The Bush Thread

[souvlaki]

As i stated, we had three terrorist attacks on Clintons watch (4 if you counted Oklahoma City...which many do count as a Muslim attack).

So, yeah...4...and we did nothing about it except arrest a few people. Much easier to wash your hands of international terrorism when you dont admit that it even exists.

And what did Bush do before September 11th to pre-emptively do anything about the Taliban? All reports indicate that Bush ignored intelligence information about Osama Bin Laden before 9/11 and decided instead to focus on Iraq despite the Clinton administration urging him to pay close attention to Bin Laden. All Bush did was react to a massive terrorist attack the same way any President with a bit of common sense would have done given the circumstances. And then he lost interest in Afghanistan in 2003, pulled the majority of the troops out, and sent them to Iraq instead despite high level military officers telling him they needed more troops in Afghanistan. I'm not saying he's not partially responsible for the lack of terrorist activity in the US after 9/11, but any of the security precautions and military invasions that happened after 9/11 would have likely happened regardless of who sat in the Oval Office.

 

[StorminNorman]

Two more days till the cynical party leaves office.

 

[The Major]

How is 911 unprecendented???

Not only had Muslims attacked America before, they attacked THE WORLD TRADE CENTER before.

Oh yeah...that was on clintons watch so it doesnt count.

Embassy bombings by muslim terrorists? Um...Clinton was president, so we did nothing.

American navy ship attacked by muslim terrorists? Clinton was president so we did nothing.

At least Bush did something about it. America was attacked by Muslim terrorists three times under Clinton and we did absolutely nothing about it.

So knock it off with your "Bush isnt keeping us safe enough" crap.

It is unprecedented since it wasn't until Bush was president America's agencies for stopping threats like that stopped working when it came to dealing with their threats in our backyard. This wasn't a third world foreign country, it was our's. Bush let an attack worse then Pearl Harbor happen under his watch. Before Bush al queda could only successfully accomplish minor attacks half a world away. That's what the difference is between those Muslim attacks and 9/11.

This is especially incompetent since Bush had multiple warnings from multiple sources with the required security in armed forces, law enforcement and aerial surveillance and protection. America' supposed to be the best in world at security. Where were these so-called professionals when we needed them before 9/11 when Bush was president?

Where was your anger at Clinton?

I have serious problems with Clinton and he has made mistakes with bin laden but he's done a much better job at protecting this country then Bush ever did.

Now that I thnk about one of the best things Clinton did with al queda was ignoring it publically. They desire attention and lacked something to inspire people into the joining their organization. Bush did both.

 

[p4poetic]

His farewell was gracious, I suppose. He's not evil, he just isn't competent to be president. His view of the world as black and white with no shades of gray was a little disturbing though. He has the best intentions in his mind, but his mind isn't too bright.

at least he acknowledged he'd have done some things differently.

I can't help but laugh at some of the things he says, because its like he acknowledges his stupidity.

And I will never get over how he refers to Condoleeza as 'Condi' lol. I don't know why, its just too funny.

 

[Red Mask]

Tim McVeigh is a muslim now?

Ha ha. But America better be vigilant against domestic terrorists like McVeigh. Some people don't adapt well to change.

 

[Red Mask]

It is unprecedented since it wasn't until Bush was president America's agencies for stopping threats like that stopped working when it came to dealing with their threats in our backyard. This wasn't a third world foreign country, it was our's. Bush let an attack worse then Pearl Harbor happen under his watch. Before Bush al queda could only successfully accomplish minor attacks half a world away. That's what the difference is between those Muslim attacks and 9/11.

This is especially incompetent since Bush had multiple warnings from multiple sources with the required security in armed forces, law enforcement and aerial surveillance and protection. America' supposed to be the best in world at security. Where were these so-called professionals when we needed them before 9/11 when Bush was president?

There was a previous attack on the World Trade Center but it didn't topple the whole building. The Oklahoma Bombing was much worse until 9/11. And let's not forget the Olympic Park bombing caused by Eric Robert Rudolph. Those last two are domestic in origin. The tragic standoff at Waco Texas also caused a huge media stir, but I think those Branch Davidians were led by a madman. During those years there had not been a major foreign terrorist attack that equaled the loss of lives as on 9/11.

But yes, Clinton had warned Bush about the potential threat of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. However, nobody thought Al Qaeda could even pull off such a plot. After all, hijacked planes crashing into America? It sounded improbable until they proved it could be done. Intelligence is partly to blame because of poor assessment to the threat. But nobody believed it was possible. Now we know better.

As for attacks on Americans overseas, I doubt the American public ever really took it seriously until 9/11. And even after that they only chose to get involved when American lives where at stake. So Bush's war on terror was a badly handled crusade. Many countries had suffered terrorist attacks before and after 9/11. Nothing Bush ever did helped them to stop it.

 

[souvlaki]

His farewell was gracious, I suppose. He's not evil, he just isn't competent to be president. His view of the world as black and white with no shades of gray was a little disturbing though. He has the best intentions in his mind, but his mind isn't too bright.

at least he acknowledged he'd have done some things differently.

