Mr. Bush was right

Users who are viewing this thread

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Ok, so I don't agree with EVERYTHING that this article says, but it certainly puts into light the many lies the media has been telling us about Bush for years. Don't believe everything you hear, especially from the leftist media.

Its call sign has always been Air Force One. But on Tuesday, it was Special Air Mission 28000, as former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura returned home to Texas on a plane full of family, friends, former staff and memories of eight years in the White House.

The former president and his wife thanked each passenger, showing the thoughtfulness and grace so characteristic of this wonderful American family.

A video tribute produced warm laughter and inevitable tears. There was no bitterness, but rather a sense of gratitude -- gratitude for the opportunity to serve, for able and loyal colleagues, and above all for our country and its people.
Yet, as Mr. Bush left Washington, in a last angry frenzy his critics again distorted his record, maligned his character and repeated untruths about his years in the Oval Office. Nothing they wrote or said changes the essential facts.
To start with, Mr. Bush was right about Iraq. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power. And the former president was right to change strategy and surge more U.S. troops.

A legion of critics (including President Barack Obama) claimed it couldn't work. They were wrong. Iraq is now on the mend, the war is on the path to victory, al Qaeda has been dealt a humiliating defeat, and a democracy in the heart of the Arab world is emerging. The success of Mr. Bush's surge made it possible for President Obama to warn terrorists on Tuesday "you cannot outlast us."

Mr. Bush was right to establish a doctrine that holds those who harbor, train and support terrorists as responsible as the terrorists themselves. He was right to take the war on terror abroad instead of waiting until dangers fully materialize here at home. He was right to strengthen the military and intelligence and to create the new tools to monitor the communications of terrorists, freeze their assets, foil their plots, and kill and capture their operators.
These tough decisions -- which became unpopular in certain quarters only when memories of 9/11 began to fade -- kept America safe for seven years and made it possible for Mr. Obama to tell the terrorists on Tuesday "we will defeat you."
Mr. Bush was right to be a unilateralist when it came to combating AIDS in Africa. While world leaders dithered, his President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief initiative brought lifesaving antiretroviral drugs to millions of Africans.
At home, Mr. Bush cut income taxes for every American who pays taxes. He also cut taxes on capital, investment and savings. The result was 52 months of growth and the strongest economy of any developed country.

Mr. Bush was right to match tax cuts with spending restraint. This is a source of dispute, especially among conservatives, but the record is there to see. Bill Clinton's last budget increased domestic nonsecurity discretionary spending by 16%. Mr. Bush cut that to 6.2% growth in his first budget, 5.5% in his second, 4.3% in his third, 2.2% in his fourth, and then below inflation, on average, since. That isn't the sum total of the fiscal record, of course -- but it's a key part of it.

He was right to have modernized Medicare with prescription drug benefits provided through competition, not delivered by government. The program is costing 40% less than projected because market forces dominate and people -- not government -- are making the decisions.
Mr. Bush was right to pass No Child Left Behind (NCLB), requiring states to set up tough accountability systems that measure every child's progress at school. As a result, reading and math scores have risen more in the last five years since NCLB than in the prior 28 years.
He was right to stand for a culture of life. And he was right to appoint conservative judges who strictly interpret the Constitution.

And Mr. Bush, a man of core decency and integrity, was right not to reply in kind when Democratic leaders called him a liar and a loser. The price of trying to change the tone in Washington was to be often pummeled by lesser men.

Few presidents had as many challenges arise during their eight years, had as many tough calls to make in such a partisan-charged environment, or had to act in the face of such hostile media and elite opinion.
On board Special Air Mission 28000, I remembered the picture I carried in my pocket on my first Air Force One flight eight years ago. It was an old black-and-white snapshot with scalloped edges. It showed Lyndon Johnson in the Cabinet Room, head in hand, weeping over a Vietnam casualty report. George Christian, LBJ's press secretary, gave it to me as a reminder that the job could break anyone, no matter how big and tough.
But despite facing challenges and crises few others have, the job did not break George W. Bush. Though older and grayer, his brows more furrowed, he is the same man he was, a person of integrity who did what he believed was right. And he exits knowing he summoned all of his energy and talents to defend America and advance its ideals at home and abroad. He didn't get everything right -- no president does -- but he got the most important things right. And that is enough.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
Source: Rove: Bush Was Right About Iraq - WSJ.com
 
  • 29
    Replies
  • 698
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Dana

In Memoriam - RIP
Messages
42,904
Reaction score
10
Tokenz
0.17z
This is just fucking preachy... It doesn't say the bullshit he's done in office. BTW I heard this no child left Behind program is bullshit. I overheard some guy say that the school his son was going to was forced to pass him onto the next grade even though he was doing piss poor in alot of his subjects...
 

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
This is just fucking preachy... It doesn't say the bullshit he's done in office. BTW I heard this no child left Behind program is bullshit. I overheard some guy say that the school his son was going to was forced to pass him onto the next grade even though he was doing piss poor in alot of his subjects...
Yeah, I heard the same about no child left behind. Like I said, I don't agree with everything in the article, but I do agree with most.

