Was George W Bush a POS as President?

[FaninAma]

Why yes he was. A veritable sheep in wolf's clothing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/30/Who-is-Not-to-Trust-Why-Ted-Cruz-is-Right

And why I am no longer a Republican.

[SicEmBaylor]

Why yes he was. A veritable sheep in wolf's clothing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/30/Who-is-Not-to-Trust-Why-Ted-Cruz-is-Right

And why I am no longer a Republican.

Absolutely, correct. Bush was absolutely no conservative.

1)He further expanded the role of the Federal government in public education (unconstitutional).
2)He siphoned Federal tax dollars into select private charities (unconstitutional).
3)His deficits were absolutely outrageous.
4)The bank bailouts were unconstitutional and a form of socialism.
5)He created one of the most massive expansions of an entitlement program since the Great Society and threatened legitimate limited-government conservatives in Congress with primary opponents or a loss of committee assignment if they didn't go along with it.
6)He nationalized airport security.
7)He created a plethora of new government agencies in the name of 9/11 that do little to enhance our security but add a hell of a lot more Federal bureaucracy on top of what already existed.
8)He violated our civil liberties with the Patriot Act
9)He started an utterly unnecessary war.
10)His neoconservative views on foreign policy increased American power abroad resulting in a drastic decrease in domestic stability.

Bush was an absolute disaster for the country, for legitimate conservatism, and for the Republican Party.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

He was bad enough that the only thing worse was electing an actual democrat as pres., after already going brain dead and electing a democrat congress.

[SicEmBaylor]

He was bad enough that the only thing worse was electing an actual democrat as pres., after already going brain dead and electing a democrat congress.
On policy, the difference between the two is one of degree rather than actual policy difference (generally speaking). Obama just compounded by 2/3x the same failed policies of the Bush administration.

The real noticeable difference between Bush and Obama is personality. Bush is a good man who treated the office with class and dignity despite the fact that he was horribly horribly wrong in how he governed. The contrast between Bush and Obama when it comes to their personal character is stark -- Bush beats Obama by a mile.

[SoonerorLater]

No as it turns out Bush was a pretty bad president by whatever metric you choose. He created sort of "The Great Society" for well connected insiders. Under his watch the DHS was established creating an albatross for the American people to carry most likely forever. Got us involved in conflicts that no good will ever come from. Of course the alternative was Al Gore.

[cleller]

When he came out during the primaries with the smears, mud and low blows vs McCain; then called him "a buddy" I knew something was wrong. Not only did it violate the Reagan era "11th Commadment":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eleventh_Commandment_(Ronald_Reagan)

It also struck me as unforgivable, given McCain's background.

I know, not really much of an examination of his term in office.

[SicEmBaylor]

When he came out during the primaries with the smears, mud and low blows vs McCain; then called him "a buddy" I knew something was wrong. Not only did it violate the Reagan era "11th Commadment":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eleventh_Commandment_(Ronald_Reagan)

It also struck me as unforgivable, given McCain's background.

I know, not really much of an examination of his term in office.

McCain is one of the most dangerous politicians in America. While I don't condone the Rove-attack against his character during the SC Primary, I certainly believe that almost anything that keeps him out of elected office is justified. McCain is a certifiable lunatic.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

No child left behind. A bureaucrat's wet dream.

[rock on sooner]

This must be a trap for left of center....

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

On policy, the difference between the two is one of degree rather than actual policy difference (generally speaking). Obama just compounded by 2/3x the same failed policies of the Bush administration.

The real noticeable difference between Bush and Obama is personality. Bush is a good man who treated the office with class and dignity despite the fact that he was horribly horribly wrong in how he governed. The contrast between Bush and Obama when it comes to their personal character is stark -- Bush beats Obama by a mile.Bush just wasn't a principled conservative. Obama, however, IS a principled Socialist/Marxist.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

McCain is one of the most dangerous politicians in America. While I don't condone the Rove-attack against his character during the SC Primary, I certainly believe that almost anything that keeps him out of elected office is justified. McCain is a certifiable lunatic.
Unfortunately, the full-blown attack on America we get with the democrats is actually worse than McCain's whatever the heck he is.

[SicEmBaylor]

Unfortunately, the full-blown attack on America we get with the democrats is actually worse than McCain's whatever the heck he is.

No. No it isn't. McCain would have us at war with the entire mid-east with a DOD budget that would have caused an economic collapse by now. Not to mention the fact that his temperament is wholly unsuited to be President. McCain would have been every bit as bad as Obama except the ****tiness would have been shifted a degree or two to the right. Big f'n deal -- neither of them have any business being in high office.

