Bush blasts previous presidents in order to defend Iraq War, blame for 9/11

[outriding]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: outriding
Maybe Bush should get on the other internet and check out FEMA's website.

http://www.fema.gov/usr/about5.shtm">Performance of FEMA during other presidents.</a>

And that has exactly what to do with teh President's International policies?

It means I need to put down the crack pipe down.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: outriding
Maybe Bush should get on the other internet and check out FEMA's website.

Performance of FEMA during other presidents.

And that has exactly what to do with teh President's International policies?

It means I need to put down the crack pipe down.

:beer: :laugh:

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: NoSmirk

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
I wish this surprised me but it doesn't. He is, hands down, the worst president to hold office. The people are finally waking up to this, albeit slowly.

I disagree.. as do many other Americans. I think over time Bush's legacy will be proven to be a positive one on this country and the world as a whole. But only time will prove that. Thats whats wonderful about this country, people with different opinions can become President, etc. I know it wouldn't be like that in your perfect world, but..

Wow. I can't believe how wrong I think you are. Bushes legacy? To start with there will be trillions in deficits to pay back. Trillions in an unfunded drug benefit. A new political landscape of hate and fear that may take decades to undo. A war with Islam that may end up nuclear. An economy that will have willingly shifted its manufacturing base overseas. We are royally screwed for at least 10 years.

Plus the late night talk shows will make fun of Bush for many years as the "President who thought he could do no wrong" as his mistakes come to fruition.
That will be Bushes legacy.

I certainly don't agree with Smirky, but your assessment is equally as preposterous. Left vs right has been an issue for years and will continue, regardless of Bush. Ditto with the inevitability of outsourcing. Late night TS hosts? They've made fun of every President for the last 3 decades.

Bush sucks, but we are hardly any more "screwed" for the next 10 years anymore than we would be if Gore/Kerry were at the helm.

 

[conjur]

Interesting.

Brzezinski believes U.S. needs to shed paranoia
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindeal...se/cuyahoga/112747512617590.xml&coll=2

If the United States wants to be a great world leader, it has to climb out from under the bed, a former presidential adviser says.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as the national security adviser under President Carter, discussed the dangers of being a fear-driven nation Thursday night in front of about 140 people at the Cleveland Play House. His lecture was the first in a Cleveland Council on World Affairs series called "An Independent Opinion."

Our country has lost its sense of absolute security, Brzezinski said, and we're not handling it well. For the first time, we're feeling the vulnerability that other nations feel, he said.

"We're not used to this, so we have a tendency to dramatize the threat and to overstate the fear," he said, citing the war in Iraq.

The lack of global support for the war shows other countries knew our reasons were based on suspicion, not knowledge, Brzezinski said. That paranoia isolates us from the rest of the world and destroys our credibility, he said. The United States will need other countries to help with concerns such as North Korea and Israel, but first we need to regain their trust by cooperating, he said.

"If we want to be leaders," he said, "we have to have those who are willing to follow us."

Excellent, if obvious, statements.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Genx87

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: zendari
I thought Presidents are usually reluctant to criticize their successors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not when it comes to recent democrats. The hatred runs deep and the American people see it for what it is worth.

Bush seems to hate anybody he can possibly blame for his mistakes. I wonder how he really feels about Dad's decision to abandon the Shia to the slaughter by Saddam's hands after goading them to revolt? How many problems could we have avoided if he did the job right the first time instead of abandoning the Iraqis to death and later starvation building up all that resentment now we see in Iraq?

Bush: the "Not Me" president. Maybe he should worry more about the mistakes he has made. Those are the ones he has the power to fix and maybe turn this thing around. Will he? Not likely.

You guys are so desperate you'll make anything up! Looks like the propaganda machine is is full force today.

Where exactly does it say he "hates" them???

Really, you'd think he'd love them or at least find them rather convenient !

Hate is a powerful word and there's no evidence to support the claim.

