Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Steve Chapman :: Townhall.com Columnist
Where Did Bush Go Wrong?
by Steve Chapman
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


President Bush recently hit the lowest job approval rating of his term, barely higher than Richard Nixon's during Watergate, and 28 percent of Americans think he's the worst ever. But his poor performance review has yet to inspire a frenzy of self-scrutiny.

He brings to mind Russia's Czar Nicholas II, who when told he needed to regain the confidence of his people, suggested that the people needed to regain his. In 2004, asked to name his biggest mistake, Bush couldn't come up with one. Watching his final news conference Monday, you might conclude that he has not spent the intervening years pondering the question.

Asked again where he had gone wrong, the president did offer a few minor regrets: that "Mission Accomplished" banner, pushing Social Security reform in 2005, and flying over New Orleans instead of landing there after Hurricane Katrina. Abu Ghraib and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he confessed, were a "disappointment."

But really, Bush undervalues his negative achievements -- even leaving out the current recession, which in all fairness is due largely to factors beyond his control. As he contemplates his memoirs, he might make use of the following cheat sheet to keep track of his biggest and most inexcusable failures:

Iraq. Bush insisted on fighting a war that didn't need to be fought, on the assumption it would be easy, for purposes that could have been achieved without getting more than 4,200 Americans killed and 30,000 wounded, not to mention squandering upward of a trillion dollars.

The problem is not that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction (as UN weapons inspectors in Iraq were on their way to confirming before the war began). It's that even if he did, they would have been militarily worthless, because using them would have guaranteed his immediate annihilation -- which explains why Hussein didn't use chemical weapons in the first Gulf War. WMD or not, he was a danger we could easily contain.

Afghanistan. The president was right to go after the Taliban. But the Iraq invasion meant shortchanging the war we had to fight. "We're simply in a world of limited resources, and those resources are in Iraq," a senior administration official attests in David Sanger's new book, "The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power" -- acknowledging an obvious truth the administration has always denied.

Results: Last year was our bloodiest yet in Afghanistan; Hamid Karzai's government controls only a third of the country; we are being forced to increase our troop presence; and al-Qaida is thriving just over the Pakistan border. Oh, one more thing: Osama bin Laden has yet to be taken, dead or alive.

The Budget. Bush represented the alleged party of small government, yet under him, federal outlays exploded. During his presidency, spending was up by 70 percent, more than double the increase under Bill Clinton. When Bush arrived, the federal government was running surpluses. Since then -- not counting the horrendously expensive financial bailout -- the national debt has nearly doubled. You can't blame Congress for all this: Bush was the first president in 176 years to go an entire term without vetoing a single piece of legislation.

Executive power. Conservatives are supposed to believe in strict limits on government power, but Bush pushed incessantly to expand the prerogatives of the president. He asserted the right to ignore laws banning torture and restricting wiretapping. The Supreme Court found that his imprisonment of captives at Guantanamo Bay violated the Constitution by denying them the right to challenge their detention in court.

Jack Goldsmith, a conservative legal scholar who held high positions in Bush's Justice and Defense departments, has faulted Bush for "his administration's strange and unattractive views of presidential power." What is needed, he wrote in "The Terror Presidency," are leaders "with a commitment to the consent of the governed, who have checks and balances stitched into their breasts." Which Bush was not.

All these blunders were not accidental. They were the product of this administration's peculiar combination of arrogance, power lust and incompetence.

Those qualities have not abated. Bush leaves us with the rule of law in shreds, the budget out of control, two interminable wars and the public yearning for change. But to him, it's all good.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Cheap shots, including by "RealCon"
I think Bush is a contemptible ignoramus and lightweight. However ...

1. Regarding Iraq, plenty of prominent people, including prominent Democrats, had been saying for years that Hussein had terror weapons and that he would inevitably use them. (He had, in fact, used pretty awful stuff against the Kurds.) Plus, the concern was that he would hand them off to terrorists, the same as one of our present concerns about Iran.

2. The Supreme Court was explicitly forbidden to wade in on the status of prisoners at Guantanamo. Congress has the power to limit the Court's jurisdiction, and they did, by law. The Supremes simply ignored that. Then they ruled as if the creeps at Guantanamo are owed the protections of our Constitution, which doesn't apply to them at all (as neither does the Geneva Convention).

3. Reader "RealCon" in CA has apparently forgotten that the only reason the inspectors were **back** in Iraq, having previously been booted by Hussein, was that we had 150,000 troops floating in the Gulf. Those troops were there for some months before the invasion, and that's not a situation that can just go on and on without causing big problems for morale, etc.

Bush did the right thing

Bush did the right thing going into IRAQ. Saddam was a bad actor and needed to go.

Just as Bill Clinton needed to go into Yogoslavia to remove Milosovic.

You can not support one without supporting the other.

If anyone is concerned about military resources stretched too thin, then look no further than Bill Clinton who reduced the size of our military by 350,000 troops during his 8 years.
I know several former career military who bailed out during the Clinton years because of the hostile enviorment.


That was 350,000 troops that were not there to help with the load. As Donald Rumsfeild said, "We fight with the military we have, not the military we want.

For those that believe Iraq was all about WMD, Well you were not paying attention because Bush gave several reasons for removing Saddam not just WMD. All of which were excellent reasons for removing Saddam.

This article is flawed.
Actually it is surprising to see such anhonest assessment and someone on TownHall deserves credit for allowing it.

But just imagine if Chapman had known that one of Bush's most insistant claims "we do not torture" was going to be proved to be a lie. The former judge who is the chief Pentagon officer who decides if Guantanamo detainees to trial said simply "We tortured Qahtani."

Qahtani is the supposed 20th of the 9/11 plotters and hi-jackers.

So now there is no doubt that President Bush did in fact lie but the worst part is that one of the true members of that evil 9/11 group, and the only one still alive, will probably never be fully charged or punished because of the admitted torture.

Quite a "legacy" for Bush.

So where did Bush go wrong?

Like his father before him Bush went wrong listening to Liberals like Colin Powell who advocated, "you broke it, you fix it."

We have no obligation to rebuild Iraq. We did them a favor and removed Saddam. If another bad actor comes to power we could go back and remove him. Sooner or later the Iraqis will get the idea.

Bush went wrong listening to Liberals in Congress who wanted to spend more than the Conservatives on Homeland Security, Farm Bills, Education Bills, Housing Bills, Education Bills, Transportation Bills, and Foreign AID etc. etc.

He should have learned from the Reagan Years that Liberals will spend, spend, spend, then blame the republicans for increased spending.

This bi-partisan, reaching accross the isle only works with people who care about the Country. Liberals do not.

The politization of DOJ
The ongoing troubles with the Justice Department including accusations that one of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ junior people sent racist e-mails and another was found to have lied to Congress about putting politics ahead of competence.

http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=2750

And the conservatives want a president
that is way more stupid in Sarah (the shopper) Palin.Thank God the country wised up and realized that the rightwing in this country is incapable and incompetent to govern.

Col. Billy
There is little similarity between the USA involvement in Bosnia and the Iraq war.

First of all, Bosnia actually was a coalition. The UN had imposed sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and had a force in Bosnia that included soldiers from many European nations before we got involved. NATO had entered the conflict before Clinton got us involved.

Iraq was a case of Bush deciding that we had to be the policeman of the world.

Our casualites were basically insignificant in Bosnia, as opposed to Iraq whre we have so far had over 4200 Americans killed and over 30,000 maimed. Iraq has cost many hundreds of billions of USA dollars and is at this moment, almost 6 years later, is still costing us $300,000,000.00 per day!

Do not pretend that Bosnia and Iraq are similar.

Surprisingly honest article

I agree with the others who have pointed out that this type of half-way honest article is remarkable on Townhall.com. How did they ever let it slip through?

There are many other problems with Bush (what happened to those 3 million emails?), but it seems a bit silly to say (as the author does) that there's really not much Bush could have done about the financial meltdown. This makes little sense to me - after all, the guy was in charge for the past 8 years. His tax breaks for the rich and his excessive military spending certainly contributed to the problem. And of course, republicans have long fought against intelligent regulatory policies, so to the extent that the meltdown resulted from inadequate regulations, Bush and the republican party shares a large piece of the blame. (It marks the end of the failed Reaganomics (voodoo economics) era).

tom

Yes many people who watch MSNBC agree with you.

However the facts say otherwise.




BUSH..NO..Government together did it!
"Fascism will come at the hands of perfectly authentic Americans.who are convinced that the present economic system is washed up.and who wish to commit this country to the rule of the bureaucratic state; interfering in the affairs of the states and the cities; taking part in the management of industry and finance and agriculture; assuming the role of a great national banker and investor, borrowing billions every year and spending them on all sorts of projects through which a government can paralyze opposition and command public support; marshaling great armies.at crushing costs to support the industry of war..which will become our greatest industry.adding .global planning .under the authority of a centralized government in which the executive will hold.all the powers, with Congress reduced to the role of a debating society."

Fascism didn't come to America wearing jack boots and brown shirts. It came respectably-clad in suits and ties and calling itself Republicans and Democrats.

"Chicago Tribune" says it all.
This author is "driving by" Townhall.com. He's a liberal, as this article reveals.

Mr Chapman a rebuttle
Iraq- you sir are purposely blind to the beam in your own eye on this issue and have allowed others to lead you with deception

Public Law 107-243 Oct 16 2002 Look it up Mr Chapman it might refresh your memory and decloud it from the daily dose of liberal nonsense you consume.

If you can honestly and carefuly reread thie above stated law Steve my boy then maybe the rest of this articles premise may start to clear up on its own.
\
Judgeing from your past performances I wont hold my breath.

Edna I hope
you arent implying that hope and the American way are over. I have to take issue with that as I have said before in another thread. As long as you are able to influence, then influence. If you are trying to sound the death cry for our Republic I am here to inform you that you are premature and to throw away hope and surrender to those that would destroy it is nothing less then assisting in her destruction.

reparations
Some of the same crowd who deride the socalled mythical perfectability of Obama(ridiculing him as "The One", the "Anointed One", etc.)seem incapable of leveling ANY serious criticism and condemnation of Bush, apparently believing in Bush's perfectability.

Those of us living in the real world know only too well that Bush made some serious mistakes.

"Blunders" is a more apt description than "mistakes".

Chapman has the audacity to enumerate some of them, and for that heresy the flock shows its displeasure by awarding him 1 star, and calling for him to be banished from this site.

Only columns which idolize Bush are permitted, I guess.

Can't go around saying the emperor has no clothes on this site.

Tom, agreed.

Iraq was due to a supreme arrogance in this administration that arrogated unto itself a divine right to use our military as pawns in some grotesque experiment to see if Islam and democracy are compatible.

That halfbaked utopian idealism is anathema to legitimate conservatives.

Nobel winner in Economics Joseph Stiglitz predicts the ultimate financial cost of Iraq war will be near 3 trillion U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Even if the cost is only 2 instead of 3 trillion dollars, that computes to U.S. taxpayer funding EACH Iraqi to the tune of $80,000...every Iraqi man, woman and child.

Gosh, that sounds alot like reparations to me.

Powell said to Bush(on Iraq), "if you break it, it's yours".

