George Bush is such a ...

[SteamWake]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/22/bush-cheney-comforted-troops-privately/

[Digital_Trucker]

Care to finish the title of the thread? I'd be interested in knowing how it ends.:hmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

Only history will tell us how it ends. It will be years. Until then GWB will be known as a loser. -shrug-

[SteamWake]

Care to finish the title of the thread? I'd be interested in knowing how it ends.:hmm:

I left it open to let others come up with a title :p

[AVGWarhawk]

When he's out of office he will have plenty of time, I expect he and Cheney will go tour Iraq and Afghanistan to confort the families of all the people killed in US air raids.

Now now, you make it sound like no other leader in the world made a mistake and people got killed as a result.

[Blacklight]

Heck. I'm not shy. I'll complete the title for you. the missing word is,
"--expletive--"

:D

[sunvalleyslim]

At least President Bush cares about his troops. How many letters do you think the Clintons sent to the "Troops"?.....

[August]

Yeah I'm bloody unfair, myself I often kill innocent people inadvertantly while doing stuff. What's 50 people killed in an air raid every now and then in a lifetime eh.

Show me the war fought anywhere, at any time, by any nation, that did not have innocent people caught in the crossfire. Just remember that in WW2 the Allies killed more French people by accident than the Germans did on purpose yet I don't see you bemoaning the liberation of France.

[AVGWarhawk]

When he's out of office he will have plenty of time, I expect he and Cheney will go tour Iraq and Afghanistan to confort the families of all the people killed in US air raids.
Now now, you make it sound like no other leader in the world made a mistake and people got killed as a result.
Yeah I'm bloody unfair, myself I often kill innocent people inadvertantly while doing stuff. What's 50 people killed in an air raid every now and then in a lifetime eh.

Keep your shoes on:D I said leaders of other countries have made mistakes that got others on the sideline killed. Was there not other wars of study in your life? :hmm:

[August]

It's good you mention it, french civilians who died under Brit or US bombs were no accidents but more like acceptable collateral damage.
There's a big difference between people killed under a carpet bombing that targetted a factory/railyard/whatever in 1943, and people killed by guided missiles/bombs in 2008

What difference? Yes weapons are indeed more accurate now than they were in 1943 but not so much that civilian collateral damage can be totally avoided. Now I don't have the figures in front of me but i'd bet once you removed the ones caused by suicide bombers and deliberate terrorist attacks that the death toll among civilians is far less than it was in ww2.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah I'm bloody unfair, myself I often kill innocent people inadvertantly while doing stuff. What's 50 people killed in an air raid every now and then in a lifetime eh.
Show me the war fought anywhere, at any time, by any nation, that did not have innocent people caught in the crossfire. Just remember that in WW2 the Allies killed more French people by accident than the Germans did on purpose yet I don't see you bemoaning the liberation of France.
It's good you mention it, french civilians who died under Brit or US bombs were no accidents but more like acceptable collateral damage.
There's a big difference between people killed under a carpet bombing that targetted a factory/railyard/whatever in 1943, and people killed by guided missiles/bombs in 2008

AVG, yes there are others, but I feel that many people get nervous when I talk about Israeli war crimes so I keep it to Afghanistan and Iraq :)

Gotcha':up:

[Aramike]

It's good you mention it, french civilians who died under Brit or US bombs were no accidents but more like acceptable collateral damage.
There's a big difference between people killed under a carpet bombing that targetted a factory/railyard/whatever in 1943, and people killed by guided missiles/bombs in 2008That's difference is less casualties.

Unfortunately, try as me might, we haven't been able to design missiles that can destroy things without blowing up.

[August]

It's good you mention it, french civilians who died under Brit or US bombs were no accidents but more like acceptable collateral damage.
There's a big difference between people killed under a carpet bombing that targetted a factory/railyard/whatever in 1943, and people killed by guided missiles/bombs in 2008That's difference is less casualties.

Unfortunately, try as me might, we haven't been able to design missiles that can destroy things without blowing up.

We're getting close though. With miniaturization going the way it is before long we'll have bombs the size of house flies and just as maneuverable that can be directed to a specific target.

[August]

Precisely, I'm talking of numerous times when the missiles goal wasn't to blow anything up but the group of civilians it targetted

And you have some kind of proof of the deliberate targeting of civilians in this manner?

