Why I'm Thankful for George W. Bush

Bush let Conservatives down, that's a fact at this point.

That's it in a nutshell.

OhioWfan: Your name says where you're coming from, and your loyalty is admirable, but with Bush's approval ratings in the twenties, an unpopular war, and a financial catastrophe, there's no way any Republican presidential candidate could have won last year. By this point, President Bush himself would admit his share of blame for the defeat if you pressed him. It's sad, but there it is.

Yes, I can see that you play a lot of games......including using a word that leftists use to describe what was in fact the liberation of Iraq.

I'm not "scared" of the term. I just recognize where you got it from - the left.

Your accusation that Bush was swayed by "politics" regarding Iraq is just silly, and not one bit conservative, as I highly suspect you are not. If he had been playing politically and not strategically and defensively, he would have pulled out of Iraq as the left and many hapless Americans wanted him to (I'm sure you're part of that crowd). But since he wanted to win and keep us safe rather than play politics, he stayed the course, against the advice of guys like Obama (and you?), who wanted us to lose, we ended up winning and Iraq is free.

Game over, FTJM. Feel free to play your games somewhere else.

Yes, I can see that you play a lot of games......including using a word that leftists use to describe what was in fact the liberation of Iraq. I'm not "scared" of the term. I just recognize where you got it from - the left. Your accusation that Bush was swayed by "politics" regarding Iraq is just silly, and not one bit conservative, as I highly suspect you are not. If he had been playing politically and not strategically and defensively, he would have pulled out of Iraq as the left and many hapless Americans wanted him to (I'm sure you're part of that crowd). But since he wanted to win and keep us safe rather than play politics, he stayed the course, against the advice of guys like Obama (and you?), who wanted us to lose, we ended up winning and Iraq is free. Game over, FTJM. Feel free to play your games somewhere else.

Your response was moronic, could be that you are too.

I didn't get the term "occupation" from the Left. I got it from history. That's what you do after you've defeated a country. Look no further than Japan and Germany. Why? Because it is necessary and because it works.

The Left screamed occupation and the Muslims screamed crusade so Bush went out of his way not to appear to be occupying the country. It was a huge mistake, WE SHOULD OCCUPY IRAQ with massive troop numbers FROM THE START. I never shied away from the term and disagreed with Bush waiting unbelievably long to do it, not to mention reducing those troop levels before he left office for political reasons. Vietnam taught us never to let politics get in the way of war, Bush did. That you don't see that shows how blind you are.

The fact is that Bush didn't invade Iraq, because we were already there and Iraq was in direct violation of the terms of the ceasefire signed by Bush I and Powell when they wimped out half way to Baghdad. Bush prosecuted the war with politics in mind and it gave the Democrats the opening that they needed. Saddam didn't need to have WND (even though he did) for us to take him out and we needed large numbers of troops to go in and OCCUPY the entire country. We let a quagmire develop with a weak plan that was used to win elections.

The last thing my position is, is leftist. You have zero intellectual integrity by accusing anyone with a different point of view as a liberal playing games.

I'm a conservative, and the President didn't "let me down." That's not to say that he didn't do things I didn't agree with. No one agreed with everything he was doing.

But the things you list - his approval ratings -driven through the floor by a lying press and a wimpy Republican party, an "unpopular" war - one that is now won because HE stayed the course when all others abandoned the mission, and was "unpopular" because of the lies of the left and the weakness of our American culture, and the financial catastrophe - which was the Dems fault and he tried to avert -- in NONE of those things is he responsible for the defeat.

I repeat, you have to ignore a score of significant historical factors to blame President Bush. Of course, if you are determined to blame him for some reason, you are free to do so. But if you are looking at it historically, it is an unsustainable, unsupportable argument.

Blaming Bush for Obama is ludicrous.

Oh, and btw, he has said that he knows that he did what was right and is comfortable with what he did as President. I doubt very much that he would blame himself for Obama's win. That doesn't even make sense.

It was not a moronic response, and I am not a moron.

I know my history, but I also know who has used the term "occupy" to indicate wrongdoing on Bush's part.

I also know the history of Iraq, but thanks for the lesson. Your accusation of politics interfering with the strategy in Iraq is still silly. If you were paying attention to the reasons he gave in speeches for going into Iraq, you will know that the presence of WMD was only one of the reasons he gave. The emphasis was only because of the defense given before the UN and their preoccupation with it. If you were observant, you would know that.

Quagmire?? LOL! There you go again, using the leftist anti-Bush vocabulary. If you don't want conservatives to think you're one of them, why do you use the same words? (There never was a quagmire). When it was clear that things were deteriorating in Iraq, Bush looked for and found a stronger General with a better plan, and we began to win.

Now, since you have accused me of having no integrity (I love that one), and being a moron (my IQ doesn't indicate that), I shall end this lovely discussion.

Be thankful that I didn't respond in kind to your ridiculous insults.

No more games, newbie. Good day.

