Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Tieguy Here's How "Conservative" Bush Is
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 275998" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Char,</p><p> </p><p>Well I don't see the temp. rising around here! <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p> </p><p>I'm no fan of Bush but I agree what you said is most likely true. I won't go so far as to suggest one of the greatest as you did but history has a way of softening our view of persons or events. A couple of cases in point are Truman and Nixon. Truman left office with horrible public approval but as time has moved forward his name evokes positive thought and in some circles he is viewed among the greats. Nixon, who left the WH under the cloud of Watergate, is now seen in a much softer light where his efforts in China now soften the abuses exposed by the Watergate affair.</p><p> </p><p>Even though I think our foreign policy and our lack to fully comprehend how we are seen around the world help to inflame events that nutjobs used to incite actions against us, I do give high marks to Bush and Co. for moving quickly against the Taliban and the Afghan based Al Queda and routing the Taliban from power. Where the marks go down IMO is what I see as a loss of focus on this theater and instead Bush listening to others around him who IMHO clearly had other agendas not directly related and some argue not related at all to capture or killing the very persons responsible for the 9/11 attacks themselves. </p><p> </p><p>Clinton rightly IMO gets blasted for failures to act as a result of other terrorist acts and even some here in this forum rightly blast at Clinton that his failures left Osama and friends to commit the acts of 9/11. By allowing the utter failure of the battle of Tora Bora in the case that Osama and leadership were allowed to slip to freedom at the hands of Rumsfeld (War on the Cheap, the Walmart plan) and the war leadership of the Project for a New American Century, Bush IMO deserves a hit. </p><p> </p><p>Iraq from the rearview mirror looks murky and those who still stand behind the Bush policy (IMO most of that is out of purely republican loyality verses admitting anything that could even look at giving democrats the cause of being right on something) are so adamant that when one reason fails to measure up, they grab another. </p><p> </p><p>I often look with a sense of comedy at the similarity between the reason for the Iraq invasion and the reason for the 1997' IBT strike of UPS. Depending on who you ask and in the case of both, you may never get the exact same reason. Afghanistan was very clear and precise and even though on foreign policy terms I do believe we added to the problem via unintended consequences just as we aided Saddam in the 80's to oppose Iran only to have Saddam come back and haunt us. Without the aid and friendship of the US, would Saddam been able to even invade Kuwait in the first place? It is an interesting question to consider. As to Afghanistan, when the Soviets left town, we backed the Taliban over the Northern Warlords because of US Drug policy that the extreme religious society of Afghanistan would crush the opium drug trade from that country. And it did. But what was the Blowback. Harboring of terrorists who killed Americans and we come back this time siding with the Northern Warlords we opposed earlier to outst to Taliban and what has poppy production done? Gone up of course. When will we get the next round of Blowback? </p><p> </p><p>Where Iraq could totally shift on it's Axis is if 10 years from now, buried in the desert someone finds post 1991' WMD. I am open to that possibility and have said such although it was sometime ago in discussions with Tie and most of you I don't think were even around. If this does occur, Bush will be seen in a vastly different light, no argument. But I do think as time goes by the view of Bush will soften as lesser known specifics of his Presidency become known. The reverse potential is also true that this Presidency has been very close to the vest about itself (I think one reason for all the mistrust) and after the term ends and as years go by, more people in the middle of it all will speak out and we'll have a better picture of what it was like back inthe day!</p><p> </p><p>See, no heat from this quarter!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 275998, member: 2189"] Char, Well I don't see the temp. rising around here! :wink2: I'm no fan of Bush but I agree what you said is most likely true. I won't go so far as to suggest one of the greatest as you did but history has a way of softening our view of persons or events. A couple of cases in point are Truman and Nixon. Truman left office with horrible public approval but as time has moved forward his name evokes positive thought and in some circles he is viewed among the greats. Nixon, who left the WH under the cloud of Watergate, is now seen in a much softer light where his efforts in China now soften the abuses exposed by the Watergate affair. Even though I think our foreign policy and our lack to fully comprehend how we are seen around the world help to inflame events that nutjobs used to incite actions against us, I do give high marks to Bush and Co. for moving quickly against the Taliban and the Afghan based Al Queda and routing the Taliban from power. Where the marks go down IMO is what I see as a loss of focus on this theater and instead Bush listening to others around him who IMHO clearly had other agendas not directly related and some argue not related at all to capture or killing the very persons responsible for the 9/11 attacks themselves. Clinton rightly IMO gets blasted for failures to act as a result of other terrorist acts and even some here in this forum rightly blast at Clinton that his failures left Osama and friends to commit the acts of 9/11. By allowing the utter failure of the battle of Tora Bora in the case that Osama and leadership were allowed to slip to freedom at the hands of Rumsfeld (War on the Cheap, the Walmart plan) and the war leadership of the Project for a New American Century, Bush IMO deserves a hit. Iraq from the rearview mirror looks murky and those who still stand behind the Bush policy (IMO most of that is out of purely republican loyality verses admitting anything that could even look at giving democrats the cause of being right on something) are so adamant that when one reason fails to measure up, they grab another. I often look with a sense of comedy at the similarity between the reason for the Iraq invasion and the reason for the 1997' IBT strike of UPS. Depending on who you ask and in the case of both, you may never get the exact same reason. Afghanistan was very clear and precise and even though on foreign policy terms I do believe we added to the problem via unintended consequences just as we aided Saddam in the 80's to oppose Iran only to have Saddam come back and haunt us. Without the aid and friendship of the US, would Saddam been able to even invade Kuwait in the first place? It is an interesting question to consider. As to Afghanistan, when the Soviets left town, we backed the Taliban over the Northern Warlords because of US Drug policy that the extreme religious society of Afghanistan would crush the opium drug trade from that country. And it did. But what was the Blowback. Harboring of terrorists who killed Americans and we come back this time siding with the Northern Warlords we opposed earlier to outst to Taliban and what has poppy production done? Gone up of course. When will we get the next round of Blowback? Where Iraq could totally shift on it's Axis is if 10 years from now, buried in the desert someone finds post 1991' WMD. I am open to that possibility and have said such although it was sometime ago in discussions with Tie and most of you I don't think were even around. If this does occur, Bush will be seen in a vastly different light, no argument. But I do think as time goes by the view of Bush will soften as lesser known specifics of his Presidency become known. The reverse potential is also true that this Presidency has been very close to the vest about itself (I think one reason for all the mistrust) and after the term ends and as years go by, more people in the middle of it all will speak out and we'll have a better picture of what it was like back inthe day! See, no heat from this quarter! :happy-very: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Tieguy Here's How "Conservative" Bush Is
Top