Can we recap what happend during George Dubya's term in office? Terrorists snuck into the country via borders that Democrats (and even some Republicans) still fail to secure, took over several of our jets, flew them into buildings, and killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children. You may recall that. It was even on MSNBC and CNBC. Bush responded, with almost unanamous support from both parties, by going into the Middle East and getting rid of Hussein, etc. What would all the liberals / Democrats be saying today if Bush had done nothing? They would be bashing him for doing nothing and we would possibly be cleaning up some other 9/11-type mess. So, if we can agree that he had no choice but to go into the Middle East with both barrels blazing, what would liberals / Democrats be saying today if he had pulled our troops right back out? Even Borax is not doing that. And I guarantee you, if BHO pulls out of Iraq too quickly, he (and the Iraquis) will pay dearly. I think world events unfold and just about whoever is in the Oval Office is almost forced to react a certain way. When a crisis arises, most presidents think of the country and their immediate political standing, not what their poll numbers will be by the time the next election rolls around. The other thing is how stupid it is to blame everything that happens during any president's term in office on that one man. Every president has advisors, members of congress, and heads of the military to deal with and help him make decisions. The only difference (in who is in the Oval Office) is who gets blamed for what after the dust settles. For example, Pelosi's recent denials are comical. What a dufus fart she is. She is a disgrace to her party and to our country. Dubya may have minced a few words here and there, but he is smarter than Pelosi, Reid, Ted Kennedy, and Barney Frank melded together. I would take Dubya over her (or most of the Democrat weasels in congress) any day.
ALIENated posted on May 14, 2009
| views: 240
Comments
-
beyondtheveil said on May 14, 2009....
What he had the 'right' to do was go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan which he screwed up. -
ALIENated said on May 14, 2009....
So terrorists pulled off 9/11, and then Bush should have sent troops only into Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden and that is all? Do you think the Amercan people would have stood for that limited approach? This might be a good time to say hindsight is a wonderful thing, but most everyone want to see some major ass kicking back then. How quickly we forget. "President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year." -Mansoor Ijaz, L.A. Times, December 5, 2001 Dubya may not have done everything perfectly, but I thank God he was president after 9/11 and not B. J. Clinton or Borax OhBummer. I think BHO is already changing his tune about what he will and will not do in the Middle East. Spouting crapola during the presidential campaign to get elected is one thing. Facing reality is another thing. The Middle East is a powder keg, a ticking bomb, a house of cards. I personally think Israel will eventually stand alone against all its enemies because countries like ours are losing our freedom and common sense about what is going on in the world. I could be wrong, but I really do not think so.
-
kelly said on May 14, 2009....
"Bush responded, with almost unanamous support from both parties,by going into the Middle East and getting rid of Hussein, etc."
That's incorrect.We went into Afghanistan where al Qaeda and bin Laden were hiding out. At Tora Bora we failed to nail bin Laden. Then by some magical thinking George Bush and Co. decided we needed to invade Iraq even though Iraq had nothing to do with the terror attack on the US.You're already re-writing history. -
ALIENated said on May 15, 2009....
Here is some history ... It was at this moment, not surprisingly, that the militarization of American Middle Eastern policy came out of the shadows. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter -- before his Habitat for Humanity days -- enunciated what would become known as the "Carter Doctrine": that Persian Gulf oil was "vital" to American national interests and that the U.S. would use "any means necessary, including military force" to sustain access to it. To assure that "access," he announced the creation of a Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force, a new military command structure that would be able to deliver personnel from all the armed services, together with state-of-the-art military equipment, to any location in the Middle East at top speed. Also ... As worldwide demand for hydrocarbons soared, the United States was left with three policy choices: It could try to combine alternative energy sources with rigorous conservation to reduce or eliminate a significant portion of energy imports; it could accept the leverage conferred on OPEC by the energy crunch and attempt to negotiate for an adequate share of what might soon enough become an inadequate supply; or it could use its military power in an effort to coerce Middle East suppliers into satisfying American requirements at the expense of everyone else. Beginning with Jimmy Carter, five U.S. presidents chose the coercive strategy, with George W. Bush finally deciding that violent, preemptive regime change was needed to make it work. The other options remain unexplored. I suppose you would rather peddle your bicycle 20 miles to work and heat your New England home with coal. Sadamn needed to be ousted anyway and we need to control the rat's nest. Plus, the tree-hugging Democrats do not want us to drill for oil here at home. It is like the guy that does not want to kill cows, but wants steak for his dinner. You cannot have it both ways. Even if we (the U.S.) become independent of Middle East oil, the American economy is still dependent on trading partners, particularly Japan and Europe, which are dependent on Middle Eastern oil. The goofballs running Iraq and Iran have to go. Bush got rid of Saddam and BHO will most likely get rid of the goofball running Iran. Just because you do not understand what is going on does not mean it is wrong or right. It is just what it is. As we have just seen, the world depends on the U.S. economy, and the U.S. economy depends, directly and indirectly, on Middle Eastern oil. It is vital to the security of the world. Bush faced that fact and dealt with it.