I guess he was right. $80 grand in U.S. tax dollars on each Iraqi... and counting.

Meantime our own decaying and aged infrastructure goes without.

True, But the Broader Issue Is.......

Ronald Reagan won elections because he broke the Democratic lock on working class whites. The Bushes and Denny Hastert lost elections because they threw working class whites under the bus on issues like immigration, education, and income. Over the last twenty years working and middle class Americans have faced a sea change in their economic realities. While those who went to Yale and Harvard Business can't quite grasp why all those 'mill honks" don't retrain to become system analysts, the reality for factory workers is quite different. Everyone does not have the cognitive endowment, temperament, or familial support network required to succeed in an under graduate or graduate educational program. If George Bush had worried about America's position as a center of manufacturing with the same level of enthusiasm as he demonstrated for creating Democracies where none were wanted, we would not be in the mess we are now. When the average American sees no material benefit from a political party he will abandon it. If Democrats ever get right on guns and immigration, the Republican Party will be done forever.

Mr. Bush calls himself a conservative.
I have seen no indication that he understands what a conservative believes. I've been calling him a liberal big government conservative since 2000.
Chapman does a good job of putting into words some of the disappointments of conservatives.

News Flash
Liberals have hit a new low in approval numbers with me, -22%.

I used to just laugh at their crazy (loony) antics, but now that they run the whole shebang, I'm filled with fear and loathing.

Notice a lot of talk of armed revolution coming from us cons? We ain't wuffin' Jack! When our rights and liberties start disappearing faster than Bernie Maddoff's portfolios, some of us will be paying attention.

Washington DC needs to be isolated, cut off from the citizens so they can't continue with their Robin Hood ways, that is rob from everybody and give it to themselves and their buddies.

We start by shutting down the beltway with trucks and Harleys, not letting any politicians escape. Then we'll move from house to house, building to building (like Gaza, or Falujah) neutralizing all liberal, socialist, Marxist dhimmicrats and giving power back to the people.

We will probably have to open up Club Gitmo to hold the most radical, unrepentant of the lot. Instead of Korans and pleasant music, we'll inundate them with Bible study and pipe in conservative talk radio 24 hours a day.

The ones who don't break will hopefully commit suicide.

wmou
I've been calling Bush a liberal since he became governor of Texas. He demonstrated then that he was, at best, a moderate Democrat.

The biggest problem the Republican Party has is that they have let the Democrats take over.

Gutsy Column
It took guts to write this column. Especially knowing what happened to Kathleen Parker when she dared to expess an opinion that differed from Papa Bear Rush. Especially when "us vs them" rhetoric from people like Coulter bring in lucrative book deals.

Steve Chapman... Conservative columnist with the ability to think on his own and the guts to speak his mind.

How about the Yellowcake
Iraq had hundreds of tons of yellowcake; an isotope of Uranium that can be converted into a dirty atomic bomb. The last 550 tons of yellowcake was shipped to Canada in May-June 2008.

In my opinion a suicide bomber is a "WMD" because they have afflicted death and destruction on a mass scale. Saddam Hussein was promoting "the concept of suicide bombing" by paying $25000 to families of suicide bombers. In Iraq and some other areas $25000 is a lot of money.

Bush was denigrated by the DSM (Down Stream Media full of sludge & sewage); by the eastern Elitists (who were probably good friends with Madoof); by the Hollywood cast of subterranean characters and a Congress ready not only to sell itself but the soul of America.

Take away the effect caused by these anti-American elements and you will find that Bush did better than Carter &/or Clinton. As you said the economic collapse was not entirely Bush's fault.

Bush's biggest blunder...
was in making it possible for a smooth talking Marxist (BHO) to become President under the banner of hope and change. Bush's legacy is BHO. I don't know about you but I cannot believe Bush will be happy about that.

Col Mitchell
I am so tired of hearing the same old story over and over about Iraq. How easy it is for people to be critical of our foreign policy particularly when most people don't know a hoot about anything. We can argue the point as to whether we should of, could of, would of in regards to Iraq. Do we forget his invasion of his neighbors. His harboring of terrorist, killing his own people etc etc etc. He was a weapon of mass destruction in his own right. Little minds can not see past themself. 9/11 should have been a wake up call for all Americans but how many went back to sleep? History tells us that the position of the President is not a popularity contest. It is a position of making tough choices. Does it mean they always make the right one. Probably not. I was against the Bush nomination because I felt the GOP bought his way in. I was for McCain at that time. Having said that, I can only say that regardless of whether we agree or not President Bush stuck to his guns and never waivered. I'm not so sure the results would have been the same with someone else. Almost eight years of no further attacks. That speaks volumns if anyone really does care about this country. Colonel I can only say from one military man to another we understand the bigger picture. Great comments

Bush a Failure
Assume that Iraq had yellocake. Is that provocation for war? What is it that Iraq did to provoke the US into war. If the UN said it is okay to invade Iraq, why did Bush since we try to do nothing that the UN stands for? So why the war? It was a Bush thing that Father Bush started but didn't finish and it was all about protecting the flow of oil -- that is it, complete. Atrocities by Hussein against the people of Iraq? What about those occurring in several African countries? Why not war there? This article which puts the mouth on Jorge Bush is far better than that from Fred Barnes who speaks of 10 good things from Jorge Bush. Jorge has few good acts - one was the two SCOTUS judges, but one was a default - instead of Harriet Meirs, a true joke.

Ugh
"Mission Accomplished".

"Bring It On".


The list is almost endless.



There's a difference...
There's a difference between well-founded criticism and mindless rantings.

There is no question Bush made mistakes. He should be held accountable for those mistakes. But he wasn't the total villain he was made out to be by the Democrats, either.

Clearly Bush was the lesser of the two evils from which we had to choose. As bad as things are, they would have been worse with Gore or Kerry.

In fact, we're about to see what it is like to have chosen the greater of two evils.

Bushes mistakes
I am surprised at all you folks that forgot his greatest mistakes.Securing our borders.If you think the Iraq war is expensive,look up the costs and deaths caused by illegals.

You forgot these "blunders" also:
The centralization of the school system under the federal government in what is the pathetic "no child left behind". This stole the rights away from the states.
The growth of the welfare state through the "drugs for Seniors" program that will end up costing way more than what is projected and bloated the government.
Throwing out his faith in the free market to partially nationalize the insurance industry, the banking industry, and the auto industry was another mis-step of grand design.

He did a total of 3 things right.
1) The tax cuts
2) Trying to privatize Social security (although for some reason he seems to now believe this was a mistake for him to do???)
3) Going into Afghanistan after 9/11

Besides those three things he has been a very underwhelming President.

Jax33
Well, well, well. The illegal issue has been going on for years. To put the blame game totally on Bush is fruitless. Let me ask you this? How many illegal's work in your state of IA? The issue really lies in the area of American businesses hiring illegal's to begin with. I wonder why? Cheap labor. Then we can talk about other countries with their child labor factories. The failure of government law enforcement between state agencies and the federal government is or was the root of the problem. IF the governments of this country both state and federal would enforce the exisiting laws we wouldn't have a border problem. There would be no need for those crossing the borders to come to this country. They can not exist without a source of income.
The same holds true for the drug problem. Our government is more concerned about what Mexico and Columbia are doing about the drug problem in their countries rather than taking care of business here. If you cut the demand I can assure you the result would be different. Education is certainly a part of the control but strict law enforcement is even more so. The illegal situation is even more compounded now with the housing issue. Most illegals will live among several families again volating housing laws occupancy. How many law enforcement agencies insure those laws are followed. I can assure you it is probably close to done. So, if you want to be fair about it put the issue in it's proper context.

Sabotage
It used to be called 'treason'...the deliberate attempt by the liberal media to undermine and sabotage President Bush at every turn of the entire Presidency. I'm constantly amazed at the lack of respect for the office that has constantly been directed at Bush. I don't think there is anything that the man could have done without being excoriated for it. I didn't always agree with everything that he did, but for the love of Pete, he didn't deserve to be treated the way he has been for the past 8 years. If we are looked upon with disregard in this world it is because of the bombardment of propaganda that the liberal media has foisted upon us all. It is just unbelievable that people can't see though this. God help us all!

Arrogance, power lust and incompetence
The author mentions these three traits as the source of this administration's failures. Well said and right to the point.
Throw in the frat-boy smirk that said, "I don't know and I don't care" and it's a wonder that more people don't despise this guy.
As far as keeping us from another 9/11-type disaster, I don't think the administration had any more to do with that than Tom Ridge did ("Let's really shake 'em up...we'll change code red to orange. That'll fix 'em.")
Thank God we only have five more days to put up with him. Obama may be a disaster, but we're becoming used to that from the White House.
i was a registered Republican for almost 40 years......four years ago I switched to Independent. I have seen nothing yet to make me go back

where did Jorge NOT go wrong?

Pres. Jorge focused on the wrong bad guys... he got snookered into a war of choice against the wrong Arabs, even as he aided and abetted the REAL threat to America-- the ILLEGAL alien incursion.

I voted 2x for W, but I am sick about it (though Windsurfer and public traitor, do nothing, gigolo Kerry was NOT an alternative). The war in Iraq was a profligate war of choice against the wrong Arabs; Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, WMD's were irrelevant to the U.S. anyway, and Saddam and Osama were opponents.

We will have spent $3 TRILLION all-in, with thousands killed and maimed-- all because the neoCONS then manipulating the Bush W.H. (Perle, Wolfy, Feith, Libby, and Wurmser... and their fellow pan-Israeli allies braying incessantly in the media--> Krauthammer, May, Kristol, Kagan, Prager, Gaffney, Barone, Medved, Prelutsky) wanted permanent American bases in Iraq for Israel's protection-- the dirty little secret.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_c ontributors/article3419840.ece
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/spheresInfluence.h tml

Meanwhile, near-clueless Presidente Jorge believed in open borders, so he failed to uphold his most fundamental oath-- to defend and protect our border. Like Amnesty John McCain, he had made a Faustian deal years ago for employer lobby $ and Hispanic votes, but both quislings failed to get the latter, even as they sold out America to the indigent, ignorant ILLEGAL alien invasion... which will likely leave a legacy of an America morphing into a third world welfare state as ILLEGALS are enfranchised and vote it in.

Finally, as the column notes, RINO Jorge spent $ and grew govt. like a born-again 'Crat in order to buy loyalty for funding his misbegotten war-- swell job there, Jorge Bush!

Ross A from VA.

Well as you can see the "hate america first" crowd will focus on the few mistakes along the way.

Mistakes in war are a given. More times than not mistakes are due to faulty intelligence.

FDR, Marshall and Eisenhower made their fair share of mistrakes during WWII costing thousands of lives both military and civilian.

Bill Clinton made his share of mistakes in Somalia and in Bosnia.

Sophisticated thinkers understand that warfare by its nature is un-predictable because conditions change more rapidly than information can be gathered and diseminated.

To hold George Bush to a different standard from all previous presidents really illustrates a lack of central fairness and understanding on the part of Liberals. It clearly shows a lack of intellectual intergrity on their part.

The words of people without integrity seldem endur the scrutiny of history.

