Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Iraq War made sense at the time. That's why so many Democrats who later claimed to have been hypnotized by Bush into authorizing the war actually did so. .
The vote to give the neoconservatives authority to attack an innocent nation was timed to take place two weeks before the Nov. 2002 elections, which a vote against the war was going to be methodically used against any candidate by Karl Rove and his expert band of righting assassins.
You can blame American ignorance as much as you can blame Karl Rove and his Swiftboat apparatus. If voting 'NO' made a candidate vulnerable to his constituents then there is plenty of blame to go around
Should we have trusted Saddam Hussein to not supply al Qaeda with VX nerve gas while our sons were fighting them in a nearby stink hole?
Invading Afghanistan was fine. That's where the enemy was.
Invading Iraq was NOT fine. It was a HUGE mistake and simply served as a costly distraction. Saddam wasn't about to supply al Qaeda - they hated each other. Saddam wasn't a religious figure - he was a SECULAR dictator. Occasionally he would dress up in the garb and pay lip service to Islam to stir up the ignorant masses, but the truth of the matter is that he wasn't really the slightest bit religous - and Osama knew that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
During the Clinton years we were attacked over and over again by the same al Qaeda that was behind the 9/11 attacks. During the same eight years the CIA was allowed a 25% attrition rate and essentially neutered. Why?
With this group regularly breaching our defenses and blind siding our intelligence shouldn't we have doubled down on intelligence?
How do you suffer attack after attack by the same terrorists then fault the guy who finally took them out for doing so?
I don't fault Bush for going after al Qaeda. I fault him for getting DISTRACTED by Saddam - who was NO REAL threat to us at all and who had no real strong links to al Qaeda. He'd already been neutered. He had no WMD's other than leftover forgotten useless junk - and don't give me that BS about his still having useful WMD's that were hidden away or moved to Syria, because GW HIMSELF admitted that the Administration was WRONG about Saddam having WMD's.
The fact is, Saddam had ALREADY been effectively neutralized by the UN sanctions put into place by the first President Bush and later President Clinton. There was no need to invade. Now it IS true that we still THOUGHT he was WMD's - mainly because Saddam WANTED us to think so. Though he was already neutered by the sanctions, he was still playing the "tough guy" because he thought that by doing so he fended off both internal competition AND the Iranians, so he didn't want to ADMIT that he's knuckled under during the Clinton years and shut down his programs and given up his useful WMD's. In short Saddam was bluffing - gambling that he could keep up the charade and thus APPEAR to be thumbing his nose at the US and therefor increasing his prestige in the region.
Because of that, one CAN argue that Bush came to a REASONABLE assumption that Saddam still had his WMD's, but even making that assumption that does NOT mean that invading Iraq was necessary - there were OTHER options, including further tightening sanction, covert operations against Saddam personally (ie aiding his internal enemies), etc. All out invasion was NOT the only option, but Bush seemed determined to pursue that course no matter what - and it was a HUGE mistake. I didn't fault Bush for invading, but my opinion - even at the time was "OK, IF the WMD's are there, then maybe it's the right thing to invade - BUT we BETTER be RIGHT about the WMD's because any invasion/occupation is going to be VERY VERY COSTLY and difficult to extracate ourselves from."
You don't know what you're talking about. The CRA has been around since Carter days and has nothing to do with the subprime crisis. The requirements to take part in the CRA were that the banks still had to adhere to strict lending practices, only for lower income people. It was NOTHING like the subprime loans handed out and funded by Wall Street. Furthermore nobody was "forced" to do anything, that's a total fabrication that you always throw out.
The last few waves of defaults have not been subprime loans, but Alt A and strategic defaults. So your "Poor people did this to us" theory doesn't hold a bit of water.
Also this begs the question, if this was all so inherently bad and you could all see this coming, why then didn't Bush and his GOP congress put an end to it all in the first 6 years? They could have easily changed laws, why didn't they?
Reminds me of my crybaby GOP cousin in law who blames it all on the poor people while he's walking away form 8 properties. Totally fails to see the connection; you guys sure are good for a laugh.
"The CRA has been around since Carter..."
Have any clue how many times the CRA has been modified and performance and enforcement measures expanded since 1977?
In 1994, the administration pushed through some fundamental changes to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The goal of these changes was to make sure that banks were “serving low and moderate income geographies” and making sure that these banks “economically empowered persons of low and moderate income”. Regulators were then given more power to punish banks that did not comply with the new rules.
