[DELETED BY AUTHOR]
12 Jan
Bush Thankathon Begins
This entry was posted in Bush Thankathon, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Monday, January 12th, 2009 at 10:08 am | 12 views
Stats
I’ll share what I posted on your Facebook update as well as the link to the Freep article here:
I’m glad blogs such as yours are doing this, Curt (or whoever controls the Flopping Aces account here), because I just went to the Detroit Free Press today and they have some stupid “Top 10 Reasons Why We are Glad to See Bush Go” thing going for the last 10 days up to the inauguration. Would be nice if they balanced that with “Top 10 Things We Will Miss About President Bush”, but I don’t think they have anyone on staff who even subscribes to that ideology. “Diversity” of skin color, but not ideology, apparently.
Link: Thanks, George!
I don’t think history will be kind because it will be written in the same frame of mind that exists today. Whether that’s right or wrong, I can’t see why there would be such a turnaround from his low approval ratings. Obviously, many of those who voted for him lost faith too, even if you ignore those who would be politically on the Democrat side. Otherwise, his rating would be much higher.
I personally think there were good things about his presidency and bad things as well. By no means is he the worst president ever nor should he be considered among those in that list. However, there are several things he did that I do not like at all.
To me, he was an average president, but I just don’t see how history will overcome the negative perceptions (sometimes fair, sometimes unfair) to paint a positive picture of him.
The best of GWB is his love and respect for this country, and his successful protection of it during his tenure. The day will come soon when those who mocked him, will wish he were back, that you can count on. I didn’t always agree with you George, but all in all THANK YOU.
I’m not good at predictions, but there is hope that history will be kinder to Mr. Bush han the press has been.
For one thing, it is looking more and more like the Obama years are going to be an unqualified disaster, and if we survive them, we (the people who think Bush and Nixon and other unpopular folk had good features) will be ascendant.
For another, there are some who think that if Lincoln and Kennedy had not been assassinated, we would talk about them like we do Carter, Or Tyler.
He kept us safe for 7 and 1/2 years. Nothing else really matters does it, if we are all blown to hell?
@Larry Sheldon:
That reminds me of this quote from The Dark Knight:
“You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”
In 2004, President Bush was re-elected based on mostly still being seen as a hero by a slim majority of Americans. But another 4 years in office have seen him become the villain in many people’s eyes. Very unfortunate. He is neither a hero nor a villain. He is simply, like most Presidents and like all Americans, an imperfect man, who did what he thought was right.
It’s ironic thinking about it, how the Left adores and worships Obama with the same passion and illogic that they hate and despise President Bush. There must be some psychological explanation for the reason why people do that. (Yes, cue the “liberalism is a mental disorder” easy joke here)
Seriously though, it is not logical, I wouldn’t think, to have such extreme ridiculous emotions about people. There is no logic to the seething hatred for President Bush and there is no logic to the adoring worship of ‘Teleprompter Jesus’.
History will praise President Bush. Iraq is now an ally. This is almost a miracle. Bush will also be remember for what he did for Africa, no other President cared so much for that country. Bush was constantly bashed and it did not break him, he went on knowing that what he was doing was right. I really admire that man. To me he is the best President after Reagan. People will miss him, that’s for sure. And most of all, the troops will never get such a caring CIC. Compared to the bum that is coming to the White House, what a difference! Bush kept this country safe, Obama will destroy this country. The only thing that I didn’t like about him is the fact that he was a big spender. But, then again, he spent money on good things: Army, Africa, international aid, etc.
What a world we live in when people who have achieved little in their lives can sit in judgment and offer nothing but criticism of those who aspired to achieve something not only for themselves but for the benefit of others. As a life long Democrat I thankfully can look at the Presidency of George Bush and offer thanks for a job well done. Those who can’t, represent what is wrong with this country and they are not smart enough to know it. Only the foolish would assume to know otherwise. Unfortunately, the foolish don’t know that they are fools.
