When will all the Republicans say that George W. Bush made a lot of mistakes!!!

[byzantine catholic]

Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.

[WildRose]

Bush made a lot of mistakes and I don't see republicans failing to acknowledge that.

I can agree with all of the above except the war in Iraq. Strategically it was a very good idea. Lots of mistakes were made in how it was fought, but not in fighting it.

But then; I'm not a republican....

[byzantine catholic]

Bush made a lot of mistakes and I don't see republicans failing to acknowledge that.

I can agree with all of the above except the war in Iraq. Strategically it was a very good idea. Lots of mistakes were made in how it was fought, but not in fighting it.

But then; I'm not a republican....Well if you believe in interventionism I guess it is okay.

[Indegirl]

I WAS a Republican, now an Indep. and I will acknowledge that Bush made mistakes. The most memorable one I felt was not putting enough troops in Iraq. The 2nd biggest mistake was his leniency to illegal aliens. He enabled what has now become a crisis at our southern border, something I have never seen in my lifetime.

[conphu1]

Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.

Who introduced the "Sanctity of Life Bill"? And how, EXACTLY, would it have "ended" abortion?

[byzantine catholic]

Who introduced the "Sanctity of Life Bill"? And how, EXACTLY, would it have "ended" abortion?Ron Paul and it would have characterized the infant in the womb as a person and would have stopped abortion at the federal level.

[byzantine catholic]

I WAS a Republican, now an Indep. and I will acknowledge that Bush made mistakes. The most memorable one I felt was not putting enough troops in Iraq. The 2nd biggest mistake was his leniency to illegal aliens. He enabled what has now become a crisis at our southern border, something I have never seen in my lifetime.No to the the first part a double yes to the second part.:)

[sgdp]

Ron Paul and it would have characterized the infant in the womb as a person and would have stopped abortion at the federal level.

Ron Paul? What a two-face.

[byzantine catholic]

Ron Paul? What a two-face.What?

[sgdp]

What?

Thought he was more of a states rights kinda guy. :rolleyes: The more I learn about him, the less I like him.

[WildRose]

Well if you believe in interventionism I guess it is okay.I believe when you shoot at us repeatedly over the course of years at some point we shoot back, and in such large order as to eliminate once and for all anyone who is shooting at us.

I believe that when you have tens of thousands of willing jihadists who would love to come here for repeated attempts at 9-11 style attacks, and suicide bombings all over our country it's a great idea to find some place thousands of miles from our shores to draw them in and kill them.

The war in Iraq is not "foreign intervenionalis" nor was it ever. It was about standing up as a nation defending our national honor, and creating a killing ground for those who would much rather attack us at home.

Had the jihadists done the smart thing, and instead of sending tens of thousands of warriors to protect "muslim lands" from the "invading west" and had instead sent them across the Mexican and Canadian borders to strike us here at home THEY would have won the war, because it would have very quickly forced Bush to recall all of his troops from Iraq and Afghanistan to protect our borders and eliminate the threat here at home.

Fortunately they weren't that smart.

[byzantine catholic]

Thought he was more of a states rights kinda guy. :rolleyes: The more I learn about him, the less I like him.He is on drugs and spending and taxes.:)

[WildRose]

Ron Paul and it would have characterized the infant in the womb as a person and would have stopped abortion at the federal level.Then Ron Paul would have been acting in contravention to the constitution.

Barring a constitutional amendment abortion SHOULD be a question for the states and only the states.

[byzantine catholic]

I believe when you shoot at us repeatedly over the course of years at some point we shoot back, and in such large order as to eliminate once and for all anyone who is shooting at us.

I believe that when you have tens of thousands of willing jihadists who would love to come here for repeated attempts at 9-11 style attacks, and suicide bombings all over our country it's a great idea to find some place thousands of miles from our shores to draw them in and kill them.

The war in Iraq is not "foreign intervenionalis" nor was it ever. It was about standing up as a nation defending our national honor, and creating a killing ground for those who would much rather attack us at home.

Had the jihadists done the smart thing, and instead of sending tens of thousands of warriors to protect "muslim lands" from the "invading west" and had instead sent them across the Mexican and Canadian borders to strike us here at home THEY would have won the war, because it would have very quickly forced Bush to recall all of his troops from Iraq and Afghanistan to protect our borders and eliminate the threat here at home.

Fortunately they weren't that smart.Oh do not worry there are terrorists crossing the border now! And why are they mad at us? We have been over there forcing our ideals done their throats and making them our empire.

[conphu1]

Ron Paul and it would have characterized the infant in the womb as a person and would have stopped abortion at the federal level.

You mean by making it totally illegal? No exceptions?

[byzantine catholic]

Then Ron Paul would have been acting in contravention to the constitution.

Barring a constitutional amendment abortion SHOULD be a question for the states and only the states."Everyone is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights among these are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[WildRose]

Oh do not worry there are terrorists crossing the border now! And why are they mad at us? We have been over there forcing our ideals done their throats and making them our empire.You need to look up the word Empire. When you understand what it means we can have a meaningful conversation.

The terrorists absolutely are preparing for their next strike to feel out the new administration and see if we still have the political will to fight them tooth and nail.

If your logic had any reasoning we would not have been attacked on 9-11 since for the previous 8 years Clinton had proved we would not respond in force to repeated attacks.

Ousama Bin Laden began building his Jihadist army before we had any significant presance in the ME so your "logic" is a complete failure.

[WildRose]

"Everyone is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights among these are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.What line of the constituion is that?

[byzantine catholic]

You mean by making it totally illegal? No exceptions?I do not now about the exceptions part all I know is that the bill would have gotten rid of abortion at the federal level.

[byzantine catholic]

What line of the constituion is that?That is the Declaration of Independence and it shows that we have the right to life.

[byzantine catholic]

You need to look up the word Empire. When you understand what it means we can have a meaningful conversation.

The terrorists absolutely are preparing for their next strike to feel out the new administration and see if we still have the political will to fight them tooth and nail.

If your logic had any reasoning we would not have been attacked on 9-11 since for the previous 8 years Clinton had proved we would not respond in force to repeated attacks.

Ousama Bin Laden began building his Jihadist army before we had any significant presance in the ME so your "logic" is a complete failure.Clinton was an interventionist!:rolleyes:How did the Repubs win back at 2000 we gave the American people a humble foreign policy.:)Oh you mean the Osama Bin Laden we helped come to power to fight the Soviets!:shhh:

[WildRose]

That is the Declaration of Independence and it shows that we have the right to life.Since the Declaration is not part of the Constitution it has no applicability to US law.

[byzantine catholic]

Since the Declaration is not part of the Constitution it has no applicability to US law.Rights to life, liberty, and private property are not U.S. law!:rolleyes:

[WildRose]

Clinton was an interventionist!:rolleyes:How did the Repubs win back at 2000 we gave the American people a humble foreign policy.:)Oh you mean the Osama Bin Laden we helped come to power to fight the Soviets!:shhh:If we're going to have an intelligent conversation you're going to have to come up with some facts rather than a string of talking points.

Much of what Bush ran on in 2000 was his push to reinvigorate, and fully fund the needs of the Military and to quit using them as the meals on wheels and peace keeping police for the world. As usual, at the end of a long period of Democratic Rule, the military had been largely depleated of Man power, and our Weapons systems were in a poor state of repair and funding for upgrading existing equipment and fielding of newer, more efficient, and more effective weapons systems had been dramatically slashed.

Clinton reaped the benefit of the 12 years prior and then turned around and squandered the "Peace Dividend".

[conphu1]

2/15/2007--Introduced.
Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that:
(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure:
(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.

The law would most likely would have been passed to the states with federal backing.

And would "prohibit, limit or regulate" the performance of abortions.

Not totally outlaw it under any circumstances.

[WildRose]

Rights to life, liberty, and private property are not U.S. law!:rolleyes:That's right because they are not spelled out in the constitution, and because of that the Judiciary continues to find ways to excuse depriving us of them.

[byzantine catholic]

If we're going to have an intelligent conversation you're going to have to come up with some facts rather than a string of talking points.

Much of what Bush ran on in 2000 was his push to reinvigorate, and fully fund the needs of the Military and to quit using them as the meals on wheels and peace keeping police for the world. As usual, at the end of a long period of Democratic Rule, the military had been largely depleated of Man power, and our Weapons systems were in a poor state of repair and funding for upgrading existing equipment and fielding of newer, more efficient, and more effective weapons systems had been dramatically slashed.

Clinton reaped the benefit of the 16 years prior and then turned around and squandered the "Peace Dividend".All that I just said were facts.:)You do not have to be a strong President to be an interventioist.:shhh::think:

[byzantine catholic]

2/15/2007--Introduced.
Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that:
(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure:
(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.

The law would most likely would have been passed to the states with federal backing.Yes I know the bill would have gotten rid of Roe v. Wade but I was told it was a federal law against abortion.

[WildRose]

Yes I know the bill would have gotten rid of Roe v. Wade but I was told it was a federal law against abortion.You can't do away with Roe V. Wade without a constitutional amendment. The "Sanctity of Life Act" would have immediately been challenged in the federal courts and would have been overturned at the SCOTUS because it conflicts with Roe.

Again, you need to do some studying to understand the issues you are talking about.

[byzantine catholic]

You can't do away with Roe V. Wade without a constitutional amendment.

Again, you need to do some studying to understand the issues you are talking about.No you think!:rolleyes:Roe v. Wade is not a good decision by the court anyway.

[byzantine catholic]

Meaningless gobbledygook.My point was what I just told you before were facts about Clinton and Usama.

[WildRose]

No you think!:rolleyes:Roe v. Wade is not a good decision by the court anyway.It was a terrible decision on a number of levels. The problem is there are only two ways to overturn the supreme court. One is for another court overturn a previous court's ruling, which is virtually never done; the other is by constitutional amendment.

You cannot pass a federal law that is in contravention to the constitution, nor supreme court rulings and expect that it will stand. It will immediately be overturned as soon as it hits the federal courts.

[byzantine catholic]

It was a terrible decision on a number of levels. The problem is there are only two ways to overturn the supreme court. One is for another court overturn a previous court's ruling, which is virtually never done; the other is by constitutional amendment.

You cannot pass a federal law that is in contravention to the constitution, nor supreme court rulings and expect that it will stand. It will immediately be overturned as soon as it hits the federal courts.Amen and Roe is now pro-life can you believe it!:)

[byzantine catholic]

It was a terrible decision on a number of levels. The problem is there are only two ways to overturn the supreme court. One is for another court overturn a previous court's ruling, which is virtually never done; the other is by constitutional amendment.

You cannot pass a federal law that is in contravention to the constitution, nor supreme court rulings and expect that it will stand. It will immediately be overturned as soon as it hits the federal courts.Even if the Sanctity of Life Bill did not pass you could still stop funding abortion clinics!

[WildRose]

Even if the Sanctity of Life Bill did not pass you could still stop funding abortion clinics!Why do you keep changing the bar in this conversation without acknowledging your errors?

It's becoming tedious.

I'd have absolutely no problem whatsoever with removing federal funding for abortion clinics. Bush actually tried to do that very thing, in a backdoor fashion and was pilloried for it saying he was "denying health care resources to the poor and minorities".

[byzantine catholic]

Why do you keep changing the bar in this conversation without acknowledging your errors?

It's becoming tedious.

I'd have absolutely no problem whatsoever with removing federal funding for abortion clinics. Bush actually tried to do that very thing, in a backdoor fashion and was pilloried for it saying he was "denying health care resources to the poor and minorities".I have no errors I see thank you very much but I might be wrong!:)And Bush did not do it either so shame on him even if he was called a rascist!:rolleyes::boohoo:

[WildRose]

I have no errors I see thank you very much but I might be wrong!:)And Bush did not do it either so shame on him even if he was called a rascist!:rolleyes::boohoo:
Do you actually not understand that the President is only the Chief exectutive and NOT king?

He can't just wave his hand and make everything over in "his image" either.

Bush did dramatically cut funding for planned parenthood and limited how the dollars could be used. In the end it only ended up freeing up other dollars to perform more abortions from private donations but at least he made the effort.

The only way to end abortion on demand by law is with a constitutional amendment. You have to understand and accept that if there's ever going to be an intelligent discussion of the issue.

[byzantine catholic]

Do you actually not understand that the President is only the Chief exectutive and NOT king?

He can't just wave his hand and make everything over in "his image" either.

Bush did dramatically cut funding for planned parenthood and limited how the dollars could be used. In the end it only ended up freeing up other dollars to perform more abortions from private donations but at least he made the effort.

The only way to end abortion on demand by law is with a constitutional amendment. You have to understand and accept that if there's ever going to be an intelligent discussion of the issue.Of course he is not a king!:rolleyes:What am I stupid now!:eh:If you cut federal spending to abortion clinics they will eventually fail because that is where most of their money comes from.:)

[sgdp]

Yes I know the bill would have gotten rid of Roe v. Wade but I was told it was a federal law against abortion.

You were told by whom?

Is it your contention, then, that Paul is for state rights on some issues, but just picks ones he wants to be federal, regardless of the Constitution?

[sgdp]

Of course he is not a king!:rolleyes:What am I stupid now!:eh:If you cut federal spending to abortion clinics they will eventually fail because that is where most of their money comes from.:)

But you said "Shame on him," as if he should have passed some sort of executive order. :think:

[byzantine catholic]

You were told by whom?

Is it your contention, then, that Paul is for state rights on some issues, but just picks ones he wants to be federal, regardless of the Constitution?What do you mean?

[byzantine catholic]

But you said "Shame on him," as if he should have passed some sort of executive order. :think:I said shame on him for not cutting off spending to abortion clinics.

[sgdp]

What do you mean?

Well, the man is either for states rights or he isn't. If, as you had believed, Paul wanted federal legislation on abortion, then he's not really for states rights; he's just a talking head like all the rest.

