What Bush got right

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are those that are gut rot from the thought of who it was that went down in history for winning the cold war and who will probably go down in history for transforming the mideast...

Like a pill they're unable to swallow to cure their sickness.
 
Yes its all about the little things, the economy, world relations, national security, education, the enviroment, you know, the little things.
 
Well, first of all, that is an op-ed piece, so any 'truth' in it is relative.

Second, the only point made in the article was that one of the ideas behind Bush's many failures was valid. Hardly exhonoration.
 
Nope don't look here for agreement....

Look here...


IraqVote.gif


r2900244734.jpg


r4289073501.jpg


r2756883622.jpg
 
what the hell is fran dressure (sp) "the nanny" doing on posters in iraq?
 
Reality has set in for Bill Richardson...




From an interview with Bill Richardson... Former Clinton Administration...

NBC'S TODAY, 7:10am PST March 7, 2005.

KATIE COURIC: Let's turn to Lebanon, if we could for a moment, Governor. Because as you know, Syrian President Assad has announced that his troops will withdraw from Lebanon, a country that Syria has occupied since the mid-70s. For people who may not be foreign policy experts, how significant is this?

NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON (D): Well, this is very significant. I believe the Bush Administration deserves credit for putting pressure, and saying that authoritarian regimes have to go. What is happening here is, the assassination of a very popular former prime minister in Lebanon, has fueled massive demonstrations in Lebanon, that hopefully will lead to all 14,000 Syrian troops out of Lebanon, plus their intelligence agents, by May. It means that in Lebanon, in Egypt there's some potential new elections. The Palestinian Territories; in Iraq; I think there's a wave of democracy caused by internal pressures, of young people in the Arab world, rooting against these authoritarian regimes--and pressure from the Bush Administration--

KATIE COURIC: I--

BILL RICHARDSON: They deserve credit.

KATIE COURIC: I was going to say, because a lot of foreign policy experts are hailing the Bush Administration's policies, and saying the Bush Doctrine, of spreading democracy throughout the world, there's clear evidence that it's working. You agree with that assessment?

BILL RICHARDSON: Well, it is working. Whether by design, or by accident, it is working. The fact that the President has spoken out, where in the past the US policy has winked at Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, because of their massive security, and we have energy interests there, we have military bases, we kind of said, "OK, it's alright not to be democratic. The President, in talking about freedom and democracy, is sparking a wave of very positive democratic sentiment that might help us override both Islamic fundamentalism that has formed in that region, and also some of the hatred for our policies of invading Iraq. So, this is not only bringing a good result in the Middle East, potential democracy and full elections, but also it is helping our security, perhaps making us safer, by having less Islamic fundamentalism--

KATIE COURIC: Right.

BILL RICHARDSON: ...because democracy provides an outlet against it. And also, younger Arabs that are fueling this discontent throughout the Arab world, becoming pro-US, which is a good sign for the future.

KATIE COURIC: Alright. Good news indeed.
Click to expand...

EDIT: I love how Katie Couric is absolutely fawking speechless! Priceless beyond gold and diamonds.
 
lol katie couric is always speechless, she is to busy thinking about her matching shoes and ear rings to give to shits about proper journalism...
 
Innervision961 said:
lol katie couric is always speechless, she is to busy thinking about her matching shoes and ear rings to give to shits about proper journalism...
Click to expand...



ROFL! Yeah... Not a tough one to stump for sure.
 
Read Stern...: Well, this is very significant. I believe the Bush Administration deserves credit for putting pressure, and saying that authoritarian regimes have to go.

Connie cancelled her trip to Egypt and they re-wrote the constitution to make it easier for opposition parties to participate in the elections.

Your just sore because you have no one to claim who has done as much...
 
You could put spain in that Cartoon for all the terrorist behind the scenes there...

I just hope my lladro supply doesn't dry out because I have a nice collection going.
 
Sgt_Shellback said:
Nope don't look here for agreement....

Look here...


IraqVote.gif


r2900244734.jpg


r4289073501.jpg


r2756883622.jpg
Click to expand...

Woohoo for image searching in a pathetic attempt to appeal to emotion, that way we can completely avoid making an argument!

Any way, I'm with Mecha on this one. This is one success in a sea of failures. In fact, I'm not even sure if it's a success. I'd say it's a bunch of Middle Eastern countries saying "Hey, look! We're democratic! Please don't bomb us" for the time being.

The article is very right about one thing.

"If, five years from now, Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps an independent Palestine and a democratic Lebanon are thriving countries with modern political and economic systems, America will be honored and respected—and the talk of anti-American terror will have dissipated considerably. If, on the other hand, these countries are chaotic and troubled—more like Central Asia than Central Europe—people there will blame America. Remember, all politics is local."
 