Thank You Mr. President and First Lady Laura Bush for your service and dedication to our nation and her principles.
@Greg:
I think President Bush is someone who is a consequential president; a mover and a shaker who definitely wanted to “think big” and do great things. He ran out of the political capital to tackle social security and tax simplification; but he’s permanently changed the landscape in the Middle East and altered the greater course of history. If democracy ever does sweep across the rest of the Middle East, he can be credited with planting the first seeds and speeding the process.
Definitely not a pontificator who merely sought to kick the can down the road for the next president to face. Because of him, the next president will have some of the new tools in place to pick up where Bush left off, on the GWoT (or drop the ball). Obama enters a world where al-Qaeda is weakened and Saddam and his murderous sons are removed from the game-board.
@Michael in MI:
Shameless plug.
I commend President Bush for keeping us safe*
I commend President Bush for a successful invasion and destruction of the Iraqi military to prevent WMD’s from attacking the USA or our allies. **
I commend President Bush for successfully managing the economy and bringing us the lowest interest rates in recent times. ***
I commend President Bush for keeping our borders secure. ****
I commend President Bush for supporting free trade. *****
I commend President Bush for protecting our Constitutional Rights. ******
Good Luck Mr President.
*except for the massive loss of life and property stemming from the 9/11 attacks
** except for the poor planning for the post invasion security and the lack of WMD’s which call into question the necessity or timing of the invasion.
*** except for the near total collapse of our credit markets, massive constriction of our economy, near 50% loss in equities and near -20% in housing values and a growing unemployment.
**** except for the millions of illegal aliens that streamed across the border for employment and bringing drugs into our communities.
***** except for allowing China to keep the Yuan undervalued thereby having cheap goods flood our markets to the detriment of American workers.
****** except for those pesky 4th Amendment issues around warrantless wiretapping.
President Bush did not keep us safe. The worst domestic terrorist attack in the history of this country occurred on his watch, and if an attack on its level occurs on 9/11/2009, you all will no doubt condemn President Obama as a craven coward who invited terrorism because he’s dumb, liberal, weak, and inexperienced. I commend Bush for keeping us safe since 9/11, but why does the right always speak of his presidency as if it began on 9/12/2001? It didn’t. Why shouldn’t he be faulted for it? If you want to blame Clinton, then any attack in the next 8 years can be justifiably blamed on Bush.
He then proceeded to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and played on our fears by characterizing false intelligence with terms like “mushroom clouds”. Indefensible. We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was not an immediate threat to us. The Iraq war should have never been started. Period.
Next, what answer is there for Katrina? None.
I won’t even mention the economic collapse at the very end, because I agree every politician in Washington had a hand in it. But now that we have a deficit over $1 trillion due in large part to a pre-emptive war of choice, a choice Bush admits in retrospect he probably would not have waged, the right has suddenly become deficit hawks with a Democratic president who wants to spend money investing in America to fix the economy. It doesn’t make sense.
You all sound pathetic trying to defend this presidency. I personally think Bush is a nice guy, a genuinely good man, yet a terrible president, and most Americans agree, if not with the former then definitely with the latter. So for the minority represented on these pages, if Obama’s presidency is anywhere near as bad as Bush’s I wonder if eight years from now we’ll see comments defending Obama on this blog similar to the ones above this one.
George Bush Swure to defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States against all enemies,foreign and domestic.He did not do so.
Get it out of your system Bush haters….
And as for Tom: You’re right… Bush didn’t “Swure” to defend the Constitution. He did however SWEAR to uphold it. And you can’t give one VALID example where he failed to do so.
Friggin moonbats!
Hey! I don’t really count myself as a true hater… I sort of agree with GaffaUK thread 32
I hope the soon to be former President has a long and healthy retirement.
Wonder if you moonbat POS will be here when obama makes Carter look like a genius. Unlikely. You’ll run back to KOS or DUNG to whine about how he duped you.
Love how Blast and the others try to blame on Bush that which was the fault of the dems. We have been over this and proven you wrong time after time. Typical of those like you, you post the same drivel over and over because YOU can’t face facts.
