB.
I agree it is a very broad topic and if you want to narrow it you are welcome to start another topic. I eagerly await your clarity on the attacks on the messenger because I guess I missed that. Regardless, if I attacked someone undeservedly then I am wrong.
I also eagerly await your choice of next topic.
I agree. I believe George Bush is doing the classy thing by not speaking ill of Obama. My question is whether or not Americans are beginning to see that although painful at times some of Bush’s actions were truly helped the country. What will his legacy look like in twenty years?
Heck No! Were still trying to dig out of the financial recession his administration is responsible for. Have you lost your mind? Maybe you just have a poor taste in humor! Obama is giving Americans health care. Bush he wanted to give it to Iraqi at no cost.
This is an interesting discussion. We believe if you look at their accomplishment. President Obama has been a far more effective president. Through his legislative and foreign policy accomplishments he is easily one of the top ten presidents of our time.
Wow! I stopped getting notices of new posts a long time ago but in this case I see that people are not often including debate participant’s names. I also find it annoying that the time stamp has been removed from all messages so the only way you can relate the currency of a post is to relate it to current events and sometimes that is difficult. Because of this I have somewhat reduced my participation on this site.
Tim: I agree that attacking the messenger for the sake of “bolstering & validating your own fragile egos and positions” is a bad idea and for this reason I seldom engage in it. I try to concentrate on the message and attack (if warranted) on the merit.
Considering the two individuals you mentioned, John and Julia, if you go back and read their posts and their posts on other threads on this site you will clearly see that they more often than not lack the very “substance” of which you are talking. When they present a flawed argument, which they often do (but not always) it becomes difficult to differentiate between the messenger and the flawed message.
I noticed also Tim that I challenged you to clarify what you meant when you claimed that everyone, including myself, was attacking the messenger. Since the time stamps were removed from the messages I have no idea how long ago that was but it was certainly long enough ago for you to respond in an intelligent manner (on the merit). You have failed that – do you now see what I mean?
John, John, John, I thought I was starting to get you to think about the reasons why things happen. You don’t always have to completely agree with the reason but in this case you clearly missed the obvious. I know you completely missed the obvious (and I know I have explained it to you many times) when I read your statement: “W’s legacy? Spending a trillion dollars on needless wars for nothing, except to prop up the military industrial complex. Worst President since RR, maybe of all time.”
John, please explain your statement. I know I have explained this to you many times on this site and I know you have ignored the facts but I was hoping you would start to accept at least SOME of them. I will briefly explain it to you once again and you are free to ask your friends or read history books or whatever you need to do to verify the following.
You are 100% wrong when you said these wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) were “needless” and “for nothing.” Ask nearly anyone who was alive twelve years ago, or even anyone born since then and you will find that we (the United States of America) were attacked by terrorists on 9/11/2001 and that those terrorists, using a form of weapons-of-mass-destruction (airplanes loaded with innocent people as guided missiles to destroy and kill thousands more innocent civilians), had trained and planned and equipped in Afghanistan under security provided to them by the Taliban. John, I beg you to please read your history and STOP calling them “needless wars.”
As for Iraq and I know I have mentioned this to you numerous times, they factually had and factually used a WMD program to kill tens of thousands of people, some estimates exceed 100,000 people. This is irrefutable, even by you, John.
Furthermore it was strongly believed by most of the world’s intelligence that Saddam Hussein had re-constituted his WMD program. This intel, in hindsight was not completely correct but it was not incorrect either because we did find WMD’s in Iraq later. It is also a fact (irrefutable) that Saddam Hussein was actively supporting terrorism.
Given that information, keeping in mind that intel is never perfect, the commander-in-chief (Bush) had to make a decision to either defend the United States of America against what the world sincerely believed to be a very serious and very deadly threat or just stand by and recklessly risk the lives of millions of Americans who easily could have been murdered by those very same WMD’s.
John, I respectfully challenge you to defend your statement that the wars were “needless” and “for nothing” while NOT using the luxury of hindsight (which would not change anything anyway). By the way you are free to use any of the other probably thousand rock-solid reasons supporting the wars but they would certainly work against your argument (we have discussed these before as well and you have ignored them).
John, please keep in mind that given what we knew at the time, if you believe that NOT going to war was the best answer then you will be telling us that in your opinion the United States of America is NOT worth defending. Ironically our constitution DEMANDS that the commander-in-chief defend this country – in fact that is his NUMBER ONE DUTY. I eagerly await your answer on this!
Annette, please, as a responsible person, tell us how the Bush Administration is responsible for the “financial recession.” To be clear I believe there are things he could have done better but that does not make him “responsible.” In your analysis, please be detailed and tell us how the liberal programs starting under the FDR administration (you are welcome to go back farther and I hope you will), and continuing through the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, even Reagan, and Clinton, had absolutely NO BEARING on what happened during the Bush administration.
Annette, please include an analysis of each and every time the federal government interfered with free-market capitalism (which in nearly every case made things worse). Please be thorough in your analysis; I can’t wait to read the report.
Annette, you recklessly and carelessly accused the Bush administration of being responsible for the “financial recession.” Am I calling you out on this? That depends on interpretation but am I holding you accountable for your words and accusations? Yes I am. Are you accountable for your own actions? Your detailed analysis (this could be many pages long) will demonstrate to us your level of personal accountability. In case you believe you have no personal accountability then no answer will be necessary.
Oh yeah, Annette, your statement: “Obama is giving Americans health care” is funny to the extreme (and very wrong). Obama did not give us ANYTHING because he had NOTHING to give. He raised the cost of health care for everyone and health insurance for most people. To pay for that he is TAKING money away from you in the form of taxes and borrowing, to PAY for it. He GAVE us NOTHING! This “give-me” mentality is what is ruining this country.
Let Your Voice Be Heard (sounds like a liberal radio station), I believe you are just trying to stir the pot because your statement cannot be supported using rational thought and clarity. Perhaps you can help Annette with her research.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.