And the invasion of Iraq was the excuse the opposition had been looking for to begin attack Bush, who had previously been unassailable. Instead of uniting behind the President and presenting a united front to the world and letting everyone know terrorism, and the support of terrorism, wasn’t going to be tolerated, they deviously began to turn the Iraq war into the focus of their determination to unseat Bush, which may or may not succeed…and to present to the world an equivocating United States, where, if you don’t like what it’s doing, just call it a bunch of names and wait for the pandering opposition to give you what you want come the next election.
What do you want? The Dems were going to run somebody this year, it’s traditional – you know, like Dole in '96. And they were going to use any crimes or mistakes Bush made against him – that’s both traditional and legitimate. And the Iraq war was both a crime and a mistake. Q.E.D.
rog, rog, rog…tsk, tsk, tsk. It’s a good thing I already know what a good guy you are. Here, have a glass of my best Port while we discuss more congenial subjects…like uh, what do you think of Elton John?
I give up. You’re refusing to admit what doesn’t match your partisan goals.
Lots of protests against Afghanistan? Sure, and lots of people think Elvis is alive. Worldwide opinion on the whole did NOT oppose the Afghanistan war; most supported it. It was Iraq that caused the world to turn against Bush en masse. You know this damned well, Sam.
Iraq was making terrorist attacks against the US?
Oh, stop it. You as well as I do that’s not why we’re there.
Bush never showed the least interest in following through on his “uniter not divider” crap. Neither before 9/11 nor after. He never made even a miniscule attempt to “work both sides of aisle.” Reagan was hated by a minority, but he had high approval ratings and broad personal appeal. There were a lot of democrats who voted for him. Remember how many states went for Mondale in 1984??? Look here. Bush cannot even dream of having such broad support.
Reaganwas far, far more reasonable and capable of compromise with the Democrats than Bush has showed any sign of being. I’m not even talking about WoT stuff; Bush’s domestic policies are so far to the right of Reagan it’s truly frightening.
As far as I can tell, Bush also never showed the least interest in trying to understand, much less represent, the states or people who did not vote for him. He shows an intolerance of dissent, and obsession with secrecy, and a degree of isolation from controversial opinions that was not characteristic of Reagan at all. Reagan’s skill at diplomacy, and the strength of his State Department, were far greater than that of the Bush administration. Bush’s emasculation of the State Department–in history the strongest cabinet position in the executive branch–is a disgrace.
Reagan was also capable of realizing mistakes, admitting them, and changing policy to account for them. This needless to say is far different from Bush.
You compare Bush to Reagan, and Bush’s shittiness as a president is entirely apparent. He was handed an nearly 90% approval rating on a silver platter after 9/11. His divisive, foolhardy policies squandared all of it. He should be cruising to an easy reelection. If you think the Iraq War was just, you should hold Bush accountable for his utter failure to persuade most of our major allies and his misery at leading the county to support the war. After 9/11, he was given a ton of support and trust from both sides for free. He abused both.
Tough choices? If Iraq was a “tough choice” for Bush, he sure disguised it well. That plans for invading Iraq were well afoot before 9/11 belies the notion that it was either tough, or that it had anything whatever to do with the so-called War on Terror. His priorities were to recover oil fields for U.S. companies, not even to locate WMDs or to secure waste dumps and explosive depots. his naivete about how easy it was going to be, how we were going to be greeted as “liberators,” how it was not going to become a quagmire, was the purest delusion imaginable.
Reagan had his delusions, but none so disastrous.
Reagan never had to isolate himself from people on the other political side. He didn’t arrange every campaign rally to make sure only confirmed party loyalists were in attendance. He didn’t bristle with rage during debates, when he had to confront someone who disagreed with him.
No administration as secretive, mendacious, and divisive as Bush II’s deserves to be reelected. Period.
:mad:
But YOU wrote:
“Instead of uniting behind the President and presenting a united front to the world and letting everyone know terrorism, and the support of terrorism, wasn’t going to be tolerated, they deviously began to turn the Iraq war into the focus of their determination to unseat Bush, which may or may not succeed…”
I completely respect and believe that I understand the point you are trying to make here, but would you therefore support Dr Mengele’s point of vis a vis George W. Bush’s?