Blast, we’ve been over the WMD thing, the wiretapping, whose fault 9/11 is, etc. You have been proven wrong, time to move on.
Hard Right, obviously the majority of Americans are not on your side. Of my list, which one is inaccurate? I would say the last one could be debated, but the rest… they are all accurate, even if stated in a semi- sarcastic way.
Moon bats everywhere, drivel, lies, and half truths is all they know. Next to Jimma the rabbit slayer, and Clinton the cigar man, GWB was a breath of fresh air. lets see if all the O’s are removed from the White House type writers when this class act leaves. Yeah he made mistakes, every one does, but not out of spite or indifference. Obama! Now I predict that the smell from the White House will be even too much for Moon Bats to take. May G-D bless America, and boy do we need it.
@blast:
What could President Bush have done, 9 months into office with some of his political appointments still not in key positions due to the 2000 election results and partisanship on the part of Senator Levin and others; for nearly 7 months, confirmation hearings for Feith and a couple of other top advisors for Rumsfeld wre held up. The incoming Pentagon policy team had no legal or political authority to do their jobs.
When did the planning for the events of 9/11 begin?
Can you credit Bush at all for keeping us safe since?
White House fact sheet:
Ultimately, the buck stops at Bush. He should receive blame and credit; but it should also be understood that there are many players in this, with blame and credit to be spread around and shared. Bush can’t micromanage the entire theater of the war and there were definitely decisions by State and CIA that completely went against what the White House and Pentagon wanted. In some cases, State and CIA officials acted unilaterally, averting the original planning and wishes of the Administration. There are partisans within both departments who, for ideological reasons, were never on board with “making things work” in terms of carrying out the “Bush plan”.
Pg 274-5, Feith’s War and Decision:
Fixation on WMD stockpiles ignores that what we did find was intent and capabilities- part of the justifications put forth. Rumsfeld actually warned in his “Parade of Horribles” memo the possibility that we might not find the weapons that many of us thought would be there. Also, check the FA category on wmd.
White House fact sheet on defending against wmd terrorism
Is it all Bush’s fault? Or is there plenty of that wealth of blame to spread around?
The numbers crossing the borders have gone down significantly under this president. He’s done more than he’s been given credit for, just because he sought immigration reform (badly needed) which far righties like to dismiss and characterize as “amnesty”. Bottomline is, the status quo of the last couple of decades has been unacceptable as well.
What are you afraid of, Blast? President Bush isn’t interested in ease-dropping on your 1-800 sex-talk conversations.
As for the 4th Amendment, is it an unreasonable “search” should you be accepting phone calls from known/suspected terrorists or those connected?
The president has inherent powers under Article 2 to protect this country and that’s exactly what the president has done. And there’s hardly anything “unprecedented” or alarmist here. Check out Geoffrey R. Stone’s 2004 book “Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism.”
@Chuck:
Like Blast, I ask you, is that the fault of President Bush? Is it a fair charge you make? Could anyone- Gore, McCain, you name it- have averted 9/11? Or were we caught asleep at the wheel with plenty of hindsight blame to go around?
If Bush is to blame for 9/11 happening on his watch, then can I hold Clinton accountable for all the metastasizing terrorism that happened on his watch, including the germination of 9/11 planning?
Depends on the circumstances, but not all of us here are as deeply partisan as you may think.
Obama has a leg up as the Bush team, by all accounts, has put patriotism over partisanship and has extended a hand out to the Obama team to make the transition as smooth as possible, with intell briefings even happening before the November elections to both campaigns.
Some of the criticism leveled at Clinton, I think, has been partisanly unreasonable and hindsight Monday morning quarterbacking. You’re right. Take Somalia for instance. A lot of us on my side of the political aisle want to blame him for “cutting and running” from there. While I do think Somalia is cited by our enemies as an example of America as a paper tiger, it is false perception and propaganda against us; and partisans on the right perpetuate the myth. The truth is, after the “Black Hawk Down” incident, not only did we kill 1200 Somalis, we stayed another 6 months to complete our mission there until the UN handover. Our intent was never to stay, permanently. What else should we have done? Leveled Mogadishu?