Hate would not be my term, but a reference to the anti-liberal/Clinton "liberals hate America" dogpile in recent threads as directly quoted above that line in OP. Personally I agree with Red as he finds them "rather convenient" in order to shift blame.

Reagan, Clinton and Carter have little to do with the mess he has made in Iraq with his poor planning and ill-concieved ideas. If he's so willing to point out other's faults, let him start by looking in the mirror. (Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?) Blast them all he wants, but you can't rewrite history (god knows he's trying tho) but he can influence the future.

 

[mikeford]

What part of to leave Iraq now would repeat the costly mistakes of the past don't you understand? Are you so simple minded you believe our enemies there just want us out? This isn't about holy ground under the feet of infidels, its about control of assets that create billions of dollars that could finance terror on a scale you might be able to imagine.

Carter lite the fuse to the middle east when he bungled removing the Shah from power. Until the gulf war Viet Nam gave the world the lesson, just hold out long enough and congress will give the victory to you. Clinton showed the world that a two bit thug could chase us out of a relief effort. Bosnia, Rwanda, all are lessons that being timid allows millions to die.

BTW why is it anybody that doesn't agree with you much be some banned person? I not saying its smart, but I don't see many of you posting with your real names.

 

[Red Dawn]

To leave Iraq now would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001

I wonder what the costly mistake of invading and occupying Iraq is going to lead too?

I agree that we cannot just pack up and leave, we already screwed the pooch, now we have to figure out how to abort the nasty offspring our pooch screwing is going to produce! Unfortunately I don't see anybody in the Political Limelight that I would have confidence in fixing that situation, least of all the Dub.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: mikeford
What part of to leave Iraq now would repeat the costly mistakes of the past don't you understand? Are you so simple minded you believe our enemies there just want us out? This isn't about holy ground under the feet of infidels, its about control of assets that create billions of dollars that could finance terror on a scale you might be able to imagine.

Carter lite the fuse to the middle east when he bungled removing the Shah from power. Until the gulf war Viet Nam gave the world the lesson, just hold out long enough and congress will give the victory to you. Clinton showed the world that a two bit thug could chase us out of a relief effort. Bosnia, Rwanda, all are lessons that being timid allows millions to die.

BTW why is it anybody that doesn't agree with you much be some banned person? I not saying its smart, but I don't see many of you posting with your real names.

Hmm...why didn't those "billions of dollars" finance terror under Saddam? Why wasn't Saddam working with Al Qaeda to fund attacks on his neighbors and against the U.S.?

Hmm?

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: mikeford
What part of to leave Iraq now would repeat the costly mistakes of the past don't you understand? Are you so simple minded you believe our enemies there just want us out? This isn't about holy ground under the feet of infidels, its about control of assets that create billions of dollars that could finance terror on a scale you might be able to imagine.

Carter lite the fuse to the middle east when he bungled removing the Shah from power. Until the gulf war Viet Nam gave the world the lesson, just hold out long enough and congress will give the victory to you. Clinton showed the world that a two bit thug could chase us out of a relief effort. Bosnia, Rwanda, all are lessons that being timid allows millions to die.

BTW why is it anybody that doesn't agree with you much be some banned person? I not saying its smart, but I don't see many of you posting with your real names.

Who is this directed to?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: NoSmirk

I disagree.. as do many other Americans. I think over time Bush's legacy will be proven to be a positive one on this country and the world as a whole. But only time will prove that. Thats whats wonderful about this country, people with different opinions can become President, etc. I know it wouldn't be like that in your perfect world, but..

So we never heard - who were you before you were banned? I'm thinking maybe Crimson?

The EBTs just can't stay away, Don. :laugh:

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: conjur
Hmm...why didn't those "billions of dollars" finance terror under Saddam? Why wasn't Saddam working with Al Qaeda to fund attacks on his neighbors and against the U.S.?

Hmm?

1) Saddam ruled his country with a deadly fist.
2) Saddam supported (also with funding) attacks on neighbors.
- Executions in neighboring Arab states.
- Support of thePalestian terrorists
- Invading/executions into Kuwait
- Invading/Attacking IRan.