[TitoMorelli]

No as it turns out Bush was a pretty bad president by whatever metric you choose. He created sort of "The Great Society" for well connected insiders. Under his watch the DHS was established creating an albatross for the American people to carry most likely forever. Got us involved in conflicts that no good will ever come from. Of course the alternative was Al Gore.

Not true. Most Oklahoma counties had a DHS office long before Bush was elected.



;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No. No it isn't. McCain would have us at war with the entire mid-east with a DOD budget that would have caused an economic collapse by now. Not to mention the fact that his temperament is wholly unsuited to be President. McCain would have been every bit as bad as Obama except the ****tiness would have been shifted a degree or two to the right. Big f'n deal -- neither of them have any business being in high office.I think going down the crapper to authoritarian socialism is about as bad a route as we could travel. IOW disagreement on mcCain being as bad as obear, or even Hillry, Gore or Kerry for that matter.

Bottom line is i don't see the point in coming after W or even McCain, when you or Ama or any conservative could be piling on Obeary, with hopes that democrats be kept the heck away from political(ultimate)power.

[SicEmBaylor]

I think going down the crapper to authoritarian socialism is about as bad a route as we could travel. IOW disagreement on mcCain being as bad as obear, or even Hillry, Gore or Kerry for that matter.
McCain is every bit an authoritarian socialist that Obama is. The only difference is that Obama is a left-wing authoritarian socialist while McCain is a right-wing authoritarian socialist. Why or how one of those is seemingly better than the other to you is beyond my ability comprehend.


Bottom line is i don't see the point in coming after W or even McCain, when you or Ama or any conservative could be piling on Obeary, with hopes that democrats be kept the heck away from political(ultimate)power.

Well, because there are millions and millions of GOP party hacks and cheerleaders out there who already do that. Adding our voices to the chorus adds nothing; however, there need to be conservatives willing to point out the hypocrisy on our own side and willing to call out those who do not represent the true voice of conservatism.

[SoonerProphet]

yep, all pieces of ****. we just had comey appointed as the head g-man, mcain hangin with salafist cut throats, and a push to get a road named after w while raising my toll costs. meet the new boss. and don't be fooled into thinking cruz wouldn't use the long arm to do his biding either.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Bush did a LOT of things that I disagreed with, but he still showed a great deal of dignity and respect to the office (the biggest thing was that he didn't spend his entire presidency slamming his predecessor for ****), and I respect him for that.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

McCain is every bit an authoritarian socialist that Obama is. The only difference is that Obama is a left-wing authoritarian socialist while McCain is a right-wing authoritarian socialist. Why or how one of those is seemingly better than the other to you is beyond my ability comprehend.



Well, I think you are wrong by a mile to think McCain was/is anywhere near as bad for the country as any of the aforementioned democrats in power. They are taking the country down the commode, step by step, and are working feverishly to establish a permanent power base.

[SoonerorLater]

Well, I think you are wrong by a mile to think McCain was/is anywhere near as bad for the country as any of the aforementioned democrats in power. They are taking the country down the commode, step by step, and are working feverishly to establish a permanent power base.

This is why I would have a hard time ever supporting a Libertarian candidate. If you are truly conservative then a choice between John McCain and Obama would be an easy one though neither would be a choice of mine to be POTUS.

Neither Obama or McCain are Socialists. At least neither has run on a Socialist Platform or advocated government ownership of our means of production. (GM is a one off) Of those two Obama left to his druthers would, IMO, be the most likely to go in that direction. To me elections are about choosing the best candidate available. Campaigns are about finding the best candidates. In the case of McCain I just had to hold my nose and mark the ballot if for no other reason than McCain would have a higher probability of nominating a more palatable Supreme Court Justice.

[rock on sooner]

Don't usually agree with SicEm much but his pegging of McCain is
pretty much right. Remember that McCain wanted to bomb Iran...
still does...wants us to enforce a No Fly with Syria, disregarding the
fact that Syria has decent anti aircraft capabilities plus fairly good
air forces. He really is a hawk that would have us in an almost constant
state of war and have many, many boots on the ground. At least the
resident "socialist" (your term) is trying to get us out of W's messes.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Bush just wasn't a principled conservative. Obama, however, IS a principled Socialist/Marxist.


Bingo!

[SicEmBaylor]

This is why I would have a hard time ever supporting a Libertarian candidate. If you are truly conservative then a choice between John McCain and Obama would be an easy one though neither would be a choice of mine to be POTUS.