[sgdp]

I said shame on him for not cutting off spending to abortion clinics.

Through executive order? I'm not sure how he could have really done that, unless he vetoed something when I wasn't paying attention.

[byzantine catholic]

Well, the man is either for states rights or he isn't. If, as you had believed, Paul wanted federal legislation on abortion, then he's not really for states rights; he's just a talking head like all the rest.Morality is something I do not have a problem for the feds to control such as gambling, porn, aborton, drugs, etc.

[sgdp]

Morality is something I do not have a problem for the feds to control such as gambling, porn, aborton, drugs, etc.

Do you find a Constitutional authority for that? Or is it one of these "I support the Constitution....but not when it's in my way."?

[byzantine catholic]

Do you find a Constitutional authority for that? Or is it one of these "I support the Constitution....but not when it's in my way."?I support overturning Roe v. Wade, I support the War on Drugs, I want to get rid of tribal casinos, etc. What is wrong with that?

[sgdp]

I support overturning Roe v. Wade, I support the War on Drugs, I want to get rid of tribal casinos, etc. What is wrong with that?

I was asking from where you derived Constitutional authority for the federal government to intervene in "moral" issues like pornography.

[WildRose]

I said shame on him for not cutting off spending to abortion clinics.Since the budget is passed by congress the president can't pick and choose. He either has to sign the budget or veto it.

After what happened to his dad when he was accused of "shutting down the government" in his budget battle with congress we've learned how well that usually works out. It's a guaranteed way to not get re-elected!

He cannot via executive order cut off funding that is approved in the budget that gets passed into law.

[sgdp]

Since the budget is passed by congress the president can't pick and choose. He either has to sign the budget or veto it.

After what happened to his dad when he was accused of "shutting down the government" in his budget battle with congress we've learned how well that usually works out. It's a guaranteed way to not get re-elected!

He cannot via executive order cut off funding that is approved in the budget that gets passed into law.

Danke. That's what I was thinking, but my mind at 4:30 a.m.... :)

[animalnut]

I don't know any Republicans that think he didn't make a lot of mistakes. The biggest was getting the insurmountable deficit rolling. JMO

[byzantine catholic]

I was asking from where you derived Constitutional authority for the federal government to intervene in "moral" issues like pornography.The powers of capitalism should not extend to such perversion.

[sgdp]

The powers of capitalism should not extend to such perversion.

I'm asking from where in the Constitution you believe the federal government derives the power to legislate moral issues like "perversion."

[RiverRat]

Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.

Somehow this thread got sidetracked to abortion issues. Let me see if I can help put it back on track:

There has been NO President in the history of this great nation of ours that has NOT made mistakes. Sure, everyone wants to jump on the "beat down FDR, JFK, LBJ, RN, JC, GHWB, GWB, BHO....................(insert favorite hated president) but think about it: these were people in a really tough job and lately, politicians in a really tough job. With our earlier CinCs they at least used common sense to do the job. Nowadays the politicians that we the sheeple so brazenly vote into office have to actually use their brains for the first time in decades.

It's a tough job, but nobody really wants to do it.

[Mr. M]

Since the budget is passed by congress the president can't pick and choose. He either has to sign the budget or veto it.

After what happened to his dad when he was accused of "shutting down the government" in his budget battle with congress we've learned how well that usually works out. It's a guaranteed way to not get re-elected!

He cannot via executive order cut off funding that is approved in the budget that gets passed into law.

Back in the dim, dark political days before Nixon, presidents enjoyed a perk known as "impoundment" which amounted to a de facto line item veto of appropriated funds. The President (and this goes back two hundred years) merely refused to spend funds allocated by Congress.

Unfortunately, Congress took umbrage at Nixon's perceived overuse of that particular artifice and passed the Impoundment Control Act. If a president found some obligation odious or unnecessary he could be petition Congress for rescission. That required both the House and Senate to actually pass a law rescinding the expenditure. You can imagine how Congress received such requests.

So your point, WR, is entirely correct. If it's appropriated it must be made available for obligation. Unless a president is feeling lucky and wants to roll the Congressional dice on rescission.

[Indegirl]

I don't know any Republicans that think he didn't make a lot of mistakes. The biggest was getting the insurmountable deficit rolling. JMO
Oh, I thought that was a gift from Clinton.

[WildRose]

I'm asking from where in the Constitution you believe the federal government derives the power to legislate moral issues like "perversion."The same place that allows us to bar sex with animals and children, along with the interstate commerce clause.

Rightfully porn that doesn't involve the exploitation of children though should be the purview of the states rather than the fed.

[WildRose]

Back in the dim, dark political days before Nixon, presidents enjoyed a perk known as "impoundment" which amounted to a de facto line item veto of appropriated funds. The President (and this goes back two hundred years) merely refused to spend funds allocated by Congress.

Unfortunately, Congress took umbrage at Nixon's perceived overuse of that particular artifice and passed the Impoundment Control Act. If a president found some obligation odious or unnecessary he could be petition Congress for rescission. That required both the House and Senate to actually pass a law rescinding the expenditure. You can imagine how Congress received such requests.

So your point, WR, is entirely correct. If it's appropriated it must be made available for obligation. Unless a president is feeling lucky and wants to roll the Congressional dice on rescission.And of course the line item veto was finally passed during the Clinton administration and summarily struck down by the STOTUS.

We'll never see it again without a constitutional amendment.

[sgdp]

The same place that allows us to bar sex with animals and children, along with the interstate commerce clause.

Rightfully porn that doesn't involve the exploitation of children though should be the purview of the states rather than the fed.

Admittedly confused. The same place that deals with interstate commerce?

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

What does that have to do with barring sex with animals? :confused:

Sorry. Late nights, you know...

[WildRose]

Admittedly confused. The same place that deals with interstate commerce?

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

What does that have to do with barring sex with animals? :confused:

Sorry. Late nights, you know...The interstate commerce clause gives the federal government the right and responsibility to regulate commerce between the states, and between states and foreign countries. Child explitation for sexual purposes has been found made illegal, not only by federal law by via numerous treaties, which are in the purview of congress and the executive branches together. If an individual state has laws prohibiting sex with animals and underage children, then any porn entering those states by any means is violating either the interstate commerce clause or state laws.

[animalnut]

Oh, I thought that was a gift from Clinton.

The bailouts?

[WildRose]

The bailouts?I think she's referrign to the recession and return to deficit spending. Mind you the national debt had not fallen either under the Clinton administration, just the deficit with the insistance of the Republican Congress.

Unfortunately when the screaming of racism and hatred for the poor started over Katrina, the Bush administration and congress began the first of profligate and ill advised HUGE deficits.

[animalnut]

I think she's referrign to the recession and return to deficit spending. Mind you the national debt had not fallen either under the Clinton administration, just the deficit with the insistance of the Republican Congress.

Unfortunately when the screaming of racism and hatred for the poor started over Katrina, the Bush administration and congress began the first of profligate and ill advised HUGE deficits.

True. My point was that I don't know any Republicans that have not been critical of Bush. We can find fault with every administration, and I was ****ed as hell when Bush started us down the current road. I've been ticked at him for other things, but this was a biggie to me.

[opsyscw]

As a Conservative, I didn't like a lot of things Bush did.

But, I liked the man because he had convictions, he tried to do what was best for the country and people. He did not let polls influence his decisions on a daily basis. I think he was honest and had morals and we knew who he is and where he came from. I liked that he beleived in America and didn't surplant our ideas of freedom and democracy. I liked how he took charge. I liked how he assumed the responsibility of being President, assumed what was given to him when he took office, and didn't constantly blame Clinton.

Yes, he made mistakes. We all do. But his belief system was unquestionable.

One thing i didn't like was his silence, especially when being constantly attacked. I'm not saying he should have come on TV as much as Obama does and whine and blame Clinton for everything, but I think a little more exposure and explaination of why he was doing things would have helped hin a great deal.

[Late2TheParty]

When will repulicans say that Bush was a mistake?

[Kentucky Thinker]

Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.

I think Bush, just like Clinton, Bush 41, etc., did a lot of bad things but they were not mistakes. All of them were intentional. Obama is continuing in this tradition.

[ChaosControl]

I think Bush, just like Clinton, Bush 41, etc., did a lot of bad things but they were not mistakes. All of them were intentional. Obama is continuing in this tradition.

You are correct in that they are intentional, they know perfectly well they are destroying this country. All for the benefit of bankers and corporations that own them.

And yet both sides love their guy despite the fact he is bought and owned by the same people who own the other side's guy which is why nothing ever really changes.

[Claymore]

When will all the Republicans say that George W. Bush made a lot of mistakes!!!

I was saying that in 2001, CC.

[tobybear]

Oh do not worry there are terrorists crossing the border now! And why are they mad at us? We have been over there forcing our ideals done their throats and making them our empire.

Terrorists should have worried about blowback before they flew hijacked planes into our skyscrapers!

[Gh0sTeR]

Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.


"ALL" The Republicans?? All you say?



BTW, Obama is spending hundreds of billions more than Bush did, expanding the role of the GOvt more than Bush did, creating all KINDS of bogus positions. Sanctity Of Life Bill, well, so what. "Military interventionism", another oh well, so what. And the war in Iraq. You mean, the war that DEMOCRATS voted on, in HJ RES 114? Where 29 of the 49 DEMS in the Senate voted FOR? The war, that without THEIR votes, Bush couldn't have done a damn thing? THAT war???


Oh yeah, and Obama said WHAT about the Iraq war, when running for President? What was his promise? Out in 16 months? Which, just last week, he flip-flopped and said by the end of 2011. THIRTY SIX months...

[conservative-gear]

red herring - Bush is irrelevant to current political discussion.
You people who keep trying to bring up Bush are a distraction.

This is BO's econ - policies, huge deficit, and chaos -
His form of leadership is to say - I want a stimulus, and then signs whatever comes across his desk - he is a joke -- whatever Bush's shortcomings, they are not relevant.
BO and Libs in congress have to go.

[samurai7]

Truman made mistakes
Einsenhower made mistakes
Reagan made mistakes

Okay, no president is without mistakes. Their legacy is based on their overall performance.

Bush: No attacks after 9/11. Great Economy. Lower Taxes. Got rid of Goals 2000. Refused to sign onto Kyoto. Low unemployment. Winning in Iraq. Putting Al Queda on the run where they grew to their greatest strength under Clinton.

Six months of Obama should teach anyone why Bush was WAY better.

:rolleyes:

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Terrorists should worry about blowback before they hijacked fly planes into our skyscrapers!

Just curious, but what do you think the goals of the 9/11 attacks were?

[freddyboy]

IMHO, This is the worst thread I've ever read on this forum. (no offense intended)

I've never met a Republican that doesn't admit that Bush made mistakes. We're all jerking around here trying to convince a tiny group of libs of that fact, when it has no bearing to the fact that Obama is poised to purposely ruin this country.

Maybe we should focus our attention on the magician's other hand. You may want to read the thread below, and if you are over the age of 55, you may want to decide right away whom you are voting for in 2010.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1566971

[SnowSquirrel]

The interstate commerce clause gives the federal government the right and responsibility to regulate commerce between the states, and between states and foreign countries. Child explitation for sexual purposes has been found made illegal, not only by federal law by via numerous treaties, which are in the purview of congress and the executive branches together. If an individual state has laws prohibiting sex with animals and underage children, then any porn entering those states by any means is violating either the interstate commerce clause or state laws.
Congress has the power to regulate interstate, foreign and Indian commerce. (The duty to do so is not stated.) If you sincerely want to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, you must oppose federal control over all things not listed as being within the federal government's power -- or call for an amendment to grant it new powers. If you say that your moral views should be forced on everyone regardless of the Constitution, you are no friend of that document.

Drugs, pornography, abortion, child exploitation, pollution, and other "Think of the children!" matters are all things that many people think Ought To Be Controlled for one reason or another. But none of them are within the powers granted to the federal government by our Constitution. Nor do these things become interstate commerce just because of the possibility that something might cross a state line at some point.

To believe otherwise is to grant the federal government unlimited power, since anything could be said to have some theoretical, indirect link to interstate commerce. And that's not just a hypothetical threat, considering that much of modern federal law is allegedly justified in terms of absurd, dishonest abuse of the Commerce Clause.

[tobybear]

I think she's referrign to the recession and return to deficit spending. Mind you the national debt had not fallen either under the Clinton administration, just the deficit with the insistance of the Republican Congress.

Unfortunately when the screaming of racism and hatred for the poor started over Katrina, the Bush administration and congress began the first of profligate and ill advised HUGE deficits.

True!

But even DR! Ron Paul couldn't wait to run hat in hand to Boooooossssshhhhhhh to beg for FEMA and the rest of the Feds to flood the entire state of Texas just prior to Hurricane Rita making landfall!

[WildRose]

Congress has the power to regulate interstate, foreign and Indian commerce. (The duty to do so is not stated.) If you sincerely want to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, you must oppose federal control over all things not listed as being within the federal government's power -- or call for an amendment to grant it new powers. If you say that your moral views should be forced on everyone regardless of the Constitution, you are no friend of that document.

Drugs, pornography, abortion, child exploitation, pollution, and other "Think of the children!" matters are all things that many people think Ought To Be Controlled for one reason or another. But none of them are within the powers granted to the federal government by our Constitution. Nor do these things become interstate commerce just because of the possibility that something might cross a state line at some point.

To believe otherwise is to grant the federal government unlimited power, since anything could be said to have some theoretical, indirect link to interstate commerce. And that's not just a hypothetical threat, considering that much of modern federal law is allegedly justified in terms of absurd, dishonest abuse of the Commerce Clause.So you would assert that for example it is not a Duty of the Federal Government to protect us from foreign enemies? What about to secure our borders?

When the power is granted so is the responsibility; hence the duty.

I'm sorry but if they cross state boundaries they are matters of interstate commerce.