[Skybird]

At least President Bush cares about his troops.
Scornful laughter from me. He got them embarking on one stupid war of choice, and on another war of need orchestrated in a dilletantic way for years, he cut wages and pensions and tightened decision criterions for wounded and disabled to get access to state help. All the time Cheney's former - and still - buddies were filling their pockets at Halliburton, and other contractors as well. If that is what you call "caring for his troops" (btw, what do you mean with "his" troops?), I hope I never get a love letter from you - I am not sure that I could survive it.

[Stealth Hunter]

Yeah I'm bloody unfair, myself I often kill innocent people inadvertantly while doing stuff. What's 50 people killed in an air raid every now and then in a lifetime eh.

Show me the war fought anywhere, at any time, by any nation, that did not have innocent people caught in the crossfire. Just remember that in WW2 the Allies killed more French people by accident than the Germans did on purpose yet I don't see you bemoaning the liberation of France.

The difference between World War II and the War in Iraq is that World War II was justifiable. Hitler wanted to destroy the world, and he was doing so in a quite effective manner. Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, but there was no evidence ever produced that he was still in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that he was helping al-Qaeda (the motives that Bush used to go to war). More importantly, he never did go to war with the world.

If anywhere, the American troops and Bush's time should have been spent in Afghanistan, not in Iraq.

[Digital_Trucker]

Care to finish the title of the thread? I'd be interested in knowing how it ends.:hmm:
I left it open to let others come up with a title :p
:oops:Got me:up:I'm too dense today after the weekend celebrations to catch that kinda stuff:damn:. Thanks for clearing it up:sunny:

[Falkirion]

George Bush is such a wanker. Probably one of the worst presidents I've seen in my life time. Bound to be plenty more before I die too. There's my 2 cents.

Of course I have to live with stupid PMs too down here in Australia. I regret voting for Kevin Rudd, Johnny Howard probably would've been the better choice but I didnt like him much either.

[baggygreen]

George Bush is such a wanker. Probably one of the worst presidents I've seen in my life time. Bound to be plenty more before I die too. There's my 2 cents.

Of course I have to live with stupid PMs too down here in Australia. I regret voting for Kevin Rudd, Johnny Howard probably would've been the better choice but I didnt like him much either.You admit to it though, almost anyone I ask up here denies it.. but Brindabella was a strong ALP seat! go figure..

[Kapt Z]

When he's out of office he will have plenty of time, I expect he and Cheney will go tour Iraq and Afghanistan to confort the families of all the people killed in US air raids.

Now now, you make it sound like no other leader in the world made a mistake and people got killed as a result.

President Bush has never made a mistake. He said so himself.:yep:

[Kapt Z]

Yeah I'm bloody unfair, myself I often kill innocent people inadvertantly while doing stuff. What's 50 people killed in an air raid every now and then in a lifetime eh.

Show me the war fought anywhere, at any time, by any nation, that did not have innocent people caught in the crossfire. Just remember that in WW2 the Allies killed more French people by accident than the Germans did on purpose yet I don't see you bemoaning the liberation of France.

The French were more appreciative since we liberated them from the Germans not themselves. Crucial difference.:up:

[Soundman]

Hey, he's not perfect, no one is, but remember, we have not had an attack on American soil now in six years. There IS something to said about that and I guarantee, in given time, history will show him as a much better president than he is currently given credit for. Hindsight is always 20/20. If we knew then what we know now, would America be willing to go to war? Maybe not, but again, if Iraq does sustain democracy, an allied presence in that part of the world will become invaluble.

[A Very Super Market]

Yes, us Canadians hopped along to Afghanistan, and uh.... you guys left.

While Saddam's regime was rather unsettling, I don't understand why you would go after him, without overwhelming reason, as it was in Afghanistan.

Where we're fighting.

[UnderseaLcpl]

edit- thought better of it

[UnderseaLcpl]

edit-double post

[UnderseaLcpl]

edit- triple post. Not sure how that happened.

[PeriscopeDepth]

but remember, we have not had an attack on American soil now in six years. What do you attribute this to?

I guarantee, in given time, history will show him as a much better president than he is currently given credit for. Hindsight is always 20/20. You're dreaming. History will cast him as one of the most bumbling presidents in decades, if not a century or two. For bankrupting this country, in both GDP and what it stands for. He has little to do with barbarians on a wrongly issued student visa not launching viking raider style attacks on this country again.

I am not a "Bush basher", BTW. I believe Bush truly had the best of intentions throughout his presidency. But he was plain and simple swindled by his "advisers", and it happened on his watch. He was a very mediocre man in a time when the country needed anything but. Granted, he had a multitude of crises where any one could sink a presidency. BUT he ********* every one of them.