It was not a moronic response, and I am not a moron. I know my history, but I also know who has used the term "occupy" to indicate wrongdoing on Bush's part. I also know the history of Iraq, but thanks for the lesson. Your accusation of politics interfering with the strategy in Iraq is still silly. If you were paying attention to the reasons he gave in speeches for going into Iraq, you will know that the presence of WMD was only one of the reasons he gave. The emphasis was only because of the defense given before the UN and their preoccupation with it. If you were observant, you would know that. Quagmire?? LOL! There you go again, using the leftist anti-Bush vocabulary. If you don't want conservatives to think you're one of them, why do you use the same words? (There never was a quagmire). When it was clear that things were deteriorating in Iraq, Bush looked for and found a stronger General with a better plan, and we began to win. Now, since you have accused me of having no integrity (I love that one), and being a moron (my IQ doesn't indicate that), I shall end this lovely discussion. Be thankful that I didn't respond in kind to your ridiculous insults. No more games, newbie. Good day.

Yes, your response was moronic. You have been insulting, so I responded in kind. Go cry in your milk.

You are not paying attention. I'm not using the term occupy to indicate wrongdoing at all. I'm using it to indicate that that is exactly what the US SHOULD HAVE DONE and that not doing so fully and correctly at the outset was a mistake. The Democrats and Muslims used the term occupy to keep Bush from doing it. He obliged them. Further, what I said was that WMD wasn't a necessary reason to go back in. Bush gave the idiots an opening, they took it and he failed to play offense much less defend himself.

The civil war that resulted from the flawed plan resulted in a quagmire (a violent civil war with no US control that could have gone on for years). It's ironic that you are being a word Nazi. The fact is that the light army that Bush used to invade was ill equipped to fully OCCUPY Iraq. Conservatives called for increased troop levels for years but Bush didn't listen. Had he listened, Iraq would have been stable much sooner and the Democrats would have lacked that major issue to win seats with, not to mention giving the GOP an issue to run on.

You may think that you know the history of Iraq but you don't understand it.

Word Nazi?? Now that's pretty funny. No more insults, OK?

I've been paying very close attention to your arguments. That's why I haven't fallen for them.

And I do know the history of Iraq, whether you like it or not. Disagreeing with you on your own particular anti-Bush assessment of what happened in Iraq doesn't imply ignorance (nor stupidity, thank you). I'm glad you fancy yourself an Iraq expert, but there are many other positions other than your own from scholars greater than yourself.

There are many who say that had we invaded with large troop numbers, the Iraqi people would have never come to their own conclusion that they needed to govern together.....that sectarian violence would never have ended had we "occupied" as you suggest we needed to do.

There are many who say that it was the sectarian violence (NOT a "civil war") and the brutality of alQaeda who was inciting that sectarian violence, that eventually convinced the Iraqi people to rid themselves of the enemy and govern in peace (which they are doing now).

There are also experts who understand that it took a length of time for the Iraqi Army to be built up enough to do what they are doing now - controlling their own security.

Petraeus' plan was NOT to "occupy" but to assist with our military force and with our working with the Iraqi people, police and military to help them govern themselves. And it WORKED.

You can argue against success all you want, but we have, in 6 short years, accomplished the nearly impossible task of assisting in creating a democracy in the heart of the Middle East and uniting the people of Iraq.

That is exactly what George W. Bush wanted to do, and he succeeded in doing it. You can be an armchair expert to your heart's delight (and use arguments from wherever you got them, left or right), but the proverbial proof is in the pudding. We won the War in Iraq, and we have our awesome troops and their Commander in Chief - George W. Bush to thank for it.

btw, I'm done with this conversation.

You can blame President Bush for all the problems in the world if you want, but you aren't going to convince us 'morons' who respect him, no matter how hard you try.

He is a man of courage, integrity, strength, patriotism and perseverance, and we 'morons' will respect him for all that he did to strengthen and preserve this great nation.

Have a nice life.

I find that, when being called a moron without integrity, laughter is the best medicine. :)

I agree, it's almost always better than continuing a conversation with them.

I usually laugh, and then decide to ignore such people in the future. Life's to short to waste time on them.

I've also learned two interesting hints about such people since I've been here. It's not scientific, but I'm amazed at how many times it works out.

I'll check a person's homepage, if there's no flag flying there, that's the first hint. But that isn't enough to be relatively sure.

The second hint is the Free Republic donor list.

https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/donors

I put those two hints together and I get a better understanding.

For example, you and I both have flags and other information on our home pages. We are both also listed on the FR donor list.

Once you do this two part test, I bet it will not come as any surprise to you as to who flunks.

I consider the flunkies to be Free Republic's version of welfare queens. They expect the same benefits and respect as those of us who actually keep the lights on around here. Well, they'll get the same benefits as we do, but the respect part is another question entirely.

So, Mom, again, all my best to you, and your fine son who keeps us free. :o)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.