The problem remains, however, that we left the impression and gave al-Qaeda the propagandistic perception of being chased out of Somalia; and perpetuating that myth by Clinton-bashers rather than dispelling it, only serves bin Laden’s interests.
Please tell me where and when President Bush ever, ever, ever stated that Iraq was responsible for 9/11?
The president’s ability to make sound judgments is in part, only as good as the intell and information he’s given to act upon. A number of independent investigations including the Robb-Silbermann Report and the Butler Report has exonerated the Administration of cooking up the intell.
Chuck, I disagree. In a way, Iraq was a separate war; but it is also deeply tied into the threat of international terrorism by Islamic radicals. And if there was any one nation where we ever had more justification to invade, it had to be Iraq. Almost immediate violations of the original Cease-Fire Agreements, followed up by 12 years of 16+1 UNSCRs. Much of what the Bush Administration cited in building up its case for war came from the UN’s own documents. Check out Blix’s Unresolved Disarmament Issues. Based upon what was known at the time, the irresponsible course of action was for the world to continue to maintain the status quo of eroding sanctions, oil for food scam, and a hostile enemy of the United States that had extensive ties to funding, supporting, and training Islamic terror groups.
Katrina’s Bush’s fault? What part of Katrina do you hold Bush accountable for?
The Iraq War might be a “war of choice” (although I also see it as an ultimately necessary war- don’t anyone kid yourself that Saddam didn’t pose a danger and that diplomacy hadn’t been tried), but how can you hold the Iraq War as largely responsible for the deficit?
Can you please provide me the specific quote? Thanks.
Many on the right have been frustrated with Bush and the Republicans in Congress for spending and expansion of government. If a Democratic President seeks more of the same, why should our position change?
I try. Thanks. I am a wingnut, after all.
There’s hardly anything in this world that I believe 100%; but in regards to Bush’s legacy, I’ve never felt more confident that he will go the route of Harry S Truman as a great president, and a strong president who ran his 8 years based upon convictions rather than on popularity and the latest polls.
As painful as it is might be for you to read these pages, stick around and find out.
You might be occasionally surprised by some of the contents, here. Yes, this is a rightwing blog with plenty of wingnuts; but not all of us live on the extreme fringe.
@Wordsmith
I agree with some of your points.
I don’t think Bush or Clinton are directly responsible for 9/11. It was a shock to the world and the US. Reagan helped those in Afganistan fight the Russians as part of the Cold War. One of those who gained fighting experience against the Russians with US help, Bin Laden later turned on the US as he was angered when George Bush Sr put troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. After attacks on the Cole etc – Clinton should of taken Bin Laden out when he had the chance. But still few could of expected 9/11 including Bush. US security was lax – it’s not now.
I do think Bush has to take responsibility for how the Iraq War unfolded and the decision to go to war. He is the C-in-C and as Truman stated the buck stops with him. I don’t think a leader is as good as their intel when Bush and Blair took that info and distorted it when the hyped it up to the public.
The Iraq War is a separate war that got tangled with Afganistan. Yes Iraq has sponsered terrorism but why attack Iraq when you have a significantly bigger sponsor of terrorism next door – Iran. And what real pressure and results has the US had with it’s ‘allies’ in the region – Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia – these are hot beds of terrorism and where 9/11 sprang from.