And duh it is preachy - it's written by one of his advisors! But it does show that he HAS DONE GOOD THINGS while in office, despite what the media says. He's not perfect, obviously, no one is, but he has done a decent job IMO.
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
I think he's a tragic case.

Basically like Nixon, he was well intentioned, handed some crazy shit to deal with, but in the end suffered from power hunger and being bullheaded.

His own cabinets is stepping out there now and saying the good, and the bad thing about him, was he made up his mind and didn't budge...At all

His inflexibility broke him in the end.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
I think he's a tragic case.

Basically like Nixon, he was well intentioned, handed some crazy shit to deal with, but in the end suffered from power hunger and being bullheaded.

His own cabinets is stepping out there now and saying the good, and the bad thing about him, was he made up his mind and didn't budge...At all

His inflexibility broke him in the end.
That is a pretty good observation :thumbup

He refused to adapt. It was his way or no way at all. Sometimes that can be good depending upon the situation.

As to Roves comment about being safer that is bull shit. Just because there was not another major attack on us does not mean we are safer. There is no question that Bushes policies bread hatred in Muslims and will increase the number of nutbag Muslims. It will take at least 20 years to see how things sort out but at this point Bush is up there in the top worst 3 presidents. I did not think Carter could be outdone but Bush is at this point worse than Carter.
 

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
That is a pretty good observation :thumbup

He refused to adapt. It was his way or no way at all. Sometimes that can be good depending upon the situation.

As to Roves comment about being safer that is bull shit. Just because there was not another major attack on us does not mean we are safer. There is no question that Bushes policies bread hatred in Muslims and will increase the number of nutbag Muslims. It will take at least 20 years to see how things sort out but at this point Bush is up there in the top worst 3 presidents. I did not think Carter could be outdone but Bush is at this point worse than Carter.
Good point. Though our defensive abilities (both militarily and through intelligence) have increased, as well as some muslim fanatics killed or taken out of power, the resolve of some muslim fanatics have only increased.

This begs the question... should have we just allowed muslim fanatics to remain muslim fanatics for the sake of not angering them? Would we be safer if they were still alive and out there, because there wouldn't be as many others who wanted to kill us as well? God only knows the answer to that question.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
I would have to say that 99% of that op-ed is total crap.

I love how they still use 9/11 and Iraq together in the same thought.

BTW. Marine One (the helicopter) and Air force One only go by those call signs when the president is aboard. If the president is not on the aircraft, they do not go by those call signs... never have.
 

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I would have to say that 99% of that op-ed is total crap.

I love how they still use 9/11 and Iraq together in the same thought.

BTW. Marine One (the helicopter) and Air force One only go by those call signs when the president is aboard. If the president is not on the aircraft, they do not go by those call signs... never have.
Do you think the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein?
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
Do you think the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein?
nope

not really. for those inside Iraq it will eventually be better though.

he was actually kind of a foil for Al Queda. they did not get along. But AQ sure did come in and stir stuff up after Sadaam was taken down.

Not saying he was a good guy. he was a bastard of the highest degree who killed lots of people.

but one can not say he was a threat.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Good point. Though our defensive abilities (both militarily and through intelligence) have increased, as well as some muslim fanatics killed or taken out of power, the resolve of some muslim fanatics have only increased.

This begs the question... should have we just allowed muslim fanatics to remain muslim fanatics for the sake of not angering them? Would we be safer if they were still alive and out there, because there wouldn't be as many others who wanted to kill us as well? God only knows the answer to that question.

The answer is easier than you think...

You don't let them do as they please, you deal with them quickly.
But if you are going to invade a Muslim country which results in hundreds of thousands of innocent people dying, then expect a large uprising to fight back. It's not that hard to understand.

We are friends with the British, but if they invaded our country to remove our president and many of your friends, neighbors and loved ones died, would you join the resistance and fight them with everything you have? Hell, up until that point you may never have had a beef with Britain, but you sure as hell do now...
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
nope

not really. for those inside Iraq it will eventually be better though.

he was actually kind of a foil for Al Queda. they did not get along. But AQ sure did come in and stir stuff up after Sadaam was taken down.

Not saying he was a good guy. he was a bastard of the highest degree who killed lots of people.

but one can not say he was a threat.

I agree with this 100%

I think he needed to be removed but war wasn't the answer. Hell, we had a perfect opportunity to have his own people rise up and remove him from power. But we didn't help them when the time came and they lost their lives while we stood by.
 

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I agree with this 100%

I think he needed to be removed but war wasn't the answer. Hell, we had a perfect opportunity to have his own people rise up and remove him from power. But we didn't help them when the time came and they lost their lives while we stood by.
Which was also wrong - we should have done it then rather than now.

