Posted on 12/01/2009 9:38:18 PM PST by BurbankKarl
I will accept that he is a very small part of the blame (as does he), but attacking him as you did previously was out of line.
(For the record, I don't like Huckabee at all, other than his pro-life stance. I just like factual accuracy).
It was FNC I was watching as hell broke lose after Cheney announced terrorism was ended in Iraq. Saddam was a no nice guy but Bush brought them suicide bombers in mosques and markets from 2005-2007. As I said, he finally fixed it, but left Afghanistan a mess in the process.
By liberating you mean voting anti-american?
Reagan is still loved by the ex-East block countries for freedom, but Bush is hated almost everywhere.
“My son worked directly with the Iraqi people all throughout 2008”
I saw the pictures of your son you posted on your profile page, he looks like a great young man! You must be very proud.
I agree that there are a lot of people who are ignorant about what President Bush has accomplished. He will go down in history as being a very very good President. Lincoln was not very popular during his tenure and immediately following. Bush will have the same thing for a while, but professional historians, and we the people will make certain that the leftists do not cloud his memory with their lies and distortions.
I feel a real sea change in our society. The left has reared it’s ugliness once again upon our blessed land. People are seeing and remembering why we threw them out of power before, young people are learning why the philosophy of the left is so damaging and corrupt. These are all good things.
BTW, I love your drawings also...very talented.
Statements revealing such abject ignorance (and leftist influence) are the reason I have no interest in your opinions, sick.
I merely pinged you as a polite gesture because I was correcting your gross misinformation regarding Iraq for Wpin's edification.
“Reagan is still loved by the ex-East block countries for freedom, but Bush is hated almost everywhere.”
Are you insane? You really need to grow up and study a little bit more. President Bush is extremely popular with Americans and with Eastern European nations, Africa, China, India, etc. The socialists do not like him because he stands for freedom, life and good.
I remember one day last fall where President Bush received a standing ovation as he walked out to throw out the first pitch of a professional baseball game. That same day...VP Biden was booed as he walked out to throw the first pitch.
Think about this sickoflibs...if Bush was so unpopular with Europe, then why did several of the nations, including France, Germany, etc., elect pro-American, pro-Bush leaders? You need to learn to discern fact from leftist propaganda. President Bush put together one of the largest, most successful joint efforts for a war in the history of the world...there was never a unilateral action.
Get real kiddo! Don’t let the left make a meathead out of you!
You didnt correct anything, you are spitting out neo-con talking points, but given no refute. You have not addressed any point but instead called to ‘shut down’ the argument by calling me leftist. This is a daily Levin tactic.
Not leftist, try anti-neo-con. You neo-cons gave us Pelosi and Obama.
I completely agree with you regarding your comments on President Bush and history. NO President who takes unpopular stands is "loved" at the time, but history has a way of sorting out the wheat from the chaff (including those unduly influenced by leftist propagande).
The fact is that President Bush was very popular throughout much of the world. He was "hated" by terrorists, academics and all sorts of leftists and malcontents, but he is admired by people who were watching and paying attention.
The fact that so many are already waking up to what President Bush actually did and understanding the horror of what they elected in 2008 is a good sign to me that America will survive this onslaught of Marxism and Maoism in Washington.
We have a very real enemy in control now, and we need to focus on ridding this great country of its present, vile "leadership."
You have repeaatedly proven yourself unduly influenced by leftist propaganda regarding George W. Bush, and have made absurdly untrue statements about his accomplishments and reputation worldwide.
I can read that anywhere in the MSM. I don't have time or interest in reading it here where conservatives hang out.
Good bye, sick.
I was a conservative before most of the Bush haters were born. It's hilarious to be called "neo".........and sure sounds like a DNC operative's word.
“Not leftist, try anti-neo-con. You neo-cons gave us Pelosi and Obama.”
Sorry sickoflibs, I think you are confused. But, keep reading posts and articles here...you will get better informed! :) I need to get busy here so have a good day all!!!! Will be on later this afternoon I am sure!
Look neo-con, if you are going to ping me to tell me not to ping you, then dont ping me later with your braindead Levin talking points, then ping me again to tell me not to ping you.
Why dont you sub for Levin? so you can turn up the music and make jokes when someone catches you.
:)
btw, "neo" means "new." And I'm not, in any sense of the word. :)
RE :”Think about this sickoflibs...if Bush was so unpopular with Europe, then why did several of the nations, including France, Germany, etc., elect pro-American, pro-Bush leaders?”