And I do think the neo-cons have done this drip-drip connection between 9/11 and Iraq which has not helped. Bush did state that he believed Saddam wasn’t behind it. No doubt there are ties but these are small fry compared to the other countries I have mentioned. Al Qaeda and Saddam were enemies before 9/11.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
Gaffa,
“One of those who gained fighting experience against the Russians with US help, Bin Laden later turned on the US as he was angered when George Bush Sr put troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War”
bin Laden never was pro US to begin with, nor did the US or our CIA fund, assist, arm or train bin Laden or his Arab contingency in any way during the Afghan/Soviet war. That is folk lore.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=FD4C9FAB-E415-478C-B561-1F3E0C5E455B
http://beijing.us.embassy-china.org.cn/creating_laden.html
Gaffa, your understanding of the iraq problem is similar to your understanding of LAWRENCE of ARABIA as britain’s “BEST COUNTER-INSURGENT” operator: ignorant and hollywoodish.
If you still think LAWRENCE was a COUNTER-INSURGENT operator, I seriously can’t expect your lil’ ol brain to understand the complexities of Iraq.
I respect Missy for trying to be nice to you and patiently explain everything, but to me, you will always be a lost cause. On yer bike, mate!!!! (Or on Lawrence’s bike).
@GaffaUK:
Interestingly, Lawrence Wright talks about how ineffectual bin Laden’s mujahadeen were in Afghanistan and how Afghan fighters regarded the foreign fighters with some deal of amusement and caution, as Afghans were interested in driving the Soviets from their land, whereas the jihadis were interested in dying for martyrdom status. Some even regarded the Arabs pouring into their country as “useless”.
Interesting to note as well, that bin Laden was angered by Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and wanted to lead an army against him, but the Saudis refused to allow it.
“Hype” in a sense is necessary, if one is to rally public and political support and will to wage a war. Saying Bush and Blair “distorted” the intel, when independent investigations have exonerated them from pressuring intell analysts?
Excerpt from the Silberman-Robb Report:
Excerpt from the SSCI Report on Iraq Prewar Intelligence:
Also check out last year’s Senate Select Committee Investigation on Pre-War Intell, Phase II final report. Check the FA archives/category.
In a sense, yes; in another sense, it’s all one war and it’s all interconnected.
Iran was on the “hit list” along with North Korea as they were both labeled as part of the “axis of evil” along with Iraq. But Iraq was in the cross-hairs because 12 years of diplomacy had failed. Saddam had kicked out UN inspectors after deceiving them for the previous 8 years. He made no secrets of his love and history of usage of wmd; nor of his hatred for the American government. In light of 9/11, the fear was that Saddam’s Iraq, an open state-sponsor of exported terrorism, might use Islamic terrorists as proxies to deliver wmd attacks against mutual enemies (that would be the U.S.). In the case of Saddam, the belief was that we had to act before the threat became imminent. Once a country possesses nuclear weapons, then we would have acted too late.
It’s a complicated mess with mixed messages and mixed results. The secular Muslim governments are targets of the al-Qaeda network/jihadi groups. They have a vested interest in fighting Islamic terrorists even as wahhabism gets exported to the west, with mosques funded by Saudis who are posing a threat. At the same time, we’ve seen al-Qaeda operatives beheaded by Saudis, Zawahiri and Qutb and fellow radicals jailed and tortured by the Egyptian government, and Pakistan ISI capturing and handing us Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
There’s a lot of cooperation that goes on behind the scenes, even as these governments might make public statements that denounce us to placate public outcries. There’s also the problem of Islamic fundamentalists within their government agencies and security forces.
But they are allies that pose a problem.
It’s complicated.
I think the war critics just have a comprehension problem. Go through all the speeches and find me the deception.
Please, please, please, please find me that quote! I’ve been searching forever…..well, at least for the past few years.
You should check out a book called Saddam’s Ties to Al Queda. It’s more like a compendium of timelines and reportage by media, by government sources, literary works, and post-war documents. Almost 700 pages of fine print. Compiled and written by some strange dude who calls himself “Sam Pender”
Oh, I love that link! I was actually looking at it the other week:
That flies in the face of your assertion that “Bush said it”. Still would love it if you could find me the quote.
Rightly so. You have to think outside the “law enforcement” mentality of strictly going after bin Laden and Zawahiri and those directly involved with the planning and operations of hatching 9/11.