Subprime mortgage activity grew an average 25% a year from 1994 to 2003, outpacing the rate of growth for prime mortgages. The industry accounted for about $330 billion, or 9%, of U.S. mortgages in 2003, up from $35 billion a decade earlier.
Invading Afghanistan was fine. That's where the enemy was.
Invading Iraq was NOT fine. It was a HUGE mistake and simply served as a costly distraction. Saddam wasn't about to supply al Qaeda - they hated each other. Saddam wasn't a religious figure - he was a SECULAR dictator. Occasionally he would dress up in the garb and pay lip service to Islam to stir up the ignorant masses, but the truth of the matter is that he wasn't really the slightest bit religous - and Osama knew that.
I don't fault Bush for going after al Qaeda. I fault him for getting DISTRACTED by Saddam - who was NO REAL threat to us at all and who had no real strong links to al Qaeda. He'd already been neutered. He had no WMD's other than leftover forgotten useless junk - and don't give me that BS about his still having useful WMD's that were hidden away or moved to Syria, because GW HIMSELF admitted that the Administration was WRONG about Saddam having WMD's.
The fact is, Saddam had ALREADY been effectively neutralized by the UN sanctions put into place by the first President Bush and later President Clinton. There was no need to invade. Now it IS true that we still THOUGHT he was WMD's - mainly because Saddam WANTED us to think so. Though he was already neutered by the sanctions, he was still playing the "tough guy" because he thought that by doing so he fended off both internal competition AND the Iranians, so he didn't want to ADMIT that he's knuckled under during the Clinton years and shut down his programs and given up his useful WMD's. In short Saddam was bluffing - gambling that he could keep up the charade and thus APPEAR to be thumbing his nose at the US and therefor increasing his prestige in the region.
Because of that, one CAN argue that Bush came to a REASONABLE assumption that Saddam still had his WMD's, but even making that assumption that does NOT mean that invading Iraq was necessary - there were OTHER options, including further tightening sanction, covert operations against Saddam personally (ie aiding his internal enemies), etc. All out invasion was NOT the only option, but Bush seemed determined to pursue that course no matter what - and it was a HUGE mistake. I didn't fault Bush for invading, but my opinion - even at the time was "OK, IF the WMD's are there, then maybe it's the right thing to invade - BUT we BETTER be RIGHT about the WMD's because any invasion/occupation is going to be VERY VERY COSTLY and difficult to extracate ourselves from."
Ken
Everyone else was bamboozled, but Ken had his doubts.
If this thread has proven nothing else it is that liberals really have nothing to back up their claims that Bush was a terrible president or, more to the point, that he destroyed the US economy. That "W" hypnotized the entire legislature into authorizing a war they were against is laughable.
Everyone else was bamboozled, but Ken had his doubts.
If this thread has proven nothing else it is that liberals really have nothing to back up their claims that Bush was a terrible president or, more to the point, that he destroyed the US economy. That "W" hypnotized the entire legislature into authorizing a war they were against is laughable.
the thread proves you didn't want to know what libs thought just wanted to put your own spin on our points. thats all. bush did suck and he did this country a lot of harm. remember they didn't even want him at his own party's convention. that says tons! no way to spin that
yep, after 8 years of service, not invited to his own party's party
should have been a celebration of all things bush had he been any good at his job
It's funny how Bush was toxic to most in the summer of 2008, he actually stopped by here for a fundraiser, and here in Wingnutville, he was on the stump for a local candidate, only too happy that someone, somewhere, would be willing to have him and be associated with him and the past 8 years.
It was a barometer for American stupidity on many levels.
It's funny how Bush was toxic to most in the summer of 2008, he actually stopped by here for a fundraiser, and here in Wingnutville, he was on the stump for a local candidate, only too happy that someone, somewhere, would be willing to have him and be associated with him and the past 8 years.
It was a barometer for American stupidity on many levels.
I actually felt a bit sorry for him come convention time....but only just a bit
the thread proves you didn't want to know what libs thought just wanted to put your own spin on our points. thats all. bush did suck and he did this country a lot of harm. remember they didn't even want him at his own party's convention. that says tons! no way to spin that
Actually this thread proves that liberals dont have a clue, and cant even validate their own accusations blaming Bush with facts to back it up!!
All you guys know how to do is pass blame and bs.. I'm starting to think there isnt a brain cell among the lot of ya..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yep, after 8 years of service, not invited to his own party's party 
