Carter: Bush's Impact 'Worst in History'

#76
#76
allvol123 said:
They do? Exactly what do they tell since you know more about my views than I do. Supposedly.
Click to expand...

They tell me that you are part of 28-33% that refuse to accept that Bush is a complete failure but don't fret you may wake up one day.​
 
#77
#77
Well as usual you showed nothing to back up your claim. You are consistent if nothing else. And you are in the whatever % of people that walk around blaiming your miserable life on one man.
 
#78
#78
On many occasions I've read some of your posts accusing the Democrats of not having balls. Now one speaks up and it's total outrage.

Let's forget about who said what for a minute and let's focus on the Bush administration's foreign policy and how we're viewed by other countries now. Someone step up to the plate and explain to us how Bush and his administration have helped our foreign policy and / or why you believe they have done an outstanding job with it.
 
#79
#79
I have never said he has done an outstanding job with f/p. But I have been accused of being a Bush fan, which I am not. But I am also not on the "disaster" side that constantly complains about how terrible things are for the US. They don't look so terrible from where I sit. So things must not be that much of a disaster.
 
#80
#80
DAVOL said:

A complete and total disaster at FEMA​
Click to expand...


I didn't realize that it was the governments job to put the weather machine on "pause" so everyone could get out of the Katrina affected areas safely, nor did i realize that it was the governments job to realize that said weather machine would cause unprecedented damage on the gulf coast, and that they should have been prepared months in advance for the natural disaster that was going to strike that region.​
 
#81
#81
The Liberal "Poor Response to Katrina" is what pisses me, as an independant, off...they look for a way to stick it to Bush and the GOP as a whole, whether it is deserved or not
 
#82
#82
JTrainDavis said:
The Liberal "Poor Response to Katrina" is what pisses me, as an independant, off...they look for a way to stick it to Bush and the GOP as a whole, whether it is deserved or not
Click to expand...
????? The current administration , in it's boycott of Kyoto actually were the leading cause of Katrina, or even purposefully initiated the storm. Adding insult to injury, this administration did absolutely nothing about the disaster to rub in the faces of the indigent people (funny how loads ended up on the gov't dole in Houston, Galveston and everywhere) who were unable to escape the storm and its aftermath. This was clearly the move of a ruling elite shoving his power in the face of those with the least power because he could. Finally, just starting the storm was bigotry at its worst.
 
#83
#83
allvol123 said:
How were you duped in the first place?
Click to expand...

The same way millions of other Americans were - by telling me a foreign regime posed imminent threat when it didn't, and therefore leading me to support military intervention to eliminate a threat that didn't exist.
 
#84
#84
I just wish that Carter had not backed down. IMO, things are so bad at this point that the usual decorum of a former president not criticizing a sitting one has to go.

I refer in this regard to the Iraq War. I don't blame Bush for Katrina response, or things of that sort. But, he is in charge of this Iraq debacle and, even though I am convinced he ultimately trusted the judgment of the agenda-driven around him in invading Iraq to begin with, his refusal to see that the situation is beyond saving is just blind arrogance.

And its costing lives and billions of dollars. His refusal to admit making a mistake in trusting the advisors is making a lot of people pay very dearly for his poor judgment.

I got no proboem with Carter saying so.
 
#85
#85
wbarron said:
The same way millions of other Americans were - by telling me a foreign regime posed imminent threat when it didn't, and therefore leading me to support military intervention to eliminate a threat that didn't exist.
Click to expand...

Yes. I see. So the madman of Iraq posed no threat, wonder what the Kurds think of that statement? Either he was a threat or he wasn't, killing on the scale that he did, seems like a threat to me. I have no problem with him being brought down.
 
#86
#86
allvol123 said:
Yes. I see. So the madman of Iraq posed no threat, wonder what the Kurds think of that statement? Either he was a threat or he wasn't, killing on the scale that he did, seems like a threat to me. I have no problem with him being brought down.
Click to expand...

Posed no imminent threat to the security of the United States, yes. And we were told he did. And we trusted our leaders. And I won't trust this administration again, b/c that's a mistake that, in my opinion, is not forgivable. You don't go to war with anything less than 100% certainty that it's a just cause.

But are you saying you would've supported going to war to protect the Kurds? If so, you and I have very different views on the role of the military. And I would suspect, if that's true, that you are currently pushing for the government to intervene in several other countries where madmen are oppressing people (arguably to a much greater extent than was Saddam).
 
#87
#87
I am for our military going anywhere they feel there are terrorists being harbored and trained. I don't really care for nation building but am not upset with us being in Iraq if we are fighting a pro-active aggresive fight. You never get 100% certainty, 100% certain on what? What do you need to be 100% certain on? If some Iranians bomb some US buildings but the Iranian government tells you they were rogue operators, is that going to be 100% proof enough for you that Iran had nothing to do with it? You feel how the media tells you to feel.
 
#88
#88
I would just point out that the WH said repeatedly the threat was NOT imminent but they wanted to act before it was imminent.

We can disagree about the plan and it's motivation but let's at least work from the same set of facts.
 
