Under my system of rating Presidents -- George W Bush gets the following grades :
Policy leadership C +
A president has to make policy, domestic and foreign, for the country. The president outlines his policies in his inaugural address, his annual State of the Union addresses, and especially his budget. The president has a tough battle to conquer: He has to mobilize public opinion to gain the upper hand with Congress.
The president has to be careful when dealing with Congress. If he is pushy and takes a heavy-handed approach, Congress may resent him, and he is not likely to be very successful. Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon found this out the hard way. If a president is willing to lobby Congress and bargain and deal with its members, he can be very successful. George H. Bush saw most of his legislation pass, even though the opposition Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
Leadership skills are necessary for the president to succeed. The more skills a president possesses, the more likely Congress will pass his policies. This is one way that a president is judged and evaluated. The more his policies are passed, the higher his ranking.
In modern times, a president's legislation has been judged according to the impact his policies have on social equality in U.S. society. Policies that benefit minorities and the poor enhance a president's ranking in the polls.
Crisis management A +
The U.S. public looks to the president as its political and economic leader. He is held responsible for the political and economic climate, whether times are good or bad. A successful president has to have a program ready to stimulate the economy if necessary, and he has to be able to pass it. If he fails, he will not win reelection. Jimmy Carter and George H. Bush are recent presidents who lost their bids for reelection due to economic decline. At the same time, a booming economy can get a president reelected even if he is facing personal scandals, as Bill Clinton demonstrated in 1996.
Crisis management also refers to international crises. The way a president reacts to major foreign crises, such as a war or a terrorist attack, greatly affects his standing with the public and his rankings in the polls. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, two presidents who always rank in the top five, rank high mainly because of their crisis-management skills. Lincoln reacted forcefully during the Civil War and kept the Union intact. Franklin Roosevelt guided the United States through World War II and turned the country into a superpower.
Lyndon Johnson, on the other hand, couldn't deal with the conflict in Vietnam. This inability lowers his ranking, despite his major domestic accomplishments. More recently, President George W. Bush, who was not doing well in the polls as late as August 2001, turned himself into a great crisis manager after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. His handling of the situation brought new life to his presidency.
Presidential appointments C+
Presidents are also measured by the people they appoint to public office. This area of evaluation includes appointments to the Supreme Court and the presidential cabinet.
Presidents Harding and Grant destroyed their presidencies with inept, corrupt appointments, and their rankings reflect this. Appointing good, skilled people reflects positively on a president. George C. Marshall and Henry Kissinger, both Secretaries of State, reflected positively on the presidents that appointed them, increasing Truman's and Nixon's standings, respectively. Today, diversity has become an issue. Presidential appointments should reflect the ethnic composition of the country. The more minorities, including women, a president appoints to high-level positions, the higher his ranking. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have done well in this area, with their cabinets containing a fair number of minorities.
Foreign standing A-
Foreign policy is a recent addition to the criteria for ranking U.S. presidents. Most 19th century presidents can't be ranked on this issue because, during that period, the United States was isolationist and didn't get involved in world affairs. But ever since Theodore Roosevelt and his active participation in international affairs, foreign policy has been a major part of the presidency. Today a president deals with many other nations: How he deals with these nations, as well as how these nations perceive him, contribute to his ranking.
Major foreign policy success can make up for domestic failure. President Nixon ranks low on many lists, but he had major accomplishments in the area of foreign policy. These accomplishments elevate him into the middle of the presidential pack. President George H. Bush was a great foreign policy president: During his term, the Soviet Union collapsed, the Gulf War was won, and major arms control took place. These accomplishments push him into the top 15 of U.S. presidents.
Respect from foreign nations is very important. President Nixon was widely respected by foreign nations. After his resignation, he continued to be treated as a successful president by most of the world, which led to a rise in his rankings.
Character and integrity A+
The attributes of character and integrity are important when judging presidents. A president who promotes corruption, lies to the public, or is involved in scandals will obviously be ranked lower than an honest president.