You all fail to realize that democracy in the middle east isnt a forced measure. We gave the iraqi people the option to choose their own destiny and they chose democracy. Anyone who says else is wrong, simple as that. What you see in lebanon is an offshot of that. This is a tremendous success; I dont care if you give bush credit but theres a lot of courage in the middle east now, good to see they are standing up to the shitty regimes that hold them down with religion.
 
The sad fact is, there are many who would rather see Bush fail, then see the ME suceed. I just get the impression that there are those who would rather the entire ME be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust, before they would suffer the percieved galling humiliation that Bush may be actually right.
 
A powerful confluence of events in the Middle East in recent weeks has infused President Bush's drive to spread democracy with a burst of momentum, according to supporters and critics alike, and the president now faces the challenge of figuring out how to capitalize on it in a region long resistant to change. Successful elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories in January have been followed by tentative changes in Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia and a popular street uprising in Lebanon that toppled an unpopular government. -WA Post

-----
Democracy is on the move baby, like it or not, the people are speaking. The biggest problems perpetuated by weak administrations are crumbling - sucks to be a democrat doesnt it?
 
sucks to be a democrat doesnt it?
Click to expand...

There were many democrats who supported the war and Bush's foreign policy plans (including John Kerry, before he realized he couldn't run on the IDENTICAL platform as Bush, so he changed that part) so I think they deserve their credit as well. Every decision hasn't been partisan as the media would like it to seem.
 
Elections do not make a democracy. Doesn't it seem the least the least bit odd that these authoritarian governments thought one day that "gee, you know what would be nice? Some nice, legitimate elections.. Even though it could very well remove us from power, its just the right thing to do." Dictators do what ever it takes to maintain their power (if I'm wrong on this, please correct me) and holding fixed elections is certainly not difficult. (I think I read that Egypt's incumbant party won something like 90% of the vote. Riiiiight...) The point is, unless countries like Lebanon and Egypt hold more than one election and actually change leaders as a direct result of those elections, we cannot call them democracies. As for Iraq, if it is standing of its own free will after 10 years, I will call it a success. As long as we have troops performing peacekeeping duties there, it is not truly a success.
 
GhostFox said:
There were many democrats who supported the war and Bush's foreign policy plans (including John Kerry, before he realized he couldn't run on the IDENTICAL platform as Bush, so he changed that part) so I think they deserve their credit as well. Every decision hasn't been partisan as the media would like it to seem.
Click to expand...
They certainly dont anymore. The changed their minds like john kerry just as soon as things got rough and people were pissed off. They dont deserve credit for an effort they dont support. The only party who consistently supported the war (well, somewhat consistently) is the Republican party.

Elections do not make a democracy. Doesn't it seem the least the least bit odd that these authoritarian governments thought one day that "gee, you know what would be nice? Some nice, legitimate elections.. Even though it could very well remove us from power, its just the right thing to do." Dictators do what ever it takes to maintain their power (if I'm wrong on this, please correct me) and holding fixed elections is certainly not difficult. (I think I read that Egypt's incumbant party won something like 90% of the vote. Riiiiight...) The point is, unless countries like Lebanon and Egypt hold more than one election and actually change leaders as a direct result of those elections, we cannot call them democracies. As for Iraq, if it is standing of its own free will after 10 years, I will call it a success. As long as we have troops performing peacekeeping duties there, it is not truly a success.
Click to expand...
Correct, but they do represent a step in the right direction. Saddam regularly held fixed elections, but in Iraqs case, it is now a true democracy. In lebanons case, the popular consent has been on democracy... whether thats employed or not we will see. All these are positive changes, because the world is becoming involved trying to legitimize these elections.
 
I thought the Democrats changed their tune when it was revealed that the case for war against Iraq was found out to be lies.
 
Iran has more oil than saudi and that is our next stop.
Click to expand...

I believe that might have been the plan, but it cant happen now, or not yet. Too many troops are tied down in Iraq. Syria and Iran know they could be next and so have poured the spooks in with bundles of cash to finance terrorists against the US.

You can't keep troops out in the field for too long if you have a democracy, probably Vietnam was the longest stretch you are ever gonna get without the people going berserk. So unless the terrorists are crushed completely in Iraq, the troops are not going to go to Syria or Iran. Unless either of the above does something particularly stupid. Syria will not. Iran might.
 
You all fail to realize that democracy in the middle east isnt a forced measure. We gave the iraqi people the option to choose their own destiny and they chose democracy. Anyone who says else is wrong, simple as that.
Click to expand...

Agreed Ghost. The other thing to remember is that it is in the interests of Syria and Iran primarily, and many others to make sure that the USA fails in Iraq. Forget the left they are the cheer squad, but dont actually make things happen, just make a lot of noise.

The dictatorships of Syria and Iran don;t have the press and the left breathing down their neck, so as enemies, they can do whatever they like.