There is nothing in the constitution which prevents states from banning all sorts of behavior.

Between the two, it is quite lawful and proper to have government: Local, State, and Federal properly engaged in limiting, controlling, or outright banning all of the above.

Recognizing that is doing proper deference to the constitutions of not only the US, but the states as well.

When it comes to child exploitation, it's absolutely well within the powers of the executive and legislative branch to do so as part of the various treaties we have in regard to same.

[gdoane]

Just curious, but what do you think the goals of the 9/11 attacks were?

The goals of the 9/11 attacks were laid out by Osama Bin Laden himself as being to get the USA to withdraw all forces from the Middle East. He called it bloodying the nose of the bully to make him run away.

The plan didn't work the way he thought it would. Osama Bin Laden learned the harsh lesson that Japan learned many years ago, that an attack on American soil will "awaken a sleeping giant" and get your ass kicked. He was expecting a Vietnam cut and run, but Vietnam never touched American soil in their attacks.

There's an old saying, Remember the Alamo. If you come onto our turf and attack, then you're going to get your ass kicked. Mexico learned it, Japan learned it, and Al Qaeda is still in the learning process but they'll get it eventually. I've noticed they haven't made any more attacks on American soil.

[WildRose]

The goals of the 9/11 attacks were laid out by Osama Bin Laden himself as being to get the USA to withdraw all forces from the Middle East. He called it bloodying the nose of the bully to make him run away.

The plan didn't work the way he thought it would. Osama Bin Laden learned the harsh lesson that Japan learned many years ago, that an attack on American soil will "awaken a sleeping giant" and get your ass kicked. He was expecting a Vietnam cut and run, but Vietnam never touched American soil in their attacks.

There's an old saying, Remember the Alamo. If you come onto our turf and attack, then you're going to get your ass kicked. Mexico learned it, Japan learned it, and Al Qaeda is still in the learning process but they'll get it eventually. I've noticed they haven't made any more attacks on American soil.Don't hold your breath. I'm afraid the new Apologist in chief is going to bring about a resurgence.

I honestly believe that the multiple attacks during the Clinton years on our interests, embassies, and finally the Cole and Clinton's flailing, half assed responses emboldened them and had Osama and his lieutenants convinced that America lacked the political win to wage the WOT.

Well for at least four years we proved them wrong.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Don't hold your breath. I'm afraid the new Apologist in chief is going to bring about a resurgence.

I honestly believe that the multiple attacks during the Clinton years on our interests, embassies, and finally the Cole and Clinton's flailing, half assed responses emboldened them and had Osama and his lieutenants convinced that America lacked the political win to wage the WOT.

Well for at least four years we proved them wrong.

You're close Gene. The point was to force us into a big Cold War-style military action in A-stan, where they could bleed us financially until we were no longer able to support Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel, so they could go in and overthrow the governments to replace them with crazy Wahhabi theocracies.

Of course, Iraq turned out to be an extra-special bonus for them after the A-stan plan failed miserably, with a couple hundred SF and SOF operators and close-air support devastating the Taliban in a matter of weeks.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

I WAS a Republican, now an Indep. and I will acknowledge that Bush made mistakes. The most memorable one I felt was not putting enough troops in Iraq. The 2nd biggest mistake was his leniency to illegal aliens. He enabled what has now become a crisis at our southern border, something I have never seen in my lifetime.

Then you don't know the history of OIF, the way the government works in regards to operations or how to run a military operation. The mistakes made in Iraq are on the military side of the house. Despite myths to the contrary, President Bush listened to the Generals and there were and continue to be more than enough troops in Iraq.

You have never seen a crisis on the border in your lifetime? LOL. How old are you? You think President Bush invented illegal immigration?

Yes, he made mistakes. Those ain't it.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

You're close Gene. The point was to force us into a big Cold War-style military action in A-stan, where they could bleed us financially until we were no longer able to support Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel, so they could go in and overthrow the governments to replace them with crazy Wahhabi theocracies.

Of course, Iraq turned out to be an extra-special bonus for them after the A-stan plan failed miserably, with a couple hundred SF and SOF operators and close-air support devastating the Taliban in a matter of weeks.
Good.

[old guy]

2/15/2007--Introduced.
Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that:
(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure:would be unconstitutional. the supreme court has the final say w/o an amendment
(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.

The law would most likely would have been passed to the states with federal backing.

And would "prohibit, limit or regulate" the performance of abortions.

Not totally outlaw it under any circumstances.

Would be unconstitutional. I edited where in red

congress cant overturn RvW w/o a constitutional amendment. End of story

[ddye]

I believe when you shoot at us repeatedly over the course of years at some point we shoot back, and in such large order as to eliminate once and for all anyone who is shooting at us.

I believe that when you have tens of thousands of willing jihadists who would love to come here for repeated attempts at 9-11 style attacks, and suicide bombings all over our country it's a great idea to find some place thousands of miles from our shores to draw them in and kill them.
Please name a few of the "tens of thousands of willing jihadists" who were from IRAQ that wanted to commit terrorist acts in America. Thanks, I'll wait.

The war in Iraq is not "foreign intervenionalis" nor was it ever. It was about standing up as a nation defending our national honor, and creating a killing ground for those who would much rather attack us at home.
It sounds as if you're saying that we invaded a country who had nothing to do with 9/11, then intentionally saw to it that they were also invaded by extremists, so we could kill those extremists. There are two real problems with this:

1. Killing extremists as a military strategy isn't effective, because killing extremists allows terrorists to use those deaths to recruit MORE extremists.

2. If your post was actually true, it would represent a really EVIL plot by the US to deliberately put innocent citizens (of Iraq) in mortal danger, just so we could use their country as a killing field for terrorists that WE lured there by invading their country.

I for one do not think that the US is that evil.

Doug

[tislaw]

We have for years........but we must reiterate it again, why?

[JMikey]

I believe that when you have tens of thousands of willing jihadists who would love to come here for repeated attempts at 9-11 style attacks, and suicide bombings all over our country it's a great idea to find some place thousands of miles from our shores to draw them in and kill them.

The war in Iraq is not "foreign intervenionalis" nor was it ever. It was about standing up as a nation defending our national honor, and creating a killing ground for those who would much rather attack us at home.


I'm always amazed when I find someone who admits, unintentionally or otherwise, to looking to Iraq as a 'killing ground' for our own convenience. Taking the fight to the enemy. Fighting them 'over there' so that we don't have to fight them on our own soil. You are not the first, nor will you be the last.

And your argument is precisely why I am concerned with a 'preemptive' war. I think that if the Iraq people perceive this, they will be very bitter enemies to us. Maybe not the entire country, as no country is every 100% homogeneous when it comes to political opinion, but even a very powerful minority could prove to be devastating. I recall a piece of Onion satire right after the Iraq war started (we actually haven't declared war, have we?) which was titled, essentially "New bomb creates 10,000 terrorists in a single blast." When I encounter arguments like yours, I always think of that story. I'm very concerned with the 'unintended consequences' from what is occurring right now. Unintended consequences are precisely the reason why we should engage in war only when the other party is a very real and absolute threat.

How many lives have been lost in Iraq that some there may perceive as being simply for the west's convenience, so that we don't have to fight 'them' on our soil? Don't you think that some Iraqis may see this as a reason they should attack us themselves? Don't you see how this is a dangerous policy? I realize that it may be inconvenient to not take out Saddam, but I'd rather have a Saddam in power than even a portion of the Iraqi population who blames the deaths of tens of thousands of their friends and family on what they perceive as a war of convenience, instigated by the US.

[WildRose]

Please name a few of the "tens of thousands of willing jihadists" who were from IRAQ that wanted to commit terrorist acts in America. Thanks, I'll wait.


It sounds as if you're saying that we invaded a country who had nothing to do with 9/11, then intentionally saw to it that they were also invaded by extremists, so we could kill those extremists. There are two real problems with this:

1. Killing extremists as a military strategy isn't effective, because killing extremists allows terrorists to use those deaths to recruit MORE extremists.

2. If your post was actually true, it would represent a really EVIL plot by the US to deliberately put innocent citizens (of Iraq) in mortal danger, just so we could use their country as a killing field for terrorists that WE lured there by invading their country.

I for one do not think that the US is that evil.

DougDoug, did you sleep through the whole period between the signing of the Gulf War Cease Fire agreements, the subsequent UN resolutions, and the start of Operation Iraqi freedom?

Did you purposely ignore the numerous violations of that agreement, specifically those where Saddam ordered his forces to target and fire upon our, and allied aircraft enforcing the "no fly zone"?

The first time he targeted one of our aircraft, the cease fire was legally over and a state of war once again existed.

Fewer Iraqi civilians have died since the beginning of Operation Iraqi freedom that Saddam and his "enforcers" killed EVERY SINGLE YEAR on average.

In case you ignored the news over the last six years as well, most of the Jihadists we have killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were not native born but were insurgents. See definition of Insurgent in the dictionary.

There has been a concerted effort by AQ and it's subsidiaries as well as those in Syria, Lebanon, and other "unfriendly" nations in the region to recruit as many "fighters for the cause to drive out the infidels from Iraq and Afghanistan as possible. They train them, equip them, and provide them transportation so they may die in service of Allah.

Since we're killing them there we don't have to kill them here and liberals then get to bitch and whine from the safety of their non threatened homes due to far thinkers in the previous adminstration and Pentagon.

[tobybear]

Just curious, but what do you think the goals of the 9/11 attacks were?

Is it for the same reason Islamic Terrorists blow up markets in Indonesia, or intersections in Bangladesh? Or why they kill Buddhists in Thailand?

Are Thai Buddhists meddling in Middle Eastern foreign policy in a way that upsets Islamic Fundamentalists?

[BillBrown]

Would be unconstitutional. I edited where in red

congress cant overturn RvW w/o a constitutional amendment. End of story

Congress could effectively overturn Roe v Wade, short of an amendment.

Congress has control of the jurisdiction of federal courts. It creates lower courts, and therefore has control of their jurisdiction.
The constitution created the Supreme Court, but gave congress the power to control and regulate its jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction includes geographical as well as legal jurisdiction.

This means that Congress can prevent federal courts from hearing abortion cases- or any other type of case. It can also permit the courts to hear certain types of cases, but prohibit judicial review. This means a court could not rule on constitutionality. It can also prohibit the courts from hearing cases brought under a specific piece of legislation.

Had this law been passed, it would have effectively overturned Roe v Wade.



Article III, Section 2
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

[WildRose]

I'm always amazed when I find someone who admits, unintentionally or otherwise, to looking to Iraq as a 'killing ground' for our own convenience. Taking the fight to the enemy. Fighting them 'over there' so that we don't have to fight them on our own soil. You are not the first, nor will you be the last.

And your argument is precisely why I am concerned with a 'preemptive' war. I think that if the Iraq people perceive this, they will be very bitter enemies to us. Maybe not the entire country, as no country is every 100% homogeneous when it comes to political opinion, but even a very powerful minority could prove to be devastating. I recall a piece of Onion satire right after the Iraq war started (we actually haven't declared war, have we?) which was titled, essentially "New bomb creates 10,000 terrorists in a single blast." When I encounter arguments like yours, I always think of that story. I'm very concerned with the 'unintended consequences' from what is occurring right now. Unintended consequences are precisely the reason why we should engage in war only when the other party is a very real and absolute threat.

How many lives have been lost in Iraq that some there may perceive as being simply for the west's convenience, so that we don't have to fight 'them' on our soil? Don't you think that some Iraqis may see this as a reason they should attack us themselves? Don't you see how this is a dangerous policy? I realize that it may be inconvenient to not take out Saddam, but I'd rather have a Saddam in power than even a portion of the Iraqi population who blames the deaths of tens of thousands of their friends and family on what they perceive as a war of convenience, instigated by the US.Obviously we need a few more 9-11's and Pear Harbors. When they occur instead of taking the fight to them we should just line our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen up at the borders and never pursue anyone beyond the 12mi limit.

A workable strategy prior to the invention of the aircraft carrier, and short and medim range missiles.

However, in the modern world where our interests extend beyond our borders and where any dictator or wanna be religious/military leader with a few million dollars can obtain the means with which to penetrate such defenses it is SUICIDE.

I'm only thankful that people who share your train of thought will never be in charge.

[WildRose]

Congress could effectively overturn Roe v Wade, short of an amendment.

Congress has control of the jurisdiction of federal courts. It creates lower courts, and therefore has control of their jurisdiction.
The constitution created the Supreme Court, but gave congress the power to control and regulate its jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction includes geographical as well as legal jurisdiction.

This means that Congress can prevent federal courts from hearing abortion cases- or any other type of case. It can also permit the courts to hear certain types of cases, but prohibit judicial review. This means a court could not rule on constitutionality. It can also prohibit the courts from hearing cases brought under a specific piece of legislation.

Had this law been passed, it would have effectively overturned Roe v Wade.Wrong, any attempt by congress or the president or both together (passing a law) to limit the powers and reach of the federal courts or SCOTUS would implicitly breech the constitutional separation of powers.

I wish you were correct in one sense but at the same time it would just be the opposite means by which the left has succeeded in using the judiciary to supercede the powers of the other two branches.

The branches are by design co-equal, meaning equally powerful, and each is to be held in check by the other two.

We cannot afford to live in a nation where all three braches together **** on the constitution. It's bad enough that we are living with it now under the current administration and congress.

[PredFan]

He made a few mistakes. In 8 years. Obama has surpassed him in 6 months.

[BillBrown]

Wrong, any attempt by congress or the president or both together (passing a law) to limit the powers and reach of the federal courts or SCOTUS would implicitly breech the constitutional separation of powers.

I wish you were correct in one sense but at the same time it would just be the opposite means by which the left has succeeded in using the judiciary to supercede the powers of the other two branches.

The branches are by design co-equal, meaning equally powerful, and each is to be held in check by the other two.

