He took action. Firm, decisive action. He implemented extensive security measures to protect the country internally; he stated to the world that we were henceforth at war with terrorism (Muslim or otherwise); he implemented, with the cooperation of many other countries around the world, efforts to hamper terrorists’ funding and ability to move money and assets around; he toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan; and demanded than Hussein take his shithead sons and leave Iraq, as he/they couldn’t be trusted to live up to the inspections that were agreed to as part of the Gulf War’s resolution. Hussein refused to leave, and he was too great a risk to remain, so he was toppled.
And on preview, I see that the gang of usual suspects has begun to assemble and that the predicted hue and cry has begun…so, given that I have other things to do today than argue with twenty people at once, I’ll bow out now and leave you all to your various rantings.
There’s a difference between ‘big whoop’ and ‘big woo,’ subtle though the distinction may appear. The former is more like something a middle-age Jewish lady, ala Mike Myers, would say; whereas the latter is more like something a sophomore in high school would say.
Not that I’m making any accusations, mind you…you know, this not being the Pit and all.
The 9/11 commission realized it was not good enough, and then the full recommendations by the 9/11 commission were not implemented.
Up to here he was OK, putting a lie on the idea that we can not find anything good with dubya.
There were reports that Hussein and sons offered and were negotiating to leave into exile, there was a chance to set up a Haiti maneuver, Bush refused to consider it, but in context it was too late, like Rufus T Firefly in Duck Soup:
See ya, you are taking yourself too seriously when you assume one is replying just for you, I reply so others can read and see for themselves how incomplete is the information the right gets.
Baloney. I’m in high school, and many of my friends say ‘big whoop’ in appropriate situations. I have never heard anyone say ‘big whoo’, nor had I heard of the phrase itself before this thread.
You really believe you could’ve been a better president than Bush? People are consistently underestimating how “hard” it is to be the president of the United States. I think there is no way we can sit here and imagine what its like to be the president and get a good realization of what that job is like.
Regarding Bush, that IMO makes it worse. Sure it is hard, so hard that one needed to have and administration that under political pressure could not have risked to blow the cover of several intelligence efforts. The administration has shown that it is preferable to risk long term intelligence efforts in exchange of quick political gain.
If you think I’m only talking about the Plame affair you are mistaken:
Can I ask what you mean by “mostly,” rather than “completely?” He had no weapons, he had no Al Qaeda ties, he had no 45-minute strike capability, blah blah blah.
I don’t care what his personality is like on a one-on-one basis; his personal skills are supposed to be extraordinary. Or at least they once were. I think way too much attention is paid to what people are like in politics, and not enough to what they do. Maybe Bush is a very nice guy who has done some terrible things in office, maybe he’s an ogre who’s done terrible things in office. I can’t say I give a damn which is which.
History didn’t force Bush to invade Iraq, although I do think anybody would have been required to go into Afghanistan. It was something he wanted to do, and he did it with little attention paid to what the consequences might be.
When twenty people are all pointing out the errors you’re making, you can listen and maybe consider the possibility that you’re the one who’s wrong. Or you can just ignore anyone who isn’t saying what you want to hear. Just ask yourself, “What Would George Do?”
Well I never voted for him at all. But he had Karl Rove who used a lot of dirty tricks to smear Bush’s opponents. I think there are a lot of people who saw Bush for what he was, and that’s why the election was so close, but there were enough people who are basically like you, who “aren’t really big into politics”. These people are ignorant enough that they fell for these tricks, and believed that Bush was o.k.
Some of the mistakes people made in their voting decisions, in my opinion:
Equated Bush’s bluster and aggressive, ill-conceived foreign policy as being “tough on the terrorists”, when in reality, he’s made the problem of terrorism worse.
Mistook Bush’s Texas-drawl and “good ole’ boy” demeanor as being the characteristics of a “guy they’d like to have a beer with”.
Thought that being “a guy they’d like to have a beer with” was a good quality for a U.S. president to have.
Were impressed with Bush being a born-again Christian and his talk about removing the seperation of church and state, and thought that was the right direction for our country.
Were completely uncritical of smears against Bush’s opponents, and believing any bad thing said about Bush’s opponents, whether true or not.
No. He said that, and you believed it, because you haven’t bothered to educate yourself about the issue. There actually was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. For a long time, Bush said there was, but the evidence was so overwhelmingly contrary to that assertion, that Bush finally admitted, years later, that there never was a connection. And Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. Al Qaeda is more involved in Iraq as a result of Bush’s war than they ever were before it.
Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., and the invasion has made the global terrorism problem much, much worse.
Or I could consider that I’m on a board dominated by a small but very vocal coterie of hardcore lefties that routinely reviles anything Bush says or does…which is what I do.
If you may recall, Bush garnered around 50% in both elections in which he ran for president, and his/my team only lost the last election as a result of 5 or 6 people out of each hundred voters changing their votes.
It is in no way accurate to hold that “everyone hates” Bush, as everyone clearly does not. I hold no illusions that I’m going to prove to any of my adversaries here that they are wrong; I’m merely speaking to the OP in order to illustrate that he/she should not be misled by the rabid anti-Bushism that goes on around here. The fact that twenty people here may claim I’m wrong in no way whatsoever serves as any sort of indicator as to whether or not I actually am.
)