President Nixon single-handedly destroyed his presidency and his place in history with the Watergate scandal. President Clinton undermined a successful presidency with many personal scandals, including lying to the public. President Clinton's scandals continued even after he left office. President Harding destroyed what was left of his presidency with continuous extramarital affairs.
At the same time, a president who wasn't very successful in office, such as Jimmy Carter, can restore his reputation and rise in the rankings for being a true humanitarian and an honest person. James Polk was another honest, dedicated individual. He worked so hard that it cost him his life. There were no scandals during his presidency, and he even kept his campaign promise not to run for reelection.
Public persuasion B
The ability to persuade the public to his point of view is one of the most powerful weapons a president possesses. It's also one that he most needs to succeed. How a president uses this power and how successful he is with it affects his standing in the ranks of presidents.
Some of the masters of public persuasion are •Theodore Roosevelt, whoused his position and influence as president to persuade citizens to his point of view. He was able to get much of his legislation passed, despite having to deal with a hostile Congress. •Franklin Roosevelt, who went straight to the public with his fireside chats and not only reassured the public after the Great Depression, but also gained support for his New Deal legislation. •Ronald Reagan, who is known as the "Great Communicator" because he possessed a special ability to connect with the U.S. public. The public loved Reagan and the way he dealt with the average person. This adoration translated into support for his policies. Congress enacted a large part of Reagan's agenda because the public backed him — not necessarily, because Congress agreed with him and his proposals. Other presidents haven't fared as well. Jimmy Carter had a tough time connecting with the public. For this reason, much of his presidential agenda never made it through Congress, even though his own party controlled Congress. Richard Nixon failed in similar fashion. He couldn't relate to the public. By the time the Watergate scandal came around, it was too late to gather public support for his presidency.
Presidential vision B
Some presidents come into office without a vision of what they want to accomplish as president: This usually results in a failed presidency. Without a master plan, a president is at the mercy of Congress, which can then take over and make policy for the country.
The more successful presidents have a vision; they want to use the office of president to change the United States. Franklin Roosevelt wanted to bring about changes to protect the average citizen from the brutal effects of the Great Depression. Reagan wanted to restore the United States to greatness and decrease the size of the federal government. With a vision to guide them, presidents tend to be active, as they try to implement their agenda. Even if they're not successful, they still get credit for having a vision.
A president without a vision accomplishes nothing, because there is nothing he wants to accomplish. Without a vision, a presidency results in failure.
Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #7G. W. Bush was a fine, decent man who served two terms as president and loves his country. (I thought I'd throw that last part in there just to contrast him with his successor.)
The problem is (was) he was not a "movement" conservative. So we didn't see conservatism being advanced during his presidency. Heck - if anything, statism was barely slowed down if it was at all. Granted, we had a GOP Congress to mostly thank for that, but I'm pretty sure the POTUS is granted veto powers.
A movement conservative would have advanced conservatism - but he wasn't, so he didn't. Que sera sera.
Former President Bush personifies the problems we face (as conservatives) in putting our hope in the GOP. Yes, they're mostly "nice" people, and they say the right things. But they don't seem to see politics as the "blood sport" the democrats and their lackeys in the media do.
They bring knives to the proverbial gun fight.
So while it's right and proper to praise Mr. Bush for being the fine and decent man he is, it does us no good to paper over the serious deficiencies of his presidency.
ZitatGWB never held himself out as a "movement" conservative. Your first clue should've been when W heeded Rove's advice and put an adjective before the "c" word to describe himself.
I'm just thankful he got elected.
The alternative was Gore.
Personally I never thought he was a movement conservative (so I didn't need a first clue), but others did. And, in a field of several other primary candidates in late 1999 and early 2000, he WAS sold as the most conservative that could win.
And it WAS said he wasn't the same as his dad - we were told he WAS more conservative than Bush sr.
As to Gore - I wonder, would he have been the train wreck that Zero is? While I agree he would have been a disaster, had he succeeded we might have been spared the current mess.