Alright, I’ll stop right there for lack of anymore time here. But here are all of my cards on the table, cut-and-pasted from a post I did last year:
The ties to al-Qaeda, or more properly and accurately the al Qaeda NETWORK and AFFILIATES, is quite extensive as is Saddam’s willingness to work with Islamic holy warriors. Check the FA archives for the Iraqi Perspectives Project. Scott’s done a more thorough job of extrapolating from it than any journalistic article out there on the web. So you’re better off checking his research.
Considering the vast wealth of information freely available to combat ignorance, the intellectually vacuous nature of that comment is truly stunning.
Through the lens of that very short combination of words and numbers we can see why GaffaUK is the object of humor and ridicule all over the Internet.
Gaffa: You need to delink the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. There’s a great documentary on the National Geographic Channel(?) about the rise of the Taliban. Osama wasn’t a major player in the war against the Soviets. Our ally Massoud was and the Taliban murdered him.
And Aye said:
Just rememeber that Gaffa is more comfortable with his prejudices than he is with any claim to well informed objectivity.
Yo Wordsmith
Do you think you can post a bigger response next time? I’m still not finished reading your response post as I figure it will take me well into next week! Why the hell are you not working for our government in some research capacity is beyond me. The CIA perhaps? You are thorough to the point of being excessive….and I mean that as a compliment!
Thanks for all your hard work
Ron
I’m not sure that he isn’t.
The cover he created for himself is ingenious.
Shhhh! Wordsmith is our own private spook and his codeword is “Thong.”
No doubt he’s taking lessons from Mata.
Heck, I get accused of being too brusque.
Wordsmith
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
On the 9/11 issue, it happened on his watch. No doubt his watch included the years following the attacks where nothing happened, which is good. If you are going to allow 9 months for Obama for a major security fuck up, let me know.
On the WMD and poor post war planning. Well, again as you said “the buck stops here”. I am not trying to indict President Bush, but history is history. We can look at others in his administration etc, but ultimately it was the “Bush Administration” not the Cheney Administration, Colin Powell Administration or Donald Rumsfeld Administration.
On the economy, he has been president for 8 years so I can say he owns these problems. Just look at the deficit! Yes, like everything else in government he is not the only one to blame, but the Presidency is a singular power which also means you get the singular fault when things go wrong. We can have emergency legislation for Terri Schievo (with the prez hurrying back to sign it), but not the same focus to fix real economic problems. This is like 9/11… we knew there were problems but failed to fix them until after disaster struck.
Border security, well, the President could not even deliver his own party to solve the problem. That is leadership huh. It has been a vexing problem, but also a blemish on his Presidency which he promised to solve.
Warrant less wiretapping. “What are you afraid of, Blast? President Bush isn’t interested in ease-dropping on your 1-800 sex-talk conversations.” Well, let him get a warrant and there is no problem. This issue is in dispute (from a legal perspective) so I will give him some leeway, however, it would have been good politics to fix the system to conform to the new realities rather than just secretly begin something that a large part of the country would see as wrong. It looked like a naked power grab and expansion of executive power, along with signing statements and other questionable activities. No one wants to hinder the monitoring of terrorists and at the same time we do not want terrorists to be the cause for our losing our liberties in the long run. History is replete with Presidents abusing these powers for political purposes and thus the FISA law was enacted to codify rules around the 4th Amendment protections.
I realize we each will make up our own minds about President Bush. Here in FA however there is a rush to only look at the good and totally forget the major screw ups where were totally devastating (and if Obama did anything near that these pages would totally light him up). Bush’s last press conference I did not see, but from what I read he seemed to be more honest about the mess ups… which is a decidedly better approach than ignore or deny them (and what gets my goat the most).
In a recent exchange with another FA writer over the “Clinton Economic Hangover” I sought to find out what type of hang over should we anticipate from the Bush Administration. You raise the specter of Bush having only 9 months in the job when 9/11 hit, so we bestowed a mulligan on the President and he was not really attacked for the lapse. We gathered around and supported him and he received unwavering support of the American people. Will we do the same for President Obama? No doubt the terrorists are planning more attacks, as that is what they do. They will be creative and we have done little to secure our frontier, ports and other vital infrastructure.
