Does Bush really deserve all the bad press?

Sweet Tooth · Post by **Sweet Tooth** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:01 am

Galbally;535628 wrote:

Clinton was much cleverer, because he had worked out the basic idea of diplomacy which was to at least appear to be nice to the foreigners, and tell them what they want to hear, while at the same time doing whatever it was he saw fit himself, its a pretty basic thing in foreign relations, which Mr Bush never really seemed to grasp, (along with the names of the people he was dealing with, or the names of their countries (again, another elementary mistake)). I guess when it comes down to it, the real reason why Mr Bush will be remembered is Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. Obviously September 11th changed the nature of his time in office as it would any president, and not all the decisions made were bad, the initial invasion of Afganistan was the correct thing to do in my opinion, though it now requires more attention once more because it has been ignored. But Iraq has been an unmitigated and totally unnecessary disaster, just like many many people predicted and tried to warn about, (who were ignored and actually abused for opposing it (i.e. The French)), and now the miltary and political position after 4 years, hundreds of thousands of lives, and half a trillion dollars, is "damned if you stay, damned if you leave", (at best) what an awful legacy for any president to leave his country burdened with.

But there is so much wrong with that! I'm sorry, but I dont know when it started to be right to not stand up for what you believe in! So Clinton was nice to everyone and there where no attacks on us, there was also genecide going on in Iraq and Africa and so many unethical things going on!! Now that GW stands up for what he believes in and doesn't look the other way, that makes him a bad person?? Clinton ignored what was going on in the world for the sake of "making every one happy" Thats bull! And like I said before, GW is just cleaning upthe mess that sissy Clinton- so does Bush deserve the bad press- only if standing up to the bullies means you are a bad president!

RhondaLu · Post by **RhondaLu** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:06 am

Diuretic;535634 wrote: I've got one. Who's really in charge Bush or Cheney?

Something Bigger:sneaky:

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:20 am

Sweet Tooth;535850 wrote: But there is so much wrong with that! I'm sorry, but I dont know when it started to be right to not stand up for what you believe in! So Clinton was nice to everyone and there where no attacks on us, there was also genecide going on in Iraq and Africa and so many unethical things going on!! Now that GW stands up for what he believes in and doesn't look the other way, that makes him a bad person?? Clinton ignored what was going on in the world for the sake of "making every one happy" Thats bull! And like I said before, GW is just cleaning upthe mess that sissy Clinton- so does Bush deserve the bad press- only if standing up to the bullies means you are a bad president!

I understand that ST, but in international geopolitics politics pretending to being all moralistic and "standing up for what you believe" in is generally unwise, as you usually get caught out in the end. Far better the more realistic version which involves making sure that your country's interests are served, however cynical that may seem to you, than going on some ideological project that seems to have no end. I am also not really sure what George Bush actually believes in any more than any other politician, I would have to say not much from where I stand, apart from some half-arsed and quite dangerous vision about reshaping the middle-east to ensure its compliance in our requirement to do there as we see fit. Iraq is not about some principal about saving the world for "democracy", thats nonsense, the Arabs don't seem want it anyway, or at least not from us, and nowadays we are not in a position to force it on them either as has been made apparent.

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:26 am

Okay, I've stayed quiet long enough...gonna say my say...

I like G.W. Bush, think he's taken too much crap, of course he's not perfect, never claimed to be. Why is it that no-one points out that the US Military knew where Osama was 3 times during Clinton Admin. and told Clinton and he did nothing about it. He was a smooth talker and in MY opinion didn't really care about this country...you can believe what you want, I believe what I want.

I never paid attention to politics, could care less...until one day in 1992, there was a man on the TV talking out of his ARSE...I looked at my Dad and said "that guy is a CROOK!"...he said "wow, you are right on the money"....and of course when that man was elected as President, I was in the hospital, I thought, well if I get out of here...gonna vote from now on...of course he was voted again...and we went through 8 years of crap....it takes a country time to deteriate or improve, and usually the next President either benefits or has "a clean up job" to do. IMO Bush had a big clean up job to do! Now because of the war, it's all his fault, geesh I think he's getting blamed for EVERYTHING...

I will say this, I have stayed away from the politics subject on here, due to the fact that I've gotten away from keeping up with all that is going on, because WE only know what the (liberal) press tells us. The truth is somewhere to be found, I don't believe half of what I read/hear.

I appreciate Galbally's eloquent ways of discussion as well as others.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:12 am

WonderWendy3;535857 wrote: Okay, I've stayed quiet long enough...gonna say my say...