Quote: Cedric wrote in post #14 Polybius, RE: Your numbering system "as perceived by the majority of Americans" Who cares? Clinton "focus grouped" every night so he could hoodwink "the majority of Americans" the next day.
You focus on the emotional issue of personalities, Cedric. It seems to be more important to you to discuss whether Bush was “Good” and Clinton was “Bad”. I focus on the reality of long-term results.
Who cares about inspiring a 51% majority support of his population?
Any wartime leader of a democracy that wants to win a war and KEEP it won.
Any idiot that inherits powerful enough and competent enough Armed Forces can "win" on the battlefield. ….. Even Barack Obama. However, it is the leader that can inspire the 51% majority of the people to stick with it, to the end, that actually gets long-term strategic RESULTS in return for the men and women who died in his war.
Neither Abraham Lincoln nor Winston Churchill had very many victories at the beginning of their wars. In fact, they had defeat after defeat. First Bull Run, The Seven Days, Second Bull Run, Chancellorsville, the Fall of France. Yet, even in defeat, they were able to inspire that all-important 51% majority that would decide:
1.) Let’s finish the job 2.) Let’s surrender or let’s Bug Out.
In 1864, the war-weary American people were given that stark choice between more sacrifice and sticking it through with Abraham Lincoln or Bugging Out with General George B. McClellan.
The reason that the Union was preserved in 1865 was because Abraham Lincoln was inspirational enough to at least a 51% majority of the American voters in 1864.
By contrast, George W. Bush’s Armed Forces won one of the most spectacular battlefield victories in Military History. Yet, even in Victory, as time passed, George W. Bush simply could not inspire the Home Front or even explain to the Home Front what he was trying to do in Iraq.
Thus, when Barack Obama came around in 2008 (like McClellan in 1864), promising “PEACE!” by way of the Bug Out, 51% of the voters in America voted to flush the military sacrifice of thousands of American Iraq War casualties down the Toilet of History.
51% support for the war effort on Election Day = Chance of ultimte Victory
51% opposition to the war effort on Election Day with a Bug Out candidate= Guarantted defeat via the Bug Out
It's not geo-political Rocket Science.
As a result, the Persian Gulf geo-political winner of the Iraq War has been Iran.
If you have to ask “Who cares” in regards to the importance of the ability to inspire 51% of the Home Front to believe in a cause come Election Day in a wartime democracy, then you are the democratic military’s worst nightmare. You are then one of those people who expects the democratic military to die on the battlefield to “win” a war while not giving a rat’s ass if you are losing the war by losing the democratic Home Front.
Quote: Cedric wrote in post #14 RE: The Katrina Myth Go look up how long it took Clinton to deal with hurricane Floyd and don't even get me started about "super storm" Sandy!
Because if Clinton and Obama were twice as bad, then Bush was okay?
Cedric, I have spent my entire professional career in situations with very serious consequences for failure and very little tolerance for excuses. The word “Accountability” has been a very real part of my life experience.
In regards to my membership in the Credentials Committe, how the other guy performed was a concern of mine. In regards to my own professional performance, how the other guy performed was irrelevant to the reality of how I performed.
If, in my medical practice, I screwed up and caused the needless death of your spouse, do you want to hear, “Go look up how many deaths Dr. Jones has caused and don't even get me started about Dr. Sanders” ?
In Medicine, the competent physician does not keep score against Dr. Jones and Dr. Sanders. The competent physician keeps score against HIMSELF and against Mother Nature. If Dr. Jones and Dr. Sanders are that bad, then their privileges need to be revoked. Their degree of incompetence is totally irrelevant to your degree of competency.
So, Dr. Jones and Dr. Sanders are absolutely horrible physicians. WTF does that have to do with my own performance in regards to any patient? If I consider myself twice as good as Dr. Jones and he has killed 10 patients this month, do I pat myself on the back if I only kill 3 patients this month as if I had “fouls to give” in a basketball game?
When judging how Bush handled Katrina, I do not care how Clinton handled Floyd or how Obama handled Sandy. I only care about how Bush handled Katrina and Bush screwed up.