They elected anti-socialist leaders. Those people hardly were voting for Bush.
But you are changing the subject. Bush didnt liberate France or Germany.I am talking about the countries he so called liberated. Muslim countries. Why liberate Muslim countries just to bring hatred on us? unlike Reagan. Why do they vote hate america? Why did american muslims vote democrat in 2006+2008?
Where do you get this info?
If you think TARP saved the economy then you are a Keynesian liberal. You will not be “informing” anyone who is conservative. If you think W was right to “abandon his free market principles to save the free market”, you are unable to have an intelligent conversation about the economy.
As far as the war, we will never have the support of the left in this or any other country. We need to win it. How can we do that with wide open borders, courtesy of our liberal ex president W? He handed the keys to the car over to a Marxist regime which could not have inflicted NEARLY as much damge as fast as they have if W hadn’t TARPED us, nationalized the banks, doubled the size of govt, allowed the Fed to dangerously accelerate monetization of our debt, and left the borders wide open. He was not a conservative. He screwed us royally, and set us up for the total rape we’re getting now.
Now it’s time for you (like ohioWfan likes to do) call me liberal troll, etc. Funny, I accuse W of being liberal (as any real conservative would) and get called liberal.
Glad lib brought in his support group. :)
(btw, I have never supported TARP, so your profundity was pretty much wasted on me. But thanks sharing).
But you know what, you made me realize something. I don't need to apologize for my views on matters. Now if they are wrong I hope someone like yourself would bring it to my attention, but if I'm not wrong people will just have to deal with.
Let's take this matter for instance. Are the people of America ready for a black president? Perhaps when I said "No" I should have clarified my statement. I like to comment and go on to the next post; not spend a lot of time explaining myself.
Let's face it, this nation is not ready for a president that does not have the best interests of America at heart. O does not, we all here on FR see that. The people of this country elected a minority candidate without vetting him out first (thanks to the MSM) and now they discover that he is out to destroy us any way he can. His views are marxist in nature and he's too stuck on himself to notice it.
In my view, the election of any minority candidate in our present society is a bad idea. All the ones that are possibly electable come from the same societal background as O does. Black, mexican, and women that come from the Democratic political ideaology can be cast in the same mold as O. That's not being racist, bigoted, hateful, etc, that's just plain ole common truth. Unless the president candidate has the same value set that the originators of the USA had, they are no better than O. Now, are there blacks, hispanics, and women who share those views? Of course there are, Sarah Palin is a prime example, but where are the rest of them? People like JC Watts are trashed by the lame stream media the same way Palin was during last year'e election. The politics of character destruction chase away anyone who is a conservative who might actually be able to run for President and who could pull this nation out of the mess its in.
Plus you have to see that the minority candidate will do everything they can to see that people of their particular ethnic background is given more power and prestige, all at the expense of being fair. Look at what happened at the polls in Philadelphia. Blacks actually kept white people from voting. Treatment of people nationwide would, and is becoming, unequal and unbalanced because those of the same ethnic background of the president feel empowered and emboldened to do as they wish, and most of the time unrightfully so and at the expense of someone else.
So, back to our original premise, is America ready for a black, or hispanic, or even a woman, president? The way I see it, if their election divides America the way O has been doing and if they hold to his type of ethical (or his case unethical) background and beliefs, then I say unequivacology "No!" The only thing that will result is the very destruction of the America we both hold dear. Look at what's happening now.
But if their election helps heal America, and I mean actually heal it, and if they hold to the truths that made this country great in the first place, God, rights for all people, the pursuit of life, happiness, morality, basically everything that's in our Constitution, then I'd vote for them too.
oops. Left out “for”
Good post.
Wow, that is real useful commentary there. I admit freely I am no neo-con.
I first heard Levin Fall 2003 subbing for Rush making fun of Howard Dean and liked him. I read his book ‘Men in Black’ and liked it too but about the time he was hawking his dog book (”My Life with Ruff”) on his show I was questioning his statements on Bush . By this last book I realized much of his defense of Bush were untrue.
The neo-cons lied to us, not just going to Iraq, but how they mismanaged it. Bush refused to ask his republican congress for money for the surge, he waited until after the 2006 election loss to demand the new democrat congress for the money. (That way it was Pelosi's debt, cute HUH? Why didnt that sell?) Until then he said "everything is fine, stay the course".
If he had fought to win in 2004 he may have lost the election, but he would be the brave hero you imagine,
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.