Neither Obama or McCain are Socialists. At least neither has run on a Socialist Platform or advocated government ownership of our means of production. (GM is a one off) Of those two Obama left to his druthers would, IMO, be the most likely to go in that direction. To me elections are about choosing the best candidate available. Campaigns are about finding the best candidates. In the case of McCain I just had to hold my nose and mark the ballot if for no other reason than McCain would have a higher probability of nominating a more palatable Supreme Court Justice.

Socialism doesn't necessarily entail the nationalization of industry. Obama is very much a fabian socialist while McCain certainly sought to perpetuate America's already existing fascistic economic system.

[SoonerorLater]

Socialism doesn't necessarily entail the nationalization of industry. Obama is very much a fabian socialist while McCain certainly sought to perpetuate America's already existing fascistic economic system.


I've heard that leveled against Obama but so far his governance hasn't proved it. My opinion of him is quite a different matter. His approach is Hegelian and his political influences have come from the Marxist side of the house. No doubt in my mind that in Obama's perfect world the USA looks like a completely different place.

On the other hand is McCain really fascist? It would be hard to argue on a rational basis that we haven't morphed into a more authoritarian country with the government exerting undue influence on business and finance. Free markets are a thing of the past. Central planning via the Treasury and Fed is now status quo. McCain has generally been a supporter of what we see now that is true. Does all of this really constitute fascism? Not really IMO. Maybe call it fascist-light. Truth is the large majority in both legislative branches support an Authoritarian Welfare State. McCain is just one of those guys.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This is why I would have a hard time ever supporting a Libertarian candidate. If you are truly conservative then a choice between John McCain and Obama would be an easy one though neither would be a choice of mine to be POTUS.

Neither Obama or McCain are Socialists. At least neither has run on a Socialist Platform or advocated government ownership of our means of production. (GM is a one off) Of those two Obama left to his druthers would, IMO, be the most likely to go in that direction. To me elections are about choosing the best candidate available. Campaigns are about finding the best candidates. In the case of McCain I just had to hold my nose and mark the ballot if for no other reason than McCain would have a higher probability of nominating a more palatable Supreme Court Justice.Pretty much. As much as I realize McCain would probably do some dubious things, no way that I think he would do things as fully objectionable as Obeary has done, and now that the democrats are in full outlaw mode, I would think any of them that would come to power from here on would be likely to do the same off the chart stuff as Obear.

[C&CDean]

I believe GWB's heart was in the right place. I believe Obama is evil incarnate. I believe they both suck/sucked as POTUS. I believe that leaves us in a massive ****hole.

[IGotNoTiming]

There really is no way to say Obama is worse than Shrub....... Not even a modicum of an intelligent debate can be delivered.

#1 Bush Lied to You and because of that- thousands of Americans lost their lives in a war that wasn't just ill advised...

It was Completely ILLEGAL. Insanity at it's best.

I am sick to death of hearing how bad Obama is.... but I promise you this, he does not have the blood of Americans on his hands because of a political agenda. Iraq wasn't about our sovereignty or protecting our borders.

If you are willing to pay a bucket of blood for a barrel of oil, because that is the only rational for Iraq, then F*** You and the
Neocon Bradley you rode in on

OH and don't try and whip out your "Benghazi" tool and start whipping it against the bedpost either because that S*** to don't fly either...

US Embassy Attacks Under George Bush

Jan22, 2002 Consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002 Consulate in Karachi, 12 Killed
Feb 28, 2003 Embassy in Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30 2004 Embassy in Tashkent, 2 Killed
Dec 6, 2004 US Compound in Saudi Arabia 9 Killed
Mar 2, 2006 Karachi (AGAIN), 2 Killed
Sept 12 2006 Embassy in Syria, 4 Killed
Mar 18, 2008 Embassy in Yemen 2 Killed
July 9, 2008 Consulate in Istanbul, 6 Killed
Sept 17, 2008 Embassy in Yemen (AGAIN) 16 Killed

Total Deaths: 60
Outraged Republicans: 0


Pathetic

[SoonerStormchaser]

So going into a country where the leader was MURDERING his own people left and right was a BAD thing? And the fact that our intel (as ****ty as it was) pointed that he had WMD's...something that BOTH parties agreed to with regards to military action?

Oh, I forgot, we're only supposed to deal with nice people.

Keep Austin weird, IGNT...if that ****hole, disappeared off the planet tomorrow, I'd celebrate!

Pathetic.

[IGotNoTiming]

Woah therepartner all of the intel on WMD's came from russian intel that was highly suspect at best... they truth was was there was NO concrete evidence WHATSOEVER. Show it to me.... paste the article, cite the source... You wont find it. It doesn't exist.