I can't help but laugh at some of the things he says, because its like he acknowledges his stupidity.

And I will never get over how he refers to Condoleeza as 'Condi' lol. I don't know why, its just too funny.

That's pretty much how I feel. I certainly don't hate the guy. He seems likable enough, and part of me honestly believes he had the best of intentions in the decisions he made. Not to use the tired cliche, but I'm sure he'd be a hell of a lot of fun to have a beer with. But he should have never been anywhere near the White House. I mean, if he hadn't been such a horrible President I'd miss all the gaffes, and unintentional humor his Presidency brought us.

 

[Heretic]

It is unprecedented since it wasn't until Bush was president America's agencies for stopping threats like that stopped working when it came to dealing with their threats in our backyard. This wasn't a third world foreign country, it was our's. Bush let an attack worse then Pearl Harbor happen under his watch. Before Bush al queda could only successfully accomplish minor attacks half a world away. That's what the difference is between those Muslim attacks and 9/11.

This is especially incompetent since Bush had multiple warnings from multiple sources with the required security in armed forces, law enforcement and aerial surveillance and protection. America' supposed to be the best in world at security. Where were these so-called professionals when we needed them before 9/11 when Bush was president?



I have serious problems with Clinton and he has made mistakes with bin laden but he's done a much better job at protecting this country then Bush ever did.

Now that I thnk about one of the best things Clinton did with al queda was ignoring it publically. They desire attention and lacked something to inspire people into the joining their organization. Bush did both.

Clinton ignored it publicly...and did what privately???? Nothing.

Oh yeah...you cant lose a war on terror if you arent fighting one.

And I'll repeat, on Clintons watch the World Trade Center was attacked by muslims. The difference being that they had longer to plan for the second one and knew what WOULDNT work.

 

[Red Mask]

Since Bush started the war on terror numerous experienced C.I.A. operatives quit. More than two have publicly denounced the approach that's been taken. In addition the C.I.A team that was specifically created to hunt down bin Laden was dissolved years ago.

Let's also not forget that during Bush's administration the name of a C.I.A. operative was publicly dropped all because of bipartisan politics. While the politician who did it has not served a single day in jail, such an act was dispicable. In the old days that would have been clearly seen as treason.

 

[Knives]

I would like to say that if George W. Bush wouldn't have been a complete failure, I strongly doubt that we would have a President Obama.

And that is about the only useful thing that's come out of this administration. 8 long, insufferable years of corruption and absolute failure come to an end. It felt like freaking forever. I am beyond happy to see this pathetic excuse of a president get the hell out of office. Nice to see that the vast majority of the country does too. We aren't so hopeless after all! Finally, the idiot is out, and the adults are taking over. Let us hope things can be fixed. Lord knows Bush did everything in his power to sink this country into the muck.

 

[The Major]

Clinton ignored it publicly...and did what privately???? Nothing.

He did try. Forget the Saudi prince?

Guess what? It worked. America barely knew or cared about al queda because they were a toothless threat under Clinton's watch. Bush couldn't last a year without them pulling a Pearl Harbor successfully.

Oh yeah...you cant lose a war on terror if you arent fighting one.

He technically was fighting them. And he was winning. Bush is losing.

And I'll repeat, on Clintons watch the World Trade Center was attacked by muslims.

It only killed 6 and injured a thousand. Which is nothing compared to 9/11.

The difference being that they had longer to plan for the second one and knew what WOULDNT work.

The difference is Clinton wasn't stupid enough to let Muslim terrorists commit huge terrorist attacks in America itself. That's why if they had tried to commit 9/11 under Clinton the terrorists would get arrested before they did anything. That's what competent leadership looks like. Something we've missed during these 8 years.

 

[Red Mask]

Going back on the issue of Africa, I'm surprised at the examples being used to make it his best legacy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/default.stm

On relieving African debt, he didn't start the idea. It was an idea he just supported as it became more popular.

On fighting malaria, many other methods have been used to cut down the disease. Mosquito nets from Asia are also given credit. For the past few years medical researches from Europe have also been pursuing promising methods to fight the disease.

On fighting the spread of HIV I can give him some praise. But the conditional aide was foolish and arrogant. Gates is more popular for his generous contribution to fight AIDS. On the issue of aide itself, many African countries now desire more foreign investment instead. Most African nations can't plan proper development of their infrastructures with just foreign aide. Chancellor Merkel of Germany is the only Western leader to call for a non-Chinese effort to financial invest in Africa's development. Since the Doha trade talks failed last year, Africa is once again denied the full trade access that's enjoyed by 1st World nations.

 

[Sebastos]

Tomorrow, at this time.

 

[Kelly]

Going back on the issue of Africa, I'm surprised at the examples being used to make it his best legacy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/default.stm

On relieving African debt, he didn't start the idea. It was an idea he just supported as it became more popular.

On fighting malaria, many other methods have been used to cut down the disease. Mosquito nets from Asia are also given credit. For the past few years medical researches from Europe have also been pursuing promising methods to fight the disease.