I wrote this when I belonged to Free Republic in 2005:
What Is "Storm Surge" and Why It Matters. (Katrina Education Vanity) Original research and personal and family experience. | 5 SEP 2005 | Polybius
Those people should have been evacuated out of the Storm Surge zone BEFORE Katrina hit. There is absolutely no excuse for failing to do so.
The Democratic Governor screwed up. The Democratic Mayor screwed up. George W. Bush screwed up for taking “No” for an answer to his pleading for an evacuation when there was ample time to conduct one and the southbound lane of the Interstate to New Orleans was absolutely empty for a day before Katrina hit.
Bush should have Federalized the evacuation. He failed to do so. He allowed the incompetent Democratic Governor and Mayor to leave thousands of American citizens in a death trap. He screwed up.
I am not emotionally attached to any politician. I care about results. If a Republican screws up, he should be held accountable. If a Democrat gets results, he should be praised.
In a well-run Medical Staff of any hospital, after there has been a "bad outcome" (Mrs. Wilson died or something went seriously wrong), there is a Morbidity & Mortality Conference that tries to determine what went wrong so that is does not happen again. At an M&M Conference, it does not matter if Dr. Steve Jones is your best friend or that he is not half as bad as Dr. Sanders that you reported to the State last year to get his license revoked. If Dr. Steve Jones screwed up, he screwed up and it does not matter how much you like him or that Dr. Sander was even worse.
The M&M Conference, if it is worth it's salt, holds Dr. Steve Jones to the standard of, "This is how you screwed up. No excuses."
“That other guy screws up more than my friend” is game that I have no interest in playing in situations where serious stakes are involved.
Quote: Cedric wrote in post #14 RE:"The result is the George W. Bush handed the Presidency of the United States to Barack Obama on a silver platter and that will have devastating consequences for America. The result is that Ronald Reagan left the future a safer place and George W. Bush the future a more dangerous place."
Balderdash (except for the Reagan part).
If you have a geopolitical point to make, Cedric, make it and defend it.
Argumentum ad hominem is the last refuge of those who are incapable of defending a position.
People can't honestly say George W Bush was not responsible for with his own election but he was responsible for someone else's election....and re-election.
People can't honestly say George W Bush failed because he was a statist and he failed because he observed "states rights" (Blanco/Katrina).
People can't honestly say George W Bush wasn't a leader and then blame him for leading us into Iraq.
People can't honestly say George W Bush was a horrible communicator but he talked us into two wars.
People can't honestly say George W Bush was too stubborn but he compromised too much.
“That other guy screws up more than my friend” is game that I have no interest in playing in situations where serious stakes are involved.
It was you, Polybius, who repeatedly compared The Great George W Bush (unfavorably) to "other guys".
I believe, therefore, it was well inbounds for me to do the same.
Since when did "balderdash" become an ad hominem*?
Polybius, I think you've fallen into the following trap: Because past endeavors rendered less than perfect results (in your estimation) you've concluded that (a) everything must've been done totally wrong and (b) doing something (anything) else would have delivered far (if not infinitely) superior results.
I disagree with this line of reasoning.
It is actually possible to obtain inferior results by changing formulas and approaches.
Indeed, it is my experience that the recommendations of second guessers invariably does generate worse results.
* Please don't tell me that objecting to a false claim of ad hominem is, in itself, ad hominem.
Quote: Cedric wrote in post #20 People can't honestly say George W Bush was not responsible for with his own election but he was responsible for someone else's election....and re-election.
Any democratic wartime President that does not ensure that he is maintaining at least a 51% degree of Home Front support for the war effort (especially in a war that he pushed for and started) is asking the men and women of the Armed Forces to go overseas to sacrifice and sometimes die for a cause that has a good chance of being flushed down the toilet the next Election Day.
