Why Bush's last two years were so bad. (Byrd, Kennedy, Levin)

[rikoshaprl]

Originally Posted by pknopp

If Bush had set a 10 year schedule for us to be in Iraq we would have never went.

It's easy to monday morning quarterback the decision to got to war in Iraq. Remember we just had the worst attack on our soil. Most democrats agreed that Saddam had WMDs. Bush DID say this would be a long term effort.

Americans should not expect one battle but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. -G.W Bush, 2001 speech to the American people.
President Bush's Speech to Congress Declaring War on terror - Full Text of George W. Bush's Speech to Congress Declaring War on Terror

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by rikoshaprl

It's easy to monday morning quarterback the decision to got to war in Iraq. Remember we just had the worst attack on our soil. Most democrats agreed that Saddam had WMDs. Bush DID say this would be a long term effort.

Yep, six long months, and $60 billion, paid for via tax cuts as well. Right Mitch Daniels? And it is the democrats who preached and convinced Bush and the republicans about WMD, as they had the intelligence, not Bush. Right?

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by rikoshaprl

It's easy to monday morning quarterback the decision to got to war in Iraq. Remember we just had the worst attack on our soil. Most democrats agreed that Saddam had WMDs. Bush DID say this would be a long term effort.

But history does judge that effort and I believe it will judge Bush poorly here. We were in Iraq twice as long as it took us to defeat both Japan and Germany.

The argument was that Saddam was a bad guy, was ignoring U.N. demands and had a history of killing his own people.

O.K., I'm good with that argument but Saddam has been gone for 9 years.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

Has anyone ever tried to figure out why those last two years were so bad? If so have you noticed that the Democrats controlled Congress during both of them and the House two year earlier than that? Is there a chance that too many of the troubles of that period had something to do with the Democrats being in control with Bush forced to be a lame duck. I got to wondering today about this and here is a good explanation.


Why Bush’s Last Two Years Were So Bad « Guest Blogger « Tennesseeconservative.com

Democrat control of Congress certainly was one aspect which contributed to Bush's failure during the last two year. However, one cannot lay all or even most of the blame there. Bush was, in policies, every bit as Progressive as the left he fought.

Continuing the wars into nation building, and bank bailouts, were flawed policies which grew our deficit and made a mockery of the GOP as a previously fiscally Conservative party.

Bush failed, as Obama-Romney is destined to do, because he was not Conservative either militarily, Constituionally, fiscally, or in the size/scope of government.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by rikoshaprl

It's easy to monday morning quarterback the decision to got to war in Iraq. Remember we just had the worst attack on our soil. Most democrats agreed that Saddam had WMDs. Bush DID say this would be a long term effort.

Americans should not expect one battle but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. -G.W Bush, 2001 speech to the American people.
President Bush's Speech to Congress Declaring War on terror - Full Text of George W. Bush's Speech to Congress Declaring War on Terror

1) We didn't "just' have the worst attack... 9/11 happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003.

2) Bush did not say, "this would be a long term effort."

Before the invasion, Rumsfeld told troops, "It could last, you know, six days, six weeks, I doubt six months."

Cheney said the conflict would be "weeks rather than months." USA Today

3) The Democrats believed Saddam had WMD because that's what the Administration feed them.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

3) The Democrats believed Saddam had WMD because that's what the Administration feed them.

They were stating it well before Bush ever became president. You know that though as I know you have read the statements.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

1) We didn't "just' have the worst attack... 9/11 happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003.

2) Bush did not say, "this would be a long term effort."

3) The Democrats believed Saddam had WMD because that's what the Administration feed them.

Specifically, Colin Powell.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

Has anyone ever tried to figure out why those last two years were so bad? If so have you noticed that the Democrats controlled Congress during both of them and the House two year earlier than that? Is there a chance that too many of the troubles of that period had something to do with the Democrats being in control with Bush forced to be a lame duck. I got to wondering today about this and here is a good explanation.

Because they had six years of diligent practice!

[jojajn]

Originally Posted by Robeaux

Funny, I had a job for 7 of Bush's 8 years, but only 1 1/2 of Obama's 3 1/2 years.

So you are saying you lost your job under Bush and found work under Obama!

[jojajn]

Originally Posted by rikoshaprl

Obama is getting the benefit of the war in Iraq ending on the schedule set by Bush.

Benefit of war ending on Bush's schedule-LOL!! Obama is getting Bush's unpaid credit card bill for the war.