But what do we expect when we elect our government on the "aurora" surrounding them? And I don't expect much more from the next administration, no matter how much I would love to be proven wrong.

PD

[Aramike]

You're dreaming. History will cast him as one of the most bumbling presidents in decades, if not a century or two. For bankrupting this country, in both GDP and what it stands for. He has little to do with barbarians on a wrongly issued student visa not launching viking raider style attacks on this country again. I don't know about that. I'm not saying you're wrong, however. Just want to point out that the Truman administration was very similar.

I believe that the way history will view this administration is very much dependant upon things that are yet to come. If at some point having a foothold in the middle east (Iraq) turns out to be a strategic neccessity, for instance, history will look quite favorably on Bush's foresight.

The fact is, we have no idea.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I believe that the way history will view this administration is very much dependant upon things that are yet to come. If at some point having a foothold in the middle east (Iraq) turns out to be a strategic neccessity, for instance, history will look quite favorably on Bush's foresight.
I am going to write an essay in response to this tomorrow providing I have the time...Er today, I guess. :)

PD

[Tchocky]

I believe that the way history will view this administration is very much dependant upon things that are yet to come. If at some point having a foothold in the middle east (Iraq) turns out to be a strategic neccessity, for instance, history will look quite favorably on Bush's foresight.

Erm, the US has a foothold in the ME. Quite a few, in fact. Plenty of airbases and friendly ports in Kuwait, Saudi, Oman, Qatar etc. It is a strategic necessity (for some reason or other, ask the Pentagon), and so the ME is flooded with bombers and tanks.
In fact, this was the stated reason for 9/11, American troops in holy land.
Iraq is not a friendly country for the US, and won't be for a long time.

[Aramike]

I believe that the way history will view this administration is very much dependant upon things that are yet to come. If at some point having a foothold in the middle east (Iraq) turns out to be a strategic neccessity, for instance, history will look quite favorably on Bush's foresight.

Erm, the US has a foothold in the ME. Quite a few, in fact. Plenty of airbases and friendly ports in Kuwait, Saudi, Oman, Qatar etc. It is a strategic necessity (for some reason or other, ask the Pentagon), and so the ME is flooded with bombers and tanks.
In fact, this was the stated reason for 9/11, American troops in holy land.
Iraq is not a friendly country for the US, and won't be for a long time.The problem with those "footholds" is that they are tenuous at best, as well as politically unreliable. If there's an issue between Iran and Isreal (the strategic neccessity that comes to mind), there's a good likelihood that those nations won't allow us to base military action within their borders. Furthermore, Iraq has a geographic advantage being its border with Iran.

As far the the "stated reason" for 9/11, I'm pretty sure our troops being there wasn't it. Didn't bin Laden himself say that our support for Isreal was the reason? That, and the view that we are "infidels"? Didn't bin Laden issue a fatwa stating that it is the duty of every Muslim to kill Americans everywhere? And didn't that fatwa open with the following quote from the Koran: "slay the pagans wherever ye find them"?

9/11 happened because certain people hate us due to our religious views being seperate. Everything else, in my opinion, is an attempt to justify these events by mistakenly putting them into a context we would more easily understand. Meaning, we just don't get the idea behind a "holy" war, so we change it into a political one.

[Tchocky]

All very true*, but it doesn't make Iraq any more receptive to a US military presence. Or any better disposed to the troops that are already there.

* = to the stuff before the edit

[Digital_Trucker]

edit- thought better of it
Ditto.:D Edit - But had to post anyway to get one more step away from my goofy avatar.

[Enigma]

It interests me that when discussing Bush's legacy, we seem to only discuss Iraq. There are many, many more factors to consider when judging his presidency, most of which history or hindsight cannot possibly fix.

[nikimcbee]

edit- triple post. Not sure how that happened.

future spammers of america?:rotfl:

[nikimcbee]

If I had to choose a word, I'd say dissapointment.


I don't know what to think of the "preemptive war" strategy. I guess time will tell. I liked his tax cuts, hated his uncontrolled spending.

[SteamWake]

It interests me that when discussing Bush's legacy, we seem to only discuss Iraq. There are many, many more factors to consider when judging his presidency, most of which history or hindsight cannot possibly fix.

I agree with this post 1oo% and encourage further discussion. :p

[Soundman]

Hey, he's not perfect, no one is, but remember, we have not had an attack on American soil now in six years. There IS something to said about that and I guarantee, in given time, history will show him as a much better president than he is currently given credit for. Hindsight is always 20/20. If we knew then what we know now, would America be willing to go to war? Maybe not, but again, if Iraq does sustain democracy, an allied presence in that part of the world will become invaluble.