Support for the World Trade Center #1

Offering up bounties for assinations on US leaders.

Bush senior was willing to work within the UN framework on removing Iraq from Kuwaitt.

The complete operation had a limited objective mandated by the UN and that was what was followed.
It was also felt the if they tried to actually remove Saddam as a punishment, the Arab concensus would have broken apart.

It was felt (wrongly) that the sanctions would convince him to place nice.
Clinton tried to use the carrot approach for 8 years and it did not work. He deserves credit for trying though and encouraging the UN to attempt to follow up.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
You know, I certainly don't like Bush or his policies, but I don't see a whole lot of blame going on in that linked article. He opined that Carter, Reagan, and Clinton didn't respond appropriately to attacks. He didn't mention his father, who *did* go to war in ME and (thankfully) didn't carry the war on to Baghdad. It was a bit tasteless to cite specifics, whether true or not, but I don't get a whole "But it's all their fault!" impression from that blurb.

As long as he was exercising his 20/20 hindsight, he should hae mentioned that his father should hae done something more then what he did. Clearly it was a mistake for Bush Sr. to encourage revolt in Iraq and then do nothing to help??

So you believe that we should have increased the scope of the first Gulf War? I think that would have probably led us down the same path as this reincarnation has, although we would have had more support from the rest of the world.

That would have ben the time to take Saddam out. We already had our Army there, we had world support, we would have been seen as liberators instead of the invaders, we had beaten most of the Iraqi Army, and many of the Iraqis were revolting. We should have at least had some disscusion about it. Instead we let Saddam use his planes to crush the rebellion.

If GWB wants to use his 20/20 hindsight to criticize past presidents, his Dad should have been mentioned also. He never finished the job, and by then we knew Saddam well enough to know he couldn't be trusted to cooperate with us. I mean, he tried to take over Kuwait!!??

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: NoSmirk

I disagree.. as do many other Americans. I think over time Bush's legacy will be proven to be a positive one on this country and the world as a whole. But only time will prove that. Thats whats wonderful about this country, people with different opinions can become President, etc. I know it wouldn't be like that in your perfect world, but..

So we never heard - who were you before you were banned? I'm thinking maybe Crimson?

The EBTs just can't stay away, Don. :laugh:

What amazes me is how often banned trolls can't wait to say something that gives it away. This is the second time this has happened in just a couple of weeks. There's yet another banned troll here as well, but he has at least been a little less obvious than BushBasha or NoSmirk.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: conjur
Hmm...why didn't those "billions of dollars" finance terror under Saddam? Why wasn't Saddam working with Al Qaeda to fund attacks on his neighbors and against the U.S.?

Hmm?

1) Saddam ruled his country with a deadly fist.

So do several other leaders.

2) Saddam supported (also with funding) attacks on neighbors.
- Executions in neighboring Arab states.

U.S. does that, too.

- Support of thePalestian terrorists

by providing money to surviving family members

- Invading/executions into Kuwait

When given the tacit approval by the U.S.

- Invading/Attacking IRan.

And who started that? If we cut through the multiple revisions of history we see Iran was a bit an aggressor.

Support for the World Trade Center #1

How so? That was bin Laden as the "financier". Back in '93, bin Laden loathed Saddam. Why do you think bin Laden had Al Qaeda start going after the U.S.?

Offering up bounties for assinations on US leaders.

*cough*Pat Robertson*cough*

Bush senior was willing to work within the UN framework on removing Iraq from Kuwaitt.

But Poppy didn't do much to establish improved human rights in Kuwait as a result of helping them out.

The complete operation had a limited objective mandated by the UN and that was what was followed.
It was also felt the if they tried to actually remove Saddam as a punishment, the Arab concensus would have broken apart.

It was felt (wrongly) that the sanctions would convince him to place nice.
Clinton tried to use the carrot approach for 8 years and it did not work. He deserves credit for trying though and encouraging the UN to attempt to follow up.