More liberal spew
Clinging to half truths and misinformation is the hallmark our agenda driven media. No wonder a black nationalist socialist got over half the vote. Unfortunately the American dream is over. We will never see 60 real conservative senators undue the Obama agenda.

It truly is amazing
that the pmm (Propaganda Media Machine) [that this author is a member] pushes their anti-American agenda in the form of free speech against tyranny and the leaders have to run for cover to prove they're not tyrannical. Bush had all kinds of opportunities to squash these ankle biters but didn't. After the NYT treasonously leaked terrorist phone-tapping the Republican Congress put together the tightest controlled surveillance that was timely or worthless (waiting for judge's orders) and the dim/lib/media still fought to favor our enemies. They completely said screw America from expresidents, BJ and Peanut Head, bashing from overseas to the Dixie Chumps and all the losers after them encouraged the enemy to kill our soldiers, all the while beseeching, "We love our troops." Hogwash, if FDR was alive you'd all be lined up on a wall.

That's the main thing Bush did wrong. He did not go after every terrorist everywhere and their sympathizers here at home no matter how high up or their celebrity with airheads. If you're gonna be called a tyrant, be one. The cause is just.

agree substantially w/these posts

jerabaub Location: FL
Reply # 15
Date: Jan 15, 2009 - 6:38 AM EST

(excellent, as usual)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

everyman Location: PA
Reply # 31
Date: Jan 15, 2009 - 9:55 AM EST

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jason Location: GA
Reply # 28
Date: Jan 15, 2009 - 9:11 AM EST

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Almost forgotten was the nomination of sycophant Harriet Miers-- the only other person to imagine that Presidente Jorge was "brillaint." That spoke volumes about his judgment-- she was unqualified for any signal legal job, much less SCOTUS. Even AG Alberto Gonzales begged him not to proffer her name.

Chapman...
...is not the sharpest too in the shed, but he did get this one right. Medved's lame insistence aside, Bush may very well be the worse president in our nation's history. The question is, can we recover? Will American patriots be able to resurrect the Constitution, and avert our headlong plunge into socialism?

It's Not Just Liberals
My choices would have been somewhat different from Steve Chapman's, but I agree that the 2 Bush administrations have been bad for the U.S. and destructive to the Republican Party.

The last 3 months of bailout/takeover/economic madness are enough to destroy any positive Presidential legacy. Some additional lowlights: McCain/Feingold should never have been signed into law, Alberto Gonzales should never have been brought to Washington and certainly never made Attorney General, and the abject failure at public relations by the President and his appointees. The "daddy party" became the gang of incompetents who stood for nothing except tax cuts and whatever "the war on terror" meant that day.

I have voted Republican since 1968, but if Jeb Bush is ever the Republican nominee, I will rush to vote Democrat.

Kudos To Chapman
At least one conservative on TH can be influenced by the facts. I am sure he will be told never to do it again.

Sadly, too many of the respondents refuse to confront the reality.

The Iraq invasion was ill conceived and pathetically executed. It has cost the US somewhere between 1 and three TRILLION dollars, for which we have received NO BENEFIT. Iraq is now a nation under the sway of Iran. We traded a secular nation for an Islamic Republic whose leaders vow to destroy us.

Worse, we are STUCK there.Yes, we are trapped in Iraq and we can thank Bush for that.

Nobody with a brain in their head can consider that a good outcome.

The Iraq invasion cost us 4200 lives and 30,000 maimed. This is a huge human cost, paid for no benefit.

Anybody who still suports this does so because they are hard core conservatives trying to avoid tarnishing their ideology. Bush has been a disaster, and those here who still support this are equally responsible.



cogent point
re:
"WMD or not, he (Saddam) was a danger we could easily contain."

ISRAEL worried about Saddam, but America had no real need to fear him. He was an ADVERSARY of Osama!

The ugly secret is that the neoCONS simply used 9/11 and various other ploys to execute their PNAC agenda, which they had spelled out clearly in 1996, fully 5 years before 9/11.

The REAL goal was to take out Iraq to establish permanent American bases there for Israel's security. This is why all of the various excuses for the debacle made no sense... e.g., there is HALF the oil coming out of Iraq today than when Saddam was toppled. OOPS!

The total cost may reach $3 TRILLION-- but then, we don't need that $ now for other things now, do we? More fiscal responsibility from Presidente Jorge, who misplaced his veto pen because he needed to buy loyalty for funding his profligate gambit in Iraq.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/spheresInfluence.h tml

http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac_neo-con_artists.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_c ontributors/article3419840.ece

I approve
This is a good conservative criticism of where Bush went wrong, and how it hurt the Republican brand. He did many good things in office, of course, but these were troubling and damaging. Very good article, setting aside rhetoric for analysis.

Bushes' Mistake
Bushs' biggest mistake was in thinking that the Democrats would actually work with him. He should have known that they and the media would hate him and work to undermine him no matter what he did

Read the bio
Harvard University, University of Chicago, Chicago, conventional liberal wisdom, 1970's education, Austin, TX

John, PA:
Very well said.

Article scratches surface
I won't forget Ramos and Campeon, or the attempted court martial of our honorable Marines. Old Georgie ignored them, just as he ignored our borders and illegal aliens problems, along with countless terrorist in our midst now. He chose to spend my (our) money like a drunken sailor. He said, Thanks for your vote, now _ _ _ _ you! How can he sleep at night?

Col. Billy Mitchell Re:Iraq & Yugoslavia
"Bush did the right thing going into IRAQ. Saddam was a bad actor and needed to go.

Just as Bill Clinton needed to go into Yogoslavia to remove Milosovic.

You can not support one without supporting the other."

They were both wrong. There are quite a few "bad actors" in this world and the people of the United States don't owe their blood and treasure to anyone other than their own country. Actually, in case you haven't noticed, we can't even AFFORD to do it anymore.

Joesolis

You are correct.

One of the problems many conservatives and some Republicans have is understanding that liberals and Democrats do not put the country first.

Bush ignored their "hate america first" words and dismissed them as political rhetoric.






Bush is small part of the problem...
It's convenient and customary to blame the President for everything that goes wrong in this country. But, Bush couldn't have done most of the damage without the consent of Congress. Congress authorized the war and all spending bills since Bush took office. Bush failed to use his authority to veto bills and seal the borders, but Congress (except for a handful) is equally responsible.

"All these blunders were not accidental. They were the product of this administration's peculiar combination of arrogance, power lust and incompetence."

Can anyone honestly deny the same is true for Peolsi, Reid and the rest of Congress?

Bush and his administration were blamed for Katrina. You would think that he personally sent the hurricane to New Orleans. The poor minorities there were eventually showered with money, trailers and other hand-outs. Then, Bush was labeled a racist. Does anyone remember the media covering Galveston with the same enthusiasm? We had similar conditions there and it didn't require billions of taxpayer money and Bush wasn't blamed for the hurricane. Years from now, no one will be talking about Galveston, but they'll still be blaming Bush for Katrina.

All the Bush haters dutifully went to the polls and re-elected the same Congressmen for which they give an approval rating of 10%. Thus, we the sheeple are no less to blame for everything that's gone wrong for the past eight years and for years to come.

On putting country first
Col. Billy Mitchell: "liberals and Democrats do not put the country first."

That behavior is rampant in our country today, and it's not limited to liberals and Democrats. There are plenty of Republicans who put themselves first, their big donors second, party third and country dead last. It's time to admit the facts and vote accordingly.

BTW, thanks for a refreshingly honest article Mr. Chapman.

Bush failure

He failed to "manup" seven ago and his problems are created not by other but, by himself. He created his own dislike and lack of respect by failing to explain and defend his actions. The man permitted the void (he created) to be filled with hate and did nothing.

Doug #31
Thank you, for that encouragement.
We have to get over this funk; if the Founders had the same mindset we'd still be British owned.
Many of you profess to being Christians (and I know I am just as guilty) yet are not giving God any credit. I've made up my mind that I am NOT going to give in to the spirit of fear. That spirit has run rampant in the past few years, you forget, these people cannot do anything more than God allows them to do. He has a reason for allowing this election, I think it's to bring us to our knees, we have
a more powerful weapon than these criminals that are running this government could ever dream of..prayer. God is STILL in Control.
Do you know that George Washington anointed the doors of the Capitol at it's dedication? I learned that last night when I watched a video of two pastors and a Christian (committed) congressman from Georgia anointed the doors and podium with oil and prayed for O. I still don't like nor do I trust him but if God led these men to do this, then we aren't finished.
It's up to us to pray as in 2 Chronicles 7:14 and stand up and be heard, even if they refuse to listen at least you did your part, the rest will be up to the One who has the heart of the king in His Hands. Only one third of the colonists supported the Founders and the Revolution, one third didn't care and the others became Tory's and sided with the British, yet there were Christians praying and
we WON!

The Article Stinks, but..
The Comments are great! That's the only reason I want Chapman to stay in TH!

I just love armchair quarterbacks
Especially ones that move from football to the presidency. And then you find the ones in politics or media and really have the "stars".

Three buildings, four planes, 3,000 dead! YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT! YOU'RE PREDECESSOR IGNORED SEVERAL ATTACKS OVER EIGHT YEARS AND THE UN IS IN CAHOOTS WITH THE AN EVIL DICTATOR TO PROVIDE MONEY THAT HE USES TO INVADE, BOMB, ARM TERRORISTS AND SUICIDE BOMBERS AND HAS PUT A HIT ON YOUR FATHER!

He took him out and because Dr. Demento Dean got away with recreating Vietnam for his college punks nobody questioned the treason that was taking place because it really wasn't a war and there were more enemies in the GOP than Al Queda. Come on, people. Stop the analyzing and face facts. This is more propaganda. Nuff said. History will prove all you Bush bashers as head cases.

oracle1
good insight.

to many conservatives were unfamiliar with pnac,(project for a new american century) which started saying in the mid-90's that they wanted to invade iraq.

pnac signatories included jeb bush, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, crystal and just about every one with any input on the mid-east.

i do not fault their idealism... the idea that democracy would solve the problems in the mideast was laudable albeit not realistic.

second, they were so culturally ignorant that they were doomed from the start.
i mean bush did not know the difference between sunnis and shias.


Bush's Failure
Bush's failure has already been massive, and it will yet prove to be catastrophic. Overthrowing Saddam was not the failure. That was an improvement for the world. What came afterward, both in Iraq and Afghanistan was and is and will be a disaster for America. Bush's failure was ideological. He launched wars without defining the enemy. This is unforgivable! The very name "War on Terror" is logically absurd. We did not fight World War Two against blitzkrieg or against Kamikaze pilots. Bush and his ignorant advisors failed to recognize the ideology behind Islamic terror. Al Qaeda is only a surface manifestation of that deadly Islamic jihadist ideology. That is our enemy. Once we conceive of our interests as combatting Islamic imperialism, then it becomes clear that we have been fighting the wrong wars in the wrong way in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It also becomes clear that we should have disarmed the Islamic Republic of Iran which is a terrorist-sponsoring state and which is about to acquire nuclear weapons. Bush's failure to recognize this Islamic threat is professional negligence at the highest level. Even worse, Bush, contrary to all objective evidence from the Islamic religious authorities themselves, continually refers to Islam as a "religion of peace," thereby preventing the American public from appreciating the nature of the enemy. Still worse, Bush has brought Muslim Brotherhood Islamists into his administration. It is like appointing and consulting with members of the Communist Party during the Cold War. That is Bush's failure. It is colossal.