I also think that removing Saddam may not have been worth the many deaths, but no one knew that it would take this long or cause this many casualties. No one could have forseen that AQ would have come into Iraq after Saddam was gone (well, maybe some could have ventured a guess, but that's about it). No one could have forseen the other events that have happened to make it more difficult. So, as it stood, the original Iraq war and objective to remove Saddam from power was quite easy - there were just many unforseen obstacles that cost much more time, money and lives than was anticipated.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
Which was also wrong - we should have done it then rather than now.

I also think that removing Saddam may not have been worth the many deaths, but no one knew that it would take this long or cause this many casualties. No one could have forseen that AQ would have come into Iraq after Saddam was gone (well, maybe some could have ventured a guess, but that's about it). No one could have forseen the other events that have happened to make it more difficult. So, as it stood, the original Iraq war and objective to remove Saddam from power was quite easy - there were just many unforseen obstacles that cost much more time, money and lives than was anticipated.
Actually the writing was on the wall that there would be a mess if we took him out.

You had a minority that was a brutal dictatorship that ran things and then all of a sudden the majority that is royally pissed off gets liberated. Those kinds of things were obvious. As is the fact that no way would things get turned around over night. The liberals knew that but they acted like spoiled brats being impatient. I suspect in the end Iraq will sort itself out and be ok. If so then that is a positive in the area in the long run
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
Iraq I hate to say, is typical of how we've always done business, the CIA works feverishly to insert a leader that will promote the type of assertion we need to exert our will on someone else:

In this case for those old enough to remember, Saddam was a result of both a failure of the Carter administration to do anything in regards to the hostage situation in Iran, not to mention building tensions with Iran and practically every other nation in the Middle East at that time. Saddam was inserted with no real prior military background AT ALL, he was selected basically on his......Moral flexibility, and his willingness to control anyone who opposed him by any means.

He also brought with him, vast political and family ties that provided what we needed at that time, which was a firm hand at isolating the then bad boys, Iran, and he did a fine job.....However didn't everyone think that at some point we'd have to deal with his ass?

I mean he was inserted intentionally because he was fucking criminal....Did anyone actually think there was honor amongst thieves?

So he was going to have to be dealt with, and honestly if for any other reason, he was executed because he knew where lots of bones where buried with the US and our relations with Iran and Eqypt.

The shit just fell on our laps is all, buthe was going down eventually...Hell does anyone remember why Iran flaked out...Us....lol

Oh and anyone who thinks we weren't already in Iraq Pre-Bush is an idiot, we have been violating no fly zones, and running air missions for years before 911.

In all fairness we haven't left the middle east since 1948 ;)

So really blaming Iraq wholly and solely on Bush is like crediting our first mission to the moon on the astronaut....Let's face it, there was a lot of folks behind and in front making that happen.

I guess it just makes us feel better to direct our anghst at the current punching bag
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
Oh...And another thing:

We all want to free ourselves from doing business with tyrants, but nobody wants to do anything to make it happen.

Case in point:

Remember that legislation that was going through, enabling us to explore the OCS (outer continental shelf)? Obama Nation said today to put a halt to it, demand for oil is low, so why would we want to explore right now.

That's near sighted, liberal pandering.....Everybody wants to go to heaven, but don't nobody wanna die
 

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Actually the writing was on the wall that there would be a mess if we took him out.

You had a minority that was a brutal dictatorship that ran things and then all of a sudden the majority that is royally pissed off gets liberated. Those kinds of things were obvious. As is the fact that no way would things get turned around over night. The liberals knew that but they acted like spoiled brats being impatient. I suspect in the end Iraq will sort itself out and be ok. If so then that is a positive in the area in the long run
But even Bush himself said the war was taking longer, costing more money, and causing more casualties than they originally projected. We knew it would be costly, but not to the extent that it actually is. That's my only point. I think if we had been able to look into the future to see what it was truly going to cost, even Bush wouldn't have advocated it.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Which was also wrong - we should have done it then rather than now.

I also think that removing Saddam may not have been worth the many deaths, but no one knew that it would take this long or cause this many casualties. No one could have forseen that AQ would have come into Iraq after Saddam was gone (well, maybe some could have ventured a guess, but that's about it). No one could have forseen the other events that have happened to make it more difficult. So, as it stood, the original Iraq war and objective to remove Saddam from power was quite easy - there were just many unforseen obstacles that cost much more time, money and lives than was anticipated.


[vbtube]YENbElb5-xY[/vbtube]
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
Lives lost is horrible, and I hate it that it has had to happen.

But frankly, Iraq pales in comparison to Vietnam.....That was a military abortion and profit making venture of key government officials of epidemic proportions.

Or did that little police action slip everyones mind
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
9/11 changed some attitudes about Iraq . . . right or wrong


Not me, I knew they were going to be a problem when Desert Storm started, and most should have seen the writing on the wall back during Iran Contra too.

It's like we live in a parallel universe or something, I mean what do people think has to be done when you INTENTIONALLY insert a guy like that as a leader...He wasn't chosen becuase of his vast moral fibre:24:
 
78,879Threads
2,185,415Messages
4,961Members
Back
Top