We cannot afford to live in a nation where all three braches together **** on the constitution. It's bad enough that we are living with it now under the current administration and congress.

You're mistaken. I've laid it out for you.
You need to read up on the subject.

[tobybear]

Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.

Sanctity of Life Bill - Congress passes bills, the President signs them into law!

[WildRose]

You're mistaken. I've laid it out for you.
You need to read up on the subject.I have read up on it and you are completely wrong.

The congress and executive have absolutely no constitutional authority to subvert the judicial branch by attempting to legislate to them what cases they may or may not hear.

They absolutely have no power to limit the scope of the SCOTUS. Like it or not the SCOTUS IS the final word short of a constitutional amendment.

PS... I don't like it either.

[ddye]

Doug, did you sleep through the whole period between the signing of the Gulf War Cease Fire agreements, the subsequent UN resolutions, and the start of Operation Iraqi freedom?

Did you purposely ignore the numerous violations of that agreement, specifically those where Saddam ordered his forces to target and fire upon our, and allied aircraft enforcing the "no fly zone"?

The first time he targeted one of our aircraft, the cease fire was legally over and a state of war once again existed.
So what? We had Saddam completely bottled up. By the way, do not mistake my problems with your mistaken views with opposition to the Iraq war. I supported the war, up until the time when I realized that GW Bush was incapable of prosecuting that war in a competent manner.

Fewer Iraqi civilians have died since the beginning of Operation Iraqi freedom that Saddam and his "enforcers" killed EVERY SINGLE YEAR on average.
Absolutely ridiculous and unprovable. I have no idea where you got that from. Did it just "sound right"?

In case you ignored the news over the last six years as well, most of the Jihadists we have killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were not native born but were insurgents. See definition of Insurgent in the dictionary.
Which is EXACTLY WHY I said that you were asserting that we deliberately invaded a country for the express purpose of drawing foreign insurgents into that country, putting the innocent civilians there in grave danger to help with our own foreign policy objectives.

If this is true (it is not, Bush did not have the foresight to see it coming) it would have been a truly evil thing for America to do.

There has been a concerted effort by AQ and it's subsidiaries as well as those in Syria, Lebanon, and other "unfriendly" nations in the region to recruit as many "fighters for the cause to drive out the infidels from Iraq and Afghanistan as possible. They train them, equip them, and provide them transportation so they may die in service of Allah.

Since we're killing them there we don't have to kill them here and liberals then get to bitch and whine from the safety of their non threatened homes due to far thinkers in the previous adminstration and Pentagon.
Too many silly cliches to even bother with.

Doug

[WildRose]

Sanctity of Life Bill - Congress passes bills, the President signs them into law!Which would unfortunately be immediately overturned at the federal courts/SCOTUS.

It can only be done by constitutional amendment since Roe created "rights" that don't exist, but only the SCOTUS or a constitutional amendment can overturn a decision by SCOTUS, unless it's simply a matter of SCOTUS determining a law needs to be rewritten.

It was a noble effort, but not one that had any chance of success.

[BillBrown]

I have read up on it and you are completely wrong.

The congress and executive have absolutely no constitutional authority to subvert the judicial branch by attempting to legislate to them what cases they may or may not hear.

They absolutely have no power to limit the scope of the SCOTUS. Like it or not the SCOTUS IS the final word short of a constitutional amendment.

PS... I don't like it either.

I didn't say or insinuate the executive has any such authority.
The constitution gives congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
I quoted the applicable clause of the constitution.

[WildRose]

So what? We had Saddam completely bottled up. By the way, do not mistake my problems with your mistaken views with opposition to the Iraq war. I supported the war, up until the time when I realized that GW Bush was incapable of prosecuting that war in a competent manner.


Absolutely ridiculous and unprovable. I have no idea where you got that from. Did it just "sound right"?


Which is EXACTLY WHY I said that you were asserting that we deliberately invaded a country for the express purpose of drawing foreign insurgents into that country, putting the innocent civilians there in grave danger to help with our own foreign policy objectives.

If this is true (it is not, Bush did not have the foresight to see it coming) it would be a truly evil thing for America to do.


Too many silly cliches to even bother with here.

DougDoug the UN found the mass graves. Iraqi citizens had been reporting on the mass killings for years to the west.

If you'll read back I said that creating a killing ground for foreign Jihadists, was a secondary benefit, not a primary reason for going to war. It was also unfortunately a consideration which eluded the administration for some time as they didn't anticipate what was to come after the end of "major combat operations".

They also made a severe tactical and strategic error in allowing those tens of thousands of Saddam's forces to flee the battle field rather than hunt them down and capture or kill them. As was later learned it was a very well orchestrated plan by Saddam, to engage us later in a debilitating guerilla war.

They also failed to expect the sectarian infighting.

It's a good thing Roosevelt didn't have as many critics or the million US casualties and 20 million civilian casualties we caused would have driven him from office.

Rule number one of war is that civilians will die. Rule number two is that you cannot change rule number one.

While rule number one is written in stone the US in the modern era has done more to reduce civilian casualties than you can possibly imagine. In many cases preventing "substantial collateral damage" ends up costing the lives of our soldiers and marines, but it is always a major consideration in all operations.

[WildRose]

I didn't say or insinuate the executive has any such authority.
The constitution gives congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
I quoted the applicable clause of the constitution.They cannot under that clause limit them from hearing cases pertinent to US law. They can in no way interfere with the SCOTUS who by charter get to decide what cases they will or won't hear, completely independent of the Legislative and Executive branches.

At best they could threaten not to fund the federal courts, but the SCOTUS would immediately overturn such an attempt as unconstitutional and rightfully so.

[ddye]

Doug the UN found the mass graves. Iraqi citizens had been reporting on the mass killings for years to the west.
No one is denying that Saddam killed a lot of people, or that mass graves existed. I challenged your "fact" that, "Fewer Iraqi civilians have died since the beginning of Operation Iraqi freedom that Saddam and his "enforcers" killed EVERY SINGLE YEAR on average." It is flat out untrue, and you cannot prove it. There was no reason for you to make up something like that.

If you'll read back I said that creating a killing ground for foreign Jihadists, was a secondary benefit, not a primary reason for going to war. It was also unfortunately a consideration which eluded the administration for some time as they didn't anticipate what was to come after the end of "major combat operations".
BENEFIT? I'll bet the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead would dispute that. You know and I know that the Bush administration was completely in the dark about how to deal with Iraq after the war was over. And to call drawing terrorists into Iraq that killed thousands of innocent civilians a "benefit" is beyond callous.

They also made a severe tactical and strategic error in allowing those tens of thousands of Saddam's forces to flee the battle field rather than hunt them down and capture or kill them. As was later learned it was a very well orchestrated plan by Saddam, to engage us later in a debilitating guerilla war.
No, we could not have "killed" hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers. Is this like a game to you, casually talking about the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of people as if they are not human?

No, what Bush SHOULD HAVE DONE was to keep the Iraqi military intact in some fashion, if only to patrol areas to combat looting after the war. They could have also helped build infrastructure.

They also failed to expect the sectarian infighting.

It's a good thing Roosevelt didn't have as many critics or the million US casualties and 20 million civilian casualties we caused would have driven him from office.

Rule number one of war is that civilians will die. Rule number two is that you cannot change rule number one.

While rule number one is written in stone the US in the modern era has done more to reduce civilian casualties than you can possibly imagine. In many cases preventing "substantial collateral damage" ends up costing the lives of our soldiers and marines, but it is always a major consideration in all operations.
A pretty lame excuse for your contention that it was a good thing that thousands of Iraqi civilians died, so we could kill foreign terrorists.

Doug

[MeowsterMew]

Doug the UN found the mass graves. Iraqi citizens had been reporting on the mass killings for years to the west.

If you'll read back I said that creating a killing ground for foreign Jihadists, was a secondary benefit, not a primary reason for going to war. It was also unfortunately a consideration which eluded the administration for some time as they didn't anticipate what was to come after the end of "major combat operations".

They also made a severe tactical and strategic error in allowing those tens of thousands of Saddam's forces to flee the battle field rather than hunt them down and capture or kill them. As was later learned it was a very well orchestrated plan by Saddam, to engage us later in a debilitating guerilla war.

They also failed to expect the sectarian infighting.

It's a good thing Roosevelt didn't have as many critics or the million US casualties and 20 million civilian casualties we caused would have driven him from office.

Rule number one of war is that civilians will die. Rule number two is that you cannot change rule number one.

While rule number one is written in stone the US in the modern era has done more to reduce civilian casualties than you can possibly imagine. In many cases preventing "substantial collateral damage" ends up costing the lives of our soldiers and marines, but it is always a major consideration in all operations.

Both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were resource driven and in my opinion a complete failure. We were lied to by Bush and unfortunately Obama is continuing the trend.

Also Jihadis actively condemned the acts of 9/11 which gave bush an opportunity to separate them from the extremist groups in the region but instead he resorted to violence and welded them together creating a much more determined enemy and recruitment tool for future generations.

The civilian casualties can be estimated through several studies to be anywhere from 100,000+ civilians dead to 1,000,000+.

Furthermore, while saddam did kill many innocent civilians he was only tried for the murder of approx. 150 people. Why? Because all the other crimes he committed the US effectively turned their back to it and did nothing about or actively supported (after the Iraq Iran war the US invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to US for WMD training ).

[troy]

I was in Desert Storm, was the second carrier battle group to support OEF and was on my way home when we turned around to go back and execute OIF.

While serving (22 years), I always kept my personal opinions to myself and executed orders and performed my job with zeal regardless of my personal opinions...as all who serve and have served have done and do.

Desert Storm was the right thing to...no question.

OEF was the right thing to do...no question.

OIF is another matter. The first time in my career when I wondered what the hell we were doing. We had Saddam boxed in with the no fly zones and the ability to strike at any threat or target. At the time, there was no indication that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and that wasn't even the argument. The intial invasion of Iraq went smooth and we destroyed the Iraqi forces as I knew we would. It was the **** poor planning after the initial invasion that got us in trouble. It was also GWs stubborn refusal to admit that the post invasion plan in Iraq was a poor plan and that Donald Rumsfeld made huge mistakes in his planning and resources. Rumsfeld and GWs bad decisions post invasion resulted in the loss of many American lives...no question in my mind.

GWs continued stubborn refusal to address Rumsfelds poor job performance and refusal to give the generals on the ground what they needed also resulted in my loss of respect for both GW and Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was an idiot who caused damage and is respsonsible for many lost lives. GWs refusal to recognize this and get rid of Rumsfeld early resulted in my attitude change towards GW.

You can regurgitate all you want about why we needed to attack Iraq. I can use the same argument as to why we should attack many other countries, we never have and never will.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

So what? We had Saddam completely bottled up....

Doug
In no way, shape or form. Please stop saying that.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

No, what Bush SHOULD HAVE DONE was to keep the Iraqi military intact in some fashion, if only to patrol areas to combat looting after the war. They could have also helped build infrastructure.This too.

[LibHunter]

Bush???? Oh yea, wasn't he a president or something along long time ago.

I think the relevent question now is: When will Democrats admit that Obama is making huge mistakes right this moment? Like communist healthcare, Tax and trade, Massive pork spending, ect...

[MeowsterMew]

Bush???? Oh yea, wasn't he a president or something along long time ago.

I think the relevent question now is: When will Democrats admit that Obama is making huge mistakes right this moment? Like communist healthcare, Tax and trade, Massive pork spending, ect...

Its not communist health care.

[LibHunter]

Its not communist health care.

You sat tomAtoe I say tomAHtoe, let's call the whole thing off.

[ddye]

Bush???? Oh yea, wasn't he a president or something along long time ago.

I think the relevent question now is: When will Democrats admit that Obama is making huge mistakes right this moment? Like communist healthcare, Tax and trade, Massive pork spending, ect...
Maybe you could get a sticky posted to inform us what we can and cannot discuss here.

Or you could also start threads intended to discuss topics of interest to you.

Doug

[WildRose]

No one is denying that Saddam killed a lot of people, or that mass graves existed. I challenged your "fact" that, "Fewer Iraqi civilians have died since the beginning of Operation Iraqi freedom that Saddam and his "enforcers" killed EVERY SINGLE YEAR on average." It is flat out untrue, and you cannot prove it. There was no reason for you to make up something like that.


BENEFIT? I'll bet the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead would dispute that. You know and I know that the Bush administration was completely in the dark about how to deal with Iraq after the war was over. And to call drawing terrorists into Iraq that killed thousands of innocent civilians a "benefit" is beyond callous.


No, we could not have "killed" hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers. Is this like a game to you, casually talking about the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of people as if they are not human?

No, what Bush SHOULD HAVE DONE was to keep the Iraqi military intact in some fashion, if only to patrol areas to combat looting after the war. They could have also helped build infrastructure.


A pretty lame excuse for your contention that it was a good thing that thousands of Iraqi civilians died, so we could kill foreign terrorists.

DougCall it callous if you like, it doesn't change the fact or the outcome Doug. I participated in the gulf war. I was there, on the ground marking targets for 33 days prior to the first missle being launched. I have also served in a couple of dozen other operations and seen lots of casualties, civilan and military inflicted by us and our enemies.

I was a professional soldier for most of my adult life and proudly so. I never let my emotions get in the way of making good decisions on or off the battle field, or in my reporting to higher head quarters of what I was/had observed.

I also realize the Bush made a lot of mistakes strategically. He however didn't come to those decisions alone, he relied on the intelligence services, and then his generals and admirals to provide him the best information possible to arrive at those decisions.

Obviously there were a lot of failures below him and he has to bear the responsibility as CinC for those failures.

Remember though that the polls of the Iraqi civilians themselves were overwhelmingly supportive of the removal of Saddam.

As for your suggestion that he should have kept the Iraqi military in tact, well, it's absurd on it's face and would have led to thousands of US casualties.