History will judge
As usual, the liberal analysis is at best superficial. George Bush became a man forged by the crucible of the times. I doubt any of the natterers and nabobs would have done any better.

The whole WMD in Iraq was a con, and Bush/Chenney knew it. But Saddam had something even more dangerous. Money (thanks to our corrupt friends in France and at the UN). It cost just $16M to train 20 people to kill 3000. With the Soviet Union disintegrating and with even more dangerous weapons floating around, Saddam could have done a lot of harm working through proxies. Sure he wasn't doing it yet, but 9/11 showed him and the whole world the formula on now to get to the US. Iraq was about to become a very dangerous place.

Bush knew that if he was going to clean out that cesspool, he's have to act before the pendulum swung back to the sissy politics that got those 3000 people killed in the first place.

BUSHES BIGGEST MISTAKES

.....Russia managed to seal its borders plus most of Eastern Europe ...Bush couldn't (or wouldn't) seal our Southern border ...

.....He tried to get amnesty for 12 million law breakers for no other reason than to secure the Latino vote and failed miserably ...

.....He forgot to be a Conservative .....COLOSSUS

Chapman: Bush Go Wrong...
If only we, the rest of the people including politicians, were as bright as you; like magic all of the world's problems would either disappear or handled oh so properly...write an article in 2012 and let's see what happens then Steve Wonder Boy!!

"Where did Bush go wrong"?
He didn't! This "unpopularity" has been manufactured by the media and assumed as a correct picture of the public sentiment. Most people have no clue what Bush has done in the past eight years and couldn't cite more than the war in Iraq or waterboarding as their basis for this kind of thinking. This vilification of Bush has been a steady drone of the MSM bent on setting the stage for a democrat in the administration. It's so simple that to not see it is plain ol' dumb!

What?
One of the worst articles I've read on Townhall. By the way Mr. Chapman I don't believe he listed flying over New Orleans as a regret. He said if he had landed the media would have been even more critical of him.

Real Con
And don't forget: Bush & Cheny actually had the WTC towers blown up plus, of course, as you & your friends (ilk) know full well, Bush rigged the levies in New Orleans to flush out the city and laughed about it all the time he was flying over it.

Mr. Chapman will no doubt chronicalize all this in the future to make good copy for you to enjoy!


Bush can't win.
It seems President Bush can't win, no matter what. Anything resembling a positive is squashed or twisted to highlight anything negative.

Since when, does Townhall publish articles by liberals.

Maybe...
...it's time to get over Bush, and start worrying about Obama's agenda. Unless, of course, you are comfortable with his ideas for The Socialist States of America.

Bush triumphs
The consensus that Saddam had WMD's is not even arguable. Based on the info Pres Bush had, there was no choice. Even the (hill)Billy Clinton stated he was absolutely certain they existed.

WMDs
There was one person who really and truly thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs.

That person was Saddam Hussein. He figured he could whistle them up and keep himself in power
forever.

They did not call him the Master of Miscalculation for nothing.

But his greatest miscalculation was not WMDs.
It was convincing himself that the Man From Midland was bluffing.

Now if I were back preparing Two Shop briefings for the Old Man, Chapman and the majority of commenters here would be beside themselves with apolexy.

That is because the information (as complete, timely and accurate as possible) would be that
the Invasion of Iraq has resulted in a permanent reduction in enemy capabilities by renderin an Arab-based caliphate impossible and any other variety improbable.

In addition, it would say that while Afghanistan remains a problem, in no small part because of Pakistan and Iran, Afghanistan can no longer serve as the hideout and privileged sanctuary it once was.

In short, Dubya is giving Obama a strategic position far superior to the one that he inherited. He has done well.

Abdul is Correct
Bush' failure, and the failure of the neocon/ PNAC concept, was the failure to understand the nature of the Islamic world.

Bush eliminated a secular government that was OPPOSED to Islamic extremism. He invaded in order to establish a Democracy in a nation where 3/4 of the people wanted MORE Islamic influence. Whom did he think they were going to vote for?

Its the same thing that happened to the Palestinian Authority. The US favors the establishment of a Democracy, and then has to deal with the results of the election. How's that Hamas thing working out?

Bush's failure, at heart, was ignorance.

Huh?
What are you freaking talking about, Chapman? Guantanamo and wire tapping weren't authorized by the governed? Why don't you do your homework and look into the legislation that passed overwhelmingly!

A Supreme Court's ruling is used by you to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of something Bush did? Are you literally out of your mind? How about Roe v. Wade? How about cities/counties taking private property if those governments think more tax revenues can be had. Yeah, the Supreme Court is definitely sacrosanct. Dummy.

As Commander in Chief, the President is right to flout the unconstitutional challenges to his power. The Court & legislators have nothing to say about bombing targets or battlefield strategy...but they sure would like to have veto power. Why isn't your article on the power grab of the Court and Congress?

Stick to those things you presumably know better, Thanksgiving recipes.

Jimbo

Well said.

And Besides That
Little noticed but of enormous significance
was the recent conference/accord between the Pope and his assistants and 138 Muslim dignitaries.

They have agreed to disagree theologically but to respect each others "personal space" and keep things on an even keel.

This was made possible by the fact that the Muslims in question have a normal desire not to be engaged in bloodletting all of the time. The fanatics that have defined Islam were not around to sabotage the arrangements. George W. Bush is keeping them well occupied elsewhere.

AFterwards, His Holiness issued an encyclical on how Christians should treat Muslims. It can be accurately summarized as "continue the Bush Doctrine".

One of the key Muslim players in all this was the Mufti of Bosnia-Herzgovina. Looks like Bill Clintons intervention there (which I opposed) is paying dividens as well.

But overall, this is a classic case of fire and movement. Bush fired, the Pope moved.

Fortunately, George W has consistently shown a backbone of steel. His low approval rating? Well as "Uncle Billy" said of Grant's approval ratings;" Vox Populi, Vox Humbu".

Oilpatch
Well said. Had Pres.Bush inherited from Clinton what Obama is inheriting from Bush, we'd still be crushing Clinton, and President Bush would be the hero(celebrity).

jimbo
bascically you say this

"rule of law, we don't need no rule of law"

Guantanamo Bay techniques called 'overly aggressive'
By Bob Woodward
2:00 a.m. January 14, 2009

WASHINGTON — The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a “life-threatening condition.”

“We tortured (Mohammed al-)Qahtani,” said Susan Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in February 2007. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case” for prosecution.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jan/14/1n14gitm o234531-official-military-tortured-detaine/?uniontrib

Chapman article
Brave comments for a Conservative writer. No wonder he is getting only 2 stars. Hard to accept criticism from your friends.

Oilpatch Mercenary Nv.12:17./Indyconan
Thanks to both of you. Good posts.

Mr. Chapman has written another article providing PROOF of his contribution to the DEATH of the Fourth Estate.

Where did Bush go wrong?
He didn't, you're obviously an Obamania supporter. Do you think he's the Messiah. I think you're going to be in for a surprise. I'm sure though that you will fawn all over him when he brings the enemy combatants over here for the taxpayers to pay for their trials and closes Guantanmo Bay. Other countries critized us but wouldn't take any of them and the ones that have been returned have returned to terrorism. When are you going to understand you can't negotiate with people who want to cut your head off and you can't treat it as a law enforcement problem like Clinton did. Yeah, there were disappointments along the way but he stuck to his principles. There were no surpluses with Clinton and I'm sick of hearing that when he handed Bush 5.6 Trillon in debt and a recession and his ineptitude in dealing with Bin Laden gave us 9/11. Enough of Clinton....he was a louse. At least we have been safe with Bush and I doubt that we will be with Obama after he reverses everything Bush did. Why can't you understand that freedom isn't free?

Oil Path M
If you think America is in a better strategic posiiton than it was when Bush was elected thank God you don't have anything to do with strategy.

For example, you write that "the Invasion of Iraq has resulted in a permanent reduction in enemy capabilities by renderin an Arab-based caliphate impossible." This is laughable. There was never any threat of there being an Arab based caliphate to begin with. On top of which the biggest threat in the region is Iran, whose has been immeasurably stregthened by teh deposion of the Iraqi secular government.

Not to mention that a key element of strategy is having enough resources to carry out your plans, and the US has been financially and militarily devastated by 8 years of mismanagement under Bush.


Let's see--
Can we sart with open borders, 20 million illegals getting handouts at taxpayer's expense, a very slow building of the fence, pandering to mexico. There are many others listed in the above posts, but the feeling here is that if many of the bluders committed had not occurred, or fixed, we would not have barry o., the prune reid, nan pelouse and the rest of the wipes that are now in power. IMO

The president elect has promised unity
Mr Bush managed to unify the Arab world in its hatred of the US. For those of you who missed it, we WERE NOT welcomed as heroes.

Thanks to the MSM for the ratings
After being constantly hammered for 8 years by the mainstream media because they thought he stole the election, this propaganda succeeded in convincing most Americans that Bush was a failure.
Hussein not a threat? Easily contained? He was an insane madman who we now know was providing support to Al Qaeda. We captured documents corresponding with Al Qaeda leaders offering them use of his training grounds.
All intelligence concurred that he had WMD and we also have proof he had the facilities, the will and the plans to develop them. Most chemical WMD could be hidden under a sand dune! Failure to get rid of Hussein would have only increased our chances of being terrorized again.
As Bush tried so vainly to get through the left's thick skulls, this was a new kind of war that had nothing to do with borders or nations. Thus, we were not beholden to the Geneva Convention treatment of prisoners because our enemies did not subscribe to those rules.
A president who is sworn to protect and defend the United States must use every means possible. Torture was NOT, I repeat NOT used at Guantamo. Water boarding is not torture. Sexual humiliation is not torture. Chopping off body parts IS torture which is what the Hussein family relished in doing.
The Patriot Act has harmed no Americans rights or privacy. Listening to overseas phone calls to try and find conversations that mention terrorist attacks on our country is a tactic I am thankful that Bush was able to implement, no thanks to cowards like Harry Reid.
Behaving too much like a liberal with regard to domestic spending and immigration and forsaking conservative principles in order to be liked by the left is what most of us on the aptly named "right" are fed up with.

jake
you say this
"He was an insane madman who we now know was providing support to Al Qaeda. We captured documents corresponding with Al Qaeda leaders offering them use of his training grounds."


please provide proof of that statement.

Pres. bush has said repeatedly that there was no evidence connecting saddam with al-quieda.

if he was lying i would like you to prove it.

Bush went wrong
by believing that libeeral traitors wouldn't try to destroy the country.

Col. Billy
Please list anything that I wrote about Bosnia or Iraq that is not true? Bosnia and our invasion of Iraq are not even remotely similar as you implied in your initial post.

Or are you so deluded that you simply "know" you are right even when you cannot say why?

Actually educated people know

Actually educated people know the single most event that united the arab world was Liberals running around screaming that the United Statees was torturing arabs.

Dick Durban, John Murtha, and Barack Obama all did their part to recruit more terrorist. Their words even appeared on terrorist websites to help get more recruits.

