My biggest issue is his "big kahoonas". Maybe it appeals to those who want to appear a military might, and the global police, but I don't think it's prudent at all to not use good judgement and patience, and to simply do the "macho" thing and take military action. I firmly believe diplomacy is a characteristic seriously lacking in Bush's tenure.

 

I understand your point and foolish use of strength isn't what I was suggesting Bush did, although you probably disagree with that conclusion.

 

Timidity is likewise a dangerous thing. Appeasement and compromise that hurts your national interest likewise are dangerous things.

 

The true art is finding the balance of what is needed. Sometimes, it's the use of strength. Sometimes it's compromise. Sometimes it's a little of both. One method or philosophy doesn't work in all situations.

 

Explain, if you don't mind, how Bush could have use diplomacy in handling what he perceived the problems were in Iraq.

Explain, if you don't mind, how Bush could have use diplomacy in handling what he perceived the problems were in Iraq.

 

Not acting unilaterally against a state that did not pose an imminent threat.

....

 

Explain, if you don't mind, how Bush could have use diplomacy in handling what he perceived the problems were in Iraq.

 

 

Sorry to hack your post. I just felt since this was the direct question, I'd shorten it to make my reply relevant.

 

I never disagreed with our action in Afghanistan. I was 100% behind that. I'm still pretty certain that was the right step to take, and that it was not only prudent, but necessary.

 

I felt then, and feel now, that Bush's decision about Iraq was grounded in two things: His father's "failure" dealing with Hussein in Desert Storm, and our lack of success in Afghanistan at the time. I don't feel we can gauge Afghanistan as a failure yet. I feel that he felt that he was losing some of the momentum we had going into Afghanistan, some of the world support, so he set his sights on Iraq. I feel he either deliberately mislead the American public and our allies on the WMD issue (which was the initial reason he put forth), or was impatient. I want to believe he was impatient, but I also have some feelings that we were misled.

 

That's it in a nutshell. I could go on and on about this one, but I'm sure you don't want to hear it. :lol:

If you don't mind, could you tell me why do you think the bail out will hurt his legacy?

He basically used all of the political capital he had left to get this pushed through. It was his baby and he will be tied to it.

 

I don't know how history will look judge this. It may be dismissed even if it fails, as in he was just trying to fix an issue he didn't cause. But, if I'm right and it ends up failing miserably and the taxpayers forever eat the bill, he could very well be slammed for it.

 

I for one, will be much more likely to want to blame the congress more so than Bush, just as I do right now.

Sorry to hack your post. I just felt since this was the direct question, I'd shorten it to make my reply relevant.

 

I never disagreed with our action in Afghanistan. I was 100% behind that. I'm still pretty certain that was the right step to take, and that it was not only prudent, but necessary.

 

I felt then, and feel now, that Bush's decision about Iraq was grounded in two things: His father's "failure" dealing with Hussein in Desert Storm, and our lack of success in Afghanistan at the time. I don't feel we can gauge Afghanistan as a failure yet. I feel that he felt that he was losing some of the momentum we had going into Afghanistan, some of the world support, so he set his sights on Iraq. I feel he either deliberately mislead the American public and our allies on the WMD issue (which was the initial reason he put forth), or was impatient. I want to believe he was impatient, but I also have some feelings that we were misled.

 

That's it in a nutshell. I could go on and on about this one, but I'm sure you don't want to hear it. :lol:

 

For what its worth, even though I supported and continue to support his Iraq decision, I agree with you that he did mislead the country by not telling the public that there was intelligence that disputed the presence of WMD's in Iraq.

Not acting unilaterally against a state that did not pose an imminent threat.

 

I don't think that really answers my question. You are making the determination that Bush had concluded that Iraq was not an imminent threat but chose to attack anyway. Which may be correct but you and I can't know what Bush actually concluded about the threat risk. The question is: If he correctly or incorrectly believed that there were WMDs in Iraq which were a threat to us, how could he have used diplomacy to deal with the WMD problem?