-
stopmediabias said on May 16, 2009....
Bush would have gotten hammered worse if he didn't go into Iraq. Prominent Liberal Democrats highlighted the need to get rid of Saddam just on his threat to the world. This is not taking into account all his other atrocities, his subjugation of his people, starting wars, firing at planes in the no-fly zone, etc etc.
I'm thinking President Obama will let Iran and others fester until they get to the level of Saddam then after he has torn down our defenses a Republican will get back in and build it back up, clean up Iran, then the lies will start to cycle all over again about rogue Republicans and the cowboy approach. I hope the American people wake up before it comes to this.
-
beyondtheveil said on May 16, 2009....
SMB- I don't have the answer for Iran. 'Clean up Iran' means invade I suppose. After over 4200 deaths and over 32,000 wounded in Iraq alone, plus being in Iraq and Afghanistan now among other places, where do we get the military and money for this?
Well, forget money, that doesn't mean anything for demos social plans and republican wars. I lost myself for a second.
-
kelly said on May 16, 2009....
"In 1980, President JimmyCarter -- before his Habitat for Humanity days -- enunciated what would become known as the "Carter Doctrine": that Persian Gulf oil was "vital" to American national interests and that the U.S. would use "any means necessary, including military force" to sustain access to it."
-
stopmediabias said on May 17, 2009....
Beyond-Ah but notice I said Iran will get the same as Saddam. President Obama ran around the world apologizing. Do you think he is going to do anything about Iran? Or is he going to let them create a nuclear bomb and continue to threaten Israel?
This is why Liberalism is such an incredible threat to the world. Under the mirage of peace it trys to stop wars when stopping these wars under the banner of peace kills far more people. Remember Chamberland said a pact with Hitler would mean peace in our time. How many lives could we apply that one?
Plus look at the world today, global warming is a greater threat than Iran nuking Israel or giving the bomb to Hezzbolah (an Iran financed terrorist group whose size dwarfs Al Qaeda) so lets butcher our defenses so we can build windmills, makes sense doesn't it?
-
kelly said on May 17, 2009....
"Plus look at the world today, global warming is a greater threat than Iran nuking Israel or giving the bomb to Hezzbolah"Republicans can make up stuff all day long, but that doesn't change the fact that Liberals and Democrats are just as interested in self-defense as anyone else.Additionally, global warming just may be a bigger threat than the things you mention if you consider that American livelihood might be at risk due to it. -
ALIENated said on May 17, 2009....
All that and all you got is that I am a Carter fan? OMG. Can you say "thick as a brick?"
-
stopmediabias said on May 17, 2009....
Kelly-Liberals and Democrats are tough when it is politically expediant then seem to soften when they actually discover that war is bad and kills people then they just blame it all on Republicans.
Our livelihood is not at risk from Global warming and if it was there is not one single thing we can do to change or lesson the end result.
-
ALIENated said on May 17, 2009....
Wait a minute. Look at all Al Gwhore has done to reduce his impact on the environment ... uh ... never mind. He is just another "do as I say, not as I do" liberal.
-
javadewd said on May 18, 2009....
Well, Kelly, you're half right. Liberals and Democrats are just interested in self.
Out here in these here red states, it's become colder these past three years in the winter and even cool in the summer. I think it's that "global cooling" thing... Maybe when we get another ice age (or when hell freezes over, whichever comes first I guess) I'll buy the global warming thing, m'kay?
Hey Al Gore! Fly me a jet airplane, yo!!
