Scott McClellan whacks Bush, White House

Here's a good tip for everyone: personal attacks, like this one, really work against you in terms of establishing any credibility on the subject. It's really hard to take someone seriously when they resort to namecalling.

One only has to look at the MASSIVE national debt that was caused by the quagmire in Iraq to know how he will be viewed.

BiR
:laugh:

 

He was low man on the totem pole and could not have had knowledge of these intimate details.

 

Obviously not true. I thought all these charges that are being leveled now were obvious then. I was amazed at how easy the press rolled over to Rove and Bush. The press did not do their job at all. In defense of the reporters they probably were doing what the corporate bosses wanted ... after all profits are more important to corporations than truth.

 

You are right. Carter is the greatest ex-president in our history. He is respected all over the world and is called on to help all over the world.

 

Obviously huh. :laugh:

 

All the charges became very obvious in the run-up to invading Iraq. Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of the Mid-East should have been able to see the lies and deception. Bush played on emotions and emotions often lead to grave mistakes. Cool, rational assessment is better.

 

:laugh:

Yeah, that Bush is pretty sharp for an intellectual midget. He's a real master at "playing" others. :laugh:

 

Can anyone think of any ways in which the United States is better off today than it was eight years ago?

Foreign affairs?
National security?
Cost of living?
Trade?
Economy?
Education?
Employment?
Moral issues? (okay, I grant one here - the prohibition on murdering partially born babies)


Is there anything?

 

I believe this nation and the rest of the world will someday look back and wonder at why, despite his misjudgments, we didn't listen to him more. Time will show him to have been on the right track, but with congress and the left putting every obstacle they could muster in his way.

 

Even though his own party controlled at least one house of Congress most of his term.

 

Why are you so negative?

 

In other words - Bush has possibly held his own. Not much to brag about is there?

I guess I should have mentioned national debt, immigration, and personal liberties?


Doesn't cost of living include fuel costs? Not been there, but I am hearing reports of skyrocketing food prices?

The question was, where is the US better off?

 

You could have, but fending off two recessions (1 Clinton-1 Bush), having a 911 recovery to contend with, and fighting two wars is expensive.

I have lost no personal liberties at all and the immigration issue is untouchable by any past or prospective president.

But you're right. Except for keeping us safe from a repeat of 911, it's not much to brag about.

 

Yet 911 did happen under his watch. No other president has that to bear.

Don't get me wrong - I don't fault Pres Bush for 9/11. But the fact that he only has not seen a repeat is not much to brag about.

 

Just curious, what about Pearl Harbor?:jesus:

 

You could have asked the same question 8 years ago and received about the same answer. The economy was built on a foundation of sand called the dot com boom and we were over-taxed.

Presidents don't control the price of fuel and democrats have stymied every Bush effort to increase domestic production. We've had that discussion before.

One place for sure that the country is better off is not having a moral degenerate with a zipper problem playing sex games with young ladies in the oval office...along with all the distractions that caused.

 

That's good.

The plans for 911 were laid and mostly carried out under another administration.

But I don't blame either of them and finger pointing is useless. But yes, with so many enemies desperately trying for a repeat performance, I believe it has bee quite an accomplishment that another 911 has not occurred.

But it will. It's just a matter of time, especially if we end up with a weak willed appeasement minded president.

It's been fun, Roger. But it's way past my bedtime.

 

You don't understand Roger, to people like hillclimber Bush, a republican must be right and the democrats must always be wrong. Even when the facts sat the opposite, we must wait decades to see that the republican was right. These people live in a deluded reality.

 

Statements like this might get by those who have no knowledge of the views of others in our congress and around the world on this matter. However, Any part of what the President presented was believed by most of Democrats, and most of the rest of the free world in the run up to the resuming of the war in Iraq. Apparently you have had some knowledge that the Dems did not have nor did the intelligence world. Your assertion here is simply media matters talking points and nothing more.

 

We must remember that politicians vote in ways that they believe will attract voters in the next election. That is one reason we get into such messes. Politicians vote and if they are wrong, as they were in this case, they hope voters will forget the mistakes. In other words, most politicians put their own re-election ahead of the good of the country ... both Democrats and Republicians. Is this a cynical view? Yes it is. The older I become the more cynical of politiians I become regardless of party. All too often it is like twiddle dee and twiddle dum.

By the way, what makes you think I am registered a Democrat? You just might be wrong. I call myself a traditional Republician. That is I believe in fiscal responsible action and that has been in very short supply with Republicians the last number of years.

I believe that Rove and Bush were determined when he was elected in 2000 to take Saddam out ... and 9/11 was a very convient excuse to do just that.

I do not consider myself an expert on the Mid-East. I have read a number of books on that area and I took classes in the history of that region in my undergraduate work.

I was against the invasion during the runup to it and I thought at the time that we were not being told the truth. Why was I against it? Because the whole area is like the story of the tar baby. Put your fist in and you are stuck.

There are four major groups in Iraq, the Shite, the Sunni, the Kurds and the Christians. The Christians keep their heads down and hope no one will notice them, and this is very understandable.

The other three groups have been killing each other for over 1000 years except in those times where there is a strong leader who keep them apart. How does he do this? By killing all oppositon.

This has led to a culture of revenge and hatreds are nursed until a chance for revenge occurs. So, I do not believe there will be any lasting peace in Iraq whether we are there or not. We may have bought some short-term decline in violence with the surge, but I fear, and I hope I am wrong, that we have set in motion a long term of violence. Only time will tell.

So, I had no special knowledge, or secret knowledge ... but an elementary understanding of the regions history and culture.