Holy Sh** A dictator was killng his own? Okay buddy there is a very long list of those happening all over the globe and we did nothing about it..... period. Civil wars where millions have died, hundreds of thousands of women raped and murdered, children too....

and we did nothing about it. because there was no oil or profit margin........

Both parties were coerced by the executive branch, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld led the rhetoric and Bush came out saying either you are against us or with us. NO member of congress wanted to be perceived to be soft on terror in light of 9/11 and the adminsitration took full advantage of that.

You gotta have stronger stuff that man.....

[Midtowner]

--and as a result, China now has a great oil supplier in Iraq. American lives in exchange for oil supplies for China... win-win?

[TAFBSooner]

So going into a country where the leader was MURDERING his own people left and right was a BAD thing?

Yes, it was a "bad thing." "Killing his own people" was never the motivation for attacking Iraq. There are lots of countries around the world where the leaders murder their own people (and we don't have to look on the other side of the planet to find one, although 4 << however many Saddam killed).

At any rate, it's not our job to be the world's policeman.


And the fact that our intel (as ****ty as it was) pointed that he had WMD's...

The intel was fixed around the policy. That is an indictment of Bush the Lesser's staff, moreso than him, although he had the bad judgement to select Cheny to find him a VP, and then to hire the fine fellow that Cheney recommended.


something that BOTH parties agreed to with regards to military action?

Everyone who voted for AUMF on Iraq has blood on their hands, no matter what party they claim.


Oh, I forgot, we're only supposed to deal with nice people.

We've got to deal with people as they are. It doesn't mean we get to kill them, unless they're a genuine threat to our security.


Keep Austin weird, IGNT...if that ****hole, disappeared off the planet tomorrow, I'd celebrate!

Pathetic.

[rock on sooner]

As the world's only superpower, by default, we ARE the
world's policeman. If you look at any issue in the world,
it's always "What does the U.S. think? or What will the
U.S. do?" before anyone else says or does a thing.

[IGotNoTiming]

As the world's only superpower, by default, we ARE the
world's policeman. If you look at any issue in the world,
it's always "What does the U.S. think? or What will the
U.S. do?" before anyone else says or does a thing.

You know there was one instance I can recall where our government did not lead the way through force... and it was one of the better resolved situations in modern times. I am speaking of the Bosnian conflict. That region, while not out of the woods, has remained incredibly stable since Milosovich (sp?) was removed from power. That conflict was spearheaded and run by NATO. I know, know NATO leaves a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouths but you cannot argue the strategy of cooperation that many nations engaged in to end that conflict.

[rock on sooner]

Even with that, there was the Washington Agreement, CIA reporting
of war crimes, Clinton pushing some buttons, so I'm pretty sure that
NATO consulted the U.S..

[IGotNoTiming]

Oh sure I absolutely agree but we did not lead the military operations in that campaign

[TitoMorelli]

OH and don't try and whip out your "Benghazi" tool and start whipping it against the bedpost either because that S*** to don't fly either...

US Embassy Attacks Under George Bush

Jan22, 2002 Consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002 Consulate in Karachi, 12 Killed
Feb 28, 2003 Embassy in Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30 2004 Embassy in Tashkent, 2 Killed
Dec 6, 2004 US Compound in Saudi Arabia 9 Killed
Mar 2, 2006 Karachi (AGAIN), 2 Killed
Sept 12 2006 Embassy in Syria, 4 Killed
Mar 18, 2008 Embassy in Yemen 2 Killed
July 9, 2008 Consulate in Istanbul, 6 Killed
Sept 17, 2008 Embassy in Yemen (AGAIN) 16 Killed

Total Deaths: 60
Outraged Republicans: 0


Pathetic

Just curious. After how many of the events on that list did the Bush Administration lie regarding the actual cause? After how many did he send out a spokesperson to claim that the attack was just a spontaneous demonstration brought on by a defamatory youtube video (and then reward said water-carrier by naming him/her to be National Security Advisor?

In how many of the above cases did our valiant diplomats or soldiers/marines alert the administration that an attack was in progress, only to be ignored or told to stand down, with no effort made to defend those who were being attacked?

[SCOUT]

Just curious. After how many of the events on that list did the Bush Administration lie regarding the actual cause? After how many did he send out a spokesperson to claim that the attack was just a spontaneous demonstration brought on by a defamatory youtube video (and then reward said water-carrier by naming him/her to be National Security Advisor?