I like G.W. Bush, think he's taken too much crap, of course he's not perfect, never claimed to be. Why is it that no-one points out that the US Military knew where Osama was 3 times during Clinton Admin. and told Clinton and he did nothing about it. He was a smooth talker and in MY opinion didn't really care about this country...you can believe what you want, I believe what I want.

I never paid attention to politics, could care less...until one day in 1992, there was a man on the TV talking out of his ARSE...I looked at my Dad and said "that guy is a CROOK!"...he said "wow, you are right on the money"....and of course when that man was elected as President, I was in the hospital, I thought, well if I get out of here...gonna vote from now on...of course he was voted again...and we went through 8 years of crap....it takes a country time to deteriate or improve, and usually the next President either benefits or has "a clean up job" to do. IMO Bush had a big clean up job to do! Now because of the war, it's all his fault, geesh I think he's getting blamed for EVERYTHING...

I will say this, I have stayed away from the politics subject on here, due to the fact that I've gotten away from keeping up with all that is going on, because WE only know what the (liberal) press tells us. The truth is somewhere to be found, I don't believe half of what I read/hear.

I appreciate Galbally's eloquent ways of discussion as well as others.

I tell ya WW, I usually stay out of this stuff as well, and I don't go in for this George Bush is like Hitler nonsense, he is just not a very good president, in my opinion for America or the world, and also whatever Bill Clinton may have been, or George Bush senior or Regan, the problems of other presidents in the past, does not justify the very poor decisions of this incumbent one. Anyway, this is not really my debate, I am just trying to give the international perspective, obviously its far more important what Americans think about this, and anyway, it will all be academic in 2008.

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:21 am

Galbally;535880 wrote: I tell ya WW, I usually stay out of this stuff as well, and I don't go in for this George Bush is like Hitler nonsense, he is just not a very good president, in my opinion for America or the world, and also whatever Bill Clinton may have been, or George Bush senior or Regan, the problems of other presidents in the past, does not justify the very poor decisions of this incumbent one. Anyway, this is not really my debate, I am just trying to give the international perspective, obviously its far more important what Americans think about this, and anyway, it will all be academic in 2008.

Again, I appreciate your way of putting it, very non-confrontational. That is to be admired.

Since the beginning of time there has been conflict and always will be. IMO the middle-east will probalby always be at war within itself, that I'm sure is to be argued, but they have always had some kind of war/conflict it seems.

It looks like the Democrats will prevail in 2008, because of the War and George's un-popularity. I feel like I am the only person in USA that likes him...and not gonna back down. It seems like they just hate him because of the war...well we've been at war many times with many presidents and I'm sure they were un-popular too. My prayers go out to those who have family over in Iraq...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:17 pm

Sweet Tooth;535850 wrote: But there is so much wrong with that! I'm sorry, but I dont know when it started to be right to not stand up for what you believe in! So Clinton was nice to everyone and there where no attacks on us, there was also genecide going on in Iraq and Africa and so many unethical things going on!! Now that GW stands up for what he believes in and doesn't look the other way, that makes him a bad person?? Clinton ignored what was going on in the world for the sake of "making every one happy" Thats bull! And like I said before, GW is just cleaning upthe mess that sissy Clinton- so does Bush deserve the bad press- only if standing up to the bullies means you are a bad president!

Who has suggested the causality? "Clinton was nice to everyone and there where no attacks on us". The suggestion that has been made is that, because of the actions of GWB, America is now more likely to experience attacks.

And, sad to say, the genocide that was taking place in Iraq was done with the full knowledge and support of the US. Saddam was seen as too useful a tool in the area to be rapped over the knuckles for actions against his own people.

WonderWendy3 wrote: Why is it that no-one points out that the US Military knew where Osama was 3 times during Clinton Admin. and told Clinton and he did nothing about it.

Because OBL was not a wanted man at that time?

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:37 pm

Bryn Mawr;536157 wrote: Because OBL was not a wanted man at that time?

Or possibly because, at that time, he was working for the CIA?

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:42 pm

Bryn Mawr;536157 wrote: Who has suggested the causality? "Clinton was nice to everyone and there where no attacks on us". The suggestion that has been made is that, because of the actions of GWB, America is now more likely to experience attacks.

And, sad to say, the genocide that was taking place in Iraq was done with the full knowledge and support of the US. Saddam was seen as too useful a tool in the area to be rapped over the knuckles for actions against his own people.

Because OBL was not a wanted man at that time?