Remember the objective of war is to destroy your enemy and his means and willingness to continue the fight. If you are not going to go into any war with a committment to do so you gurantee failure.

Personally I was not in favor of going into Iraq when we did, or how we did but this was the first "shooting war" we engaged in, in my adult life in which I was not a participant but I still have enough respect for the Chain of Command and understanding of making war, that I did, and still continue to support it because I do believe in the long run it will be a huge benefit to us here at home.

To be callous one more time. I really don't care how many foreigners who support our enemies die if it saves a single life here at home. I do however deeply regret the death of every single innocent, but no, I don't place as high a value on the lives of Iraqi civilians as I do those of Americans here at home.

Having endured a great deal of combat, and having seen it's results first hand, having tasted, smelled, and felt all that war is in person I hope and pray it never reaches our shores again.

[tobybear]

So what? We had Saddam completely bottled up.

Doug


Does being "Bottled Up" leave one with the ability to sell oil outside the UN's oil for food program and funnel loads of the money to terrorist groups in the Middle East?

[LibHunter]

No one is denying that Saddam killed a lot of people, or that mass graves existed. I challenged your "fact" that, "Fewer Iraqi civilians have died since the beginning of Operation Iraqi freedom that Saddam and his "enforcers" killed EVERY SINGLE YEAR on average." It is flat out untrue, and you cannot prove it. There was no reason for you to make up something like that.


BENEFIT? I'll bet the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead would dispute that. You know and I know that the Bush administration was completely in the dark about how to deal with Iraq after the war was over. And to call drawing terrorists into Iraq that killed thousands of innocent civilians a "benefit" is beyond callous.


No, we could not have "killed" hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers. Is this like a game to you, casually talking about the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of people as if they are not human?

No, what Bush SHOULD HAVE DONE was to keep the Iraqi military intact in some fashion, if only to patrol areas to combat looting after the war. They could have also helped build infrastructure.


A pretty lame excuse for your contention that it was a good thing that thousands of Iraqi civilians died, so we could kill foreign terrorists.

Doug

Here is one undisputable fact about the Iraq war: No time in the future will Saddam Hussein or one of his sons Oopsie or Koochie ever, ever, ever obtain or create one single WMD and give it to a terrorist...ever.

[WildRose]

You can regurgitate all you want about why we needed to attack Iraq. I can use the same argument as to why we should attack many other countries, we never have and never will.
All else aside, Saddam continued to target and fire upon our forces. For that, and that alone we had to either eventually destroy his war making abilities or be seen as inept, and unwilling to defend ourselves to the world.

Clinton's refusal to do so is what led to 9-11.

We can be critical of the way the war was fought, but had we completely ignored what was going on, or simply lobbed a few more cruize missiles in response occasionally, we would have remained just as inept, and cowardly in the eyes of the world which absolutely would have left us open to subsequent attacks.

Bush and his advisors screwed the pooch in many respects but both Iraq and Afghanistan were justifiable and necessary actions.

[MeowsterMew]

Here is one undisputable fact about the Iraq war: No time in the future will Saddam Hussein or one of his sons Oopsie or Koochie ever, ever, ever obtain or create one single WMD and give it to a terrorist...ever.

But pakistan will. :) Thanks to US involvment and economic / military support for years. And why cant we speak about health care?

[BillBrown]

They cannot under that clause limit them from hearing cases pertinent to US law. They can in no way interfere with the SCOTUS who by charter get to decide what cases they will or won't hear, completely independent of the Legislative and Executive branches.

At best they could threaten not to fund the federal courts, but the SCOTUS would immediately overturn such an attempt as unconstitutional and rightfully so.

Congress not only has the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, but it uses it.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act contained such language.
It prohibited federal courts from hearing lawsuits against gun manufacturers which claimed gun maker's liability for criminal acts committed with a gun. This was a court-stripping law.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 established the border fence.
It stated that "no court ... shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim" to stop it.

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-25.html

The general public is, for the most part, not aware that congress has this power.

[LibHunter]

Maybe you could get a sticky posted to inform us what we can and cannot discuss here.

Or you could also start threads intended to discuss topics of interest to you.

Doug

I was thinking maybe they could start an 'Ancient History' disscusion site so Bush bashers had some where else to go besides 'Washington Politics'

[STEEL]

Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.

They do.

THat is all the response this stupid thread deserves.

[MeowsterMew]

All else aside, Saddam continued to target and fire upon our forces. For that, and that alone we had to either eventually destroy his war making abilities or be seen as inept, and unwilling to defend ourselves to the world.

Clinton's refusal to do so is what led to 9-11.

We can be critical of the way the war was fought, but had we completely ignored what was going on, or simply lobbed a few more cruize missiles in response occasionally, we would have remained just as inept, and cowardly in the eyes of the world which absolutely would have left us open to subsequent attacks.

Bush and his advisors screwed the pooch in many respects but both Iraq and Afghanistan were justifiable and necessary actions.

They were not justified.

Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. In fact they had remnants of weapons cache from the '91 conflict bombed by US forces that were held and controlled by UN forces and were systematically being cleaned/dismantled but Iraq had no WMDS or means to produce WMDs. Pre the invasion of iraq the UN forces were ordered to evacuate or face a possible involvment in the war (capture/death) so the WMD caches that were being cleaned up were left unguarded, looted and probably sold on the black market. So the war was already a complete failure at that point (if you believe it was waged because of WMDs).

Furthermore, Iraq had no involvement in the events of 9/11 period.

Afghanistan was left on the back burner and taliban forces were allowed to be flown out of Afghanistan into pakistan early in the war. The US appointed Hamid Karzai further proves that the war was resource driven (he was given security detail and flown around Afghanistan to campaign...and was the only one that did so).

[LibHunter]

But pakistan will. :) Thanks to US involvment and economic / military support for years. And why cant we speak about health care?

Libhunter grants you permission to talk about what ever you wish

[troy]

All else aside, Saddam continued to target and fire upon our forces. For that, and that alone we had to either eventually destroy his war making abilities or be seen as inept, and unwilling to defend ourselves to the world.

Clinton's refusal to do so is what led to 9-11.

We can be critical of the way the war was fought, but had we completely ignored what was going on, or simply lobbed a few more cruize missiles in response occasionally, we would have remained just as inept, and cowardly in the eyes of the world which absolutely would have left us open to subsequent attacks.

Bush and his advisors screwed the pooch in many respects but both Iraq and Afghanistan were justifiable and necessary actions.

Afghanistan no question. I still have a problem with Iraq. Iraq posed no immediate threat like North Korea or Iran. If we use the same argument, then why are we not invading North Korea or Iran? However, we need to finsih what we started in Iraq and give the military everything needed to do so. We also need to honor and assist the veterans returning in every way possible.

I'm proud of my service..even in OIF. I too have seen the horrible things that happen in war and have lost friends. I'm also still dealing with friends who have returned ****ed up with PTSD or have stuck a gun in their mouth to solve the problem.

I guess you could say it's personal for me..and probably always will be.

I'm no longer active, but I still support the veteran every day.

[WildRose]

Congress not only has the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, but it uses it.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act contained such language.
It prohibited federal courts from hearing lawsuits against gun manufacturers which claimed gun maker's liability for criminal acts committed with a gun. This was a court-stripping law.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 established the border fence.
It stated that "no court ... shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim" to stop it.

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-25.html

The general public is, for the most part, not aware that congress has this power.Well Bill we'll just have to contiune to disagree. No part of the constitution, or existing SCOTUS precident was violated there since no such rulings had been made prior. Had SCOTUS spoken on either topic prior then you have a situation similar to attempting to subvert the ROE decision.

To attempt to overturn a ruling of the SCOTUS by telling them they can no longer intevene where they have before would absolutely be a usurpation of SCOTUS delegated powers.

[JMikey]

*snip*
We can be critical of the way the war was fought, but had we completely ignored what was going on, or simply lobbed a few more cruize missiles in response occasionally, we would have remained just as inept, and cowardly in the eyes of the world which absolutely would have left us open to subsequent attacks.

Bush and his advisors screwed the pooch in many respects but both Iraq and Afghanistan were justifiable and necessary actions.

Your comment on appearing cowardly implies that this would actually matter to people who are motivated to fly airplanes into buildings. Why would it matter to these people, I wonder?

[ddye]

Call it callous if you like, it doesn't change the fact or the outcome Doug. I participated in the gulf war. I was there, on the ground marking targets for 33 days prior to the first missle being launched. I have also served in a couple of dozen other operations and seen lots of casualties, civilan and military inflicted by us and our enemies.

I was a professional soldier for most of my adult life and proudly so. I never let my emotions get in the way of making good decisions on or off the battle field, or in my reporting to higher head quarters of what I was/had observed.

I also realize the Bush made a lot of mistakes strategically. He however didn't come to those decisions alone, he relied on the intelligence services, and then his generals and admirals to provide him the best information possible to arrive at those decisions.

Obviously there were a lot of failures below him and he has to bear the responsibility as CinC for those failures.

Remember though that the polls of the Iraqi civilians themselves were overwhelmingly supportive of the removal of Saddam.

As for your suggestion that he should have kept the Iraqi military in tact, well, it's absurd on it's face and would have led to thousands of US casualties.

Remember the objective of war is to destroy your enemy and his means and willingness to continue the fight. If you are not going to go into any war with a committment to do so you gurantee failure.

Personally I was not in favor of going into Iraq when we did, or how we did but this was the first "shooting war" we engaged in, in my adult life in which I was not a participant but I still have enough respect for the Chain of Command and understanding of making war, that I did, and still continue to support it because I do believe in the long run it will be a huge benefit to us here at home.

To be callous one more time. I really don't care how many foreigners who support our enemies die if it saves a single life here at home. I do however deeply regret the death of every single innocent, but no, I don't place as high a value on the lives of Iraqi civilians as I do those of Americans here at home.

Having endured a great deal of combat, and having seen it's results first hand, having tasted, smelled, and felt all that war is in person I hope and pray it never reaches our shores again.
Thanks for your service, and I do not have many quibbles with this post at all. Also, please note that I am not a Bush basher here. I do however agree that his prosecution of the aftermath of the Iraq war was incompetent.

As far as keeping the Iraqi military intact, that opinion is shared by many experts I have read. There was no really smart solution there, I will admit, but either "killing" or "capturing" them would also have been impossible. As I said, you cannot summarily massacre hundreds of thousands of soldiers, especially when they wish to surrender, so that option of yours is unrealistic. As far as imprisoning them, we couldn't look after tens of thousands of prisoners, much less hundreds of thousands. Sorry, I still have disagreements with you there.

I agree about the value of American lives, but if we had intentionally gotten thousands of innocent Iraqis murdered just to create a killing field in a foreign country I STILL think that would be an evil act that I hope America would never have any part of.

And the 'polls" of Iraqis were supportive of removing Saddam, but they turned against us after the disastrous aftermath of the war.

I wasn't looking for a fight with you, I merely pointed out some things you said that I think are incorrect.

Doug

[BravoBuzzard]

Not that I'm defending G.W. Bush, because I do think he made a lot of mistakes (Iraq, IMHO, wasn't one of them, and I am a multi-tour vet of that war), but, can you name a President that didn't make a/ or several mistake(s) ever during their terms?


Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.

[RedStatePaPa]

Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.

Iraq wasn't a mistake.

Military Intervenionism... this isn't the 1800's anymore. Threats are different now. We don't face opposing armies on a field of battle anymore and no one yells charge. We face cowards with box-cutters that would cut your 3 year old daughter's throat in the night. Just for spite.


But as for the others, repubs did obviously hold him accountable. Did you see his approval rating? If no one had cared, he would have left office with a good approval rating.

[WildRose]

Afghanistan no question. I still have a problem with Iraq. Iraq posed no immediate threat like North Korea or Iran. If we use the same argument, then why are we not invading North Korea or Iran? However, we need to finsih what we started in Iraq and give the military everything needed to do so. We also need to honor and assist the veterans returning in every way possible.

I'm proud of my service..even in OIF. I too have seen the horrible things that happen in war and have lost friends. I'm also still dealing with friends who have returned ****ed up with PTSD or have stuck a gun in their mouth to solve the problem.

I guess you could say it's personal for me..and probably always will be.

I'm no longer active, but I still support the veteran every day.Iran and NK both have capabilities that Iraq didn't. They weren't shooting at us either.

There was certainly a political element to both wars. They were used to show Iran, Syria, and NK that we'd reached our limit and would respond with all due force necessary if we felt the need to.

By attacking and crushing Saddam's forces, we eliminated the likelihood of those three regimes overtly, or covertly engaging in similar activities.

Notice just how much the sabre rattling has ramped up since Obama took office?

They are trying to see if we really are back to an adminstration that will be similar to Carter and Clinton when it comes to committing forces to a new or expanding conflict.

Obama realizes this which is why he's stepped up operations in Afghanistan as he is. It serves a dual purpose... .

[treadmill]

Bush's mistakes (and I believed it when it happened):

1. weak immigration policy

2. bailout of banks

3. taking too many liberal positions on a variety of issues.

He was not perfect, however, there was no doubt he placed his country first. This young inexperienced man currently in the WH can't get his face away from the mirror long enough to think about his country. He has to go.

[msny]

Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.

When people dont make any mistakes, and become
perfect, let me know OK?

Your thread title is off the mark.
"all" is not a possiblity, no matter there political stripe.

[troy]

Iran and NK both have capabilities that Iraq didn't. They weren't shooting at us either.

There was certainly a political element to both wars. They were used to show Iran, Syria, and NK that we'd reached our limit and would respond with all due force necessary if we felt the need to.

By attacking and crushing Saddam's forces, we eliminated the likelihood of those three regimes overtly, or covertly engaging in similar activities.

Notice just how much the sabre rattling has ramped up since Obama took office?

They are trying to see if we really are back to an adminstration that will be similar to Carter and Clinton when it comes to committing forces to a new or expanding conflict.

