Oh no he didn't!

#26
#26
"I've been reading, you know, a lot about Abraham Lincoln during my presidency and there's some pretty harsh discord when it came to the 16th president, just like there's been harsh discord for the 43rd president," he said.
Click to expand...

Oh the humanity!
 
#28
#28
volinbham said:
"I've been reading, you know, a lot about Abraham Lincoln during my presidency and there's some pretty harsh discord when it came to the 16th president, just like there's been harsh discord for the 43rd president," he said.
Click to expand...
Oh the humanity!
Click to expand...

So I guess the real answer to this thread is that he actually didn't? And for someone claiming Drudge's headlines are misleading....
 
#29
#29
BigPapaVol said:
you need to thing through this a bit. Carter left nothing that might turn out positively for him. Bush left the biggest decision of his presidency out there unanswered. The Middle East situation changes any degree to the positive and his move in Iraq makes Obama's we're leaving Iraq immediately platform look a little retarded.

Just so we understand one another, being in the bottom 5 of MSNBC's list hardly qualifies.
Click to expand...

I know where you are coming from, and I simply disagree. The entire situation in the Middle East is yet another one of his blunders and is just another mess that he has left that someone else is going to have to come in and attempt to clean up. The biggest difference between Bush and Carter (other than the obvious party affiliations) is that Bush had twice as long to screw things up.

I don't get your reference to MSNBC at all, though. No one in their right mind is going to base their opinions off of some biased news network, right FoxNews viewers?
 
#30
#30
Sabanocchio said:
I know where you are coming from, and I simply disagree. The entire situation in the Middle East is yet another one of his blunders and is just another mess that he has left that someone else is going to have to come in and attempt to clean up. The biggest difference between Bush and Carter (other than the obvious party affiliations) is that Bush had twice as long to screw things up.

I don't get your reference to MSNBC at all, though. No one in their right mind is going to base their opinions off of some biased news network, right FoxNews viewers?
Click to expand...

Someone please explain this mythical notion that every one watches Foxnews and believes every word that comes out of their mouths....

Honestly.....

:dunno:
 
#31
#31
Sabanocchio said:
I know where you are coming from, and I simply disagree. The entire situation in the Middle East is yet another one of his blunders and is just another mess that he has left that someone else is going to have to come in and attempt to clean up.
Click to expand...
but you're talking opinion. There was no doubt that Carter gave away the Panama Canal, left us with the highest inflation / interest rates in our history (with no move made to stem that tide), was a complete pansy wrt international affairs (especially the Iran hostage situation) and had given the Russians reason to believe that they might win the cold war. Nothing on that list was open ended. Bush's list of open ended items is relatively substantial. Foremost on that list is the war in Iraq. Next would be the bailout plan, for which Obama is likely to take 100% credit.
 
#32
#32
BigPapaVol said:
but you're talking opinion. There was no doubt that Carter gave away the Panama Canal, left us with the highest inflation / interest rates in our history (with no move made to stem that tide), was a complete pansy wrt international affairs (especially the Iran hostage situation) and had given the Russians reason to believe that they might win the cold war. Nothing on that list was open ended. Bush's list of open ended items is relatively substantial. Foremost on that list is the war in Iraq. Next would be the bailout plan, for which Obama is likely to take 100% credit.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm talking opinion. The whole gist of what I was saying is that history will not look as kindly on Bush as his supporters would like you to believe. That obviously hasn't come to pass yet, so how can it be anything other than an opinion? It's based on observations and what has happened historically, but it is most certainly an opinion.
 
#33
#33
Sabanocchio said:
Of course I'm talking opinion. The whole gist of what I was saying is that history will not look as kindly on Bush as his supporters would like you to believe. That obviously hasn't come to pass yet, so how can it be anything other than an opinion? It's based on observations and what has happened historically, but it is most certainly an opinion.
Click to expand...
I'll assure you that I'm no Bush supporter, but I do believe that he has a very good chance of being viewed reasonably by history, if only because of the strategic importance of the Iraq decision.
 
#34
#34
BigPapaVol said:
I'll assure you that I'm no Bush supporter, but I do believe that he has a very good chance of being viewed reasonably by history, if only because of the strategic importance of the Iraq decision.
Click to expand...

Then we shall agree to disagree. In hindsight, I think the "Iraq decision" will show to have little strategic importance in the long run.
 
#36
#36
No matter how Iraq turns out it wont look good for Bush. There is no good outcome to a war you lied about in the first place and when you took your eye off of the real enemy.
 
#37
#37
k-town_king said:
No matter how Iraq turns out it wont look good for Bush. There is no good outcome to a war you lied about in the first place and when you took your eye off of the real enemy.
Click to expand...
are you talking to me or Bush and can you remotely support your point that no good can come from our incursion into Iraq?
 
#38
#38
BigPapaVol said:
why would Iraq ever prove to be of little strategic importance?
Click to expand...

IMO a better question would be what strategic importance do you think it will have? I see it as a needless venture that cost more lives than the event that led to it's occurrence. There are more important issues that should have been focused on and that is part of Bush's downfall. I was never in support of going over there and I still think it was a blunder of epic proportions.
 