Umm, he's been known to be behind other terroist attacks and wanted for years, just not publicly like after 9/11, how did they know it was him so quickly after 9/11, he sure didn't say "it was ME"...they have been hot on his trial for YEARS!!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:21 pm

WonderWendy3;536190 wrote:

Umm, he's been known to be behind other terroist attacks and wanted for years, just not publicly like after 9/11, how did they know it was him so quickly after 9/11, he sure didn't say "it was ME"...they have been hot on his trial for YEARS!!

For how many years would that be?

During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (the Russians entered Afghanistan at the request of the Afghan government during the Saur Revolution) the US supported and funded the Afghan resistance, including OBL. That continued up until 1989 with the Afghan Civil War continuing until 1992 - again with US help to the Mujahaden, including OBL.

He was only indicted in 1998, at which point he was already back in Afghanistan - in 1996 Carter declined to extradict him on the ground that there were no possible charges to bring against him.

So virtually all of the years that the US have been after him have been year sunder the presidency of GWB.

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:28 pm

Bryn Mawr;536240 wrote: For how many years would that be?

During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (the Russians entered Afghanistan at the request of the Afghan government during the Saur Revolution) the US supported and funded the Afghan resistance, including OBL. That continued up until 1989 with the Afghan Civil War continuing until 1992 - again with US help to the Mujahaden, including OBL.

He was only indicted in 1998, at which point he was already back in Afghanistan - in 1996 Carter declined to extradict him on the ground that there were no possible charges to bring against him.

So virtually all of the years that the US have been after him have been year sunder the presidency of GWB.

This is WHY I didn't want to come to this thread...but anyway...now I'm here....Not sure if the link will work, gonna cut and paste what I was talking about...and yes I'm somewhat corrected, but it is my understanding and I know I need to do more research to back this up, that he has been responsible for attacks for years before 9/11...again, how did they know who was behind it so quickly and how close to Bush taking office did this happen, within his first year....hmmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

He has been indicted in United States federal court for his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, and is on the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list. It has also been said that he is linked to the 2000 USS Cole bombing, the Bali nightclub bombings, the Madrid bombings, as well as bombings in the Jordanian capital of Amman and in Egypt's Sinai peninsula.

Sweet Tooth · Post by **Sweet Tooth** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:47 pm

[quote=Bryn Mawr;536157]Who has suggested the causality? "Clinton was nice to everyone and there where no attacks on us". The suggestion that has been made is that, because of the actions of GWB, America is now more likely to experience attacks.

And, sad to say, the genocide that was taking place in Iraq was done with the full knowledge and support of the US. Saddam was seen as too useful a tool in the area to be rapped over the knuckles for actions against his own people.

quote]

I don't ever remember a time where the USA supported genocide! I believe that is one reason we have been in Iraq and Jaboodi for so long! do some research!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:02 pm

Sweet Tooth;536274 wrote: [quote=Bryn Mawr;536157]Who has suggested the causality? "Clinton was nice to everyone and there where no attacks on us". The suggestion that has been made is that, because of the actions of GWB, America is now more likely to experience attacks.

And, sad to say, the genocide that was taking place in Iraq was done with the full knowledge and support of the US. Saddam was seen as too useful a tool in the area to be rapped over the knuckles for actions against his own people.

I don't ever remember a time where the USA supported genocide! I believe that is one reason we have been in Iraq and Jaboodi for so long! do some research!

The genocide tag was yours - the US certainly supported Saddam both before and during the Iran / Iraq war, which was the time when the gassing of the Kurds and the killings in the south were occurring.

Just as they've been supporting Turkey during the worst of its attrocities against the Kurds. It was only after Turkey refused them permission to use their airstrips to bomb Iraq that GWB started calling it human rights abuse - before that the US administration supplied the weapons.

And, by the way, I have done some research - lots of it. Shall we keep the personals out of this?

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:26 pm

Diuretic;535596 wrote: Well you could do worse, you could have Gingrich :wah:

Bite your tongue!!

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:28 pm

Bryn Mawr;536300 wrote: The genocide tag was yours - the US certainly supported Saddam both before and during the Iran / Iraq war, which was the time when the gassing of the Kurds and the killings in the south were occurring.

Just as they've been supporting Turkey during the worst of its attrocities against the Kurds. It was only after Turkey refused them permission to use their airstrips to bomb Iraq that GWB started calling it human rights abuse - before that the US administration supplied the weapons.

And, by the way, I have done some research - lots of it. Shall we keep the personals out of this?

and we helped the Afgans fight off the Soviets. trained them how to fight dirty.

and now they're using that training against us.