Any wartime President can maintain popular support for his war effort when the memories of spectacular battlefield victories are still fresh in voter’s minds in, say, 2004. A true leader formulates a long-term vision that goes far beyond his own term and even beyond his own life. The youngest American voter that ever cast a vote during the Korean War is now 82 years old. Yet, 61 years after the 1952 Presidential Election, there are still 28,500 American troops in Korea to ensure that what was won in South Korea by American blood in 1950-53 is not flushed down the Toilet of History.
Whatever their faults, Presidents Truman and Eisenhower formulated a vision of a purpose to their war effort that has lasted for six decades and counting. There was never any Home Front talk of an “Exit Strategy” from the Korean War that would have guaranteed a North Korean victory right after Eisenhower left office.
Even in 2005, it was evident that George W. Bush was such a horrible communicator that there was a very good chance that, come Election Day of 2008, the Iraq War would be lost on the Home Front.
As the Vietnam War illustrates, wars can be lost on the homefront, as well as the battlefield. Fueled by the anti-war movement and televised images of dead and wounded American soldiers, public support for Vietnam War eventually dissipated, leading to our military withdrawal and the ensuing bloodbath in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Will the same thing happen in Iraq? It's too early to say, but a new CNN-Gallup poll shows 59% of Americans now oppose the War in Iraq, and 47% said they were "not satisfied" with the War on Terrorism. Those numbers suggest a shift in opinion from similar polls taken earlier this year, and in 2004.
While it is true that a President is not solely responsible for the defeat of the next candidate, it is a fact that an inarticulate wartime President that has lost the Home Front three years prior to the next election has set the dining table for a Bug Out candidate that has a very good chance, come next Election Day, of snatching Defeat even out of the jaws of spectacular battlefield Victory.
Quote: Cedric wrote in post #20People can't honestly say George W Bush failed because he was a statist and he failed because he observed "states rights" (Blanco/Katrina).
Again, Cedric, you put your focus, not on results, not on whether hundreds of people needlessly died in New Orleans, but on whether or not some guy spewing out ideological buzz words (“Statist” vs. “State Rights”) is “honest” or not.
You seem to care more about scoring ideological political points against political purists than you care about evaluating competence in Real World scenarios.
I don’t care about ideological purist navel-gazing, Cedric. I simply don’t care.
NEWS FLASH: The political purist debate of “Statist” vs. “State Rights” was settled in the Nullification Crisis of 1832 and the “State Rights Purists” lost. Ever since then, the State’s Rights issue has been a matter of tuning of the dial back and forth.
In the case of Hurricane Katrina, accepting the “L'État, c'est moi” position that the idiotic decisions by Governor Kathleen Blanco constitutes “The Sacred State of Louisiana” is an idiotic and irresponsible position itself in the case of the President of the United States.
When an obvious disaster is about to happen (predicted Category 5 hurricane, headed straight for a below-sea-level city, surrounded by a storm surge zone, protected by levees rated for a Category 3 storm) …… LEADERS LEAD.
George W. Bush did not LEAD. He deferred to the idiot.
In the face of such idiocy by Governor Kathleen Blanco, a true leader uses the Bully Pulpit of the Presidency to bypass the idiot Governor and directly educate the people and the media and the State Legislature of the obvious impending disaster. If that still does not produce results from the idiot Governor, the true leader declares a Federal Emergency, gets the job done, saves lives, and then, after the crisis passes, gets into the navel-gazing argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a State’s Rights pin.
Effective and competent professionals focus on fixing a specific problem and allowing the chips to fall where they may. Ineffective individuals focus on arguing about who should be blamed.
Getting Beyond Blame in Your Practice If your group is prone to blame, accusation and finger-pointing, your improvement efforts will be doomed.
• When something doesn't work out well, do you first ask, “Who did it?” or do you ask, “What part of the process allowed this to happen?” • Do you immediately ask yourself, “How can I protect myself and save face?” or do you ask, “How can I learn from this?” • Do you view yourself as external to the problem, or do you consider, “What is my role in this?” • Do you tend to operate from a place of fear (fear of taking risks, fear of thinking through a problem, fear of punishment, etc.), or do you display courage and pursue growth and learning?
