I recently asked a family member who is a confirmed Leftist (and history professor at a New Jersey university) to tell me at least three positive things President George Bush accomplished.
He did. But surprisingly, his positives did not include ending the fascists Baath Party in Iraq . . . a party that traces its history to Adolf Hitler. It did not include breaking apart Saddam’s network . . . or Al Qaeda’s network. And it did not include the fact that there had been no attack on US soil since 11 Sep 2001.
Were these deliberate attempts to ignore what he obviously knew were important achievements?
No. Honestly . . . I think he just doesn’t “see” them.
Anyone who has ever been divorced knows that divorce comes after fundamental bonds are broken. Two people can agree to disagree for years. But when they finally disagree on certain “first principles” then the fundamental and often fragile bonds are broken and there is nothing left to save.
I think we may be fast approaching that point - if we’re not already there. It’s 1776 again . . . or 1860.
We’re at a point where we no longer can agree on fundamental “American” values and the only thing left to do is dissolve the bonds of Union and separate.
[quote]Boss6 wrote:
I recently asked a family member who is a confirmed Leftist (and history professor at a New Jersey university) to tell me at least three positive things President George Bush accomplished.
He did. But surprisingly, his positives did not include ending the fascists Baath Party in Iraq . . . a party that traces its history to Adolf Hitler. It did not include breaking apart Saddam’s network . . . or Al Qaeda’s network. And it did not include the fact that there had been no attack on US soil since 11 Sep 2001.
Were these deliberate attempts to ignore what he obviously knew were important achievements?
No. Honestly . . . I think he just doesn’t “see” them.
Anyone who has ever been divorced knows that divorce comes after fundamental bonds are broken. Two people can agree to disagree for years. But when they finally disagree on certain “first principles” then the fundamental and often fragile bonds are broken and there is nothing left to save.
I think we may be fast approaching that point - if we’re not already there. It’s 1776 again . . . or 1860.
We’re at a point where we no longer can agree on fundamental “American” values and the only thing left to do is dissolve the bonds of Union and separate.
[/quote]
So wait, invading a country that was no threat to us (however odious its leader) and spending $3 trillion to put it back together and hopefully leave without it being in worse shape than before we showed up…is a “fundamental American value”? Just checking.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Boss6 wrote:
I recently asked a family member who is a confirmed Leftist (and history professor at a New Jersey university) to tell me at least three positive things President George Bush accomplished.
He did. But surprisingly, his positives did not include ending the fascists Baath Party in Iraq . . . a party that traces its history to Adolf Hitler. It did not include breaking apart Saddam’s network . . . or Al Qaeda’s network. And it did not include the fact that there had been no attack on US soil since 11 Sep 2001.
Were these deliberate attempts to ignore what he obviously knew were important achievements?
No. Honestly . . . I think he just doesn’t “see” them.
Anyone who has ever been divorced knows that divorce comes after fundamental bonds are broken. Two people can agree to disagree for years. But when they finally disagree on certain “first principles” then the fundamental and often fragile bonds are broken and there is nothing left to save.
I think we may be fast approaching that point - if we’re not already there. It’s 1776 again . . . or 1860.
We’re at a point where we no longer can agree on fundamental “American” values and the only thing left to do is dissolve the bonds of Union and separate.
So wait, invading a country that was no threat to us (however odious its leader) and spending $3 trillion to put it back together and hopefully leave without it being in worse shape than before we showed up…is a “fundamental American value”? Just checking.[/quote]
Helping people who are suffering is an American value. Do you even look at what you are typing anymore?
His best accomplishments were his Supreme court appointments.
I believe Bush is over vilified for things that weren’t even his domain, however, I do not think he was a good president.
He squandered many opportunities, spent like a drunk sailor despite increasing revenue, and started Iraq…I disagree with the fact that Iraq wasn’t a threat…They were, but they were not an overt threat and they were controllable by means other than war. He single handedly turned the government over to excessively liberal democrats. People wanted to get so far away from Bush, that they were willing to embrace Marx.
[quote]John S. wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Boss6 wrote:
I recently asked a family member who is a confirmed Leftist (and history professor at a New Jersey university) to tell me at least three positive things President George Bush accomplished.