And they knew in '91 that moving on to Baghdad would mean "buying" Iraq and they were nowhere near ready to take that big of a bite. The no-fly zones (while not UN-sanctioned) might have saved some lives but it was done too late (after the Shiites were slaughtered). At least the inspectors were in-country for most of the 90s but Saddam tired of the games and the way he was, essentially, losing face in the Middle East by being "controlled" by the U.S. Would he have worked to restore WMD programs? Probably. But he would have been starting almost from scratch.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
You know, I certainly don't like Bush or his policies, but I don't see a whole lot of blame going on in that linked article. He opined that Carter, Reagan, and Clinton didn't respond appropriately to attacks. He didn't mention his father, who *did* go to war in ME and (thankfully) didn't carry the war on to Baghdad. It was a bit tasteless to cite specifics, whether true or not, but I don't get a whole "But it's all their fault!" impression from that blurb.

As long as he was exercising his 20/20 hindsight, he should hae mentioned that his father should hae done something more then what he did. Clearly it was a mistake for Bush Sr. to encourage revolt in Iraq and then do nothing to help??

So you believe that we should have increased the scope of the first Gulf War? I think that would have probably led us down the same path as this reincarnation has, although we would have had more support from the rest of the world.

That would have ben the time to take Saddam out. We already had our Army there, we had world support, we would have been seen as liberators instead of the invaders, we had beaten most of the Iraqi Army, and many of the Iraqis were revolting. We should have at least had some disscusion about it. Instead we let Saddam use his planes to crush the rebellion.

If GWB wants to use his 20/20 hindsight to criticize past presidents, his Dad should have been mentioned also. He never finished the job, and by then we knew Saddam well enough to know he couldn't be trusted to cooperate with us. I mean, he tried to take over Kuwait!!??

I wasn't trying to turn this into a GB1 debate, but mearly use it as an example of a previous mistake that lead to our situation now, and a major one at that. If GWB is calling people out on their mistakes he should at least be consistant about it and not give Dad the pass.
However, the scenario is a relevant one. People would have cried bloody murder if he did it, but the world could look a lot different today had it happened. We would have been in a better strategic position than we are in now: Many more men in the area to secure country, less resistant populace, lack of a coordinated global terrorist network to support insurgency efforts, lack of internet to quickly spread insurgent propaganda/snuff films, less reliance on private contractors out of command & control structure, lack of GWB, I'm sure you could continue the list.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: NoSmirk

I disagree.. as do many other Americans. I think over time Bush's legacy will be proven to be a positive one on this country and the world as a whole. But only time will prove that. Thats whats wonderful about this country, people with different opinions can become President, etc. I know it wouldn't be like that in your perfect world, but..

So we never heard - who were you before you were banned? I'm thinking maybe Crimson?

The EBTs just can't stay away, Don. :laugh:

What amazes me is how often banned trolls can't wait to say something that gives it away. This is the second time this has happened in just a couple of weeks. There's yet another banned troll here as well, but he has at least been a little less obvious than BushBasha or NoSmirk.

BushBasha got banned? Who was he the reincarnation of?

Dman, I always miss this drama. I'm still mad I missed Rip getting canned. I miss that little nut.:brokenheart:

 

[redhatlinux]

For the record, Pappy Bush was NOT the one that decided NOT to go on to Bagdad. I know for a fact that Saddam was in the sights of a US sniper and the Coaltion made the decision NOT to kill him. The same coalition made the decision not to enter Bagdad. No you won't find many references to this but it's true all the same.

That wonder boy Clinton, who was banging Monica instead of the terrorists, forced the Stealth fighters to fly the same flight paths to Serbia/Croatia. Needless to say they shot down a Stealth aircraft and the technology was sold to every one who wanted it. Don't hear much griping about that, do we.