In how many of the above cases did our valiant diplomats or soldiers/marines alert the administration that an attack was in progress, only to be ignored or told to stand down, with no effort made to defend those who were being attacked?
Details

[TAFBSooner]

Just curious. After how many of the events on that list did the Bush Administration lie regarding the actual cause? After how many did he send out a spokesperson to claim that the attack was just a spontaneous demonstration brought on by a defamatory youtube video (and then reward said water-carrier by naming him/her to be National Security Advisor?

In how many of the above cases did our valiant diplomats or soldiers/marines alert the administration that an attack was in progress, only to be ignored or told to stand down, with no effort made to defend those who were being attacked?

Is it about the lies, or is it about the death toll?

Lies that lead to a death toll are worse than lies after the deaths, and there CheneyCo. is the grand champion.

[TitoMorelli]

Is it about the lies, or is it about the death toll?

Lies that lead to a death toll are worse than lies after the deaths, and there CheneyCo. is the grand champion.


So if GWB lied then why didn't Democrats push for impeachment? They certainly screamed bloody murder and accused the administration of everything imaginable. And you can bet they wanted to return the favor after the Clinton impeachment. Could it be that they failed to gather evidence to support their accusations?


Of course I guess one could classify the following statement as lies, given the failure to find the arsenal we expected:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."


Then again, the above quotes are courtesy of Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, and Nancy Pelosi, respectively.

[XingTheRubicon]

So if GWB lied then why didn't Democrats push for impeachment? They certainly screamed bloody murder and accused the administration of everything imaginable. And you can bet they wanted to return the favor after the Clinton impeachment. Could it be that they failed to gather evidence to support their accusations?


Of course I guess one could classify the following statement as lies, given the failure to find the arsenal we expected:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."


Then again, the above quotes are courtesy of Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, and Nancy Pelosi, respectively.

Exactly, democrats don't seem be intellectually capable of determining the difference between bad intel (THAT EVERYONE BELIEVED AND VOTED FOR) and flat-out politically motivated lying.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Exactly, democrats don't seem be intellectually capable of determining the difference between bad intel (THAT EVERYONE BELIEVED AND VOTED FOR) and flat-out politically motivated lying.they can interpret the meaning of "R", however, and their passion then wells up from within to endeavor to bring down America's greatest enemy.

[IGotNoTiming]

From my standpoint, It is not a democrat or republican issue. The entire government failed. It was squarely on the shoulders of the administration at the time the decision was made to go to war. That just so happened to be GW. But honestly he was merely a follower led by Cheney.

Remember who authorized 680 billion in no bid contracts, (a practice which is actually against the law) for a company whose board he was a member of at one point? It's not hidden conspiracy theory it is fact.

There was a lot of money to be made in Iraq and the decision to go was based on convenient half truths to satisfy a neocon agenda.

It is only the tip of the iceberg...

[IGotNoTiming]

Even more frustrating is that our policies since WW II that gave rise to modern day Islamic fundamentalism. We created it. And now we are reaping the dividends of an enormous problem that can not be solved without war.

We installed dictators that bowed to our policies even though those policies were inherently bad for those countries. Even though those dictators stomped on their own people. We funded them and lauded them for being our allies never thinking that somebody like the Ayatollah Kohmeni would rise to power. We spend decades on our knees kissing Saudi Arabia's *** for oil even though that country is where the Wahabi school of fundamentalism was born and protected by the same royal family that is still in power.

It is pretty disgusting when you think about it.

But let's just ignore they causes of the problems because they will shed no light on how to fix them......

[C&CDean]

Even more frustrating is that our policies since WW II that gave rise to modern day Islamic fundamentalism. We created it. And now we are reaping the dividends of an enormous problem that can not be solved without war.

We installed dictators that bowed to our policies even though those policies were inherently bad for those countries. Even though those dictators stomped on their own people. We funded them and lauded them for being our allies never thinking that somebody like the Ayatollah Kohmeni would rise to power. We spend decades on our knees kissing Saudi Arabia's *** for oil even though that country is where the Wahabi school of fundamentalism was born and protected by the same royal family that is still in power.

It is pretty disgusting when you think about it.

But let's just ignore they causes of the problems because they will shed no light on how to fix them......

So, it sounds to me like we suck. WE suck. You, me, us. America. The whole ****ing POS sucks. Gotcha.

Sheez, how long does it take someone to be indoctrinated down there in Gaystin? If you honestly can't see the difference between Bush going into Iraq based on intel that EVERY****INGONE believed and voted for and Benghazi/IRS then you're a tool who ain't worth sharpening.

