Sounds like Obama's going to get his legacy deal

[Hatz]

They were not bad for the majority of Bush's term. Last two years, I'll give you that. To act like he was the Devil is disingenuous.

 

I'm wondering if you guys are still going to blame Bush during the next term of whoever it is that gets elected. If it's a Republican, I think I can figure that answer out quite easily.

 

Are you remembering correctly. After 2001 the economy went in the tank, real estate bubbles burst during that time. I don't blame Bush, it had begun at the end of Clinton and was escalated by 9/11. Now the Iraq war and soaring gas began in that time. Iraq I hold Bush responsible for but oil is a problem regardless do who is in charge.

[capt278]

Are you remembering correctly. After 2001 the economy went in the tank, real estate bubbles burst during that time. I don't blame Bush, it had begun at the end of Clinton and was escalated by 9/11. Now the Iraq war and soaring gas began in that time. Iraq I hold Bush responsible for but oil is a problem regardless do who is in charge.

 

Housing bubble didn't crash until 2006-2007. If you will remember, the housing market was soaring until then. Houses being built as fast as they could get them up. The sub-prime loans are what really destroyed the housing market.

 

We agree about oil prices.

[futurecoach]

They were not bad for the majority of Bush's term. Last two years, I'll give you that. To act like he was the Devil is disingenuous.

 

I'm wondering if you guys are still going to blame Bush during the next term of whoever it is that gets elected. If it's a Republican, I think I can figure that answer out quite easily.

 

Did I blame everything on Bush? Did I say that Obama is doing a good job at all? Sounds like you are the one who has a hard time admitting a Republican also did a very bad job as President and had a huge hand at bringing this country down. Just like I have also said Obama has done nothing to help things out either. I have not defended Democrats either. In fact I have clearly showed that I am attacking both parties. So for some of you republicans who are acting like Obama is the one to blame for everything is wrong, just like people can't say it was all Bush and Obama has done well. Both have not done well at all, and the next President won't either. These two parties don't even think about trying to work together and what is best for the country. Their main thing is to try to make whatever idea the other party has not happen. Until both parties get over themselves, then it doesn't matter who is President.

[capt278]

Did I blame everything on Bush? Did I say that Obama is doing a good job at all? Sounds like you are the one who has a hard time admitting a Republican also did a very bad job as President and had a huge hand at bringing this country down. Just like I have also said Obama has done nothing to help things out either. I have not defended Democrats either. In fact I have clearly showed that I am attacking both parties. So for some of you republicans who are acting like Obama is the one to blame for everything is wrong, just like people can't say it was all Bush and Obama has done well. Both have not done well at all, and the next President won't either. These two parties don't even think about trying to work together and what is best for the country. Their main thing is to try to make whatever idea the other party has not happen. Until both parties get over themselves, then it doesn't matter who is President.

 

What I was disagreeing with is your notion all of Bush's term was bad. It was not. First half was good, second, not so much.

 

I am very glad we had Bush as POTUS on 9/11 versus Obama.

[futurecoach]

What I was disagreeing with is your notion all of Bush's term was bad. It was not. First half was good, second, not so much.

 

I am very glad we had Bush as POTUS on 9/11 versus Obama.

 

Disagree with Bush's first team being good. I feel like many Americans felt the same about Bush being re-elected after this first time as they did Obama after he was re-elected. Neither Bush or Obama did much good during their first term, however in both cases the other party had weak candidates to try to overtake them during the re-election or else neither would have been re-elected. Apparently people forget how bad off this country was during Bush's terms, just like it is still very bad off during Obama's. Which in both cases part of the problem for why both of them have done poorly is because of the opposite party basically making it impossible for either of them to do much.

 

Which btw the whole 9/11 thing happened but for some reason instead of focusing on the people who attacked us. Under Bush we decided to focus on Iraq and claiming they had nuclear weapons, which ended up be reported as false. So even with the whole 9/11 thing Bush did very questionable things and also said untrue things while leading this country during that. Just as a whole both he and Obama have not been good.

[capt278]

Disagree with Bush's first team being good. I feel like many Americans felt the same about Bush being re-elected after this first time as they did Obama after he was re-elected. Neither Bush or Obama did much good during their first term, however in both cases the other party had weak candidates to try to overtake them during the re-election or else neither would have been re-elected. Apparently people forget how bad off this country was during Bush's terms, just like it is still very bad off during Obama's. Which in both cases part of the problem for why both of them have done poorly is because of the opposite party basically making it impossible for either of them to do much.

 

Which btw the whole 9/11 thing happened but for some reason instead of focusing on the people who attacked us. Under Bush we decided to focus on Iraq and claiming they had nuclear weapons, which ended up be reported as false. So even with the whole 9/11 thing Bush did very questionable things and also said untrue things while leading this country during that. Just as a whole both he and Obama have not been good.

 

Yeah, we didn't go into Afghanistan and after bin Laden did we?

 

While we now know Bush got faulty intel, he had to go with what he had at the time. That would be the same faulty intel many Democrats had and voted with the majority to authorize going into Iraq.

[futurecoach]

Yeah, we didn't go into Afghanistan and after bin Laden did we?

 

While we now know Bush got faulty intel, he had to go with what he had at the time. That would be the same faulty intel many Democrats had and voted with the majority to authorize going into Iraq.

 

We did go into Afghanistan but his focus quickly changed to Iraq more than the people who did actually attack us. See you are proving with your post here that you are the same as Democrats that you complain about who act like Democrats do no wrong. You are here acting like things were so good under a Republican in Bush and the fact of the matter it wasn't. This country went completely downhill under him during his term. However I am not sitting here saying the Democrats have done any better either. Things have stayed bad under Obama too and some of the things he has done has been just flat out bad.

