MORE U.S. atrocities (Pelosi, independence, ratings, Lincoln)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Fleet

Correction: Congress's eyes were fixed on Iraq... years before Bush was President.

Just what part of Commander in Chief is it that puts the responsibility anywhere other than squarely on the shoulders of the POTUS?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Finally we reach the source of your disagreement with the war, your disdain for Bush. One simple way of debunking this argument is to cite the No Child Left Behind agreement between Bush and Ted Kennedy.

During the 2000 campaign Bush said: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building." Yet he's proceeded to do exactly that.


After the 9/11 attacks he said "Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts" and a shorty time later followed up with "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

Since they're direct opposites of purpose one of those statements is obviously a lie, pick one.

His credibility is lower than his approval ratings. With actions so contrary to his rhetoric what reason is there to have anything but disdain for him?

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by burdell

His credibility is lower than his approval ratings.

I would ask you to keep in mind, that the Democratic controlled Congress's credibility and approval ratings is nearing single digit - is far below that of the POTUS.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Greatday

I would ask you to keep in mind, that the Democratic controlled Congress's credibility and approval ratings is nearing single digit - is far below that of the POTUS.

With good reason, and THAT does nada, zilch, nothing, rien to improve GWB's credibility.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by burdell

With good reason, and THAT does nada, zilch, nothing, rien to improve GWB's credibility.

The problem is though (in part) is that there are issues (non war related) that GWB has sent to the democratic controlled congress, that "they" will not even address -

In other words - the Congress, and certain leaders (Harry Reid for one) are sitting on their butts not doing anything because of their dislike for Bush -

I'm sorry - I blame the Congress more at this point than I do Bush

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Greatday

I'm sorry - I blame the Congress more at this point than I do Bush

More for what?

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by burdell

More for what?

For the lack of progress address many issues impacting this nation - the war is not the only issue -

Healthcare has not been addressed

Trade has not been address

"Earmarks" (pork) are a congresional specialty (I applaud the POTUS for his actions there)

Education has not been address

Etc

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Even Clinton had plans drawn up for an invasion into Iraq, something for which I give him credit. Of course, I could be wrong, but I doubt that you are included in the circle of those privvy to national intelligence reports. Those who were at the time supported action against Saddam.

And we're supposed to believe that nothing changed on 9/11? That Iraq, with no ties to 9/11 and Saddam, an enemy of al Qaeda, and neither an imminent threat to the US were still priority targets as of 9/12? I think the only things that kept them there were Bush'c ideology, tunnel-vision, and ego.

From what I've read I believe Bush thought:

1) We'd win a quick military victory

2) We'd be greeted as liberators

3) Oil revenues would pay reconstruction costs

4) He'd write a favorable legacy for himself

1/4 is unacceptable performance.

[bily4]

Originally Posted by Greatday

For the lack of progress address many issues impacting this nation - the war is not the only issue -

Healthcare has not been addressed

Trade has not been address

"Earmarks" (pork) are a congresional specialty (I applaud the POTUS for his actions there)

Education has not been address

Etc

Nor was any of this addressed in the previous five years when the Republicans had control of both Congress and the Presidency.

This is when the path is supposed to be clear for concrete actions to be taken to lead the country. That is completely inexcusable.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

During the 2000 campaign Bush said: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building." Yet he's proceeded to do exactly that.

There's a mammoth difference in using U.S. troops primarily as nationbuilders in countries that have no strategic advantage for the U.S. i.e. Somalia, Bosnia, at the behest of the U.N. and tending to the aftermath of an invasion necessary to protect the U.S. and/or its interests.

After the 9/11 attacks he said "Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts" and a shorty time later followed up with "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

Since they're direct opposites of purpose one of those statements is obviously a lie, pick one.

So, you are contending that he really wasn't interested in hunting down and punishing Al Qaeda?

His credibility is lower than his approval ratings. With actions so contrary to his rhetoric what reason is there to have anything but disdain for him?

His credibility is only low to those who are still disappointed over the 2000 election.