-
ALIENated said on May 19, 2009....
Really. If only Democrats (especially the most liberal ones) were as closely examined as Republicans (especially the conservative ones). People like the blowhard Al Gwhore or Joe Biden say and do all kinds of rediculous crap and no one (on the left) says a word. Someone like Sarah Palin grimaces and suddenly the press claims she pissed in the punch. It is just really stupid sometimes. If someone asks about homosexuality, you had better have the politically correct answer, or your ass is grass.
-
stopmediabias said on May 20, 2009....
How about Dubya's DUI over 30 years ago is a story worthy of endless exposure but President Obama's past cocaine use, rubbing elbows with terrorists, Reverand Wright, etc etc. the list is endless. -
javadewd said on May 20, 2009....
But if they don't talk about it, it must not exist SMB... Narcissism at its finest! -
ALIENated said on May 21, 2009....
I saw a few minutes of MSNBC yesterday. (I can only take a few minutes of that moronic channel.) They were soooo disappointed that OhBummer is not doing all the things he said he would do. He has been accused of letting Dubya's policies become his (Borax's) policies. ha ha ha ha ha. BHO is realizing that the right things were being done, and, if he does not do the same things, he will eventually look like an ass to everyone, not just the retards at MSNBC.
-
javadewd said on May 21, 2009....
Who didn't see this coming?? WHO!? Oh, yeah, the liberals... Nevermind... Idiots. -
anna.lucia said on May 22, 2009....
Geez..I can't read all the comments - too much! But I agree-people are really stupid to blame Bush for everything that went wrong. Clinton didn't defend us when we were bombed in New York in the early 90's and didn't do anything when our embassy was bombed in Africa and so on. Hussein had to be taken out no matter what. The idiot running Iran needs to be shut up too. Israel is going to have to strike him for their own safety. It's just that taking out these terrorists is not easy...they can hide an multiply real well - getting rid of their top authorities is the best way to really hurt them though. It's not an easy situation or one that is easily corrected. I think the Americans who want it all to be over quick and have our troops taken out fast are just really dumb and eat too much McDonald's. Even our troops and heads of our army know it doesn't make sense to pull out fast. We are the fast food nation lol. Guess our army should run on the same principles. Why are we so obsessed with doing everything fast fast fast but not well?? -
ALIENated said on May 22, 2009....
I agree. Some comments are really posts on their own.
-
javadewd said on May 22, 2009....
If some liberals would pull out fast, there wouldn't be a need for abortions...
Okay, that was probably a low blow... Which would also cure that problem btw...
-
anna.lucia said on May 22, 2009....
LOL I never thought of that one! Maybe I'll post some flyers around town about that... -
javadewd said on May 22, 2009....
It may even curb the liberal population... Wait! There's a great reason to legalize abortion!! Nah, not really, but hey... -
kelly said on May 25, 2009....
"Liberals and Democrats are just interested in self."Conservatives and Republicans are just interested in money. By any means. -
ALIENated said on May 25, 2009....
I think we are all interested in money. You will not last very long without it. The big difference is liberals are interested in taking it away from hard-working conservatives.
-
javadewd said on May 26, 2009....
Ask Mr. Murtha about his airport, then tell me how liberals aren't interested in money. -
ALIENated said on May 26, 2009....
Ha ha ha ha ha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvzNj0VobssThere ya go.
-
doortoinsanity said on Jun 09, 2009....
This is missing some history....it must be harder to take out the terrorists then to put them in place. we should have worked out the details.
jav - 'If some liberals would pull out fast, there wouldn't be a need for abortions...
Okay, that was probably a low blow... Which would also cure that problem btw..."
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHA!
See there is a solution to every problem.
-
javadewd said on Jun 09, 2009....
I'd almost have to say Darwinism, but trust me I am no fan... -
doortoinsanity said on Jun 09, 2009....
I feel ya.
Comment on "Dubya Did What Had To Be Done"
Related Posts:
pickersplock
posted 4 days ago
| views: 67
|
Every week, I delve into our local city entertainment/op-ed/newspaper.... read entire post
javadewd
posted 6 days ago
| views: 68
|
The only human being on the planet that can eject a huge turd, yet somehow dupe the media into thinking it's a golden egg that smells like roses.... read entire post