 

It is quite simple it really doesn't matter who is President republican ideas are not these great ideas that are going to fix this country, just like Democrats ideas and beliefs aren't either. What is going to fix this country is both parties to stop being so darn hard headed and actually work together for the good of the country and not the good of their party.

[rockmom]

Yeah, we didn't go into Afghanistan and after bin Laden did we?

 

While we now know Bush got faulty intel, he had to go with what he had at the time. That would be the same faulty intel many Democrats had and voted with the majority to authorize going into Iraq.

 

Bush went into Iraq for whatever reasons. But the reason "faulty intel" is disingenuous, at best. He ignored weapons inspectors reports and he didn't allow the inspection to be completed before he made his decision. That's completely on him and his administration.

[capt278]

Bush went into Iraq for whatever reasons. But the reason "faulty intel" is disingenuous, at best. He ignored weapons inspectors reports and he didn't allow the inspection to be completed before he made his decision. That's completely on him and his administration.

 

The liberal talking point. Just because you repeat something doesn't make it so. The faulty intel is on the CIA. That is where the blame lies.

 

So, using your logic, the Benghazi debacle and what led up to it are on Obama and his administration. Nothing like repeating a lie on five Sunday talk shows to further your agenda, right?

 

Then again, as Hillary so eloquently stated, what difference does it make now.

[futurecoach]

The liberal talking point. Just because you repeat something doesn't make it so. The faulty intel is on the CIA. That is where the blame lies.

 

So, using your logic, the Benghazi debacle and what led up to it are on Obama and his administration. Nothing like repeating a lie on five Sunday talk shows to further your agenda, right?

 

Then again, as Hillary so eloquently stated, what difference does it make now.

 

Oh the old republican denial thing. Your post have been proof that you do the exact same thing some democrats do in defending Obama. The fact of the matter is Bush was horrible for this country, just like Obama is. As I have said before it has been a complete team effort by both parties. A republican in Bush did a horrible job as President and a Democrat in Obama has done a horrible job. It has been a complete team effort on both sides for why this country is where it is today. So it is just funny when one side does decide to ignore that.

[Bluegrasscard]

Bush went into Iraq for whatever reasons. But the reason "faulty intel" is disingenuous, at best. He ignored weapons inspectors reports and he didn't allow the inspection to be completed before he made his decision. That's completely on him and his administration.

 

Iraq was threat but not due WMDs. Iraq was selling oil to Europe in Euros, not USDs. This was allowing the Euro to get a foot hold to compete globally with the USD as the reserve currency of the globe. This would be bad for the Federal Reserve and for the US economy. WMDs were a nice excuse - sort of a Gulf of Tokin approach.

 

Four nations have offered oil in currency other than USDs since the deal in the 1970s done by Nixon to fund the Vietnam War - Iraq, Libya, Iran and....Russia. The first two had their charismatic leaders taken out by the US and left their countries in shambles. The third is where we are bending over backwards to get a deal with them and bring them back under the US/western influence. And the forth is where we are sabre rattling a lot over the Ukraine and Crimea.

 

Some say all these actions are 'about oil'. Somewhat true but the reality is that the practice of trading oil for USDs only is why there is demand for the dollars and why the Federal Reserve can literally print money. The Saudis and the US are now committed to the petro-dollar. Any threat to the status of the petro-dollar must be and is dealt with - through overt actions (Gulf War II), covert CIA type ops (Libya), Cold-war tactics (crashing oil prices to hurt Russia).

 

Iran is the current proxy-war in the battle to keep the USD the world reserve currency. The biggest threat from Iran is not Israel but to Saudi Arabia. If the Iranians destroy the Saudi regime and then the mandatory use of USD comes to and end the US will be done with as we know it. We would become the 1930s Germany overnight.

 

Some recent discussion on this:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/petrodollar

[capt278]

Oh the old republican denial thing. Your post have been proof that you do the exact same thing some democrats do in defending Obama. The fact of the matter is Bush was horrible for this country, just like Obama is. As I have said before it has been a complete team effort by both parties. A republican in Bush did a horrible job as President and a Democrat in Obama has done a horrible job. It has been a complete team effort on both sides for why this country is where it is today. So it is just funny when one side does decide to ignore that.

 

Opinions are like.... well you know.

 

Again, Bush was OK his first term, not so much the second. Obama has been lousy since day one.

[futurecoach]

Opinions are like.... well you know.

 

Again, Bush was OK his first term, not so much the second. Obama has been lousy since day one.

 

Agree to disagree on Bush being good his first term. Most people didn't even want him back after his first term. What helped him get re-elected was first the war going on, and people afraid to switch during a war because I don't think that has ever happened where Preisdency switched during a war. Then also the democrats had a very bad candidate. Many people wanted him gone after the first term too because he was doing bad then too.

[LIPTON BASH]

Agree to disagree on Bush being good his first term. Most people didn't even want him back after his first term. What helped him get re-elected was first the war going on, and people afraid to switch during a war because I don't think that has ever happened where Preisdency switched during a war. Then also the democrats had a very bad candidate. Many people wanted him gone after the first term too because he was doing bad then too.

 

I'm not a Bush apologists and I have plenty of gripes I could list. But your first statement is just an outright lie. Most people wanted Bush over the terrible candidate the Democrats put out there. That is why he won .

[Hatz]

I'm not a Bush apologists and I have plenty of gripes I could list. But your first statement is just an outright lie. Most people wanted Bush over the terrible candidate the Democrats put out there. That is why he won .

 

I thought that's what he said.

 

I voted for Bush but the Iraq invasion was his biggest blunder. Took the sympathy of the world and turned the US into the aggressors IMO.