#89
#89
lawgator1 said:
I just wish that Carter had not backed down. IMO, things are so bad at this point that the usual decorum of a former president not criticizing a sitting one has to go.

I refer in this regard to the Iraq War. I don't blame Bush for Katrina response, or things of that sort. But, he is in charge of this Iraq debacle and, even though I am convinced he ultimately trusted the judgment of the agenda-driven around him in invading Iraq to begin with, his refusal to see that the situation is beyond saving is just blind arrogance.

And its costing lives and billions of dollars. His refusal to admit making a mistake in trusting the advisors is making a lot of people pay very dearly for his poor judgment.

I got no proboem with Carter saying so.
Click to expand...
I've got no problem with Carter believing it, I just have a problem with him, a former President, stating it in such a public way. It does nothing to help the situation, but does hurt our already suffering image.
 
#90
#90
OWB said:
On many occasions I've read some of your posts accusing the Democrats of not having balls. Now one speaks up and it's total outrage.

Let's forget about who said what for a minute and let's focus on the Bush administration's foreign policy and how we're viewed by other countries now. Someone step up to the plate and explain to us how Bush and his administration have helped our foreign policy and / or why you believe they have done an outstanding job with it.
Click to expand...

Still waiting..
 
#93
#93
volinbham said:
I would just point out that the WH said repeatedly the threat was NOT imminent but they wanted to act before it was imminent.

We can disagree about the plan and it's motivation but let's at least work from the same set of facts.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting your information? I'm getting my information from the White House.

In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat

You know what? Let's work from the same set of facts and assume that the WH never said the threat was "imminent." Okay. Even then, by going to war, the WH told us the threat was serious enough that we had to take care of it then, that war was the only option, even if we'd go without the help of many of our allies.

They were wrong. They were really wrong. It was a huge mistake. We're paying for it, and we'll continue paying for it for a long, long time. And it has nothing to do with strategy or planning or any of that crap. It has to do with the reason for going in the first place. Had Saddam truly been the threat they told us he was, we'd have had the world behind us, we'd have support from the muslim world, and most important, we'd have the support of American citizens.
 
#95
#95
I'll dig up the quotes which specifically say it's not imminent. No one denies Iraq was a threat. Look at the quotes from all the Dems prior to and during the same time period - it reads just like the list the CAP produced.

The debate did not center on the threat (not imminent but the threat) of Iraq but rather the solution to that threat.

They were wrong about the WMD. The reason for going was to attempt to stabilize the region and prevent both Iraq in the near term and the region in the long term from being an imminent threat. It was a strategic decision that proved to be wrong given the circumstances.
 
#97
#97
volinbham said:
I'll dig up the quotes which specifically say it's not imminent. No one denies Iraq was a threat. Look at the quotes from all the Dems prior to and during the same time period - it reads just like the list the CAP produced.

The debate did not center on the threat (not imminent but the threat) of Iraq but rather the solution to that threat.

They were wrong about the WMD. The reason for going was to attempt to stabilize the region and prevent both Iraq in the near term and the region in the long term from being an imminent threat. It was a strategic decision that proved to be wrong given the circumstances.
Click to expand...

1) Would love to see those quotes.
2) I don't care what the Dems said - it was the WH's decision to push to go to war.
3) The debate always was about WMD - that was the entire debate, and to pretend otherwise is revisionist history at best and delusion at worst.
4) The reason for going might have been to stabilize the region, but that wasn't the reason given to us. It was that Saddam has WMD and we have to prevent him from using them, mainly against us.
 
#98
#98
allvol123 said:
I am for our military going anywhere they feel there are terrorists being harbored and trained. I don't really care for nation building but am not upset with us being in Iraq if we are fighting a pro-active aggresive fight. You never get 100% certainty, 100% certain on what? What do you need to be 100% certain on? If some Iranians bomb some US buildings but the Iranian government tells you they were rogue operators, is that going to be 100% proof enough for you that Iran had nothing to do with it? You feel how the media tells you to feel.
Click to expand...

1) When were we ever told there were terrorists in Iraq before we went there? We weren't.
2) When you're about to guarantee that American troops will die and that you will spend billions of dollars, you get 100% certainty that the reason you're going to war (WMDs) is accurate.
3) What exactly do you mean by "You feel how the media tells you to feel"? Are you speaking personally to me? That's interesting, b/c I used to be a member of the media, and my wife currently is, so I guess in a way you're correct.
 
#100
#100
wbarron said:
1) When were we ever told there were terrorists in Iraq before we went there? We weren't.
2) When you're about to guarantee that American troops will die and that you will spend billions of dollars, you get 100% certainty that the reason you're going to war (WMDs) is accurate.
3) What exactly do you mean by "You feel how the media tells you to feel"? Are you speaking personally to me? That's interesting, b/c I used to be a member of the media, and my wife currently is, so I guess in a way you're correct.
Click to expand...

Who cares if we were told, a 5 year old could see there was and is.

You will never get 100% certainly on something like this, if that was the case, then it wouldn't really take a decision. Now would it?

I am still amused at how hung up people are on WMD's. Tell me again how the mass graves in Iraq were formed?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top