He basically used all of the political capital he had left to get this pushed through. It was his baby and he will be tied to it.

 

I don't know how history will look judge this. It may be dismissed even if it fails, as in he was just trying to fix an issue he didn't cause. But, if I'm right and it ends up failing miserably and the taxpayers forever eat the bill, he could very well be slammed for it.

 

I for one, will be much more likely to want to blame the congress more so than Bush, just as I do right now.

 

You may be right, but I don't think so. There were way too many highly respected economists and financial experts in this country and many other countries saying the bail out law had to be enacted, for historians to be able to look back and say Bush was wrong in his support at the time. Such will be the case whether it works or not in my opinion.

Time will tell if he was a good President. If democracy takes in Iraq and spreads to other countries in the middle East (bringing stability to a region that had consumed way too many of our resources) he will be judged a great President. If democracy fails in Iraq, he will be judge a complete failure. I think he realized the gamble and went with the choice. Big kahoonahs!

 

 

I think history will (correctly) judge him to be a reckless president. This argument that time will tell if his course of action was correct is not a proper way to assess Bush's judgment. The truth is that there were plenty of people who warned him that toppling the government in Iraq was a dangerous undertaking that could tie our forces down indefinitely and at great cost. I believe the decision to invade was taken very lightly and I support that conclusion by noting that troop levels were substantially below levels prescribed by simulation and senior military officers and that post-invasion planning was, at best, woefully inadequate. If the President truly foresaw the difficulties, sacrifice, and cost of the invasion and subsequent operation, he certainly didn't adequately prepare the nation or the military. If, by some miracle (and trillions of dollars and thousands of lives), Iraq ever does turn into a stable democracy, I wouldn't call that the result of brilliant vision. I would call it a dangerous, ill-conceived gamble paying off against impossibly long odds.

Sorry to hack your post. I just felt since this was the direct question, I'd shorten it to make my reply relevant.

 

I never disagreed with our action in Afghanistan. I was 100% behind that. I'm still pretty certain that was the right step to take, and that it was not only prudent, but necessary.

 

I felt then, and feel now, that Bush's decision about Iraq was grounded in two things: His father's "failure" dealing with Hussein in Desert Storm, and our lack of success in Afghanistan at the time. I don't feel we can gauge Afghanistan as a failure yet. I feel that he felt that he was losing some of the momentum we had going into Afghanistan, some of the world support, so he set his sights on Iraq. I feel he either deliberately mislead the American public and our allies on the WMD issue (which was the initial reason he put forth), or was impatient. I want to believe he was impatient, but I also have some feelings that we were misled.

 

That's it in a nutshell. I could go on and on about this one, but I'm sure you don't want to hear it. :lol:

 

Not too mention that his personal vendetta against Saddam has cost our country over 5,000 service men and women.

 

And... GWB has actually made Iran bolder. Iran and Iraq HATE each other and we eliminated Iran's #1 enemy on the house.

Sorry to hack your post. I just felt since this was the direct question, I'd shorten it to make my reply relevant.

 

I never disagreed with our action in Afghanistan. I was 100% behind that. I'm still pretty certain that was the right step to take, and that it was not only prudent, but necessary.

 

I felt then, and feel now, that Bush's decision about Iraq was grounded in two things: His father's "failure" dealing with Hussein in Desert Storm, and our lack of success in Afghanistan at the time. I don't feel we can gauge Afghanistan as a failure yet. I feel that he felt that he was losing some of the momentum we had going into Afghanistan, some of the world support, so he set his sights on Iraq. I feel he either deliberately mislead the American public and our allies on the WMD issue (which was the initial reason he put forth), or was impatient. I want to believe he was impatient, but I also have some feelings that we were misled.

 

That's it in a nutshell. I could go on and on about this one, but I'm sure you don't want to hear it. :lol:

 

 

I am ignoring all else here and dealing with the bolded.