What do you attribute this to?

You're dreaming. History will cast him as one of the most bumbling presidents in decades, if not a century or two. For bankrupting this country, in both GDP and what it stands for. He has little to do with barbarians on a wrongly issued student visa not launching viking raider style attacks on this country again.

I am not a "Bush basher", BTW. I believe Bush truly had the best of intentions throughout his presidency. But he was plain and simple swindled by his "advisers", and it happened on his watch. He was a very mediocre man in a time when the country needed anything but. Granted, he had a multitude of crises where any one could sink a presidency. BUT he ********* every one of them.

But what do we expect when we elect our government on the "aurora" surrounding them? And I don't expect much more from the next administration, no matter how much I would love to be proven wrong.

PD

I remembered this thread a couple years back and thought it might be interesting to dig up again. I hate to say "I told you so", but it would appear now, many may agree with my original statement. It's not that I'm a huge "G.W." fan, rather that in retrospect, he may deserve more credit than when this thread started.. So the question may be as those billboards say... "Do you miss him yet?" :smug::smug::haha: - @ Periscope...I certainly don't disgree with some of what you said. Particularly the statement, "But what do we expect when we elect our government on the "aurora" surrounding them? And I don't expect much more from the next administration, no matter how much I would love to be proven wrong." Very well articulated ! :up:

[The Third Man]

GWB has come off as just a decent guy in his interviews for his book. Which I think he is. Like many on the left have said...he is too simple to be evil, and too righteous to allow others to be evil in his place.

Obama on the other hand is too smart not to be evil. That is what the electorate said two weeks ago, and what other nations told the man last week.

[Skybird]

At least President Bush cares about his troops. How many letters do you think the Clintons sent to the "Troops"?.....
Yeah, his cuts of the budget for wounded, veterans and pensioners just were meant well to motivate them to not hang around. He really knows how to write good letters!

[Takeda Shingen]

Sky, that post is two years old. I doubt you'll get a response.

[The Third Man]

Yeah, his cuts of the budget for wounded, veterans and pensioners just were meant well to motivate them to not hang around. He really knows how to write good letters!

post the reference....dirty german:) I mean it in a good way.

[August]

Yeah, his cuts of the budget for wounded, veterans and pensioners just were meant well to motivate them to not hang around. He really knows how to write good letters!

The President can not cut or increase the Federal budget. That is the purview of the US Congress.

[Tribesman]

The problem with those "footholds" is that they are tenuous at best, as well as politically unreliable. If there's an issue between Iran and Isreal (the strategic neccessity that comes to mind), there's a good likelihood that those nations won't allow us to base military action within their borders. Furthermore, Iraq has a geographic advantage being its border with Iran.


How is the new foothold working out?
oh yeah the government finally got formed recently when hezballah, the supreme council for islamic revolution, the Sadr brigades and the Iranian republican guard all agreed on the composition of the new Iraqi cabinet.
Bush really got a foothold there....for the mad mullahs to have:doh:

[Skybird]

Sky, that post is two years old. I doubt you'll get a response.

I got bitten by a zombie...?

Now I stand naked in the middle of the road, eh? :timeout:

OK, all laughs on me. :shucks:

[Takeda Shingen]

I got bitten by a zombie...?

Now I stand naked in the middle of the road, eh? :timeout:

OK, all laughs on me. :shucks:

No worries. I announced that the wrong prince was getting married yesterday.

[nikimcbee]

No worries. I announced that the wrong prince was getting married yesterday.

Yeah, I thought Jim was already married?

regarding the thread...
lots of troll chum in the water.

[The Third Man]

GWB is not a bad man, and in many repects Obama has done the same things as GWB. A question if Obama is a good man like GWB, is the ........

[August]

GWB is not a bad man, and in many repects Obama has done the same things as GWB. A question if Obama is a good man like GWB, is the ........

There's no question that both of them are good men.

Don't believe a tenth of what the rabble rousers from either side of the political spectrum will say about the other side and you'll be much better off.

[Onkel Neal]

I got bitten by a zombie...?

Now I stand naked in the middle of the road, eh? :timeout:

OK, all laughs on me. :shucks:

Lol, I have done that too! :cool:

[Platapus]

George W Bush is such a.....

ex-president and is acting like an ex-president should.

I hope his book sells a million copies
I hope his library makes a lot of money
I hope he lives out his retirement in peace and health.

I often disagreed with President Bush's decisions, but never wished ill on Mr. Bush.


Now Dicky is another story. :D