Obama realizes this which is why he's stepped up operations in Afghanistan as he is. It serves a dual purpose... .

I won't disagree with you on what you say here, however if this is the reason we went to war in Iraq, then it just makes the case against it even stronger.

We should never attack anyone to prevent someone else from attacking. That's just plain irresponsible and a little scary.

I'm over simplifying it, but I really do hope that wasn't the reason...if so then god help us.

I get what you're saying though and I agree that Obama isn't helping to secure our security.

[MeowsterMew]

I won't disagree with you on what you say here, however if this is the reason we went to war in Iraq, then it just makes the case against it even stronger.

We should never attack anyone to prevent someone else from attacking. That's just plain irresponsible and a little scary.

I'm over simplifying it, but I really do hope that wasn't the reason...if so than god help us.

I get what you're saying though and I agree that Obama isn't helping to secure our security.

WildRose its actually quite the opposite.

At the time Iraq was NO threat to ANYONE. Even its neighbors were not threatened by Iraq. Its economic and military spending was a fraction of kuwaits which holds a population of just 10% that of Iraqs (pre invasion).

So the message we gave to the rest of the developing world? Become a legitimate force (militarily) or face the same fate as Iraq (especialy if youre in a resource strategic area). This can only be assumed to have proliferated WMD's and the push towards Nuclear armarment throughout the developing world.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing but make us less safe here at home.

[WildRose]

Thanks for your service, and I do not have many quibbles with this post at all. Also, please note that I am not a Bush basher here. I do however agree that his prosecution of the aftermath of the Iraq war was incompetent.

As far as keeping the Iraqi military intact, that opinion is shared by many experts I have read. There was no really smart solution there, I will admit, but either "killing" or "capturing" them would also have been impossible. As I said, you cannot summarily massacre hundreds of thousands of soldiers, especially when they wish to surrender, so that option of yours is unrealistic. As far as imprisoning them, we couldn't look after tens of thousands of prisoners, much less hundreds of thousands. Sorry, I still have disagreements with you there.

I agree about the value of American lives, but if we had intentionally gotten thousands of innocent Iraqis murdered just to create a killing field in a foreign country I STILL think that would be an evil act that I hope America would never have any part of.

And the 'polls" of Iraqis were supportive of removing Saddam, but they turned against us after the disastrous aftermath of the war.

I wasn't looking for a fight with you, I merely pointed out some things you said that I think are incorrect.

DougDoug if our leaders had the benefit of clairvoiance we'd have about 60 million more people alive today, extrapolated out in fact, more like another half billion in Europe and Japan alone.

No one is angrier about the needless loss of life in Iraq than veterans of both wars and we can't help but be critical.

But think about it for a minute.

Had Roosevelt known in 38 that Japan would attack pearl harbor in December of 41 by the means they used, do you think we'd have had nearly the whole damned fleet sitting there? Or would we have had the fleet dispersed, and have at least a dozen more first line carriers and upgraded aircraft?

If We'd had the benefit of foresight as to the cost of defeating Hitler conventionally, do you think we'd have probably targeted him specifically in 42?

Having to take him conventionally cost more than a million US casualties and the deaths of some 40 million civilains.

Had we instead joined the Russians and driven westward, we could have avoided inumerable casualties across Europe, but England would have been bombed back to the middle ages. The net loss of life however would have been lower. Should we have ignored the needs of our Ally in favor of fewer US and Civilian casualties?

Making war requires making hard decisons and those decisions are always easier to question when they are history, than when they are making history.

We purposely spared the lives of Saddam's fleeing forces, and the cost of that was the deaths and inury of countless US and coalition forces, as well as Iraqi civilians.

Somehow trying to keep them in tact for our use would have been suicide for all involved because we had to first purge the Bathists, and religious/sectarian fanatics, then retrain those we decided could be trusted. The latter is exactly what happened, but it takes time, a great deal of time to do that. Trying to expedite it would have been like using the SS to maintain order in Occupied Germany. They only knew one way to do so and that was with absolute brutality.

[LibHunter]

I think one of Bush's biggest mistakes was not battling his critics hard enough. He thought staying above the frey was presidential. In the meantime Morons.org and Code Pink ended up defining the debate through default.

In 2002 containment of Iraq was failing. The UN was corrupted and sanctions were going to end. Today Saddam would have no sanctions and would be in a nuclear and conventional arms race with Iran. Like in all wars, initial mistakes were made followed by adjustments. Today a pacified Iraq is good for the US. Thank you George Bush.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Is it for the same reason Islamic Terrorists blow up markets in Indonesia, or intersections in Bangladesh? Or why they kill Buddhists in Thailand?

Are Thai Buddhists meddling in Middle Eastern foreign policy in a way that upsets Islamic Fundamentalists?

No.

Why did they attack here?

[ddye]

Doug if our leaders had the benefit of clairvoiance we'd have about 60 million more people alive today, extrapolated out in fact, more like another half billion in Europe and Japan alone.

No one is angrier about the needless loss of life in Iraq than veterans of both wars and we can't help but be critical.

But think about it for a minute.

Had Roosevelt known in 38 that Japan would attack pearl harbor in December of 41 by the means they used, do you think we'd have had nearly the whole damned fleet sitting there? Or would we have had the fleet dispersed, and have at least a dozen more first line carriers and upgraded aircraft?

If We'd had the benefit of foresight as to the cost of defeating Hitler conventionally, do you think we'd have probably targeted him specifically in 42?

Having to take him conventionally cost more than a million US casualties and the deaths of some 40 million civilains.

Had we instead joined the Russians and driven westward, we could have avoided inumerable casualties across Europe, but England would have been bombed back to the middle ages. The net loss of life however would have been lower. Should we have ignored the needs of our Ally in favor of fewer US and Civilian casualties?

Making war requires making hard decisons and those decisions are always easier to question when they are history, than when they are making history.

We purposely spared the lives of Saddam's fleeing forces, and the cost of that was the deaths and inury of countless US and coalition forces, as well as Iraqi civilians.

Somehow trying to keep them in tact for our use would have been suicide for all involved because we had to first purge the Bathists, and religious/sectarian fanatics, then retrain those we decided could be trusted. The latter is exactly what happened, but it takes time, a great deal of time to do that. Trying to expedite it would have been like using the SS to maintain order in Occupied Germany. They only knew one way to do so and that was with absolute brutality.
Well, again, there weren't a whole lot of realistic options when it came to Saddam's defeated army. I don't understand, are you saying that they should have been massacred?

And of course we don't have hindsight, and never have. Don't get your point here. I think if we were talking about this over couple of beers we wouldn't be as far apart as it seems when posting in a forum. Except for a couple of items, it seems as if we substantively agree on most of this stuff. And topics like the fate of Saddam's military can't be realistically debated anyway, as you said, there was no hindsight available at the time, and we cannot conjecture on things that didn't happen.

Doug

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

This too.

I dunno, keeping the army intact at battalion level and below didn't seem like such a bad idea. The officers were Sunnis, but most of the soldiers were Sh'iites.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Bush's mistakes (and I believed it when it happened):

1. weak immigration policy

2. bailout of banks

3. taking too many liberal positions on a variety of issues.

He was not perfect, however, there was no doubt he placed his country first. This young inexperienced man currently in the WH can't get his face away from the mirror long enough to think about his country. He has to go.

4. Keeping Mueller

5. Keeping Tenet

6. Allowing WMD to become the "Cause"

7. Keeping Clarke

[WildRose]

I dunno, keeping the army intact at battalion level and below didn't seem like such a bad idea. The officers were Sunnis, but most of the soldiers were Sh'iites.All of them were loyal to Saddam and willing participants in the oppression of his regime.

Would you have supported keeping the SS in tact at battalion level to help in maintaining the peace in Germany?

Remember one of my favorite all time generals was absolutely pilloried in the press and sanctioned by congress for not "de Nazifying" fast enough... .

Had we left them in tact in any form how long would it have taken for eithe the Germans or he Iraqis to trust us and begin cooperating with us.

Armchair generals never cease to amaze me.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

I dunno, keeping the army intact at battalion level and below didn't seem like such a bad idea. The officers were Sunnis, but most of the soldiers were Sh'iites.

There was no army.

[conphu1]

I don't know any Republicans that think he didn't make a lot of mistakes. The biggest was getting the insurmountable deficit rolling. JMO

Well that plus Iraq, Iraq, Iraq!

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

All of them were loyal to Saddam and willing participants in the oppression of his regime.

Would you have supported keeping the SS in tact at battalion level to help in maintaining the peace in Germany?

Remember one of my favorite all time generals was absolutely pilloried in the press and sanctioned by congress for not "de Nazifying" fast enough... .

Had we left them in tact in any form how long would it have taken for eithe the Germans or he Iraqis to trust us and begin cooperating with us.

Armchair generals never cease to amaze me.

Most of the soldiers in Saddam's army were Shi'a conscripts.

And, for pete's sake, Hitler's chief of military intelligence and his Org became West Germany's foreign intelligence service, the BND, after the war.

[WildRose]

Well, again, there weren't a whole lot of realistic options when it came to Saddam's defeated army. I don't understand, are you saying that they should have been massacred?

And of course we don't have hindsight, and never have. Don't get your point here. I think if we were talking about this over couple of beers we wouldn't be as far apart as it seems when posting in a forum. Except for a couple of items, it seems as if we substantively agree on most of this stuff. And topics like the fate of Saddam's military can't be realistically debated anyway, as you said, there was no hindsight available at the time, and we cannot conjecture on things that didn't happen.

DougI'm saying that the "spearhead to Baghdad" without regard for the forces we ran by was a VERY BAD PLAN.

One of two things should have been done. Either those forces should have been utterly destroyed before they could melt away, or we should have gone in with enough forces to surround and capture them.

What we did was absolutely the wrong thing because instead of going home to be farmers and goat herders, they followed their pre-invasion plan and melted into the crowd so as to re-emirge fighting a guerilla war.

You cannot leave your enemy in tact and with the means, ability, and will to fight on and expect a victory to be clean and quick.

As for foresight/hindsight. The only way the Bush administration could have prepared for the guerilla and insurgent actions would have been to have had the gift of either fantastic intel (which Clinton had made sure we couldn't obtain) or the Clairvoyance.

Unfortunately "first times" in making war carry a high cost in lives quite frequently and this was the first time a conventional army had melted en masse into the civilian populaton with a preset strategy and the means to conduct a devastating guerilla/insurgent action to follow.

In future wars you can bet this is going to be cause for a change in stategy, and yes, it will result in absolute devastation of enemy forces to prevent this from occurring again. If it doesn't our "leaders" are fools.

We moved way too fast to trying to "win the hearts and minds" and moved away from "destorying our enemy and his means and will to resist" too quickly.

It's ugly, I know, and sounds callous, I know, but this is war we're talking about, not a chess game.

[Crystal]

Bush's biggest mistake was kissing the collective ass of all the stupid liberals and trying to get along with them. They ran roughshod over him his entire 8 years. They blamed him for their mistakes and he didn't call them on it. The republicans in congress did the same.

[WildRose]

Most of the soldiers in Saddam's army were Shi'a conscripts.

And, for pete's sake, Hitler's chief of military intelligence and his Org became West Germany's foreign intelligence service, the BND, after the war.One man, carefully investigated and vetted. Not an army of 100,000....

You tell me with all your wartime experience which was easier to do, and more likely to succeed?

[WildRose]

Bush's biggest mistake was kissing the collective ass of all the stupid liberals and trying to get along with them. They ran roughshod over him his entire 8 years. They blamed him for their mistakes and he didn't call them on it. The republicans in congress did the same.Very well said.

[conphu1]

Bush's biggest mistake was kissing the collective ass of all the stupid liberals and trying to get along with them. They ran roughshod over him his entire 8 years. They blamed him for their mistakes and he didn't call them on it. The republicans in congress did the same.

So what should Cheney have done? Ignore them?

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

One man, carefully investigated and vetted. Not an army of 100,000....

You tell me with all your wartime experience which was easier to do, and more likely to succeed?

A ton of former Wehrmacht people ended up in the West German army. Contrary to popular belief, most soldiers were not Nazis. Even a lot of the general staff wasn't.

And it wasn't one guy, it was his entire intelligence organization.

[MikeJF]

he did admit at least one mistake

http://home.comcast.net/~mikef238/pics/bushmistakecartoon.jpg

[old guy]

Bush's biggest mistake was kissing the collective ass of all the stupid liberals and trying to get along with them. They ran roughshod over him his entire 8 years. They blamed him for their mistakes and he didn't call them on it. The republicans in congress did the same.

so i guess Obama should stop kissing the ass of the stupid cons in congress. after all the country did elect a liberal majority

[Oregon]

Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.

Who is Bush ?

Seriously - who is Bush ?

Even in my own business, I'm pretty much focusing on next week's work. Politically, I can see who Obama is, who Pelosi is, and that stuff like their stimulus bill failed. Or was stuffed with pork.

Ever read what Dale Carnegie wrote "learn to live in day-tight compartments" ??

Again - who is Bush ?

[Trip]

so i guess Obama should stop kissing the ass of the stupid cons in congress. after all the country did elect a liberal majority

That's as silly as the claim Obama has attempted any sort of bipartisanship.

The country elected elected a president with little grasp of his plans beyond hope and change and no idea of the cost of those plans to our country, our economy and our freedoms.

Also the idea there is any sort of liberal majority, much less for these radicalized programs, is thorough fabrication.

[DRS]

Then Ron Paul would have been acting in contravention to the constitution.

Barring a constitutional amendment abortion SHOULD be a question for the states and only the states.

I always sort of find it funny people treat the constitution like the inerrant word of God.

People hold it up when they think it supports them and ignore it when it serves their purpose, and then accuse others of not following all in an effort to get elected and more power.

[RedStatePaPa]

WHen Bush nominated Meirs, we conservatives just about had a frikken cow. It was the conservative voice that got her replaced.

