I think you're right.
Amazing << Hear this.
Posted on 10/30/2008 5:15:00 AM PDT by SJackson
I think you're right.
Amazing << Hear this.
Maybe that's not the best way of putting it.
He believed we needed to topple the regime in Iraq, but he also naively believed that all we had to do was chase the leadership from their strongholds and that the people would rise up and rally around us to form a secular democracy.
When that seemed to be having trouble he tried throwing money at the people there to rebuild their infrastructure.
He just doesn't seem to believe that evil exists in the hearts of more than a very small few. He's willing to give our enemies chance after chance to become our friends regardless of how many times they use the opportunity to regroup.
The same goes with his immigration policies. He seems to believe that if the poor Mexicans didn't have to sneak across the border they would become more productive members of our society that make a positive contribution instead of dragging down our economy and increasing crime rates.
He does seem to have a strong conviction that people around the world are generally good, hard working, and productive and just need a little helping hand, so I guess he really doesn't lack in conviction. He's lacking in common sense and the willingness to be relentless when it is truly necessary.
Because of that he won't go after North Korea or Iran because the we don't have the manpower to do it as gently as we did in Iraq. We would have to bomb them into submission very quickly, and there would be considerable collateral damage.
He's not willing to risk the collateral damage even though it means nuclear weapons in the hands of tyrants that support terrorism.
There's every indication that his policy towards Israel has been one where he insists on their restraint and appeasement in the face of enemies trying to slowly destroy them piece by piece.
He has stood his ground and stayed the course in Iraq, but withdrawing was never really a valid option, and it took him forever to approve the surge and rules of engagement that allowed for hope of success.
At the same time he has let the state department and liberals in the military bring up our own service men on bogus charges and has done little to defend them.
Bush is a bleeding-heart interventionist, which is a dangerous combination because he's far too willing to put the interests of others before the interests of those he represents. He seems to do it out of a belief that it's the right thing to do, but the simple fact is that he can't solve the world's problems, and he's tied up our military resources for far too long without achieving what he needed to most.
He needed to crush Islamic terrorism. When we first went into Iraq, Iran and Syria instantly started behaving because it was obvious that they too could be quickly crushed militarily.
Iraq is finally stabilizing to the point where their future can soon be placed back in their own hands with just a bit of help from us, but the terrorists aren't tied to a particular nation, and we failed to chase them down where they were granted safe harbor.
So maybe Bush does have convictions, but they are misplaced, and he lacks the conviction to hunt down the enemies that he himself identified because he couldn't do that an his gentle nation building.
He's not willing to risk the collateral damage even though it means nuclear weapons in the hands of tyrants that support terrorism.
I don't see it that way, if he bombed Iran or North Korea, he'd have most likely been impeached or at the very least in even worse shape than he was on Iraq. UNFORTUNATELY, we have hypocrats and the RINOS that tolerate them. That's what he's had to work with all along.
Granted Bush is no Reagan and may well have gotten alot more done had he been, it's also sheerly a miracle to me, some 5 years later, our troops were funded and this Iraq war has almost been won!
Every president makes mistakes, I tend to think Reagan's was in Lebanon. Reagan also seemed a little too sheepish to me when it came to Iran/contra...AND Bush had no Ollie North. IN FACT, Bush had next to nobody after Rummy left, Cheney was damaged goods and smeared as Darth Vader.
I'm no Bushbot, I voted for him twice and right out of the gates I started out pissed off with him over the FARM Bill and Education Bill, right out of the freakin' gates!!!!!, but looking back, he's been a very decent Christian man, stood up for MY American values and I give him an A+ for the 9-11 response/WOT, and a B overall.
MY PRAYER is to only hope to give the next 2-3 presidents this high a grade in the coming decades!
At the same time he has let the state department and liberals in the military bring up our own service men on bogus charges and has done little to defend them.
I don't see it this way either, not at all...we have @ssholes like Murtha in our own damnable gov. on the sides of the terrorists, IN THE FREAKIN' MAJORITY, and I won't even get into the state dept. NOT TO MENTION when Bush DID try to get rid of these rats, we've seen nothing but kicking and screaming from the media and calls for congressional investigations when the Bush administration fired these liberal judges!!!!! We'll never know what he's done on behalf of the troops, it's not like if we DID hear it, the media would tell us the truth, are you kidding me? THE TRUTH is the American people don't KNOW what Bush has done, much less what the treasonous hypocrats have done 24/7 to undermine him. We only see the tip of the iceberg, frankly.
Bush was one man, there was no way ANY president was going to do all you suggested with all the poison back home, I don't care if it was George Washington!
There was ample evidence of enemies attacking across the borders from Iran and Syria. There was ample evidence of materials being transferred over the border by the Iraqi military as well.
Syria and Iran's excuse was that they couldn't possibly police their border, so we should have done it for them by destroying those convoys, and attacking the terrorists even after they fled back across the border.
