Has anyone's opinion of George W Bush changed since he left office? (Representatives, middle east)

[Whyte Byrd]

Originally Posted by shorebaby

Not this Republican. Overall he did a decent job.

Agreed. And I'm always very leary of those who use the words 'most people' for anything without citing reliable sources to back such a broad claim.

I have even more respect for Bush than I did before. He wasn't perfect but he wasn't as bad as some blather. And he has a sophisticated, quiet dignity our current poor-excuse-for-a-president couldn't buy with all the money in the world.

[Cinebar]

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

I thought he was a genius back then and i still think he was a genius.

Anyone that can screw up two wars simultaneously and still have people defend him to the death can't be called anything else.

I mean, people used to actually say to me that we should "stay the course" and not "cut and run." SMH....unreal.

This.

Originally Posted by cuebald

Yes. Bin Laden and Ghaddafi are dead, GM is making a profit, some of the Wall Street thugs are being investigated, unemployment is creeping down, and the Dow is over 13,000 for the first time since 2008.

All pretty good indicators that Obama has been busy with the interests of the country instead of cutting brush on a parched piece of land in Texas.

If he will get UHC back in the bucket list, we have a clear winner.

And this.

Originally Posted by carterstamp

Yeppers, no WMDs, no connections to Al Quaeda, no Chem or Bio Weapons. But over 4,000 troops killed.

Bravo Dubya, Mission Accomplished.

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghan men, women, and children killed.

Bush/Cheney/Rumsefeld have a lot of blood on their hands - but somehow I doubt any one of them loses any sleep over that fact.

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Yes, he was wrong on every account. Worse yet, he went in without any kind of exit plan, or a plan for the occupation. Go in, just for the sake of going in.

I thought from the moment we went into Iraq that the main reason we did was because Junior wanted to prove something to his daddy - that he could finish the job daddy started but didn't complete.

Originally Posted by trlhiker

I thought he was a moron who didn't give a crap about this country or those who died in his wars. Big money for banks, oil, prescription drug companies, and Haliburton was all he cared about. He was and still is the worst President this country has ever seen and I will not spend one penny to read his book nor will I waste my gas to get it from the library.

And this.

I, for one, breathed a HUGE sigh of relief on January 20, 2009, knowing that the eight year nightmare of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld reign of terror was finally OVER.

[Cinebar]

Originally Posted by WestCobb

You are setting the bar way too low here. (I guess since we're discussing GWB, a man who is all about low standards, this is appropriate.) It's a longstanding American tradition for ex-presidents to stay out of politics and to not criticize those who follow them. For the most part, this tradition has been adhered to. Yes, Jimmy Carter criticized George W. Bush in 2006. However, keep in mind that for 26 years he kept his mouth shut. Carter never said anything publicly against Reagan, GHWB or Clinton. W was just that bad. He brings out the worst in people.

Let's not give a cookie to W for doing what is expected of ex-presidents though, ok? For better or for worse, he is now an elder statesman. His job is to keep his mouth shut, offer advice when asked for it (doubtful he'll ever be asked) and execute special missions for current presidents if asked (again, doubtful he'll ever be asked).
.

Too bad the same can't be said for an evil former vice president and his creepy, screechy daughter.

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by WestCobb

It's true -- and of course, Democrats engage in this same kind of ridiculous behavior. It's just so much easier and more fun to be a "fan" than to actually do one's own research and think through the issues for one's self.

So true.

For many decades, I was guilty of the same thing. I voted Republican and contributed to the GOP, just because my family had always been Republicans. I became an independent in 2003, when it became obvious that Bush started the war in Iraq on false premises, with backing of nearly ALL GOP members in congress. That made me start to pay attention.

I haven't voted Republican since.

[carterstamp]

Originally Posted by Katiana

My opinion of his politics hasn't changed at all. I do think he's been a class act in just keeping his mouth shut and staying out of politics.

I think he was pretty much over the Presidential thing long before he left the WH.