It is simply BS to say that the Cole bombers were not known to be Al Qaida. Al Qaida is not a group that has 'membership', per se. Al Qaida means a base, a list. a loosely connected group with the same aim, destroy the US, got it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Hafen

BushBasha got banned? Who was he the reincarnation of?

Dman, I always miss this drama. I'm still mad I missed Rip getting canned. I miss that little nut.:brokenheart:

BushBasha was the Artist Formerly Known As xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx. I don't know for a fact that he was banned, actually, but he stopped posting after being repeatedly confronted about his past identity.

I could imagine that NoSmirk is ALSO xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx, but since his account started before BB was banned, I tend to doubt it. I'm thinking he's likely Crimson.

 

[Deudalus]

"The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves, and so they attacked us," said the president, as Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and top military officials stood at his side.

Well, there is definitely some solid reasoning behind that statement.

We didn't really have much response at all to the first WTC attack. Clinton didn't respond to the embassy bombings because he was in the middle of the impeachment trials with Lewinsky. He started some bombings to retaliate the attacks but everyone screamed "wag the dog" so he immediately quit and did nothing else. Again when the Cole was bombed he didn't respond at all to it due to the fact that he only had a couple months left on his presidency.

We knew they had a training camp in the middle of Afghanistan and Clinton has admitted he should've bombed it rather than let them continue to attack us abroad and train more and more terrorists.

So I don't see it being that hard at all to argue that we had definitely put the idea into Al Qaeda's head that we weren't going to defend ourselves.

Bush did not mention any events during the first Bush administration, such as his father's decision to end the first Gulf War without sending coalition troops on to Baghdad to topple Saddam Hussein's regime.

I wish he would've done so then, but the UN wouldn't have supported it and we would have been forced to nation build at that point which I think is what pisses you libs off so much. It would either be nation build or repeat Reagan's mistakes in Afghanistan of tossing out one government and letting whoever wants to seize power afterwards.

 

[Jhhnn]

Amazing bit of revisionist history, all in all.

What happened in Iran? Oh, yeh, the CIA toppled the Mossadegh government in 1953, installed the Shah, poured in support for 20 years, until the people threw him out. His secret police were so effective that the only organized forces left were the Mullahs, and the Tudeh, the Iranian communists, who were immediately massacred by the Mullahs... but that was obviously Carter's fault...

Lebanon? The jewel of the middle east was purposely destabilized by our client state, Israel, with a huge influx of palestinian refugees, partial occupation, and lots of guns and money provided to the phalangists... Reagan was dumb enough and arrogant enough to stick Marines in the middle of it, who began immediate cooperation with the phalangists and the Israelis... Muslim terrorists employed a completely unexpected strategy to kill hundreds, forcing a serious re-evaluation of WTF we were doing there, anyway...

Afghanistan? Even after the Iranian debacle, we used the forces of radical islam against the soviets, supplying money, guns, radical texts, intelligence and encouragement for Saudi sponsored madrasses to "educate" rabid islamic cannon-fodder... after the soviets withdrew, we dumped 'em, left them to their shattered country with a bunch of thugs we created, thinking that they couldn't get to us...

Al quaeda? the ongoing and unnecessary presence of American troops in the KSA after GW1 gave them the excuse they needed for more recruitment, and for action... their CIA provided connections in Afghanistan gave them a base...

Iraq? Hey, there's that famous shot of Rummy and Saddam, and all the undercover support for their war with the Iranian mullahs... not to mention the miscue wrt the invasion of Kuwait, or our failure to tell our friends there to find a better way to deal with the 800lb gorilla next door... that putting his nuts in a vise over war debts and oil wasn't a smart idea, at all...

Yeh, lots of stuff can be attributed to leading up to 9/11, but it's mostly the result of our own actions and arrogance, a tradition now culminated by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, who had nothing to do directly with that tragedy, anyway...