The response to Syria and Iran when they complained should have been that they need to do a better job of stopping the incursions, or the attacks would be considered an act of war by those countries.
The Democrats would have blustered. THey made up things when they couldn't find actually things to complain about anyway.
However, they would have never actually impeached the president for responding to attacks on American soldiers, and it would have made Iraq more stable MUCH more quickly.
Iran could also have been put on notice and backed into a corner if Bush and the Israeli's had the balls to do it.
The nuclear disarmament talks never had a choice because the Europeans doing the negotiations kept saying over and over again that force was not an option. These were the same people that undermined the sanctions against Iran under the oil for food program. Iran was never facing truly serious sanctions, just some level of extortion from European politicians.
However if Iran was given a hard deadline after which they would face military strikes or increasing magnitude with strict requirements of real actions not just promises, then the talks might have been productive.
However telling them to behave or we'd tell them to behave again was obviously futile from the start.
Granted Bush is no Reagan and may well have gotten alot more done had he been, it's also sheerly a miracle to me, some 5 years later, our troops were funded and this Iraq war has almost been won!
The Iraq war has been almost won for a very long time. The problem is that our troops have been unable to peruse our enemies wherever they might hide, and in many cases were told to not go after our enemies and even when they knew where those that were attacking them were based even within Iraq because Bush wanted to hold out for a political solution. So we were left trying to win a war through defense and negotiation, which has NEVER been successful.
The Democrats called Iraq a quagmire, but Bush's policies allowed it to become one. In Vietnam we hesitated to peruse our enemies because we were worried about an all out war with China. What was our reason in Iraq? Because we were worried about the military might of Iran and Syria? We could demolish most of their military capability in a week or less. We hesitated because of fear of being called mean by our enemies and by the press.
I voted for Bush twice too, and I don't regret it considering the alternatives. His mediocre presidency with some big mistakes has still been far better than we could have hoped of from Gore or Kerry. If I had to choose between voting for a clone of Bush and Obama at this point, I'd vote for Bush's clone.
NOT TO MENTION when Bush DID try to get rid of these rats, we've seen nothing but kicking and screaming from the media and calls for congressional investigations when the Bush administration fired these liberal judges!!!!!
Well Bush's appointments to replace liberals in the CIA and other parts of the administration in many cases haven't been a whole lot better than those they replaced. The man is a horrible judge of character and apparently keeps trying to appease the left in his appointments.
As for the congressional investigations regarding the prosecutors... those are blatantly bogus accusations. If you're going to get accused to horrible things when you do nothing why be so hesitant to actually purge some of the liberals from State and the CIA.
However it's hard to purge them when the people you put in charge are Powell followed by Rice in State.
I had great hopes for those two, but the more I find out about them the less impressed I am.
Also remember that the Democrats gained the majority because Republicans got sick of RINOs not doing anything and in general pushing liberal policies that were merely less liberal than the Democrats. The Democrats picked up seats because the Republicans lost support not really because the Democrats gained a lot of support.
If Republicans have the majority in both houses and the White House, yet can't push through anything resembling conservative legislation, they are going to lose the majority because voters will get sick of them making hollow excuses for not fulfilling their promises.
but looking back, he's been a very decent Christian man
What a lot of more liberal people seem to forget is that Christianity requires accountability. Forgiveness is always available to the truly repentant, but Christianity isn't simply about being nice and generous to others. Being nice and generous to others is a side effect of being a Christian, it isn't really the core of our beliefs. Doing God's will is the core of our beliefs, and while God is infinitely forgiving, he's also not wishy-washy on what is right and what is wrong.
THE TRUTH is the American people don't KNOW what Bush has done, much less what the treasonous hypocrats have done 24/7 to undermine him.
The truth is there for us to see. The media might try and spin things, but if people want to look for the truth they can find it easily enough.
Bush was one man, there was no way ANY president was going to do all you suggested with all the poison back home, I don't care if it was George Washington!
Eight years later those in the CIA and State Department who committed treason time and time again by selectively leaking things to make our nation look bad in a time of war and aid our enemies have not faced any even being significant investigations into who was leaking the information. Those traitors (and I'm not using the term lightly) have done a huge about of damage to our country and Bush would have done a great service to our country if he had simply caught a number of them and had them prosecuted for leaking highly classified information.
A number of our brave soldiers have had to defend themselves against politically motivated criminal charges that have had no merit with absolutely no show of support from the commander in chief before or even after the fact. That has a chilling effect on our military and on future recruitment, as does the rules of engagement that make it difficult to do their jobs and more likely they will face such charges while doing their best.
Such things are hard to undo. It creates a precedence that has lasting effects.
Yes Bush would have faced bitter and dishonest criticism if he would have tackled such problems. However, he's faced it anyway because the Democrats only real stance on things has been to attack whatever Bush does.