So the USA, has to be single minded in its purpose to rid terrorists from Iraq, and get the country back on its feet. To do this, the allies need to pour everything they have into Iraq and ruthlessly crush the terrorists. There is no other way. If we try to fight Iraq the same way we fought Vietnam towards the end (imo one hand tied behind our balls because the politicians restricted what the Generals and soldiers can do) it could all end up being for nothing, with another dictatorship in power, this time a Muslim Taliban style theocracy. So we need to be steadfast, block out the white noise and go for it.

But its *damn* hard for the Liberal Party in Australia, we risked the election big time to support the war but ultimately thought it was the right thing to do. We won the election and have the Senate for the first time in about 30 years? So we are sending some more troops, 450 to replace Dutch peace keepers. And there are people going ballistic about it. No election for ages though so it does not matter a lot. So realistically, I don't see that we can politically send in any more troops without taking awesome heat. As much as I'd like us too. A

The last thing I want to see is like Richard Nixon's Paris Accord treaty with North Vietnam, where he signed an agreement with the North, pulled out, and the North said thanks let's take the South now. That cannot happen ijn Iraq or it will be all for nought.
 
Woohoo for image searching in a pathetic attempt to appeal to emotion, that way we can completely avoid making an argument!
Click to expand...

Keep it in perspective. The guy posted some pictures of historic events related to the topic. There are good things happening in Iraq, and there would be a hell of a lot more if the terrorists were crushed. We all know the bad news, so why not get the other side of the story from time to time?

We can't spend the aid money because the contractors are not safe. Engineers from the coalition are fixing stuff as fast as it is getting blown up. But it should not be getting blown up. And the peanut gallery in the West should not be cheering on the terrorists either.
 
GhostFox said:
There were many democrats who supported the war and Bush's foreign policy plans (including John Kerry, before he realized he couldn't run on the IDENTICAL platform as Bush, so he changed that part) so I think they deserve their credit as well. Every decision hasn't been partisan as the media would like it to seem.
Click to expand...

There any source behind this? Or are you just making things up.
 
kmack said:
There any source behind this? Or are you just making things up.
Click to expand...

Google Zel Miller and find out why he voted for Bush.
 
iraqi's chose theocracy, and if I remember correctly they didn't get to vote whether or not they wanted to be liberate gh0st.
 
It is far to early to tell whether these moves in the right direction are worth anything or not in the Middle East, if in 10 years time, things have carried on improving, then Bush will of been right. A few weeks after the events have happened is far too early to tell for anything.
 
Now that I've had some sleep, I've read that news story again. But I still have no idea what it is saying "Bush got right". Could someone explain it to me. With bullet points preferably, everyone likes bullet points.
 
Innervision961 said:
iraqi's chose theocracy, and if I remember correctly they didn't get to vote whether or not they wanted to be liberate gh0st.
Click to expand...
Uh if I remember correctly they were too busy being raped by a brutal regime to "vote" for liberation. The Dutch didnt beg to be liberated either... what the **** are you talking about? I dont give a shit what they want, as long as they got it by a democratic consensus... quit trying to invalidate the good that comes from this war because you are too damn pessimistic to see through what is shoved down your throat by your socialist newspapers who are no better than the minister of misinformation that said iraq was conquering the foreign infidels as tanks and shit were right behind him.
 
Bodacious said:
Google Zel Miller and find out why he voted for Bush.
Click to expand...
If you use Zell Miller again I will shoot my self. I already pointed out to you on many occasions that just because he claims he is a democrat that doesn't mean he is. When asked by Al Colmes what he agrees with the Democrats on he couldn't give a response; so how is he a democrat if he doesn't agree with anything the democrats do while he follows the republican line perfectly? Please, get off the crack as it seems to be affecting your memory. I know I pointed this out to you at least on 2 occasions and you didn't give a reply; so if you don't have a reply this time stop using that idiotic example.

Quote from news post

"Freedom's march: The president has been right on some big questions. Now, if he can get the little stuff right, he'll change the world"

well well well seems like the media has posted the truth for a change
Click to expand...
The media didn't report anything, that was an opinion column. Sure, Bush got a couple things right (not everything that article mentions) but that article completely misses the mark if it thinks Iraq, education, economy, civil rights, taxes, goverment propaganda, and internationaol relations are small things he should get around to working on. These issues are more important than anything that article mentions.
 
maybe he's dyslexic ...although it wouldnt explain this:


bush_binoculars.jpg
 
Sterns going to throw a tantrum everytime bush succeeds... aww :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
10K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
B
Community Interviews: Tony Newton, co-creator of Redemption
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
B
The cut missions of Half-Life: Decay
Replies
2
Views
21K
Evo
Evo
-smash-
Using Unity at Valve - Vision Summit 2016
Replies
5
Views
6K
Ennui
Ennui
Back
Top