Okay, that might be a little harsh, but I think that you are stating in absolute terms something that requires a little more mitigation. I mean, I don’t think that W. opposes scientific research, he opposes research that requires the creation of human life (zygotic or otherwise) for the sole purpose of it’s destruction. Whether this mass of cells provides others with valuable scientific research is a matter for another discussion, but the fact that Bush opposes this practice is - in my opinion - should be given some respect. I mean, it seems wholly reasonable that thoughtful, educated people might disagree with this means of collecting scientific research.
Enough with the hyperbole already.
As Dennis Miller put it vis a vis poor Walter Mondale, “I almost tied him, and I didn’t even run.”
Yes, I did. Your point?
It’s hard to disagree with a “fact.” While there will always be “protests” against any and all wars all over the world, the fact remains that the “international community,” and in particular, international governments, were overwhelmingly supportive of the United States’ efforts in Afghanistan. And that support remains pretty damn solid, even up to and including today…
For goodness sakes, even France – yes, France!, is in Afghanistan as part of the “coalition of the willing.”
I should know better, but what the hell…
Bush was always assailable on his record alone. The man has been a boldfaced liar since he intentionally lied to the faces of the American public and claimed he supported a “Patients Bill of Rights” as the Governor of Texas and that he would fight for the same if elected President. The audacity was stunning (since it was an easily proveable pile of crap), but even moreso because the media you claim was so “negative” about Bush, didn’t even bother to call him on it!
This is a man who thinks it’s A-Ok to withhold pertinent information from Congress, and threaten the job of someone who could expose the truth (the Medicare scandal), who declared himself immune from abiding by Geneva Conventions (what arrogance!) and who has spent the last 3+ years pissing on the environment. His economic policies are utter garbage, he’s the first President who’s actually trying to write hate language into our Constitution and he continually flips the bird to the concept of Separation of Church and State, either funding or un-funding programs based on his personal religious beliefs.
I don’t need to invent an “excuse” to think he is not, in fact, a “good man,” and to pray for the day when he’s no longer in a position to be able to strip people of their constitutional rights; destroy our land, air and water; make the U.S. a pariah in the world and most importanly, inspire loathing for America and Americans in the very people he’s supposedly trying to “win over” to his idea of democracy, actually creating more terrorists than he’s ridding us of and making this a more dangerous world for all of us to live in – he’s handed me all the reasons I could possibly need on a silver platter.
Here’s and editorial that summarizes my thoughts quite well. It’s a site that requires registration. He’s a snippet:
Precisely.
If Bush couldn’t lead the country well enough to support his war, it’s his own damn fault. If he were a better leader, and made better decisions, his presidency wouldn’ tbe hanging by a thread.
The point is, the way you stated your case implies that the Iraq war was part of the war on terrorism; and it wasn’t, as you admit.
Hardly!
And I didn’t imply the Iraq war was part of the war on terrorism; I said it clearly, I thought.
The disconnect here seems to be whether in order to be considered a terror enemy of the U.S., one must be in the act of physically assaulting the country. This is nonsense. I said Iraq was part of the war on terror; I didn’t say Iraq was attacking us, as rfgdxm’s post implied. Clearly, one can be an enemy of the U.S. in the war on terror, and one can be a threat to the safety and security of the U.S. and its citizens, without actually attacking us themselves. I’m surprised I have to explain this.
Perhaps you could explain it further, then. If Iraq is an “enemy” in a “war,” what military actions were they committing against the United States? That’s what enemies in war do.
I disagree. If this country wasn’t set up to have adversarial parties attempting to govern it (which was the intent of the founding fathers, and, I realize, a good thing, overall), and if we weren’t in the midst of a cultural civil war between liberals and conservatives, and if we didn’t have a pervasive electronic media such has never been seen before feeding it, his presidency wouldn’t be hanging by a thread.
But even in those terms, prewar Iraq was not a threat to the United States.
Oh, boy! I get to use a Reaganism: “See, there you go again.”
Kindly point me to where it’s written that military actions are the singular defining element in determining whether another country is a terrorist threat.
You and BrainGlutton are setting up your own parameters as to what defines an enemy and then demanding that I defend my POV based upon your own self-serving definitions. Sorry, not gonna do it…not at this time…wouldn’t be prudent…etc., etc.
But neither are you making a credible case that Iraq presented a threat to America under your own self-serving definitions. And you can’t, because it didn’t, even by the terms you have laid out.