If Bush would charge ahead despite the criticism he'd actually accomplish some things and gain support through those accomplishments. While the democrats have continuously criticized Bush, Congress' approval rating is even lower than Bush's. There's lots of yelling and bitterness going on, but neither are accomplishing any of their goals.
What made Reagan so successful is he ignored such rants by his enemies, pressed forward, and produced results. Bush pushes forward a little way on and issue, runs up against loud if not strong opposition, and he falters time and time again.
You have to pick your battles when faced by an opponent where picking your battles makes you stronger. However, the Democrats scream and yell about everything Bush does, and don't even bother trying to make rational arguments against him most of the time. The only way to fight that is to forge ahead relentlessly. Bush just doesn't seem to do relentless.
The topic of this thread is George W. Bush. Nice try.
Review my posts on the topic of one "William J. Clinton" from the time I joined FR in early 1999 until that disgrace left office. And enough of the sarcastic, smart talk. Thank you.
Bush’s approval rating is something like in the 30’s. MOSTLY because he’s a “war criminal, right wing war-mongering Hitler” type and not because of your conclusions.
I don’t think he could have fought off BOTH the media, elements in his very own govt, sometimes in his own administration AND terrorists on a coherent consistent basis virtually for the entire 8 years 24/7.
I think everyday, he gets up and still wonders how everything is kept together OTHER than by the Grace of God! Maybe he IS a bad judge of character, but I think he’s been pretty good given the circumstances. EVERY presidency has it’s Scott McClellan’s and even Collin Powell’s.
I remember right after 9-11, how people thought: THANK GOD Gore didn’t win and how Rummy, Cheney and all of the people around Bush were JUST RIGHT!
Had Bush taken the hard line approach as you suggest, I seriously doubt he’d have served for more than 4 years.
While there are a few conservatives upset with him, it’s because of what’s going on mostly at home, the border, spending, not fighting liberals enough...and hey, I’m right with you...if I was president I’d level Iran and Syria before my term ended in Jan., history be damned, but it’s a little naive to think this is how things work.
The president doesn’t just issue military orders, arrest dissenters...not in our Republic. Sadly, this doesn’t allow for what needs to get done as you and I see it, but fortunately, it allows us to, if only for a period, to overcome idiots like Carter, Clinton and (hopefully NOT) Obama.
There are forces in the State Dept. that see presidents and partys come and go and never change.
I HOPE McCain and Palin are taking notes on Bush’s experiences/failures/mistakes, but even then, I think a cultural change needs to occur over time BEYOND them.
When Bush got elected, I said it’ll take more than 8 years to UNdo the mess that Clinton made over 8 years and I still believe that. What I forgot though was we’re STILL paying for the Cahtuh years.
Some of this is arm-chair quarterbacking. Some of it’s guessing what’s going on behind the scenes when we just really don’t know.
The media and treasonous bastards in our own govt. may one day make Bush look like another Jefferson, Lincoln or Washington for all I know. I’m convinced of it, that if people REALLY knew what people like Sandy the Burglar was up to...we would think this right now!
It’ll take decades to fully undo Carter and Clinton and if Obama is elected, I fear we’ll no longer see any hope of it.
You said: “The truth is there for us to see. The media might try and spin things, but if people want to look for the truth they can find it easily enough.”
What you apparently forget though is virtually half the country is mentally ill. What else explains a man based solely on his skin color is running for president, while he isn’t even able to qualify based on a security background check to be his OWN body-guard!?
And on Reagan, I’d be willing to bet Bush would DIE for a swap between Nancy Pelosi and Tip O’Neill!
For that matter, the Republican party has become what was the Democrat party of Reagan’s day, but the hypocrat party of today, looks alot more like some al-qaeda godless SF values sick perversion hyper-liberal hybrid.
This didn’t happen on W’s watch, it happened betweeen Reagan and Bush 2, mostly on Bubba’s watch.
And again, most people will disagree with you on ‘relentless’ too, in fact the history books will call him “relentlessly stubborn, in his ‘convictions’ “! ;)
Frankly, I think the history won’t be written for years after he’s gone, and my bet is he won’t be seen as a failure, and the BDS types on this thread that think he is a failure, should move to South America or was worse than Carter:, are just venting (and/or are once again confused about which board they’re on!).
It’ll change over time, on both sides.
LOL... so you were wrong in your post
Great input! Thanks for your participation!! You take care now.
“Dont forget that official “Everybody in America Deserves To Own A House Whether They Have The Means Or Not-Month” or whatever the damned subprime festival of crap was called that he signed and parroted up there on the dais along with the rest of them all in Washington, both parties”
American Dream Downpayment Initiative.
Bush looked happier than I’ve seen him in years when he congratulated Obama. He’s got to be thrilled about leaving the house Harry Truman called “The Great White Jail.”
Yes, I can believe that. I wish him a happy retirement.
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.