[RedStatePaPa]

so i guess Obama should stop kissing the ass of the stupid cons in congress. after all the country did elect a liberal majority

Hello? Liberals won't let rpublicans in on anything. So what are you talking about?>

[RedStatePaPa]

so i guess Obama should stop kissing the ass of the stupid cons in congress. after all the country did elect a liberal majority

Obama ran as a fiscal conservative.


:)) :)) :))

That's what the country thought they were getting, all wrapped up in a pretty package and marketed beautifully by a sycophantic msm.

[deportalllibs]

WHen Bush nominated Meirs, we conservatives just about had a frikken cow. It was the conservative voice that got her replaced.

Bingo! We, unlike the liberals hold our fellow conservatives accountable.

[troy]

Bingo! We, unlike the liberals hold our fellow conservatives accountable.

Will we hold all those "republicans" accountable who supported Obama's supreme court nomination? Probably not. Would most likely be accused of racism.

[utmom]

Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.

I have admitted that President Bush made many mistakes for years. Amnesty & medicare prescription drugs being two HUGE ones. BUT I dispute the War on Terror being a mistake.

[mrsc696]

When the LMSM starts pointing out and drowning us daily like they did with Bush's mistakes then does the same with Obama That's when.

[conphu1]

I have admitted that President Bush made many mistakes for years. Amnesty & medicare prescription drugs being two HUGE ones. BUT I dispute the War on Terror being a mistake.

I agreed with his invasion of Afghanistan. I don't agree with his diversion to Iraq.

[Trip]

I agreed with his invasion of Afghanistan. I don't agree with his diversion to Iraq.

You mean you don't agree with the decade long state of war that had already then been ongoing, where Iraq had clear ties with and was providing safe haven for terrorism? And Iraq would have achieved a nuclear weapon by a year or two after the expiration of UN mandates?

[RedStatePaPa]

I agreed with his invasion of Afghanistan. I don't agree with his diversion to Iraq.

Thar's funny because al qaeda leadership weren't interested in ass-stan, they were interested in establishing a caliphate with Iraq as the center.

We're done in astan now. imo.

[Gh0sTeR]

Please name a few of the "tens of thousands of willing jihadists" who were from IRAQ that wanted to commit terrorist acts in America. Thanks, I'll wait.



"Name a few"...


:)) :)) :))



Saddam Hussein for one...

[conphu1]

You mean you don't agree with the decade long state of war that had already then been ongoing, where Iraq had clear ties with and was providing safe haven for terrorism? And Iraq would have achieved a nuclear weapon by a year or two after the expiration of UN mandates?

Do you think WE should attack any state that shows a clear, provable, unmistakable intent to harm this nation or it's allies?

[conphu1]

Thar's funny because al qaeda leadership weren't interested in ass-stan...

Then why were they there? Ski vacation?

[Gengar]

When will the Dems stop blaming BOOOSH!!!! for all of Obama's screw-ups?

[conphu1]

When will the Dems stop blaming BOOOSH!!!! for all of Obama's screw-ups?

Probably after they fix BOOOOOSH's screw-ups. :razz:

[Gengar]

I agreed with his invasion of Afghanistan. I don't agree with his diversion to Iraq.

Yeah, too bad with Iraq... if we never bothered with Saddam, we'd have a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq now. What was BOOOOSH! thinking!

[skyyyguy]

Unlike the democrats with Obama, I have openly stated that Bush made a number of mistakes.

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Then why were they there? Ski vacation?

Convenience. why did they run away when the first shot was fired?

[conphu1]

Convenience. why did they run away when the first shot was fired?

Why didn't we chase them?

[Sneaky SF Dude]

Why didn't we chase them?

Because it is chess, not checkers. We went where they were going and waited for them. They came.

[wayoverthehill]

So what should Cheney have done? Ignore them?Aren't you cute.

And I said libs didn't have a sense of humor....................

Or was that simply that libs don't have any sense.............

Oh well, it was one or the other.

[conphu1]

Because it is chess, not checkers. We went where they were going and waited for them. They came.

Let me guess, Iraq?

[conphu1]

And I said libs didn't have a sense of humor....................

I know quite a few libs as you call them with a great sense of humor. As well as quite a few non-libs.

[wayoverthehill]

so i guess Obama should stop kissing the ass of the stupid cons in congress. after all the country did elect a liberal majorityThen why can't they get health care passed? I guess the "blame the Republicans" ploy isn't going to work this time, hmmm?

[wayoverthehill]

Will we hold all those "republicans" accountable who supported Obama's supreme court nomination? Probably not. Would most likely be accused of racism.Do you mean the RINO Lindsay Graham? The voters of South Carolina will have to correct that.

[timjy]

Probably after they fix BOOOOOSH's screw-ups. :razz:
Changing a free country to a government controlled country is not fixing.

[conphu1]

Changing a free country to a government controlled country is not fixing.

What's your plan?

[Oregon]

Who is Bush ?

Seriously - who is Bush ?

Even in my own business, I'm pretty much focusing on next week's work. Politically, I can see who Obama is, who Pelosi is, and that stuff like their stimulus bill failed. Or was stuffed with pork.

Ever read what Dale Carnegie wrote "learn to live in day-tight compartments" ??

Again - who is Bush ?

This theme keeps popping up.

And little more needs to be said.

Who is Bush ??

[timjy]

What's your plan?
let the free market work.Employees need Employers

[conphu1]

let the free market work.Employees need Employers

No regulations on corp. behavior?

And employers need employees, right?

[troy]

Do you mean the RINO Lindsay Graham? The voters of South Carolina will have to correct that.

Exactly. Two reasons Obama is president...John and McCain.

[troy]

Let alone the majority of American Voters

Just proof of how uneducated many voters are. It was a popularity contest not an election. Many in our society today, for the most part, are oblivious to what's going on around them. What's in it for me is all they care about. They drive around in their SUVs with Obama bumper stickers sucking down foo foo coffee while talking to their friends on the newest cell phone. Left wing liberals are some of the most selfish lot I've ever encountered. Sure the economy sucks, but it's sucked before and will suck again. We're at war and regardless the reason our president doesn't even want to acknowledge it or make it a focal point that Americans are conducting sustained combat operations in multiple locations throughout the world. But he will suck up to the very likes that are aiding the enemy.

[ModerateVoice]

Just proof of how uneducated many voters are. It was a popularity contest not an election. Many in our society today, for the most part, are oblivious to what's going on around them. What's in it for me is all they care about. They drive around in their SUVs with Obama bumper stickers sucking down foo foo coffee while talking to their friends on the newest cell phone. Left wing liberals are some of the most selfish lot I've ever encountered. Sure the economy sucks, but it's sucked before and will suck again. We're at war and regardless the reason our president doesn't even want to acknowledge it or make it a focal point that Americans are conducting sustained combat operations in multiple locations throughout the world. But he will suck up to the very likes that are aiding the enemy.

C'mon Troy, you know America "had it coming on 9/11"...............once everyone has a Prius, a Latte, and apologizes to the freedom fighters around the world, then we will be cleansed of the sins of George W. Bush and the blasphemous document that is the US Constitution.

[Claymore]

Let alone the majority of American Voters

Yup, stupid people voted in a stupid regime.
Dishonest America-haters voted in a dishonest American-hating socialist.
Racists and their usefull idiot stooges voted in a racist DNC stooge.

[ModerateVoice]

Bush sure tried to trash the Constitution

Your opinion.

Obama studied Constitutional Law so he could dedicate his political career to ******** on the Constitution with his twisted vision of a Socialist Utopia.

[troy]

I for one take offense at how you label Americans.

Don't worry. In about three years the next president can run around the globe and apologize for Obama...right after they apologize for all the hateful and negative things Obama said about America to the entire world. I'm not sorry about the history of this great nation...good and bad. It's shaped what we are today, but with Obama, all we have accomplished in the last 250 years is at risk.

Does Cuba and Fidel just need a little more time to get it right. This premis on the left that there is so much wrong with America is sickening.

[ModerateVoice]

don't worry. In about three years the next president can run around the globe and apologize for obama...right after they apologize for all the hateful and negative things obama said about america to the entire world. I'm not sorry about the history of this great nation...good and bad. It's shaped what we are today, but with obama, all we have accomplished in the last 250 years is at risk.

Does cuba and fidel just need a little more time to get it right. This premise on the left that there is so much wrong with america is sickening.

+ 100

[timjy]

No regulations on corp. behavior?

And employers need employees, right?
Where did obama get this great business sense community coordinating let the board of directors take care of their own business and keep government out.
if people are unhappy being employees then become a employer.

[timjy]

Obama is going to run around apologizing for himself?
He has to be careful his money men may not buy him another election.

[ModerateVoice]

He has to be careful his money men may not buy him another election.


Campaign posters just don't look as attractive when forced to take off the word "Hope" and replace it with "Fail."

[conphu1]

let the board of directors take care of their own business and keep government out.

They can be trusted to be fair?

if people are unhappy being employees then become a employer.

Hey, I did that. It took a long time to accrue the capital but it is possible. I did it primarily because of the scum bag greed and abuse by the employers I worked for. I learned a lot from trusting employers. Not all, but some. Especially in right to work states. The ability for the employer to abuse is unimpeded for the most part.

[troy]

[quote=ModerateVoice;58376841]Campaign posters just don't look as attractive when forced to take off the word "Hope" and replace it with "Fail."[/quote

As with any new fad, the fad wears thin, runs it's course, fades away only to re-emerge several decades down the road. Jimmy Carter comes to mind with regard to Obama.

The people are starting to wake up and realize that not only does policy matter, but so do details as well as the cause and affect of those policies or legislation. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

[badpenny]

Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.

Bush isn't President anymore.

[Mohawk5]

Been there done this. Are you really serious we have not taken him to task?

[timjy]

They can be trusted to be fair?



Hey, I did that. It took a long time to accrue the capital but it is possible. I did it primarily because of the scum bag greed and abuse by the employers I worked for. I learned a lot from trusting employers. Not all, but some. Especially in right to work states. The ability for the employer to abuse is unimpeded for the most part.
First it is their business not the employees no one is forcing them to work there.What do you consider abuse? ps i also own my business

[wayoverthehill]

This theme keeps popping up.

And little more needs to be said.

Who is Bush ??Who is Bush?

Bush is the equivalent of a thumb and a binkie for the Liberals. Every time they don't get their way, or their incompetent sham of a president is criticized, they can grab that binkie and yell "BUSH".

It must make them feel better because they do it so often.

Off to dinner with my kids now.

[timjy]

Who is Bush?

Bush is the equivalent of a thumb and a binkie for the Liberals. Every time they don't get their way, or their incompetent sham of a president is criticized, they can grab that binkie and yell "BUSH".

It must make them feel better because they do it so often.

Off to dinner with my kids now.
I think obama inherited bush

[conphu1]

First it is their business not the employees no one is forcing them to work there.What do you consider abuse? ps i also own my business

Well one would be a salary completely out of whack with 10x the work load. In my business, I am my own boss and my own employee. However, I do hire independent contractors (talent) for certain creative work. When I hire them, I make sure they are paid very well and at least a wage that is commensurate with their skills. Even if the job is a low budget production, I make sure that whatever external talent I use receives at least a fair and agreed upon payment for it. And if the talent is union talent, I make sure they at least get whatever the union scale is.

In my business, you never want to abuse good talent.

[timjy]

Well one would be a salary completely out of whack with 10x the work load. In my business, I am my own boss and my own employee. However, I do hire independent contractors (talent) for certain creative work. When I hire them, I make sure they are paid very well and at least a wage that is commensurate with their skills. Even if the job is a low budget production, I make sure that whatever external talent I use receives at least a fair and agreed upon payment for it. And if the talent is union talent, I make sure they at least get whatever the union scale is.

In my business, you never want to abuse good talent.
That is called wages.you can negotiate your own. Under bush i was able to start my own business.I could not negotiate what i felt i deserved.My employer felt that to keep his business profitable he was giving me what he could.What some fail to realize is that the employer went into business to make money.

bedtime work comes early.

[conphu1]

That is called wages.you can negotiate your own.

Yes you can. That doesn't always mean you'll get it. But to those that would be desperate for work just to feed themselves it would be nice to have a fair shake. It doesn't always happen.

Again, not all employers are of that mindset. But there are many that are.

[Celtic Pax]

http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/bush-approval-historic.jpgThis is interesting. Obama is even with GW today when GW won his SECOND term. Bam Bam's 1st term isn't even a year old and he rivals Bush!!!! How lovely:dance:

[troy]

This is interesting. Obama is even with GW today when GW won his SECOND term. Bam Bam's 1st term isn't even a year old and he rivals Bush!!!! How lovely:dance:

Nice job pointing that out.

[Trip]

Do you think WE should attack any state that shows a clear, provable, unmistakable intent to harm this nation or it's allies?

intent to harm this nation or its allies..

Is this a trick question?

For starters, when we went into iraq, we were already at WAR with Iraq for over a decade.

I believe the obvious answer for Iraq is "no doubt, yes".

[conphu1]

intent to harm this nation or its allies..

Is this a trick question?

For starters, when we went into iraq, we were already at WAR with Iraq for over a decade.

I believe the obvious answer for Iraq is "no doubt, yes".

No trick question!

How about N. Korea? Do you see the same intent?

[joeschmoe]

His biggest mistake was reinforcing the notion of deficit spending by signing every bill that happen to come his way. Spend, spend, spend! That's all our government seems to do nowadays.

[pennysworth56]

I have admitted that President Bush made many mistakes for years. Amnesty & medicare prescription drugs being two HUGE ones. BUT I dispute the War on Terror being a mistake.

I do not support the script drug bill, but was it not pass so that seniors would not have
choose between their meds and eating?

If I remember right at the time people were having fits because of the above.

penny

[Trip]

No trick question!