Ineffective individuals spend their energies focused on whether or not it was the fault of Dr. Bush or Dr. Blanco that 7 patients in the ICU died in a single night rather than trying to figure out WHY 7 patients in the ICU died in a single night REGARDLESS of whether Dr. Bush or Dr. Blanco will bear the ultimate accountability. Effective and competent professionals care about the people they are responsible for. Cowards only care about CYA for themselves and political hacks only care about CYA for their boss. I am not emotianally attached to any politician. For some reason, you seem to be heavily invested in George W. Bush.
Quote: Cedric wrote in post #20 People can't honestly say George W Bush wasn't a leader and then blame him for leading us into Iraq.
You have not described “True Leadership”, Cedric. You have described Ryan Leaf. You have described Barack Obama in Afghanistan. You have described what Lincoln alluded to in regards to, “You can fool all the people some of the time …”
Whether or not the War in Iraq should have been fought in 2003 is one issue. The fact that, in spite of spectacular battlefield victories, George W. Bush had lost the American Home Front by 2005 is a totally separate issue.
As the Vietnam War illustrates, wars can be lost on the homefront, as well as the battlefield. Fueled by the anti-war movement and televised images of dead and wounded American soldiers, public support for Vietnam War eventually dissipated, leading to our military withdrawal and the ensuing bloodbath in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Will the same thing happen in Iraq? It's too early to say, but a new CNN-Gallup poll shows 59% of Americans now oppose the War in Iraq, and 47% said they were "not satisfied" with the War on Terrorism. Those numbers suggest a shift in opinion from similar polls taken earlier this year, and in 2004.
The issue is that the war that has gone down in Military History as one of the most spectacular battlefield victories ever recorded was allowed to be lost by the demoralization of the Home Front. For a war leader that has asked his troops to die for a cause that he initially championed, that is simply inexcusable.
Have you ever been in a true position of leadership in either civilian or military life, Cedric? Do you actually believe that true leadership involves having everybody behind you, 110%, in January and then losing control to the point that more than 50% of your former followers are actively working against your mission by the end of April?
Any fool can get a nation INTO a war. Even Barack Obama doubled-down on Afghanistan. Winston Churchill did not get Great Britain into the war with Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Neville Chamberlain did:
However, after the disastrous defeats of the Fall of France and North Africa and Singapore, it took a true leader, such as Winston Churchill, not to have the British Home Front in the state of despair that George W. Bush had the American Home Front in 2005, even after spectacular battlefield victories.
For a short period of time, a false leader can shine, as Ryan Leaf did on NFL Draft Day of 1988 when the scouting staff of the Indianapolis Colts actually wanted to choose Ryan Leaf over Peyton Manning but were overruled by Colts President Bill Polian. The true leader is only separated from the false leader by the TEST OF TIME.
The true leader is not the flash-in-the-pan that everybody supports in January. The true leader is the one that inspires his followers to keep sacrificing to get the job done for month after month and year after year, ……. no matter how tough the going gets. The true leader inspires his followers to get the job done. In war, in a Dictatorship, that means inspiring the troops as Caesar did and as Napolian did. In war, in a Democracy, that means inspiring the Home Front so that demoralized voters do not vote away the Victory that was paid for in blood. That is what George W. Bush failed to do.
Winston Churchill was a true leaders who could inspire, even when Britain was experiencing nothing but defeat. George W. Bush could not even inspire the Home Front into 2005 after spectacular battlefield victories had been won in 2003.
The Iraq War will go down in Military History as a textbook example of how even spectacular battlefield victories mean nothing if a war leader fails in inspire the Home Front.
George W. Bush had already lost the Home Front by 2005 thereby making it possible for Barack Obama to announce plans to purposesly lose the Iraq War in 2011.
As a result, the strategic winner of the Iraq War has been Islamist Iran.
Quote: Cedric wrote in post #20 People can't honestly say George W Bush was a horrible communicator but he talked us into two wars.