 

On that:

 

President Bush(circa 1990-1991) did not have carte blanche to take out Saddam. His goal was to drive them out of the sovereign nation of Kuwait. The international coalition that Bush forged via the UN and the Arab states who sided with and assisted us were never for regime change in Iraq. They were for a return to the status quo. In fact I have watched interviews from over 10 years ago in which Bush stated that their goal never was to topple Saddam. He actually took the U.S. to the height of its popularity in the Middle East since Eisenhower's action during the Suez Crisis. Were it not for some grand-standing by Israel during a summit involving the major players in the region his presidency would probably be measured differently today.

 

So as such I do not think we should use phrases like "To finish what his dad started" in regards to Bush as those were never his father's intentions.

I am ignoring all else here and dealing with the bolded.

 

On that:

 

President Bush(circa 1990-1991) did not have carte blanche to take out Saddam. His goal was to drive them out of the sovereign nation of Kuwait. The international coalition that Bush forged via the UN and the Arab states who sided with and assisted us were never for regime change in Iraq. They were for a return to the status quo. In fact I have watched interviews from over 10 years ago in which Bush stated that their goal never was to topple Saddam. He actually took the U.S. to the height of its popularity in the Middle East since Eisenhower's action during the Suez Crisis. Were it not for some grand-standing by Israel during a summit involving the major players in the region his presidency would probably be measured differently today.

 

So as such I do not think we should use phrases like "To finish what his dad started" in regards to Bush as those were never his father's intentions.

 

 

Hence the reason I used "failure" in quotation marks. I'm not saying that's what should have been done. I'm saying that's what I feel Bush Jr felt was an issue.

Extremely disappointing on his fiscal actions throughout his terms.

 

Happy with how he has progressed the anti-abortion views throughout his terms.

I don't think that really answers my question. You are making the determination that Bush had concluded that Iraq was not an imminent threat but chose to attack anyway. Which may be correct but you and I can't know what Bush actually concluded about the threat risk. The question is: If he correctly or incorrectly believed that there were WMDs in Iraq which were a threat to us, how could he have used diplomacy to deal with the WMD problem?

 

He never said Iraq was an imminent threat. He said they violated UN weapon inspections and had WMDs, not that Iraq was on the verge of attacking the U.S. We've known Hussein has had WMDs since he used them against the Kurds in 1988 and we've had no problem holding him in check considering, including H.W. Bush's multilateral routing of the Iraqi army in Kuwait. Additionally, if we're going to cite UN violations as a reason to invade a country, we need to do it through the UN. I suspect the reason Bush finally gave into invading Iraq had a lot more to do with Wolfowitz/Feith/Cheney/Rumsfeld demanding retaliatory action against Iraq on 9/11 than it did with us drawing our gun first in a duel (preemptive war).

Not too mention that his personal vendetta against Saddam has cost our country over 5,000 service men and women.

 

.

 

Nor to mention that the Dems stance on abortions have cost our country 5,000 men and women in this in a period of about 40 hours.

 

If you are going to use "blood on their hands" as an argument, supporters the Dems is going to be a losing argument. LOTS more "blood on their hands" via abortions since over 3,000 abortions PER DAY are performed in their country.

 

If you are horrified because of the loss of 5,000 service men and women over 5 years, I am sure you are equally horrified of the # of innocent unborn babies lives who have been lost in this country and call for the Democrats to work to make abortion illegal.

Nor to mention that the Dems stance on abortions have cost our country 5,000 men and women in this in a period of about 40 hours.

 

If you are going to use "blood on their hands" as an argument, supporters the Dems is going to be a losing argument. LOTS more "blood on their hands" via abortions since over 3,000 abortions PER DAY are performed in their country.

 

If you are horrified because of the loss of 5,000 service men and women over 5 years, I am sure you are equally horrified of the # of innocent unborn babies lives who have been lost in this country and call for the Democrats to work to make abortion illegal.

 

What if the abortion saved a life, the mothers? I have no problem with abortion when the mothers well being is in question, incest, and cases of rape...