At that point there was less 400 deaths as a result of combat in Iraq. Afterwards it increased to 4000 dead.

Bush should take credit for the first 400 as part of freeing Iraq. Liberals should take credit for 3600 for hating america.

Jake
"Most chemical WMD could be hidden under a sand dune!"

Does putting an exclamation point following your baseless speculation make it more than baseless speculation? Can/should baseless speculation justify a war?

"Thus, we were not beholden to the Geneva Convention treatment of prisoners because our enemies did not subscribe to those rules."

Our enemies attack our innocent civilians...do this makes it OK for us to do the same?

"Torture was NOT, I repeat NOT used at Guantamo."

Sorry Jake, but people who actually have a clue disagree with you.

"Behaving too much like a liberal...blahblahblah"

Just so we're clear...if Obama is as big a failure as W, I'm telling you right now that it's only because he behaved too much like a Con. However, if he's a shinning success, it's solely due to him being a Democrat. Heads I win, tails you lose. Deal?

Ross A
Do you and Col. Billy actually still believe that Saddam or Iraq was related to 9/11?

Bush did not keep us safe, he basically abandoned the real fight against the 9/11 terrorists by his stupid invasion of a nation that was absoluely no threat to us. None.

You use the fact that we needed to take out Saddam because he invaded his neighbor Iran. By that criteria someone could justify "taking out" our leaders since we invaded a nation 10,000 miles from our borders that posed no threat to the USA.

However, you are correct that President Bush "stuck to his guns." Even when it hurt our nation!

That's why, nearly six years later, we are still burning over $300,000,000.00 per DAY in a useless venture that will end the same as if we had left right after Bush's famous "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" fiasco.

BTW, how "safe" has Bush kept us since he allowed (and wanted amnesty) for the 5 to 8 million illegal aliens that have entered our nation since 2000?

While pretending that Saddam was a threat Bush allowed our nation to fill up with millions of illegal aliens. I think that most Americans would have preferred it the other way around.

Bush has been an abject failure of epic proportions.

Bush always took the high road
Bush failed to root out and imprison traitors in the FBI, CIA and State Dept. that leaked Nat'l security secrets to the NY Times. Bush failed to arrest the seditious ownership and management of the MSM that became nothing more than the public relations arm of MoveOn.org and the DailyKos. Bush failed to use the 'Bully Pulpit' to look Americans in the eye and expose the hypocracy and lies of Congressional democrats. The Bush Justice Dept. should have arrested Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, Sean Penn, Micheal Moore and Oliver Stone. Bush should have destroyed Iran's nuclear program, overthrown Chavez and built a mote (w/alligators) along the Mexico/US border. Bush should have held Clinton responsible; for 9/11, Mayor Ray Nagen for the deaths in new Orleans and Collin Powell for failing to gain Turkish approval for the northern front to enter into Iraq and causing the subsequent Sunni Uprising and Al Queda opening. Bush shoulda woulda coulda, but he's the consumate gentleman and never said a negative word about any of his political enemies. He earned my respect and eternal gratitude, but he got pummeled in the MSM and leaves office with his head held high and 28% approval rating. C'est La Vie!

Col. Billy
Comparing George W Bush to "FDR, Marshall and Eisenhower" is ludicrous.

Those three guys were involved in the greatest conflict the world has ever seen, and they handled it in less than 4 years.

Bush stupidly invaded a tiny nation run so poorly by an inept despot that it could have been defeated by almost any American big city street gang. If fact, that's probably who we should have sent if knuclehead Bush was so determined to invade Iraq!

And what ends up happening? Nearly 6 years later we are still occupying the nation and burning over $300,000,000.00 per day while our own economy sinks like a rock. Bush could not figure out that Iraq will be a mess regardless of when we exit.

If George W Bush had been in control during WW Two either that war would still be going on or we would be having this conversation in German or Japanese.

However, considering that Bush has basically sold our nation to the Chinese and other foreign nations I guess that Bush has managed to overwrite much of what FDR, Ike, and Marshall thought they had stopped!

Joesolis
You say "Bushs' biggest mistake was in thinking that the Democrats would actually work with him."

Um...not sure if you were paying attention, but the GOP controlled the WH and both houses of Congress until 2007 and also, after 9/11, Bush had the support of 99.9% of America and about 80% of the rest of the world.

Boy, did he ever make good use of that huh?

Col. Billy
You say that virtually all libs and Dems "hate" America.

Please give us the names of the top Dems or any of the prominent or powerful libs and Dems who "hate" America...listing what they have done that causes you to think they "hate" America?

Please be specific. Only stupid or biased people make generalizations and I'm sure you are not in that category. Good luck.

Captain Bully
You've been whining about the positions held by "educated" people in such a way that I have to conclude you are not only not educated yourself, but wouldn't know an educated man if one stepped on your testicles.

I have news for you. Educated people, for the most part, do not start with a belief, like you do, and then search for a rationale to support that belief. You want to justify Bush for political and ideological reasons, despite the reality that is staring you in the face.

Trillions wasted. Tens of thousands of American lives ruined. And all to hand over Iraq to the Islamic leaders of Iran.







Col. Billy lost his meds.
Now you are saying that "Dick Durban, John Murtha, and Barack Obama" along with the ever evil libs are actually the ones responsible for 3600 of the 4200+ deaths in Iraq!!!

That is just about the dumbest thing that I've had heard since President Bush turned "subliminal" into a 9 syllable word while trying to say it during one of his rare unrehearsed moments at a press conference.

Actually, if the advice and position of one of those guys you mentioned had been followed, we would actually had about 4200 less American deaths, 31,000 less Americans maimed, and not still be spending $300,000,000.00 per day (of our grand kids money since Bush has not even attempted to pay for his war in
Iraq) in that useless sandpit right now.

I bet that if you work real hard on it you can figure out who that might be. Good luck.

I rate Bush at 2%
Biggest liberal spender ever. Protecting the border is the last thing he would have ever done. He dropped the ball in Louisian hurricane, should have had free housing, food and medical for all of the residents sitting nearby to replace the free stuff they are used to. Saddam was a real threat to Iraq. If you want to get rid of terrorists, kill their bankers, Saudi Arabia and Iran. His version of English might exist somewhere,I admit I don't know where that is. Reducing taxes was the only thing I liked, but then it will go away under Obama, SO BIG DEAL.

Wrong Question - 1
Wrong analysis has led Chapman to ask the wrong question.
That Hussein did or did not have WMD materials and the capability to produce WMDs is still arguable. “Even if he did” have WMD materials or WMDs, as Chapman admits, their military worthlessness to Hussein “because [his] using them would have guaranteed his immediate annihilation” is not near as important as the high probability of Hussein providing them to stateless Islamic jihadist terrorists.
Most agree terrorists want such weapons, have sought them and still are seeking them. Further they have shown willingness to use any weapons they can acquire in their 1400-year-old aims to take over the world for Allah, establish a worldwide caliphate with Shar’ia law and to convert, subjugate or murder all unbelievers in Islam. They are willing to sacrifice themselves and other Muslims in pursuit of their aims. Stateless as they are, if they use such weapons there is then no state to annihilate in retribution or defense.
“Shortchanging the war we had to fight” against the Taliban by taking out Hussein and drawing Islamic jihadists into Iraq for their destruction is not a given as “shortchanging.” The U.S. still has a presence in Japan, Korea, Great Britain, Germany, Bosnia, Kosovo, and elsewhere. Pulling that presence out of those places can give the U.S. and our allies capability to fight wars – really only battles in the larger war against Islamic jihadists – or to fight others in more than only Afghanistan and Iraq.


Wrong Question - 2
That enemy combatants taken on the field of battle have Constitutional rights is a ludicrous notion. The arguments are complicated, but the Bush administration’s error in this matter was not treating the Islamic jihadists as POWs under the Geneva Convention and other international law. Typically in world history POWs are held until the end of hostilities.
Full display of the “arrogance, power lust and incompetence” of the incoming administration remains to be seen. Rule of Constitutional law is already in serious jeopardy by Obama’s refusal to release essential evidence to show he was even eligible to run for POTUS, let alone serve in the Office. If he lacks eligibility anarchy, chaos and third world status for the U.S. is a real possibility.
The battles in the war brought to the world by Islamic jihadists in the 1970s, well before Bush’s two terms, are terminable. The war may not be except by surrender or defeat of the U.S. and others fighting the jihadists. No Presidents have done much effective in the war except GHWB and GWB. And again what Obama does remains to be seen after he becomes the “one President at a time.” The public is “yearning for change,” but hopefully not change that leads to surrender or defeat.
With an approval rating of 10% for the ’06 Congress, 18 points lower than Bush’s 28%, better questions are: Where did that Congress go wrong? What has that Congress done right?

better yet
where did congress go wrong with it's 9% approval rating? it did in two years what your saying it took peso george to do in eight.
P.S. Steve, opinions are like free beer. Your's sucks, like most lib's here.
You have joined ranks with georgy will here on TH. The "One star" brigade. That is as low as we can go.

LMFAO hic! (not used with seatbuffers permission, because I will NEVER ask for it!)

Palin/Jindal in 2012!

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Peso George, Pardon Ramos and Compean before you leave office!!!

Why
Is TH sinking so low they would pay someone from one of the most politically corrupt places in the US?
The paper the Chicago Tribune can't be much better.

LMFAO hic! (not used with seatbuffers permission, because I will NEVER ask for it!)

Palin/Jindal in 2012!

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Peso George, Pardon Ramos and Compean before you leave office!!!


Ronald
A well stated but thoroughly inaccurate posting.

That Hussein did or did not have WMD materials and the capability to produce WMDs is still arguable.

Actually, it's not. The Kay/Duelfer report, written by people with very high motivation to justify the invasion, could not help but conclude the entire issue was bogus. And Bush has agreed several times.


Then you refer to "the high probability of Hussein providing them to stateless Islamic jihadist terrorists." This is even more absurd. It appears you do not grasp the geo theo political concerns of the area any better than Bush. Hussein was a secularist! Islamic Jihadists were his enemies. He had attacked a religious Islamic state. He fought a war against Iran, a powerful supporter of Jihad.

There was little to no chance Hussein would have given such weapons to his arch enemies.

To ALL the Bush Haters
It is apparent that NONE of you have ever served your country in the military.

You have no idea of the disasters this country has been spared because of the Bush Administration.

George W. Bush is a better man than any of you will ever know.

Steve Chapman, that you give Kudos to,is a cajoneless wunderkind.He continues to abet the death knell of the Fourth Estate.

This article of his is as true as a Michael Moore "DOCUMENTARY".

John sayz:
At least one conservative on TH can be influenced by the facts.

First off he is no conservative, he is a lib and that is why you libs agree with him.
Shoot a blind man could see that.

LMFAO hic! (not used with seatbuffers permission, because I will NEVER ask for it!)

Palin/Jindal in 2012!

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Peso George, Pardon Ramos and Compean before you leave office!!!

tom from Wi

No. I am not saying it.

The Terrorists are saying it.

They use the words of Dick Durban, John Murtha, and Barack Obama on their webites to recruit more terrorist.

The new recruits went to Iraq and killed U.S. troops.