Maybe I am more contrary in my thinking here in FA due to the extreme partisan nature of some of the posts and comments. Bush was no saint and neither is Obama. They may use different political philosophies, but ultimately both, in my opinion, want the best for our nation. No one political philosophy is inherently “more American”.
Anyway, thanks Wordsmith for your comment.
The lengthy recitals if 8 years fails to mention who controled what in thems of the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court.
Minor oversight, I’m sure.
Irrelevant in any case.
For all the moonbats, YOU KNOW Clinton was to blame for allowing it to be so easy for the terrorists to carry out the 9/11 attack and IT KILLS YOU.
Clinton had 8 years and did next to nothing as far as serious action was concerned. Bush was in office for less than a year, was hamstrung by dems trying to undermine him from the beginning, and therefore unable to un-f*ck the security mess THE DEMS created. But yeah, it’s all Bush’s fault (roll eyes). You leftists are truly mentally ill.
Tell you what if an attack happens in the same amount of time under obama I’ll blame Bush and his admin as well as obama and his.
“Bush was no saint and neither is Obama. They may use different political philosophies, but ultimately both, in my opinion, want the best for our nation. No one political philosophy is inherently “more American”. (Blast)
You gotta be kidding for sure. Obama wants to destroy America, when will you open your eyes, Blast?
Check these stories out…I’m sure it will make some of you vent;)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7783286.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7825039.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7809160.stm
Like I’m going to look to the BBC for facts.
How is the global warming working out for you?
From one of Gaffa’s links: “I suppose the underlying question here is whether George W Bush has been one of the worst US presidents.”
That’s pretty much the underlying assumption among those in the “news” media and the left (oops! redundant again).
Reread the last paragraph of my post if you want to know what value these idiot reports have.
P.S. Larry: I have to give the BBC some credit. After all, at least one of their editors considered me on par with the pros at the NY Times, Wash Post, L.A. Times, Miami Herald:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4541818.stm
I should ask for a raise.
Forget UK and France they are already on their knees; they are so afraid to displease their Islamist citizens. They have become leftist cowards.
Yes – the UK is so afraid of it’s Islamist citizens it decided to go to war in Afghanistan & Iraq. lol….Craig you’re hysterical.
@Ron: Thanks for the strong compliment, Ron. Very high praise, however deserved or undeserved.
Some of my favorite stuff here at FA:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/06/06/sen-intel-committee-releases-another-report-to-show-bush-lied-about-saddam/
The Senate Select Committee on Intell Phase II report on pre-war intell:
KEY Points Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Phase II investigation report on pre-war Iraq Intel
Senators Remove Their Own Statements from Report on Pre-War Iraq Intelligence
Senators Caught Distorting and Misleading ntelligence Report
On the Iraqi Perspectives Project:
Pentagon Report Confirms Saddam’s Regime Supported al Qaida
Saddam’s Files, They Show Terror Plots, But Raise New Questions About Some Media Claims
@GaffaUK:
Good links! Already read those. Don’t agree with more than half of what’s said or perceptualized (a wordsmithism?). But I enjoyed the read.
This one’s pretty swell, too.
@blast: No time to indulge my fisking habits, today; but thanks for the courteous challenge and disagreements to my opinion.
@Wordsmith
Yep. Going to be interesting to see what relationship Obama will have with Africa. Maybe the BBC isn’t such a big leftie MSM outlet if it’s publishing those sort of stories.
“Yes – the UK is so afraid of it’s Islamist citizens it decided to go to war in Afghanistan & Iraq. lol….Craig you’re hysterical.” (Gaffa)
And you are an idiot. It is not your citizens who decided to go, it was your brave Blair. You citizens didn’t stop complaining about his decision just like the leftists in America against Bush.