How about N. Korea? Do you see the same intent?

The Conditions are not anywhere near the same in N Korea.

You asked earlier about Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a regional warlords, a weak government and an economy based in trade of illegal commodity. It is a vacuum of power where groups such as the Taliban or al Quada could easily, not only survive, but hold sway.

While Iraq was a totalitarian regime, like N Korea, under Saddam it also allowed the safe haven and training of terrorist groups as well as actively promoting international terrorism and its own terrorism on the civilian populace. We also had a reason to go into Iraq: an ongong state of War that was recognized by the global community along with ongoign sanctions and mandates that Iraq was refusing to comply with.

[Lawson_Raider]

Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.

I am not the biggest GW Bush (or even G H Bush) fan. The only thing good about the Bush clan was they were good on national defense. On social issues, they are almost just as bad as the Democraps.

Anyways, Bush made alot of mistakes! Does that make you feel better thinking about Bush's screwups and ignoring Obama's communist revolution?

[conphu1]

The Conditions are not anywhere near the same in N Korea.

You asked earlier about Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a regional warlords, a weak government and an economy based in trade of illegal commodity. It is a vacuum of power where groups such as the Taliban or al Quada could easily, not only survive, but hold sway.

While Iraq was a totalitarian regime, like N Korea, under Saddam it also allowed the safe haven and training of terrorist groups as well as actively promoting international terrorism and its own terrorism on the civilian populace. We also had a reason to go into Iraq: an ongong state of War that was recognized by the global community along with ongoign sanctions and mandates that Iraq was refusing to comply with.

If Saddam was testing and firing long range missiles that could reach the US, wouldn't that be considered intent to cause harm to us?

[Trip]

If Saddam was testing and firing long range missiles that could reach the US, wouldn't that be considered intent to cause harm to us?

Is that attempting to advance some argument through a question?

[pennysworth56]

They can be trusted to be fair?



Hey, I did that. It took a long time to accrue the capital but it is possible. I did it primarily because of the scum bag greed and abuse by the employers I worked for. I learned a lot from trusting employers. Not all, but some. Especially in right to work states. The ability for the employer to abuse is unimpeded for the most part.

That can be a two way street too. I have seen employees abuse employers too, then when
they get fired they raise a big stink. Yelling racism or age discrimination.

And with the labor board and osha I do not think it is as easy to abuse your workers
as it was years ago.
penny

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

If Saddam was testing and firing long range missiles that could reach the US, wouldn't that be considered intent to cause harm to us?

Drones. It was drones that the Iraqi were going to fly off ships on the East Coast and drop bioweapons on our cities.

[conphu1]

Is that attempting to advance some argument through a question?

Yes! We would rightfully be concerned if Saddam was doing that right?

[Trip]

Yes! We would rightfully be concerned if Saddam was doing that right?

Rrrright..

And during the course of the U.N. mandates and embargo Iraq increased the range, playload capacity, and guidance of the al Samud missiles. The guidance came in from China and, IIRC, France.

This would not be such a great risk if they had not also been advancing their nuclear program and had 550 tons of yellow cake uranium and more than a ton of partially enriched Uranium.

[conphu1]

Rrrright..

And during the course of the U.N. mandates and embargo Iraq increased the range, playload capacity, and guidance of the al Samud missiles. The guidance came in from China and, IIRC, France.

This would not be such a great risk if they had not also been advancing their nuclear program and had 550 tons of yellow cake uranium and more than a ton of partially enriched Uranium.

Were we aware at the time of NK's intentions?

[byzantine catholic]

"ALL" The Republicans?? All you say?



BTW, Obama is spending hundreds of billions more than Bush did, expanding the role of the GOvt more than Bush did, creating all KINDS of bogus positions. Sanctity Of Life Bill, well, so what. "Military interventionism", another oh well, so what. And the war in Iraq. You mean, the war that DEMOCRATS voted on, in HJ RES 114? Where 29 of the 49 DEMS in the Senate voted FOR? The war, that without THEIR votes, Bush couldn't have done a damn thing? THAT war???


Oh yeah, and Obama said WHAT about the Iraq war, when running for President? What was his promise? Out in 16 months? Which, just last week, he flip-flopped and said by the end of 2011. THIRTY SIX months...You confuse me for a Democrat!:rolleyes:I am a Republican!:):shhh:

[byzantine catholic]

I am not the biggest GW Bush (or even G H Bush) fan. The only thing good about the Bush clan was they were good on national defense. On social issues, they are almost just as bad as the Democraps.

Anyways, Bush made alot of mistakes! Does that make you feel better thinking about Bush's screwups and ignoring Obama's communist revolution?If you had read my posts you would see I have been all over Obama!:)

[byzantine catholic]

Yes! We would rightfully be concerned if Saddam was doing that right?Of course because that is an actual threat against the U.S. while Iraq was not at the time.

[byzantine catholic]

Why do we single out Bush, lets look at Carter, Clinton and now BHO.Not to mention LBJ dems have made their share of mistakes, Bush is gone now. Lets concentrate on the one and only BHO. We wont be able to list all of the mistakes this guy makes. Our apologist on chief, is leading us down the primrose path to disaster.I single out Bush because Bush did all of these things and called himself conservative. At least Obama is actually what he is, a liberal.

[FreeRadical]

Why do we single out Bush, lets look at Carter, Clinton and now BHO.Not to mention LBJ dems have made their share of mistakes, Bush is gone now.

What about Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan? Were they infallible?

[olaf]

"Everyone is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights among these are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

OT Be sure to remind the unborn child of their rights "endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable right right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" while their LIFE is being sucked out of the mother's womb. It adds such a "homey" touch.

[conphu1]

Of course because that is an actual threat against the U.S. while Iraq was not at the time.

What? I'm talking about Iraq. :eh:

[byzantine catholic]

OT Be sure to remind the unborn child of their rights "endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable right right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" while their LIFE is being sucked out of the mother's womb. It adds such a "homey" touch.That is what I mean by the quote.:)

[byzantine catholic]

What? I'm talking about Iraq. :eh:So am I and I said Iraq was not a threat to the U.S.

[Sun]

Many Republicans have criticized Bush including Sean Hannity, although Sean says he's a conservative FIRST, and so am I.

[byzantine catholic]

Many Republicans have criticized Bush including Sean Hannity, although Sean says he's a conservative FIRST, and so am I.Sun how are ya doing man!:)

[olaf]

That is what I mean by the quote.:)

Sorry, not singling you out here, just couldn't resist for others.

[Sun]

Sun how are ya doing man!:)

Hey friend!

[Trip]

What? I'm talking about Iraq. :eh:

no, you're posing a series of vague questions in a disingenuous attempt to advance a very superficial and inaccurate argument.

If you want to argue a position, do so. I'm ignoring your questions that aren't even involving any argument.

[byzantine catholic]

Hey friend!Everybody thinks I am a Democrat but I am a Republican!:rolleyes:

[conphu1]

no, you're posing a series of vague questions in a disingenuous attempt to advance a very superficial and inaccurate argument.

If you want to argue a position, do so. I'm ignoring your questions that aren't even involving any argument.

Spare me your insults!

If Iraq was test firing missles to hit us, it would be considered a REAL threat to the US.
Would that be justification for preemptive attack?

What is NK doing now?

[Jagergeist]

I was also a proud member of the GOP, especially working locally for Reagan's campaigns, but soured on the conservatives under the Bush years. I was especially disgusted that Bush was intent on starting through the rose colored glasses and was fixated the Iraq war would cost $60 billion ($3 trillion and climbing). That and all the soldiers who died unnecessarily due to having substandard equipment and transportation. As a former Republican I will be the first to point out Bush's mistakes.

It would serve the country amazingly well if each political side agreed their representatives make both great and bonehead calls.

[Trip]

Spare me your insults!

If Iraq was test firing missles to hit us, it would be considered a REAL threat to the US.
Would that be justification for preemptive attack?

What is NK doing now?

Oh please, there was no insult in anything I said. You were attempting to backdoor an argument through superficial questions.

Test firing missiles has nothing to do with establishing a "real threat". If this were true, we'd never be looking for al Quada with a gaping, smoldering hole in the midst of New York.

You need to stop with the habitual train of questions. At best it is a false way to advance an argument and at worst it is a analytical laziness.

[conphu1]

Oh please, there was no insult in anything I said. You were attempting to backdoor an argument through superficial questions.

Whatever!

Test firing missiles has nothing to do with establishing a "real threat". If this were true, we'd never be looking for al Quada with a gaping, smoldering hole in the midst of New York.

So in reality the Iraq venture was about 9/11?

[Trip]

Whatever!



So in reality the Iraq venture was about 9/11?

Is that what I said?

[ddye]

Thar's funny because al qaeda leadership weren't interested in ass-stan, they were interested in establishing a caliphate with Iraq as the center.
:))

That would be like the Hatfields setting up their main base in the McCoys' camp.

Doug

[conphu1]

Is that what I said?

Ooops! Sorry, I got a little confused between threads. :redface:

No it's not what you said.

So if "Test firing missiles has nothing to do with establishing a "real threat", does that mean the North Korea's test firing missiles does not establish a "real threat"?

[russbenson]

:))

That would be like the Hatfields setting up their main base in the McCoys' camp.

Doug

Careful y'all don't want ta start no fued. My wife is a decendent of the Hatfield's and they still don't like them MaCoy's much. Calls them mountain trash from a backwater holler.

[nortman]

Expanding federal beauracracy in public education, amnesty to illegal immigrants, bailouts, TARP, not passing the Sanctity of Life Bill which would have ended abortion, military interventionism, and the War in Iraq.:shhh:That is a lot of mistakes.:surprised:think:And I can keep going on.Weren't you posting here when that stuff was all happening? Conservatives were ****ed about TARP, illegal immigrants, and many other things. Contrary to what you imply with the OP, Bush was taken to task by conservatives on many things.

[nortman]

Ron Paul and it would have characterized the infant in the womb as a person and would have stopped abortion at the federal level.
Okay, I get it now. :rolleyes:

[tinydancer]

Okay, I get it now. :rolleyes:

I know.

My blood pressure initially went thru the roof at the OP. :dance:Then I "got it" too.

Sheesh. How anyone could have missed Hannity/Limbaugh/Levin/ and the rest of us mere conservative mortals just killing Republicans on so many issues from Harriet Miers sp to spending to amnesty to playing "footsies" with the Dems means that they live in an alternate universe to us.

[russbenson]

When will all the republicans say that George W. Bush made a lot of mistakes?

As a conservative, I would say the chances are about the same as a liberal democrat openly stating that he/she is a communist at heart. Has a socialist agenda. Openly admits their prejudice, racial, economic and religious. Bill Clinton openly comes forth with all his dirty laundry. Openly admit to the kickbacks, soft money and the influence peddling by environmentalists, foreign governments and investment that they voted on that has increased their wealth.

If you say when Hell freezes over, I have to tell you Hell freezes over at least once every year. Last winter it had snow for 3 months, the Dam Site in and the store had snow hills in their parking lots, and the post office was open for business every day.

[JeffR]

It drives me nuts when Republicans claim GWB was a good President. It drives me even more nuts when Conservatives do.

[bigtwnvin]

Other than TARP and Donald Rumsfeld, I thing GWB did a fine job as POTUS. The Wall St debacle that resulted from the trading of "toxic assets" associated with sub prime home loans wasn't the fault of GWB other than the Democrats that were personally involved in the industry (who currently are still in office) lobbied against the Presidents warnings and calling for stricter Federal oversight of the lending industries.
GWB also was fighting a losing battle over the domestic oil, gas and nuclear energy exploration and production. The enviro-lobbies are deep with support from the left and the liberal-socialists in Congress.

[birddog1]

Thought he was more of a states rights kinda guy. :rolleyes: The more I learn about him, the less I like him.

You should do your own research before condeming a man based on statements on a chat board.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1094&tab=summary

[byzantine catholic]

I know.

My blood pressure initially went thru the roof at the OP. :dance:Then I "got it" too.

Sheesh. How anyone could have missed Hannity/Limbaugh/Levin/ and the rest of us mere conservative mortals just killing Republicans on so many issues from Harriet Miers sp to spending to amnesty to playing "footsies" with the Dems means that they live in an alternate universe to us.Got what?

[byzantine catholic]

Weren't you posting here when that stuff was all happening? Conservatives were ****ed about TARP, illegal immigrants, and many other things. Contrary to what you imply with the OP, Bush was taken to task by conservatives on many things.On social, economic, and domestic issues yes which I am glad for but on foreign issues no.

[byzantine catholic]

Other than TARP and Donald Rumsfeld, I thing GWB did a fine job as POTUS. The Wall St debacle that resulted from the trading of "toxic assets" associated with sub prime home loans wasn't the fault of GWB other than the Democrats that were personally involved in the industry (who currently are still in office) lobbied against the Presidents warnings and calling for stricter Federal oversight of the lending industries.
GWB also was fighting a losing battle over the domestic oil, gas and nuclear energy exploration and production. The enviro-lobbies are deep with support from the left and the liberal-socialists in Congress.Amnesty anyone? Yes I know there are wackos up there but Bush did not do a good job defending himself. I do not just blame Bush I also blame the Republican Congress and I blame them more than Bush.

[byzantine catholic]

When will all the republicans say that George W. Bush made a lot of mistakes?

As a conservative, I would say the chances are about the same as a liberal democrat openly stating that he/she is a communist at heart. Has a socialist agenda. Openly admits their prejudice, racial, economic and religious. Bill Clinton openly comes forth with all his dirty laundry. Openly admit to the kickbacks, soft money and the influence peddling by environmentalists, foreign governments and investment that they voted on that has increased their wealth.

If you say when Hell freezes over, I have to tell you Hell freezes over at least once every year. Last winter it had snow for 3 months, the Dam Site in and the store had snow hills in their parking lots, and the post office was open for business every day.True.:)