On fighting the spread of HIV I can give him some praise. But the conditional aide was foolish and arrogant. Gates is more popular for his generous contribution to fight AIDS. On the issue of aide itself, many African countries now desire more foreign investment instead. Most African nations can't plan proper development of their infrastructures with just foreign aide. Chancellor Merkel of Germany is the only Western leader to call for a non-Chinese effort to financial invest in Africa's development. Since the Doha trade talks failed last year, Africa is once again denied the full trade access that's enjoyed by 1st World nations.

That is kind of a duh, nor has he ever said that he did. But he has done a tremendous amount of work, and will continue once he is in Dallas. Laura has also done an enormous amount of work behind the scenes.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/hivaids/
http://www.avert.org/pepfar.htm
http://www.voanews.com/english/arch...essionid=003095c3bd7a778ec8f2801c5c487a3da3f5
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gzJbsO6YCEyXG9dfjEh0vXzxT_rQ

And I'm glad to know that Obama will continue the work....

http://www.dbtechno.com/health/2009...work-of-bush-in-fight-against-aids-in-africa/

 

[The Overlord]

You think that's funny, let me ask this, besides Bush, what President has done more to make popular discourse extremely cynical, in the last 50 years?

 

[Kelly]

That answer would depend on who you ask.....

 

[The Overlord]

That answer would depend on who you ask.....

Not when look at tone of our society, the Bush presidency has ushered into our society a tone far more cynical then anything seen before. There wouldn't this level of hype around Obama if so people aren't so negative about Bush's time in office, the message of hope is so appealing, because under Bush there wasn't a lot of hope.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Overlord, the answer to your question is Nixon. Hands down, he caused more people to lose faith in the political system than any President in the last 50 years. And then, some 20+ years later, Clinton caused even more cynicism with the Lewinsky scandal. And Bush's failure on Katrina caused a lot of cynicism too. It has not been a good decade from that standpoint. The two of them have damaged the honor of the Presidency quite a bit. But no one damaged it as much as Nixon.

 

[souvlaki]

Not when look at tone of our society, the Bush presidency has ushered into our society a tone far more cynical then anything seen before. There wouldn't this level of hype around Obama if so people aren't so negative about Bush's time in office, the message of hope is so appealing, because under Bush there wasn't a lot of hope.

I agree. Part of Obama's appeal is the fact that he is seemingly the exact opposite of Bush in ever way. The Bizarro Bush if you will.

 

[The Overlord]

Overlord, the answer to your question is Nixon. Hands down, he caused more people to lose faith in the political system than any President in the last 50 years. And then, some 20+ years later, Clinton caused even more cynicism with the Lewinsky scandal. And Bush's failure on Katrina caused a lot of cynicism too. It has not been a good decade from that standpoint. The two of them have damaged the honor of the Presidency quite a bit. But no one damaged it as much as Nixon.

You got me on Nixon, but Clinton seriously? Clinton having an affair caused as much cynicism as everything Bush did?

 

[Kelly]

The cynical view of government is not just because of Bush....this is a view that has been growing since Nixon. It had an 8 years of looking up with Reagan, but Clinton's indiscretion, along with Bush's stupidity has brought us to this. This isn't new, its been growing with each generation.....Obama is seen as the opposite of Clinton (family man), Bush (Intelligent Man), and he is in the process of being seen as opposite of Nixon in his quest for transparency......

So is it because of Bush? To a degree, but certainly not in totality.

 

[StorminNorman]

You got me on Nixon, but Clinton seriously? Clinton having an affair caused as much cynicism as everything Bush did?

Clinton's self serving corruption went far beyond simple Oval Office shananagans. Clinton was a far more self serving President than Bush was.

 

[StorminNorman]

The cynical view of government is not just because of Bush....this is a view that has been growing since Nixon. It had an 8 years of looking up with Reagan, but Clinton's indiscretion, along with Bush's stupidity has brought us to this. This isn't new, its been growing with each generation.....Obama is seen as the opposite of Clinton (family man), Bush (Intelligent Man), and he is in the process of being seen as opposite of Nixon in his quest for transparency......

So is it because of Bush? To a degree, but certainly not in totality.

Which is why a part of me fears Obama. If Obama fails, I truly worry for the future of this country. A failure from Obama would make the people more cynical of the President than possibly ever in the history of this country.

 

[Kelly]

Which is why a part of me fears Obama. If Obama fails, I truly worry for the future of this country. A failure from Obama would make the people more cynical of the President than possibly ever in the history of this country.

I totally agree with this....


That is part of what I had in mind yesterday when I posted about people NOT putting him up on a pedistal.

BUT, I think he understands this, and that is why almost every speech this week has had the underlying focus that what he needs to do will take years not months.....I have a feeling we will hear this again tomorrow in his speech.....

 

[BestGirl]

Which is why a part of me fears Obama. If Obama fails, I truly worry for the future of this country. A failure from Obama would make the people more cynical of the President than possibly ever in the history of this country.

It depends on the kind of failure. If he doesn't get the economy turned around or he has some minor scandals people will just deal with that. If he fails on a personal level like Clinton or engages in disastrously bad policy like Bush that could be a real problem.