GWB was no Reagan, to be sure, but Obama ain't even a half-assed peanut farmer. He's continuing the destruction of America and all idiots like you wanna do is go "what about Bush?" Moron.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So, it sounds to me like we suck. WE suck. You, me, us. America. The whole ****ing POS sucks. Gotcha.

Sheez, how long does it take someone to be indoctrinated down there in Gaystin? If you honestly can't see the difference between Bush going into Iraq based on intel that EVERY****INGONE believed and voted for and Benghazi/IRS then you're a tool who ain't worth sharpening.

GWB was no Reagan, to be sure, but Obama ain't even a half-assed peanut farmer. He's continuing the destruction of America and all idiots like you wanna do is go "what about Bush?" Moron.welcome to Soonerfans IGNT. Not everyone here believes as the Leftist media you swallow. Many here don't hate the USA.

[C&CDean]

welcome to Soonerfans IGNT. Not everyone here believes as the Leftist media you swallow. Many here don't hate the USA.

But we suck. We created fundamentalist terrorism by doing something (can't remember what) to ragheads. Everything is our fault. Get on board here.

[SoonerProphet]

But we suck. We created fundamentalist terrorism by doing something (can't remember what) to ragheads. Everything is our fault. Get on board here.

Speaking of pieces of shi*t and the for those who can't remember. I give you Paul Wolofowitz.

Given his less than glorious track record vis-à-vis Iraq, one might reasonably ask Paul Wolfowitz how he discovered Dr. al-Attar. It would also be interesting to learn about the extent to which Wolfowitz checked out the backgrounds of the people he was talking to in his haste to overthrow Saddam. One might also ponder why the United States spends tens of billions of dollars on intelligence gathering if it is still necessary to assemble ad hoc and secretive groups of foreign-born residents of questionable loyalties to determine what is going on overseas. Given al-Attar’s national origin and his friends in Lebanon, it might also be intriguing to speculate whether the upper levels of the Bush administration were the gullible victims of a conspiracy orchestrated by Tehran to entice the United States into destroying the one Arab state that truly threatened the regional dominance of the Islamic Republic of Iran. That would be quite a story.]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/paul-wolfowitzs-iran-connection/

[TAFBSooner]

So, it sounds to me like we suck. WE suck. You, me, us. America. The whole ****ing POS sucks. Gotcha.

Sheez, how long does it take someone to be indoctrinated down there in Gaystin? If you honestly can't see the difference between Bush going into Iraq based on intel that EVERY****INGONE believed and voted for and Benghazi/IRS then you're a tool who ain't worth sharpening.

GWB was no Reagan, to be sure, but Obama ain't even a half-assed peanut farmer. He's continuing the destruction of America and all idiots like you wanna do is go "what about Bush?" Moron.

The government <> the country.

Being pizzed off at something, or a lot of things, that the government did is not hating our country.

And no, not everyone believed the lies that CheneyCo told to get us into Iraq.

The difference between those two things is the US death toll in Iraq was 4486 and the US death toll in Benghazi was 4.

[C&CDean]

The government <> the country.

Being pizzed off at something, or a lot of things, that the government did is not hating our country.

And no, not everyone believed the lies that CheneyCo told to get us into Iraq.

The difference between those two things is the US death toll in Iraq was 4486 and the US death toll in Benghazi was 4.

Not everyone "believed the lies?" Really? Go check who voted yea on WMD and going into Iraq. Bad intel doesn't = lies, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

Your boy Obama has more deceit, more evil, more smoke than CheneyCo (whatever the **** that is) in his pinkie fingernail. You simply choose to follow your party's line.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Not everyone "believed the lies?" Really? Go check who voted yea on WMD and going into Iraq. Bad intel doesn't = lies, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

Your boy Obama has more deceit, more evil, more smoke than CheneyCo (whatever the **** that is) in his pinkie fingernail. You simply choose to follow your party's line.They keep listening to and watching the democrat media, and for some erroneous reason(s) believe they are honest, accurate and thorough.

[olevetonahill]

5 years into Obammys presidency and the little Ghey fags of the Dems are still crying " It's Bushes Fault"

[FirstandGoal]

So, it sounds to me like we suck. WE suck. You, me, us. America. The whole ****ing POS sucks. Gotcha.

Sheez, how long does it take someone to be indoctrinated down there in Gaystin? If you honestly can't see the difference between Bush going into Iraq based on intel that EVERY****INGONE believed and voted for and Benghazi/IRS then you're a tool who ain't worth sharpening.

GWB was no Reagan, to be sure, but Obama ain't even a half-assed peanut farmer. He's continuing the destruction of America and all idiots like you wanna do is go "what about Bush?" Moron.