Thats the historical fact.

If you are not aware of this fact complain to MSNBC not me.

LC from MD

I think its very clear Liberals have great difficulty understanding the world we live in.

That is why you see some of the articles on TH and the responses posted by Liberals.

This lack of understanding also included domestic issues as well.

Remeber Liberals claimed that welfare would reduce prision populations because people would not steal to provide for their families. The result is 300,000 people in prision in 1970, and over 2 million in year 2000.

Liberals said kids can't learn if they are hungry so we began school lunch programs. We now have school drop out rates exceeding 50%.

Liberals said people need help going to college. The result is the cost of college education has exceeded the inflation rate for the past 30 years.

Liberals said we need healthcare for the poor and elderly. The result was skyrocketing healthcare cost resulting in 40 million americans now do not have healthcare.

So given the track record of Liberals dealing with complex issues, I really would not get too concerned about any of their posts. These are not educuated people.

clearly
if you arent a member of the rabid left, it is obvious that many of bush's "mistakes" were judgement calls, and some of them we really dont have the historical perspective to be sure if they were actually mistakes or not. however, he did intentionally, maliciously, with premeditation, chose to ignore the immigration laws he was SWORN to enforce. while violating his sworn OATH BEFORE GOD, he refused to direct the enforcement agencies to do their duty. due to this intentional malfeasance, he will be known as the president that destroyed america. it is a crying shame that after enduring that pathetic excuse for a president, we have elected a successor who will be even worse.

Bush in his own words
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Chapman nailed it with this column and this quote:

"All these blunders were not accidental. They were the product of this administration's peculiar combination of arrogance, power lust and incompetence."

5 days

Obama Quote

"We have visited all 57 states."

Col Billy
are you really a Colonel?

Obama's 57 state comment is mildly amusing at best. He is nowhere near the linguistic master of a GWB.

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." —Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushdumbquotes2.h tm


Dead giveaway
George Bush will leave office in four days and yet, he is pilloried still by the mainstream media and even those who once tried to pose as conservative writers. Can you say Kathleen Parker? Can you say Steve Chapman? I knew you could.

In the final four days of the Bush presidency, you would think that Bush antagonists would give it a rest and let him go in peace but the true colors of these obsequious slime shine bright as they now court favor with the "One."

Barack Obama is a waif, a naive inexperienced ego that has put himself in the position of being "it." He will stumble, he will make foolish decisions, he will pander to the fringe and invite the next act of terror on this nation. And when he does, you can trust that his lapdog puppy pretenders will scatter in all directions.

These gutter dwellers have outed themselves however and will never again be allowed to run to the safety of the house of brick. This time conservatives will not be willing to "save your bacon."

Doc clinger
How about Palin/Plumber 2012?

Jindal is just a little too, well, daresay, intellectual perhaps. For real republicans I mean.

Col. Billy Mitchell Sir
I appreciate your trying to explain the ignorance of many on this thread.

I have just finished listening to our President's farewell address.He is a man with esoteric knowledge.He was mocked throughout his eight years by those who have only exoteric knowledge.

He kept this nation safe on his watch. It was a Herculean task, but he did it.In these eight years he has always remained humble. He has never lashed out at his critics, not once.

I repeat what I said in my earlier post..., he is a better man than many here will ever know.

As George Bush makes his exit, we usher in Barry Dunham. This is a man loaded with ego, skilled in spewing exoteric knowledge.

Plato said,"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something."

In ending here Sir, I know who the real Col. Billy Mitchell was. He too had esoteric knowledge. He paid a high price for it.His medal of honor was posthumous.


How low can Chapman go?
"It's that even if he did, they would have been militarily worthless, because using them would have guaranteed his immediate annihilation...."

What a stupid theory this is? If Saddam were to give a chemo or nuclear "dirty bomb" to a suicidal terrorist who smuggles it into New York City or Washington DC and let it off, it would have done tremendous damage to the before anyone knows who did it.

Even if the CIA quickly links the attack to Saddam, the world will no more slowly call for "restraint" or "proportional respond". Saddam, on the other hand, will learn from Hamas and hide among innocent Iraqis, so that every U.S. attempt to strike on him will result in 24/7 news coverage of dead and dying Iraqi children.

Then, if the U.S. ignores world opinion and as Mr. Chapman suggests, relentlessly attempts to annihilate him, the death toll can easily rise to the millions. Do we really want that to happen?

I'm glad that Bush was the President during the past 8 years to keep us safe and not boneheads like Mr. Chapman, whose mindless hate-Bush column is more fitting for the bankrupting New York Times than for Townhall.

DanNv
WOW! Great post! THANK YOU!

I am sorry that Harry Reid is one of your senators. How do you deal with that?

credit
A very fine article. One of my biggest problems with Bush was his disregard for the Constitution. We already have a whole party, the Democrats, that have no place for the actual law of our land, and with people like Bush and McCain(think McCain-Feingold and the 1st amendment saying NO LAWS ABRIDGING) and other RINOs cooperating with Democrats in allowing many power blocs to use the Federal Government for their own political agendas which have nothing to with the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Honestly if you consider yourself a Republican or Conservative and are not using the light of the Constitution to examine Bushes Presidency or really anything put forth in the political realm then you are kidding yourself. To me being Conservative means hewing as closely as possible to what the Founding Fathers laid down for us.

LC
Most of the people in Nevada do not like Harry Reid. Hopefully, we will "deal" with him in 2010. Even though he has a huge voting base in Las Vegas, this time I don't think even they can "save his bacon."

Col. Bily
Please show us any terrorist web site that says that "Dick Durban, John Murtha, and Barack Obama" are responsible for "3600" of our dead kids in Iraq.

Those are YOUR words. Do not pretend you did not dream that up.

LC
You seem not to be able to seperate fiction and fantasy from your incredible bias and affection for President Bush.

It is not only totally untrue that those who critisize Bush have never served in the military, since I'm very sure that I'm not the only vet here who thinks that Bush has been an almost totally inept president, it's simply a stupid statement. Why do you try to demonize everyone who might not agree with your off-the-wall conclusion sabout President Bush? I am not saying that you are one of them, that is a tactic that the Nazi's used to control and sway public opinion. You should be ashamed.

Are you not aware of the huge number of former Bush insiders (that means high ranking former Bush administration members) who are saying the same thing that many of Bush critics have been saying for years?
Do you think that they are all unpatriotic liars now?
Or do you think that Bush was so stupid that he chose unpatriotic Americans who would lie once they left his team?

You need to lose your bias and wake up.


Hey LC
...ah, who was on watch on Sept. 11, 2001??

Worry not LC
They prod you because you have faith, conviction and purpose. Virtues completely vacuous in the world of liberal fantasy.

LC
You seem to be losing it.
You said of President Bush: "He is a man with esoteric knowledge."

You said of soon to be President Obama: "This is a man loaded with...exoteric knowledge."

esoteric: intended only for people with special knowledge or interest; not generally intelligible.

exoteric: understandable by outsiders. commonplace, popular.

So, I guess that you agree with all the libs and Dems on that one!

no fact conservatives
it is amazing how many conservatives on this thread draw conclusions with their feelings rather than facts.

bush admits there were no wmd, but some conservatives want to label him a liar by claiming there were.

bush has publically said there was no connection between saddam and 9/11 or al-quieda.
but some conservatives claim he is lying by saying there was.

many of us have asked for proof of these false statements but none has been forthcoming.

re-writing history is not truth

DanNV
many of us have faith, conviction and purpose.

it just that most of us also have truth on our side.

you seem to object to that.

christianlib
Liberals may have "conviction", a conviction to a purpose I completely oppose. Liberals have "faith" in government to order their lives, again a position that is anathema to my own.

As for truth, it does not exist in the liberal lexicon. Truth to liberals is what they create to support their fantasy. You are obviously a victim of that fantasy but then, that is what liberals believe they are, "victims."

DanNV
Prior to 9/11, President Bush received a memo from the CIA titled:

"BIN-LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE INSIDE THE UNITED STATES"

Inside among the info was the notation that "hi-jacked airplanes" may be used.

Why do you suppose that the evil media never asks Mr. Bush why he ignored a memo that might have prevented 9/11 and saved the lives of thousands of Americans?




Dan NV said
Worry not LC
They prod you because you have faith, conviction and purpose.
*************************************************************
**************************************************************
Great qualities -- poor LC just does not seem to care for reality or facts.


Dannv
how many liberals do you know.
have you done an extensive study to determine whether all of them think and act the same?

just like there are fiscal conservatives and social conservatives and atheist conservatives there are blue collar liberals, classic liberals, and Christian liberals.

they are not all the same nor do they all hold the same views.

i am pro-life and pro-gun but believe the republican party does not support most of my religious values.

do you want to have an intelligent discussion or simply insult your fellow americans.

65 million of whom voted differently than you.

do you ever wonder why?

unchristianlib: Proof??

How about you google "saddam wmd syria" and see what you get?

Hint: Google will provide numerous links that will show you how many people (even Saddam' people) who have testified that Saddam's WMDs were either trucked for flown to Syria.

The CIA confirmed this three or four years ago.

And then you can google "metric tons yellow cake" and you'll get proof about that.


It's amazing that so many people are so willing to pontificate when they actually know NOTHING more than what the MSM either twists or flat out LIES about.

Try to remember that national security is on a "need to know basis" and there's a LOT none of us NEEDS to know.

Here's the rule! "You know, the enemy knows." and often I'm pretty sure the enemy doesn't need to know. :-)

Example: We did not need to know that Pres. Bush turned Israel down when they requested aid to take out nukes in Iran.

Can you guess why? BECAUSE IRAN DIDN'T NEED TO NOW WHAT ISRAEL WAS CONSIDERING.

No doubt there are many other such situations (that the NYT hasn't broadcast to the enemy YET) that Pres. Bush cannot tell us about.


christianlib: no fact conservatives
Don't forget how President Bush said on national TV "We do not torture."

But yesterday his chief Pentagon official at Gitmo who decides if prisoners will go to trial came right and said that the infamous "20th hi-jacker" who was turned away from an airport and was missing from one of the doomed planes, could not go to trial because "he was tortured."

So now it turns out that Bush's authorization of torture has actually caused one of the 9/11 terrorist team members to possibly be able to escape full prosecution!

It takes a special kind of American to defend any president (either Dem or GOP) who does these types of things.

I have no intention
of arguing with liberal talking points. I will close with one example of the delusion to which you have succumbed. Christian Lib stated that "bush has publically said there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11 or al-Quieda.
but some conservatives claim he is lying by saying there was."

The truth: Bush did publically state that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein, al-Quieda and 9/11. What is not true is that conservatives claim that he did. It is liberals who contend that Bush made this connection and it is the foundation for their mantra that "Bush lied."

Your arguments don't pass the smell test but then as I said, the truth is nothing that will ever come between liberals and the make believe world they live in.

anne
on this you are flat out wrong.

you can google anything but that doesn't make it a fact.

you say this

"The CIA confirmed this three or four years ago."

please provide documentation for this.

bush said they did not have wmd.
please prove that he is a liar.

wait a minute dan
as you can see Anne in the post right after mine still believes it.

now who is in the fantasy world?

bush
I like bush, a dummy , maybe, but 10 times the person of hussein obama, where did bush go wrong, simple, agreeing with the democraps.