Ummm …. Actually, that was Colin Powell.
But, regardless, as has been pointed out, even a squeaky-voiced Neville Chamberlain can get a nation into a World War. That’s the easy part. …… Before the Butcher’s Bill comes in and the weak sisters on the Home Front begin to panic.
The hard part comes when things are going tough. The hard part comes when the Home Front needs some stiffing of the spine so that they understand why Surrender or Bug Out should not be embraced.
When the going gets tough, the tough get going and true leaders lead. When the going gets tough, true leaders inspire the Home Front and poor leaders lose control of the Home Front. That is why Winston Churchill has gone down in History as a great leader and George W. Bush will go down in History as a failed leader that won one of the most spectacular battlefield victories on the battlefield only to throw it all away by losing the Home Front only two years later.
Quote: Cedric wrote in post #20 People can't honestly say George W Bush was too stubborn but he compromised too much.
A good leader knows the appropriate time and circumstance to be stubborn and the appropriate time and circumstance to compromise. Absolute adherence to either quality is not a sign of a true leader. Absolute adherence to either quality is a hallmark of a failed leader.
Bush made the right decision to go into Afghanistan, but eventually made the mistake of claiming victory too soon, and dialing down the effort.
He did that, in order to divert resources to Iraq which most agree was a mistake.
Finally his communication regarding both was uneven. His decisions about leaders was uneven. I happen to think Rumsfeld was mostly talk, backed by ineffective leadership and decision making. For example Rumsfeld was replaced with a guy who kept his yap shut, and improved both fronts.
Contemporary conservatives settle for form over substance. Powell argued for more troops in Iraq and was correct. Powell argued "you break it, you own it." He was right.
Instead conservatives settle for Rumsfeld's verbal jousts with the media, and criticize Powell's wise council.
Quote: Cedric wrote in post #27 The invasion of Iraq was the main objective all along, after 9/11.
Afghansitan was just soemthing we "had to do" on the way to Iraq (plus, it was a great staging area and supply depot).
The invasion of Iraq was the single greatest and boldest geo-political master stroke in the past 60 (probably 100) years!
We were truly blessed to have had the great visionary, George W Bush, as our President!
I agree !!
The Iraq War dragged all the Al Qaeda terrorist from the mountains, rough terrain and safety of warlord protected villages in Afghanistan to Iraq.
It was in Iraq that our troops were able to decimate Al Qaeda. Iraq was the "kill two birds with one stone" WAR. Get Saddam and Al Qaeda ...all at the same time !! Pretty efficient strategy if you ask me. No one has ever won a war in Afghanistan except the Afghanies ...........just ask Obama. Obama gave up on the "good war" before he ever started. How is the Afghan SURGE working out for Obama and our soldiers ??
I think Bush & Cheney were brillant to take the Afghan War into Iraq !! OBAMA WAS AN IDIOT for going back IN !!
Quote: truth_seeker wrote in post #25Iraq which most agree was a mistake.
Then "most" are wrong.
The invasion of Iraq was the main objective all along, after 9/11.
Afghansitan was just soemthing we "had to do" on the way to Iraq (plus, it was a great staging area and supply depot).
The invasion of Iraq was the single greatest and boldest geo-political master stroke in the past 60 (probably 100) years!
We were truly blessed to have had the great visionary, George W Bush, as our President!
Cedric, you don't know what you are talking about. Getting supplies to Afghanistan was a NIGHTMARE; for the first few months it was LCAC'ed to a beach, and then loaded on to C-130's and flown in. NO supplies flowed from Afghanistan to Iraq. Review your geography. FAIL!
Put the crack pipe down W and let your mind clear. You do not leave office with 20% approvals if you were persuasive. Anyone remember Bush's attempt to straighten out Social Security after the '04 election? He had both houses of congress and still came up zilch. He couldn't even persuade his own party.
This post has been underwritten by the Mobil Corporation and viewers like you.
RIGHT'S RIGHT 
Print view
Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:21 pm
reply