#39
#39
Sabanocchio said:
IMO a better question would be what strategic importance do you think it will have? I see it as a needless venture that cost more lives than the event that led to it's occurrence. There are more important issues that should have been focused on and that is part of Bush's downfall. I was never in support of going over there and I still think it was a blunder of epic proportions.
Click to expand...
the answer would be location, natural resources, limited democracy in full view of the world's most notorious theocracies, Intel and future intel officers, staging base, sympathetic gov't, etc.
 
#40
#40
BigPapaVol said:
the answer would be location, natural resources, limited democracy in full view of the world's most notorious theocracies, Intel and future intel officers, staging base, sympathetic gov't, etc.
Click to expand...

Some of which would be advantages, some will end up not being advantages. We will not police Iraq forever, and when we leave, no matter if it's 3 months from now or 10 years from now (of which the former is much more likely) there will be a state of turmoil and in all likelihood a civil war, which will nullify any strategic advantages we may have had.
 
#41
#41
Sabanocchio said:
Some of which would be advantages, some will end up not being advantages. We will not police Iraq forever, and when we leave, no matter if it's 3 months from now or 10 years from now (which is highly unlikely) there will be a state of turmoil and in all likelihood a civil war, which will nullify any strategic advantages we may have had.
Click to expand...
pure conjecture.
 
#43
#43
Sabanocchio said:
Obviously. Along the same vein, so are your imagined strategic advantages.
Click to expand...
the strategic advantages aren't conjecture. They are the reason we are there. If they come to fruition, the war was a success. If they don't, it's a failure.

Some have already come to pass.
 
#44
#44
Don't forget the pre-war situation. Iraq was violating UN Resolutions left and right. While no WMD were found, even dissenters in the UN fully believe he would reconstitute his WMD programs. This was becoming increasingly likely given the efforts to reduce UN sanctions - partially driven by the beneficiaries of the Oil for Food boondoggle. Iraq shot at US planes on a daily basis.

Any analysis in the future must take into account what Iraq would have been like without the action vs. what is like now. A hypothetical exercise to be sure but it's not like Iraq wasn't a BIG PROBLEM either way.
 
#45
#45
BigPapaVol said:
the strategic advantages aren't conjecture. They are the reason we are there. If they come to fruition, the war was a success. If they don't, it's a failure.

Some have already come to pass.
Click to expand...

I agree. Also, I don't see us completely abandoning any presence there anytime soon. Assuming we will leave in months or even years is probably fallacy. Have we left South Korea yet?
 
#46
#46
BigPapaVol said:
the strategic advantages aren't conjecture. They are the reason we are there. If they come to fruition, the war was a success. If they don't, it's a failure.

Some have already come to pass.
Click to expand...

They are not the reasons we are there. Or not the reasons that were sold to the American people! And the uncertainty of the outcome is the exact reason I feel we had no business going over there in the first place. Too bad, removing a threat of massive destruction couldn't be added to your list. And honestly, even if these supposed advantages were to be had, it doesn't justify the conflict in my mind. It was far too risky a venture and the outcome was far too uncertain to justify the endeavor. As they say, hindsight is 20/20 and I think most realize that we were duped into thinking we were in grave danger, when reality is far different. Now you have people like yourself buying into the BS that somehow the war has been to our benefit. I don't see how you can support a war that was entered into under false pretenses. You are trying to justify something that we should never have been placed in the position of having to justify.
 
Last edited:
#47
#47
Sabanocchio said:
They are not the reasons we are there. Or not the reasons that were sold to the American people! And the uncertainty of the outcome is the exact reason I feel we had no business going over there in the first place. Too bad, removing a threat of massive destruction couldn't be added to your list. And honestly, even if these supposed advantages were to be had, it doesn't justify the conflict in my mind. It was far too risky a venture and the outcome was far too uncertain to justify the endeavor. As they say, hindsight is 20/20 and I think most realize that we were duped into thinking we were in grave danger, when reality is far different. Now you have people like yourself buying into the BS that somehow the war has been to our benefit. I don't see how you can support a war that was entered into under false pretenses. You are trying to justify something that we should never have been placed in the position of having to justify.
Click to expand...
if you think curtailing the threat of massive destruction isn't on the list, you have no business in the conversation. Same ending if you were duped into believing we were in grave danger.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm telling you that all of this was a part of the strategic decision to go to Iraq. The WMD drivel was simply the final nail in the coffin.
 
#48
#48
BigPapaVol said:
if you think curtailing the threat of massive destruction isn't on the list, you have no business in the conversation. Same ending if you were duped into believing we were in grave danger.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm telling you that all of this was a part of the strategic decision to go to Iraq. The WMD drivel was simply the final nail in the coffin.
Click to expand...

And if you do, then I would rather argue with a brick wall. I can understand how some could have bought that up front, it was a pretty convincing argument, albeit a complete lie, but if you still hold to the belief that lives in America were saved by the conflict, then I feel for you.

Whether that was part of the decision to invade Iraq or not, the fact is, that was not the reason the American people were led to believe we were going over there.
That, in and of itself, is reason for outrage.
 
#49
#49
We have pulled out over 750 tons of yellow cake from Iraq.

We have been transporting and storing it in Northern Canada.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top