Anne
You bring up strawman arguments per Bush's given WMD reasons for invading Iraq.

"saddam wmd syria" has absoutley nothing to do with the fact that there were no WMD's found in Iraq and that Bush had very good reason to suspect that his pre-invasion statements were not true.

Instead of googling irrelevant stuff like "saddam wmd syria" why do you not take a look at what Bush's own inspection team said?

Here is an Oct. 8, 2004 report on what they found:

"The official rationales for the war in Iraq now lie in tatters. Earlier in the week, the CIA and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Saddam Hussein had no links to al-Qaida. Yesterday, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney accepted the findings of Charles Duelfer, their chief weapons inspector, that Saddam didn't have WMD after all.

President Bush said to reporters on the South Lawn, "confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there." Yet, he quickly added, going to war was still the right—the necessary—course of action."

Or do you think that Bush and Cheney were lying at the above. Or that maybe they just forgot to "google" or "youtube" to make their case like you so cleverly and expertly do?


christian lib
Her post made no such claim. She did correctly address the facts regarding 500 tons of yellow cake, you know that stuff Bush "lied" about in his SOTU address, the 500 metric tons of yellow cake removed from Iraq now safely stored in Canada. But hey, don't trust me, as Anne says, "Google it." If it is good for Rosie, it has to be good enough for you.

The war that didn't needed to be fought?
Are we judging what wars need to be fought based on books that have been written on President Bush. Why don't these authors write books before events happen and then let's see how accurate they are in what they write. I don't remember one time President Bush ever saying we're going into Iraq because it's going to be easy. General Tommy Franks always repeated how long this war was going to be and President Bush always asked the American people to be patient. President Bush said time after time that the war on terrorism wasn't going to be over in a couple of weeks. If we're going to be grateful to President Bush for the security he provided in not letting this country get attack since 9/11, let's not throw in the towel so easily based on a book. Business as usually wouldn't be possible if we had other things on our minds like car bombs, kidnappings, beheading in protest of the war in Iraq, and suicide bombers. When your attack by terrorist who uses airliners as WMD, you examine all possibilities. The intelligence said the possibilities were there for Saddam and his WMD and where's the wisdom in fighting a war in Afghanistan and then making all the necessary arrangements with out allies to do it all over again if the intelligence was right about Saddam.

tom
agreed

oh those pesky facts.

here is a bush appointee on torture.

2:00 a.m. January 14, 2009

WASHINGTON — The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a “life-threatening condition.”

“We tortured (Mohammed al-)Qahtani,” said Susan Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in February 2007. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case” for prosecution.

Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jan/14/1n14gitm o234531-official-military-tortured-detaine/?uniontrib

Maverick

Yes many people who watch MSMBC believe there was no need to invade Iraq.

However Educated people know Saddam would not step down on his own.

Educated people know Saddam had already violated 17 U.N. resolutions.

Educated people know sanctions were not working because Germany, France, and Russia were violating U.N. Resolutions.

Educated people know Saddam was using oil money to fund terrorism.

Educated people know Saddam was allowing Al Quaeda to enter Iraq for medical treatments thus supporting terrorism.

If you are not aware of any of these facts I suggest you complain to MSNBC

dannv
the 500 tons of yellow cake were declared by saddam to the weapons inspectors and sealed by the weapons inspectors.

to claim this was the wmd bush was talking about is intellectually dishonest.

No Torture

No broken bones, No scars, internal injuries, no permenant damage, no heads, hands, legs, nose ears, cut off. Thus no torture occurred.

However, if anyone wants to define Waterboarding as torture, then it is safe to say Bill Clinton tortured U.S Troops because during his term, "waterboarding" has been part of the standard "resistance training" for our special operations soldiers.

So according to many Liberals, Bill Clinton and George Bush commited war crimes.

tom & unchristian lib: You guys still

don't get it, do you???

You don't know what Kay or anyone else "said" or "didn't say" at the time because of security concerns.

You and your limited liberal friends are just going to "believe" whatever it is you NEED to believe to support your "anti-Bush," "anti-Conservative," and "anti-war" mentality.

You twits can and will believe what you want, but I've spoken to two CIA neighbors of my daughter who said specifically that they (the CIA) confirmed that Saddam's WMDs were buried in the sand in Syria.

Somehow, I'm going to believe what I hear from people who actually KNOW! You just go on and believe your fairy tales if it makes you happy!




col.billy mitchell
you say this

"Educated people know Saddam was allowing Al Quaeda to enter Iraq for medical treatments thus supporting terrorism."

please give documentation for that statement.


Col. Billy Mitchell #1
First things first. I don't watch MSNBC. Second. You miss the whole point. Third. Are you really a Col. Fourth. Educated people don't need to repeat themselves so much because they know how to make a point. Fifth. You made no point, being the educated person you are. Sixth you need to read and re-read until what you read sinks in. Do you get my point.

anne
you aay this:

"but I've spoken to two CIA neighbors of my daughter who said specifically that they (the CIA) confirmed that Saddam's WMDs were buried in the sand in Syria."

come on anne, anecdotes are not facts and i am not buying it.

anne, when you present facts, you are a good debater but when you offer evidence that "you know someone who knows someone", you have hurt your credibility.


John in PA - 1
You are wrong and this remark you made, among others, proves you wrong: “Hussein was a secularist! “ True, Saddam Hussein rose to head the secular Ba’ath party after joining while in college, BUT he was born and raised as a Sunni Muslim. He held to his Islamic faith belief and practices until his execution.
True, “he fought a war against Iran” – an 89% Shi’a Muslim-dominated state. True, he invaded Kuwait – a 70% Sunni/30% Shi’a state, BUT because he wanted Kuwait as a province of Iraq and access to the Persian Gulf.
His overriding aim was to replace Egypt – a 90% Sunni state – perceived by Hussein to be the leader of Arab Muslim states. In pursuit of that aim he harbored Islamic jihadist terrorists and assisted in paying the families of Islamic jihadist terrorist homosuicidal bombers for their martyrdom and sacrifice.

John in PA - 2
Like Chapman who did wrong analysis to arrive at the wrong question, you use erroneous, incomplete information to reach false conclusions. Chief among those is your conclusion that “there was little to no chance Hussein would have given such weapons to his arch enemies.” Both you and I might be well-advised to label Hussein an arrogant, egotistical, ambitious and dangerous opportunist.
Muslims were not his “arch enemies,” and he would not have hesitated to give “such weapons” or weapons-making materials to them. As a matter of fact, the evidence is overwhelming that he did just that by shipping WMD materials to Syria – 74% Sunni Muslim state – leading into March 2003.
Bush’s “grasp of the … concerns of the area” are based on information from and advice of his advisors, including George Tenet, CIA Director as a holdover appointee of Clinton. Mine is based on 44 years of study of Islam and the area including at the graduate level and visits to the area, eight times now since ’04. I do not need to rely on the work of others, nor cite it as you do.
Please do a little real research, like first-hand, learn some things or know a bit before you start attacking other posters here who know far more than you and some others do.

unchristianlib: Anecdote aside, YOU

CHOOSE to believe what you want...

There are several links proving the WMDs in Syria, and if you would rather believe something else, then there's nothing I can do about it... and quite frankly could care less...

Intellectually limited liberals just don't seem to be able to think critically, or open their minds to different "thoughts" than what they need to believe.


How MANY MANY times did the Conservatives have to explain to you about the demo responsibility for the mortgage meltdown, and you still CHOSE NOT be understand or believe it.

Typical of the liberal mentality, you insisted that it was the Republicans fault because they didn't stop the dems from causing the meltdown.

There is NO WAY to deal with that kind of limitation.


maverick

Try reading my posts more slowly. That seems to help many Liberals.

I never said you watch MSNBC. I merely pointed out that many of your beliefs are shared by people who do.


anne

The words of your daughters friends are supported by other intellegence. Our satilittes observed 17 tractor trailors leaving Iraq shortly before our invasion. The convoy went into Lebanon then proceeded into Syria.

col billy mitchell
please provide documentation for your statements that there was a convoy.

you make statements that you pretend are facts with absolutely no proof to back up your claims.


Ranger

Yes many Liberals call people they disagree with liars.

I think they call it tolerance and embracing diversity of viewpoints.

The Good News......
People can not become relevant by repeating what has already been said.

The bad news: They can become irrelevant by being wrong.

No one will ever be able to prove the invasion of Iraq was the right action to take.

Example: If we had attacked Japan with all of our forces on December 6th 1941 the world would have been enraged.

Japanese scouts would have discovered that the US Fleet was not at Pearl and no attack would have occurred.

As to the specific circumstance of Iraq:

There are tactical and strategic advantages to being in Iraq. We should hope that Obama's actions on the subject should not be proven wrong.

Anne
I know this might be a rhetorical question but exactly how stupid are you? Can you not quite comprehend what PRESIDENT BUSH himself said:

"President Bush said to reporters on the South Lawn, "confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."

What part of that seems to befuddle you?

christian lib
Col Billy and Anne don't need to cite their sources. They make things up as they go & are their own source for everything they write.

Anne,
Tell everyone here about Remus Reid.

maybe they should be paid for the comedy they provide.

Bad News

Yes but we can learn from History.

According to Liberals the 9-11 attacks originated in Afganistan and thus our whole effort should have been devoted to Afganistan.

Back in 1941 when the Japanese attacked Peril Harbor the Attack came from Japan.

Yet the first place American Troops touched ground was Algeria. Algerians never did anything to us yet that was their very first place American troops landed and attacked.

So According to today's Liberals, FDR was a war Criminal.

News flash for President Bush!!!
Please contact Anne ASAP...or sooner. Her daughter has CIA neighbors who can salvage your legacy!

This has to be a classic when it comes to inventing anonymous sources:
"but I've spoken to two CIA neighbors of my daughter who said specifically that they (the CIA) confirmed that Saddam's WMDs were buried in the sand in Syria."

Hey Anne since you buy into the above: my son's friend has a cousin who's former room mate's sister married a guy who met a drummer in a band who knows a drifter who said that his ex-wife's father-in-law could prove that Bush committed treason. Do you want to sign the petition?

Bad News Barnes
You say "There are tactical and strategic advantages to being in Iraq."

Could you please list what those "advantages" might be to justify 4200+ American deaths, 33,000 Americans maimed, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and at this moment costing us $300,000,000.00 per day while our own economy is in a death spiral?

Seems to me like tossing American lives and money down a rat-hole and possibly the dumbest decision any US President has ever made.

Col. Billy
You say: "According to Liberals the 9-11 attacks originated in Afganistan and thus our whole effort should have been devoted to Afganistan."

Actually, it should have been directed also at Saudi Arabia since 16 of the 9/11 hi-jackers had connections to that nation. (interestingly, none to Iraq)

Glad you brought that up because it reminded me of what happened after Bush found out that most of the 9/11 hi-jackers had connections to Saudi Arabia. Our ever wise president then held a BBQ at his Crawford ranch for the leaders of the scummy Royal Family who run the mess called Saudi Arabia. Those Royal Family scum even made a fool of Bush about a female air traffic controller and other complaints.