[texdav]

Bascially he has done what the founding father thoguht about with ex-presdients. Get off the poltical stage. Clinton was a example of the just the opposite. Clinton actaully hurt Obama being seen as a leader in first two years;IMO.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Dems did not control the senate back then. Republicans controlled both chambers. Either way, the Congress was lied to in order to get them to vote for the invasion.

Originally Posted by carterstamp

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...In 2003 when we invaded Iraq, the senate and house were controlled by...wait for it... the GOP.

ooops.

Some just like to make fools of themselves.

I posted that the Authority to Invade Iraq was done under a dem controlled Congress.

And that Bush could NOT have invaded if the dems did not want to.

Then we get these "geniuses" posting. (See above)

"Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to President Bush's requests,[6] S.J.Res. 45 sponsored by Sen. Daschle & Sen. Lott"

"Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002,"

So guess who was the Senate MAJORITY LEADER IN 2002,
"Thomas Andrew "Tom" Daschle

However, on June 6, 2001, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont announced in that he was leaving the Senate Republican caucus to become an independent and to caucus with Democrats;[15] this once again returned control of the body to the Democrats and Daschle again became Majority Leader. Democratic losses in the November 2002 elections returned the party to the minority in the Senate in January 2003 and Daschle once more reverted to being Minority Leader.
United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote Republican 48 1 0 Democratic 29 21 0 Independent 0 1 0 TOTALS 77 23 0


Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The repubs did NOT have a majority to pass the bill by themselves. The dems COULD have blocked passage.

In fact, as we see today if Harry Reid does Not want a bill to be voted on he can block it.

Daschle not only voted for it HE co-sponsored it.

As Senate Majority leader he could have kept the bill from ever coming up for a vote, just as Reid does today.


ooops, yourself.

How does crow taste?

[Cinebar]

Originally Posted by texdav

Bascially he has done what the founding father thoguht about with ex-presdients. Get off the poltical stage. Clinton was a example of the just the opposite. Clinton actaully hurt Obama being seen as a leader in first two years;IMO.

Clinton is an attention *****.

I wonder, too, if he didn't hurt Hilary's chances for the presidency somewhat because he was just OUT there so much promoting her. Obviously, that is what a potential First Spouse is supposed to do but I think he it took it to a new level. I think there were times when he was more visible than she was.

I think a lot of voters were concerned that it wouldn't really be a Hilary presidency but a Bill presidency v.2.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance

Man, seriously, you need to check your memory. Not only are you claiming that the Senate was Democratic in 2003 when it was actually Republican, but Bush got no cooperation from his own party on SS. Him not getting SS reform done was just because he didn't have the political capital in dealing with either party.

"Man, seriously". You sound like some drug head from the 60's.

Maybe you were smoking something when all this was going on.

The Bill authorizing the president authority to invade iraq was passed in , wait for it, 2002. the dems had control at the time and tom daschle was the senate majority leader. reads my previos post.

"Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107-243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002."

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by WestCobb

I don't put equal blame on the Democrats, Quick, because the blame is not equal. The Senate didn't call up the White House and insist on starting a costly, unnecessary war. However, I do blame Congress (Democrats included of course) plenty. They caved to Bush's whims in the most servile and politically craven way. They had a constitutional duty to stand up to Bush and insist we seek out and destroy our enemies in a more intelligent, effective and less costly way. Had they done this, they would have been ridiculed, and many of them would have probably lost their seats in upcoming elections. They should have done it anyways.

I'm not a Paulite, but I completely agree with him no one point: the fact that the president now has the power to wage war is the single biggest threat to our liberty and our American way of life. We can't continue on as a democratic Republic without Congress reasserting its right as the sole body that can declare war. It's just far too tempting for individuals to declare unnecessary wars because it enlarges their power. This is how every tyranny in recorded history operated. This is why our forefathers insisted that presidents would not have the power of war. A president who did would cease to be a president -- he'd be a dictator of some sort.

Do you really believe many dems did NOT believe Iraq did Not have WMDs with quotes like these:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Please note the dates of all these quotes. Many were long before Bush ever came onto the scene. Othere were from long time respected dem senators, some served on the Senate Intelligence Committee with access to CIA briefings BEFORE Bush was President.