Heh,

I love it when Dean gets all riled up. :applouse:

[TAFBSooner]

Not everyone "believed the lies?" Really? Go check who voted yea on WMD and going into Iraq. Bad intel doesn't = lies, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

Your boy Obama has more deceit, more evil, more smoke than CheneyCo (whatever the **** that is) in his pinkie fingernail. You simply choose to follow your party's line.

See the thread title. NOTHING I said is to defend Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage

Senate: Aye 77, Nay 23
House: Aye 297, Nay 133, No vote 3.

Sure it passed overwhelmingly, but there were a lot less than "EVERY****INGONE" that bought the lies.

One reason for the "bad intel" was Dick Cheney going over to the DoD - - - screw it, we argued about this when it was happening.

My point remains that hating something the government does is not hating the country. I mean, you hate everything that Obama does, and I'd never accuse you of hating the country. If I didn't love my country I wouldn't be wasting my time on talking about politics, here or anywhere.

[olevetonahill]

See the thread title. NOTHING I said is to defend Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage

Senate: Aye 77, Nay 23
House: Aye 297, Nay 133, No vote 3.

Sure it passed overwhelmingly, but there were a lot less than "EVERY****INGONE" that bought the lies.

One reason for the "bad intel" was Dick Cheney going over to the DoD - - - screw it, we argued about this when it was happening.

My point remains that hating something the government does is not hating the country. I mean, you hate everything that Obama does, and I'd never accuse you of hating the country. If I didn't love my country I wouldn't be wasting my time on talking about politics, here or anywhere.

So you are matlock in DRAG?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So you are matlock in DRAG?The Libs know what needs to be done to correct the hideous evils and horrors than proscribe America, and it's to always vote democrat. Capitalism must be dealt with, as well as limiting incursions into other sovereign states, regardless of the bogus reasons given by republicans for doing so.

[TAFBSooner]

The Libs know what needs to be done to correct the hideous evils and horrors than proscribe America, and it's to always vote democrat. Capitalism must be dealt with, as well as limiting incursions into other sovereign states, regardless of the bogus reasons given by republicans for doing so.

Having a Democratic POTUS didn't prevent our incursion into Libya. Perhaps electing a Democrat in 08 has kept us from bomb bombing Iran, at least.

The Democratic POTUS is trying to cut Social Security, and it's only the House Republicans that are stopping him.

I agree that Wall Street should be dealt with . . .

[olevetonahill]

Having a Democratic POTUS didn't prevent our incursion into Libya. Perhaps electing a Democrat in 08 has kept us from bomb bombing Iran, at least.

The Democratic POTUS is trying to cut Social Security, and it's only the House Republicans that are stopping him.

I agree that Wall Street should be dealt with . . .

Maybe we should have stayed the **** out of Libya and went ahead a bombed the **** out of IRAN.
How Bout Yall libs Leave SS alone and quit stealing from those funds?

[TAFBSooner]

Maybe we should have stayed the **** out of Libya and went ahead a bombed the **** out of IRAN.
How Bout Yall libs Leave SS alone and quit stealing from those funds?

Obama's trying to steal from SS. Not me. From my point of view he's no liberal. If he even gets chained CPI he can write his ticket on Wall Street in 2017. Actually, for standing between the banksters and the pitchforks 'n torches, as he put it, he can already write that ticket .

(If ya meant the SSA buying Treasuries, that would be famed liberal, Ronald Wilson Reagan.)

Shoulda stayed out of Libya and should stay out of Iran.

[TAFBSooner]

The Libs know what needs to be done to correct the hideous evils and horrors than proscribe America, and it's to always vote democrat. Capitalism must be dealt with, as well as limiting incursions into other sovereign states, regardless of the bogus reasons given by republicans for doing so.

CheneyCo gave bogus reasons for Iraq. Obama didn't bother to ask about Libya.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

(yawn)...great thread...:fatigue::obama icon::stupid::sleeping::numbness:

[TAFBSooner]

(yawn)...great thread...:fatigue::obama icon::stupid::sleeping::numbness:

Bush the Lesser vs Obama is like Miami vs Notre Dame.

[C&CDean]

Bush the Lesser vs Obama is like Miami vs Notre Dame.

I chuckled.

[IGotNoTiming]

So, it sounds to me like we suck. WE suck. You, me, us. America. The whole ****ing POS sucks. Gotcha.

Sheez, how long does it take someone to be indoctrinated down there in Gaystin? If you honestly can't see the difference between Bush going into Iraq based on intel that EVERY****INGONE believed and voted for and Benghazi/IRS then you're a tool who ain't worth sharpening.