However, Bush seems to have a great affinity for the Royal Family scum since he forgot all of the above and repeatedly was photographed hugging and kissing them while he begged them for oil. But they said NO.

Bush is a very slow learner I guess.



Ranger29

I'm not being silly. I understand and agree with why we went into Algeria. Its liberals who claim we should only attack the place where the attack on us came from directly.

Clearly they are unable to grasp the concept of a global war. These are not exactly big thinkers.


The Good News......
They that care know.

The bad news: They that don't know couldn't care less.

Sorry, tom

The Good News......
Ranger not anywhere near the Point!

The bad news: Ranger studies History.

A WMD Education for All MSM Libs
Remember General Sada, the former Iraqi Air Force General, who the MSM went out of their way to blackball when he came forth with evidence of transfer of WMD's to Damascus??? Oh, you never heard of him??? Why am I not surprised? Well, here, if you're not too lazy, I have given you some sites to check out, and one is even a video if you're too lazy to actually read...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565160/posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada

General Sada's evidence has never been refuted, and none of us, obviously, can vouch 100% as to whether it has been confirmed. The weapons are believed to be buried in the Syrian Bekaa Valley. This man was blackballed by the MSM here in America, so that Liberals could keep their lies going.

The Good News......
"Ranger29 Location: TX
Reply # 155
Date: Jan 15, 2009 - 11:57 PM EST
Bad News Barnes simply wrong...
Bad News Barnes

Example: If we had attacked Japan with all of our forces on December 6th 1941 the world would have been enraged.

...in fact ignorant of history.

Had elements of the United States Navy seen the Japanese fleet anytime Dec 6 in the Pacific, the fleet would have been engaged immediately."

The good news: Ranger can call an attempt at an example that uses facts that are contrary to history, historically ignorant.

As Rumsfeld said, "we may never know what we don't know"

Ranger will never know what he doesn't know.




Bad News
Is your non--answer your way of saying that you really can't list a single viable reason that justifies our nations huge investment of blood and treasure in the mistake called our Iraq War?

BTW, do not feel badly about not being able to list any reasons, most sane and logical people have the same problem.

The Good News......
They are not lazy.

The bad news: They are bitter clingers. They cling to every concept that brings them self assurance.

Like Glynda told Dorothy "you had to find out for your self".

Iraq and WW Two???
Anyone who honestly believes that Iraq is in any way similar to WW Two is seriously in need of a reality check.

It is a totally absurd comparison.

The Good News......
I'm "sane and logical".

The bad news: tom is engaged in a discussion where he needs to be told even the simplest concepts.

The Good News......
Evil is simple.

The bad news: It must be confronted. tom, listen to Truman's address on "why we are in Korea".

The Good News......
Truman confronted evil.

The bad news: Johnson produced "Why we are in Vietnam". Bush has explained why we are in Iraq. FDR explained why we must fight Germany when, after all, it was Japan that attacked us.
People continue to demand explanations as a way of delaying the inevitable. Those that are ignorant of history will continue to repeat it. And finally it was just her bad luck that a house dropped on the Wicked Witch of the East.

Bad News
You said that "there are tactical and strategic advantages to being in Iraq."

I asked you to list ANY that are equal to the American blood and treasure that we have tossed into that rat hole.

Either list them or admit that you cannot and we can move on.

Good news: You do it.
Bad news: You do not and show yourself to a phony.

Bad News
Just for the record, I mostly admire HST but us getting into Korea was almost as dumb as Viet Nam.

Neither quite as stupid as Bush invading Iraq, but still both have proved to have been mostly huge mistakes.

Bad News.

MSNBC never reported anything about the Wicket Witches house during Katrina So I know that is not true.

Tom Wi.
Hey Tom...,just wanted to clarify for you.

Esoteric knowledge is intuitive . It cannot be learned. It just is. Wisdom emanates from esoteric knowledge.

Exoteric is surface knowledge. It is the kind that creates diplomas that say you are proficient in certain areas of learning.

You can have twenty degrees that indicate surface knowledge. No degree can give you wisdom.

LC
no one knows where wisdom emanates from.

it is just now beginning to be studied in a scientific manner.

i just read this article, i am not responding in a partisan manner just pointing out an interesting discussion.


The quest for wisdom is as old as Socrates, but it's also an up-to-the-minute economic indicator. A contrarian one: when things are going well, you don't have to go searching for wisdom. It streams nonstop over CNBC, its avatars sit smugly atop the Forbes list of billionaires and each day it proves again the eternal truths of the free market. Then in due course things go to hell; the sages and gurus humbly confess their ignorance to Congress or a grand jury, and the search for new paradigms begins. Tellingly, scholars date the modern scientific study of wisdom to the work of the American psychologist Vivian Clayton in the malaise-ridden 1970s. Clayton devised the first empirical tests for wisdom, which she defined as the ability to acquire knowledge and analyze it both logically and emotionally—picking up on the work begun by Socrates, around the time the Peloponnesian War began to turn into what we would call a "quagmire."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/178874

The Good News......tom, you
will never be forced to admit you know the answer to the questions you ask. And you will never be forced to admit that, to the Iraqis, the cost in our blood and treasure provide hope for a decent future.

The bad news: No public opinion poll has ever restored a dime to the treasury or emptied a single grave. Disapproving of George Bush's actions has cost lives and extended the war. Just as in so many documented instances in history, evil pays attention to polls and measures our resolve.

Every American has the right to right to show a lack of will, to question, to undermine, to back stab, to bicker, to bitterly cling to their BDS, to know what they chose to know, to invent knowledge from whole cloth.

Sorry tom, if you can prove anything is "true", then you are just jerking every ones chain. Your motive in being here must be to have some social interaction.

The Good News......Col.
Nobody took a poll to determine if all of the Munchkins appreciated Dorothy's mistake

The bad news: There will never be a poll in which enough Iraqis appreciate our "mistake" of liberating Iraq. Evil has allies they are polled too.
This entire article is nothing but navel gazing. The bitter clingers are not clinging to the life raft hoping to be saved. They hope to capsize it and put everyone in the water because it is unfair that some are warm and dry.

where did Bush do wrong
The most important and over riding fact-
Saddam was holding Iran in check
When we leave the inevitable will happen
Al Sadar will return from Iran and Iran will take over
The target and objective was Bin Ladin
NOTHING SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PRECIDENT OVER THIS OBJECTIVE
the blame --the Democrats and Republicans who voted for this DOCTRINE OF PRE-EMPTION

President Bush did not do a thing that did not have the approval of a majority of Congress

Bad News
You seem to be aperson who blurts but then cannot back up what they say.

I asked you a quite simple question:
Could you please list what those "advantages" might be to justify 4200+ American deaths, 33,000 Americans maimed, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and at this moment costing us $300,000,000.00 per day while our own economy is in a death spiral?

As a fake reply, you mention nonsense such as:

"to the Iraqis, the cost in our blood and treasure provide hope for a decent future."
Do you not read well? I asked you specifically what it was worth to our nation, the USA!

You also said: "No public opinion poll has ever restored a dime to the treasury or emptied a single grave." Another non-answer.

You also relied: "Disapproving of George Bush's actions has cost lives and extended the war." How does that have anything to do with it being an "advantage" (as YOU said) to the USA?

You also replied: "evil pays attention to polls and measures our resolve." Another non-reply. No one said anything about polls.

You also replied: "Every American has the right to right to show a lack of will, to question, to undermine, to back stab, to bicker, to bitterly cling to their BDS, to know what they chose to know, to invent knowledge from whole cloth." More blather but still not a trace of a reply.

You really cannot answer...can you? Live with it!

On the other hand
maybe your assumptions are wrong in which case your logic is also. A lot of President Bush's negative rating is an indication of the power of the press. Now we will see if President Obama, with the help of the press guaranteed, will fare better.

LC
LC, your clarification seems to need some clarification.

You are mostly incorrect when you say "Esoteric knowledge is intuitive . It cannot be learned. It just is. Wisdom emanates from esoteric knowledge." The #1 definition is: Intended or understood by only a particular group. #2 is: Known by a restricted number.

You say "Exoteric is surface knowledge. It is the kind that creates diplomas that say you are proficient in certain areas of learning."
Again, you are mostly wrong. Definition #1: Not confined to an inner circle of disciples or initiates. #2: Comprehensible to or suited to the public. There is nothing related to "creating diplomas" in the definition. You invented that.

Basically, "esoteric" is used to characterize knowledge or info that may be possessed by persons on the inside, while "exoteric" is generally used to characterize knowledge or info that s widely available.


Al
What did the "press" have to do with:

Giving tax cuts where 95% went to those in the upper 4% of earners.
Failing to understand that the "surplus" might not be a continuing thing.
Disregarding what he was told Iraq might cost.
Ignoring anything that indicated we should not invade Iraq.
Exagerrating everything that supported his wish to invade Iraq.
Invading Iraq.
Increasing our national debt by many TRILLIONS.
Horribly mis-managing the aftermath of Katrina.
Grossly mis-stating the cost of his Drug Plan.
Managing the aftermath of his Iraq invasion.
Allowing our imbalance of trade to reach $2 BILLION per DAY.
Allowing the 2004 SEC to vastly increase the amount of "leverage" (that means lying about assets to get money) that banks could hold.
Never vetoing a single bill that Congress sent him from 2001 until 2006.
Making his first veto against something that could help those with a horrific deadly disease or a disability.
Lying about torture.
Lying about nation building.
Obtaining authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office...more than any other president.
Bush's "signing statements" very well may define his presidency.

And finally, saying that he was "disappointed" how Iraq turned out. A "disappointment" is when your sports team loses or your kid gets a bad grade. It's certainly not when over 4200 young Americans are killed and another 33,000 young Americans are maimed.

The "press" caused none of the above, Al.


Why these commercials in each article?
I wish that for once, Townhall would cease to repeated and repeat these so tiring commercials and the one with Ann Coulter showing almost half naked, making her look more like one of those Holywood stars rather than as a decent lady the likes of Jeane Kirkpatrick and others!

Border Security
That was his biggest failure. He was a lesser evil than Gore or Kerry. Immigrants are welcome, Illegals are not. Diversity is not all Mexican. Look at history Mexico has always been our enemy even as recently as WW2.

Now this clown Obama wants to give all these criminals amministy.

Chapman's lost
He's beating the socialist drum now. What's the matter Steve, your belief is being necessary for your job??
If the intelligence had been correct and Bush had NOT taken Hussein out, what would have happened when there was a bigger attack on American soil and dirty bombs around?? Bush would have been pilloried.
A necessary war and EVERYONE, except a few deeply communist pacifists, had committed to removing Hussein. You can find quote after quote of democrat leaders saying it was necessary..
The wiretaps were for a damn good reason and don't forget we ARE at war. For some reason the socialist media has convinced the shepple that if we leave the mideast our troubles are over.. They would just begin! WE ARE AT WAR.. We face it or run home with our tails between our legs like the French would do. Then you sit here and wait for it to come to you.. Yep! Guantanomo and wiretapping were, and will remain, absolutely necessary. Dismissing them will only magnify their necessity not abate it!!! If you are unable to grasp the problem you are either stupid or lying and part of the enemy.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.