Now, of course, we're stuck in more repetitions of the same arrogance... we can't pull out of Iraq until it's "stable", and that won't be happening anytime RSN because of the Bush Admin's excrable incompetence in the whole affair- from the false justifications to the failure to provide sufficient force to create order to treating the so-called "reconstruction" as a giant cookie jar for corporate cronyism... and a lot of other cavalier acts of utter disregard for the people we're supposedly there to save from tyranny...

Ultimately, somebody will simply be forced to declare victory and leave, no matter what's really happening, which likely won't be victory, at all...

 

[Pabster]

About time Bush swung back. Clinton has been making a lot of remarks lately ... its all an effort to 'rehabilitate' his pathetic reputation in order to help Hillary in her 2008 bid for the WH. Fortunately, people haven't forgotten about Slick Willy and just why he has that nickname.

 

[raildogg]

whats the problem with that? Clinton's foreign policy and the one before that led directly to 9/11.

as for Iraq, he should blame his dad

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Amazing bit of revisionist history, all in all.

What happened in Iran? Oh, yeh, the CIA toppled the Mossadegh government in 1953, installed the Shah, poured in support for 20 years, until the people threw him out. His secret police were so effective that the only organized forces left were the Mullahs, and the Tudeh, the Iranian communists, who were immediately massacred by the Mullahs... but that was obviously Carter's fault...

Lebanon? The jewel of the middle east was purposely destabilized by our client state, Israel, with a huge influx of palestinian refugees, partial occupation, and lots of guns and money provided to the phalangists... Reagan was dumb enough and arrogant enough to stick Marines in the middle of it, who began immediate cooperation with the phalangists and the Israelis... Muslim terrorists employed a completely unexpected strategy to kill hundreds, forcing a serious re-evaluation of WTF we were doing there, anyway...

Afghanistan? Even after the Iranian debacle, we used the forces of radical islam against the soviets, supplying money, guns, radical texts, intelligence and encouragement for Saudi sponsored madrasses to "educate" rabid islamic cannon-fodder... after the soviets withdrew, we dumped 'em, left them to their shattered country with a bunch of thugs we created, thinking that they couldn't get to us...

Al quaeda? the ongoing and unnecessary presence of American troops in the KSA after GW1 gave them the excuse they needed for more recruitment, and for action... their CIA provided connections in Afghanistan gave them a base...

Iraq? Hey, there's that famous shot of Rummy and Saddam, and all the undercover support for their war with the Iranian mullahs... not to mention the miscue wrt the invasion of Kuwait, or our failure to tell our friends there to find a better way to deal with the 800lb gorilla next door... that putting his nuts in a vise over war debts and oil wasn't a smart idea, at all...

Yeh, lots of stuff can be attributed to leading up to 9/11, but it's mostly the result of our own actions and arrogance, a tradition now culminated by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, who had nothing to do directly with that tragedy, anyway...

Now, of course, we're stuck in more repetitions of the same arrogance... we can't pull out of Iraq until it's "stable", and that won't be happening anytime RSN because of the Bush Admin's excrable incompetence in the whole affair- from the false justifications to the failure to provide sufficient force to create order to treating the so-called "reconstruction" as a giant cookie jar for corporate cronyism... and a lot of other cavalier acts of utter disregard for the people we're supposedly there to save from tyranny...

Ultimately, somebody will simply be forced to declare victory and leave, no matter what's really happening, which likely won't be victory, at all...

Hey...don't be cutting thru the haze and getting to the truth.

What were you thinking?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: rickn

can you tell us who you were before you were banned?

His unique IP addresses suggest he and ShadesOfGrey are one in the same

That would suggest they are both the same previously-banned member. Both have demonstrated a knowledge of the history of this board that would be impossible if they were as recent as their user accounts would have you believe.

 

[cwjerome]

I can give Carter and Reagan a SMALL pass when it comes to Islamic Terrorism... there was the bigger issue of the Cold War and sometimes you have to pick your battles. Bush 1 presided over a time of world changing flux, so he gets a SMALL pass. Clinton, however, sucked balls on foreign policy, especially regarding terrorism... and he could have done so much.