He did. But surprisingly, his positives did not include ending the fascists Baath Party in Iraq . . . a party that traces its history to Adolf Hitler. It did not include breaking apart Saddam’s network . . . or Al Qaeda’s network. And it did not include the fact that there had been no attack on US soil since 11 Sep 2001.
Were these deliberate attempts to ignore what he obviously knew were important achievements?
No. Honestly . . . I think he just doesn’t “see” them.
Anyone who has ever been divorced knows that divorce comes after fundamental bonds are broken. Two people can agree to disagree for years. But when they finally disagree on certain “first principles” then the fundamental and often fragile bonds are broken and there is nothing left to save.
I think we may be fast approaching that point - if we’re not already there. It’s 1776 again . . . or 1860.
We’re at a point where we no longer can agree on fundamental “American” values and the only thing left to do is dissolve the bonds of Union and separate.
So wait, invading a country that was no threat to us (however odious its leader) and spending $3 trillion to put it back together and hopefully leave without it being in worse shape than before we showed up…is a “fundamental American value”? Just checking.
Helping people who are suffering is an American value. Do you even look at what you are typing anymore?
[/quote]
HA! Well John…people often leave out the pieces of information that are contrary to the point they are trying to make…this is known as the argument of the weak…or of the lazy…either way.
Bush was faced with more tough choices than, perhaps, any president before him. In most cases the choice was do a thing that would be unpopular and come back to bite you in the ass when America’s selective memory inevitably took hold OR to do the polictically expedient thing.
In most cases he did the former. And he gets credit (at least from some) for it. All of his choices may not have been correct, but all choices can be questioned after the fact. The biggest price to be paid for the Bush presidency, I fear, is his successor.
Political expediency is his modus vivendi. For his sake as a man, and for our sake as a nation I hope I’m dead wrong. But I’ll save my cheerleading until halftime and I’ll hold out just a bit longer before joining the cult-of-personality.
[quote]pat wrote:
His best accomplishments were his Supreme court appointments.
I believe Bush is over vilified for things that weren’t even his domain, however, I do not think he was a good president.
He squandered many opportunities, spent like a drunk sailor despite increasing revenue, and started Iraq…I disagree with the fact that Iraq wasn’t a threat…They were, but they were not an overt threat and they were controllable by means other than war. He single handedly turned the government over to excessively liberal democrats. People wanted to get so far away from Bush, that they were willing to embrace Marx.
That was his biggest fuck up.[/quote]
100% agree. Bush set the GOP back years, maybe decades. Forget Iraq, if he would have veto’d a few spending bills and kept the GOP crooks in congress under control, we would not be in the situation we are in now.
"The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: “I won. I’m the president.”
This is a prelude to dictatorship. Only rule by terror can keep a country from tearing itself apart.
This all began when we extended voting rights to people who have no real stake in the country. Only property owners above the age of 30 or military veterans over the age of 20 should be allowed to vote. Let’s face it — someone who’s home address is a park bench should NOT have a say in how the country is governed.
[quote]Boss6 wrote:
I recently asked a family member who is a confirmed Leftist (and history professor at a New Jersey university) to tell me at least three positive things President George Bush accomplished.
He did. But surprisingly, his positives did not include ending the fascists Baath Party in Iraq . . . a party that traces its history to Adolf Hitler. It did not include breaking apart Saddam’s network . . . or Al Qaeda’s network. And it did not include the fact that there had been no attack on US soil since 11 Sep 2001.
Were these deliberate attempts to ignore what he obviously knew were important achievements?
No. Honestly . . . I think he just doesn’t “see” them.
Anyone who has ever been divorced knows that divorce comes after fundamental bonds are broken. Two people can agree to disagree for years. But when they finally disagree on certain “first principles” then the fundamental and often fragile bonds are broken and there is nothing left to save.
I think we may be fast approaching that point - if we’re not already there. It’s 1776 again . . . or 1860.
We’re at a point where we no longer can agree on fundamental “American” values and the only thing left to do is dissolve the bonds of Union and separate.
[/quote]
The fact that there have been no further attacks on our soil is obviously a great thing. It’s not at all clear that invading Iraq was a good thing. First of all, it wasn’t an overt threat, and there were other and probably better ways of dealing with it. It’s also not at all clear that what will arise there now won’t be much worse than Saddam ever was. That depends on reorganization. Maybe it will work out in the end. But this administration undoubtedly waged a war for years without any reorganization plan or political solution. That was moronic.