GWB was no Reagan, to be sure, but Obama ain't even a half-assed peanut farmer. He's continuing the destruction of America and all idiots like you wanna do is go "what about Bush?" Moron.

Dean, you can attack me because you lack and argument. That is typical strategy for people who cant debate....

Thinking I am un-american is a freaking insult, but you are really good those... so be it.

I am extremely patriotic. Did I serve? No I didn't. I was a son of a man who served over 20 years as russian linguist who flew RC-135s and ended up at NSA before anyone in the public even knew about organization. My father as at the spearhead of our intel during the cold war.

If you cannot recognize history for what it is and realize that we can learn from it you can follow the path of our leaders who continually make the same mistakes choosing to ignore it.

Gaystin?!?! Really are you 14? You must be.. I am 44 with 2 kids and happily married you are a disgruntled ignorant fool who should be strapping on a pair of black boots and learning how to goose step

[IGotNoTiming]

I cant live myself for that comment... redacted

[C&CDean]

No, I attacked you because you stated that islamic fundamentalists cutting off heads and bombing everybody is our fault because of our policies since WWII. That is a foolish statement/opinion, and it deserves ridicule.

They attack us because their good book tells them to, and some charismatic POS murdering Imams and psychopaths whip them up into a blood frenzy. IMHO, they're nothing but ignorant savages and even you have stated that there's pretty much no option left but "war."

We can bicker all we want about GWB vs Obama. Both sucked/suck as POTUS. However, only one of them still has an opportunity to do something about it. Your boy ain't going to though - except make it worse. We can't do anything about the past, only the future. Personally, I say kill em and kill em bad...until they finally knock off the bull****.

[C&CDean]

I'm curious what comment you couldn't live with. Heh.

[olevetonahill]

I'm curious what comment you couldn't live with. Heh.

Cant ya click on it were it says edited and open up the old post?

[IGotNoTiming]

I am not going even try and qualify or defend the action of terrorists. It is flatly reprehensible.....
Fundamentalism goes many ways. The muslims do not have the copyright on it. Christians have shown the same proclivity.

We have continued elevating our actions, killing more leaders of terrorist cells... but what results have we seen? My comment about our role in the attitudes about the US and its course of action since WW 2 is fairly clear. I am a stout patriot. I am extremely proud of my father, and the other fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters etc that have served in the military. They are the finest of the breed of fighting forces.

My concern is with politicians that use these men and women for political motives. Reasons that have nothing to do with our sovereignty or the protection of our borders.

Can you sight any of these instances where we have used military force and it has backfired on our country since WW2? Brother they far outnumber the times when we we saw a long term tangible stable outcome as a result.

These repeated mistakes have left generations of people in these lands living with the scars of invasion, loss of life and a boiling hostility that festers. We would not tolerate any other nation that did this. Yet, we defend it, because it is the USA.

If we continue to do this, we will turn the world against us. And if you think we can survive as and island on this planet you are dead wrong.

Look at every dynasty that has ruled this planet before our tiny slice of of ruling for the last oh let's say 100 years...

The greeks, the romans, the mongols, every european nation (the dutch, the french, the spanish, the english, the germans, italians) yada yada I think you get the drift.

They all failed when they over extended both economically and militarily. There is no exception to this... it is what happened.

We are dangerously close to being on the precipice of this happening here. And no amount of saber rattling is going to change this unless we change how we operate globally.

[TitoMorelli]

I am not going even try and qualify or defend the action of terrorists. It is flatly reprehensible.....

I appreciate your comments above (didn't want to quote it all). I agree that we have interfered or attempted to manipulate situations in other countries when we probably shouldn't have, and that we certainly have seen such actions come back to bite us in the azz. I'm not in favor of absolute non-intervention, but I shake my head at some of the atrocities (it at least seems) we have willingly ignored while devoting our money, might and manpower to others.

I'm not convinced, however, that Muslim extremists will leave us alone if we leave them alone. Their genocidal crusade in numerous countries against anyone that doesn't share their faith doesn't jive with the "live and let live" attitude that some like to claim they're willing to adopt. I have trouble characterizing any group of people that would blame and murder a young girl who was raped, or who would give their 8-year-old daughter in marriage to a mullah who then left her to bleed to death in their "wedding bed", as reasonable or charitable.

I've often wondered why China, certainly no champion of human rights regarding its Muslim citizens, hasn't experienced the terrorist activity that we have. I suspect it is because even the more extreme Muslim cells are smart enough to consider that China's response to a 9/11 there would be wholesale and unrestrained.