Bush's Last Speech

[PoLiX]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28672018/?GT1=43001

 

I never liked the guy (family stuff), but I give him props for the way he's bowing out.

You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made, but I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.

I can give him that.

[FMBI]

I'll quote Peggy Noonan for $500, Alex : "Political bullshit."

 

I'm sick of all this revisionism. The man did his damnedest to destroy the country and the world, and now he's urgently trying to sabotage Obama, all while pretending that it's still the 2000 campaign, and he hasn't been exposed as a wannabe-fascist with the brain of a 12 year old yet. Oh well, at least we can rest safe and secure in the knowledge that Pelosi deliberately blocked any attempts at impeachment, and Obama will refuse to prosecute him for war crimes, or anything else for that matter.

 

At the risk of sounding hostile to the man: Burn in hell, Bush.

[Cancer+]

Just give the guy a break. He probably had one of the hardest presidencies in recent history. First it was 9/11 and then the Tsunami, New Orleans, another Hurricane among other things.

 

One thing we know. There hasn't been a terrorist attack in 7 years. You can't say that for Clinton. How many terrorist attacks did he have?

 

He may not be the best president but he's only human. You try to make the decisions he made while keeping America safe.

[Dav]

his intentions of keeping america safe may be in the right place, but thag doesn't deduct from the fact that his methods and levels of sucsess were questionable.

[AstroProdigy]

Just give the guy a break. He probably had one of the hardest presidencies in recent history. First it was 9/11 and then the Tsunami, New Orleans, another Hurricane among other things.

 

One thing we know. There hasn't been a terrorist attack in 7 years. You can't say that for Clinton. How many terrorist attacks did he have?

 

He may not be the best president but he's only human. You try to make the decisions he made while keeping America safe.

 

He made it one of the hardest presidencies in recent history. 9/11 got him 90% approval ratings making it incredibly easy to get positive things done if he wanted to. New Orleans was a giant failure partly to blame being Bush's cronyism which is his fault. The Tsunami didn't do shit to make his presidency harder and I don't know what other bullshit you can tack on to try to defend this utter failure.

 

One thing we know is there hasn't been a terrorist attack in 7 years unless you count all the constant terrorist attacks on our troops "not a terrorist attack" because it was during our own hostile occupation. Sure if you change the definition then you're right. Clinton didn't get thousands of troops killed in an utterly pointless war (for America at least) that was based on doctored evidence that very damn well has links to the highest levels of government. They wanted this war so bad they were willing to use any college students paper and ignore the CIA's statements to get it. Clinton may have had his own problems, but Bush makes him look like George Washington.

 

He's only human is a dam bullshit response. I bet even you could have made a better president than him because at least you wouldn't be a massively corrupted former playboy now born again ignoramus with his life handed to him on a silver platter. We'd probably all make better decisions than him. There is no excuse for Iraq and the more evidence that will come out on this in the future the more it will be proven that Iraq had nothing to do with keeping America safe at any point.

[SeVeR]

We know that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary, therefore Bush is responsible for all the hundreds of thousands of dead. I personally believe that he used 9/11, the subsequent approval ratings, and the public acceptance of war in Afghanistan, to get us involved in Iraq. He used the deaths of 3000 people and the misplaced hatred America felt for all Muslims to bring about the deaths of a hundred thousand more. For this he has no equal. People say Bush is the devil. Well, when you're talking about someone who taps into your feelings of vengeance for a horrific horror attack to initiate misery and destruction a hundred times worse... you kind of see where the analogy is coming from.

[Cancer+]

See Astro, I respect the trops and what they did, but they knew what they were getting into. When they signed up, they knew there was a 50/50 chance of dying or living. So really, there isn't a "terrorist attack" if you change it around.

 

Terrorist attack:

"a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims"

 

So SOLDIERS going into another country is NOT a terrorist attack by "having Bush getting them killed."

 

And, If I was president...I don't know what I would have done. Honestly, Saddam was a bad person. He needed taken out of power. That seems to be his "big mistake." Going into Iraq for "no apparent reason." Well he needed to take a bad man out of power. So, I may have used his decisions. I don't know.

 

 

 

ANDDD...I am not a Bush supporter, nor a democrat supporter. I am moderate and hate all politics.

[Aceflyer]

Honestly, Saddam was a bad person. He needed taken out of power. That seems to be his "big mistake." Going into Iraq for "no apparent reason." Well he needed to take a bad man out of power. So, I may have used his decisions.

 

It's obvious that Saddam Hussein was a bad person. No one here's seriously arguing against that. But "need[ing] to take a bad man out of power" is astronomically far from being a sufficient, let alone good, reason to invade and occupy another country.

[Cancer+]

I'm sure we could have asked him to leave. He would have listened. You are right.

[AstroProdigy]

Edited January 20, 2009 by AstroProdigy

[ThunderJam]

his intentions of keeping america safe may be in the right place, but thag doesn't deduct from the fact that his methods and levels of sucsess were questionable.

Just wanted to point out: criticizing his methods his one thing, but as to "level of success" at keeping america safe, I don't think theres anything to really complain about. Like cancer said, we haven't had another major attack.

[AstroProdigy]

his intentions of keeping america safe may be in the right place, but thag doesn't deduct from the fact that his methods and levels of sucsess were questionable.

Just wanted to point out: criticizing his methods his one thing, but as to "level of success" at keeping america safe, I don't think theres anything to really complain about. Like cancer said, we haven't had another major attack.

 

Really? Because our ports are wide open in case terrorists wanted to attack. The whole "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" is a delaying tactic. They build momentum as you continue violent occupations with corrupt puppet governments so that later they'll have a lot more power than they do now. But I guess then you can blame it on a future president and wipe Bush's destructive legacy clean. The whole reason they got the momentum needed to do 9/11 was because they fought a long war with the Soviets and got an ample recruiting ground for the future. Iraq has provided them with another recruiting ground and the repercussions are already starting to come out in much of the Muslim world with battle hardened returning insurgents. The Afghanistan/Pakistan border has turned into what Afghanistan once was except now it threatens a large, nuclear armed Muslim country. The fallout for Bush will be felt for years to come on terrorism alone not to mention global warming and the great neoliberal scam and people will and do blame America in general for electing him twice.

 

But anyway more specifically back to your question if 4000 dead American soldiers and trillions of dollars squandered for a horribly inefficient American version of imperialism that will give us blowback for years if not decades to come counts as success then yes you're right. After all the economic crisis caused by Reagan blew up under Bush Sr. so all those conservatives who have a hard on for Reagan can blame it on Bush for being to moderate just like every economic problem starting from day 1 of Obama's term caused by Bush will be blamed on Obama (some are even blaming the period after the election when Bush was still in power and the economy was continuing to spiral on Obama already) and a future terrorist attack will be blamed on Obama by all those conservative sheep. I just hope people have finally smartened up to the bullshit (unlike the countless other times).

Edited January 20, 2009 by AstroProdigy

[ThunderJam]

his intentions of keeping america safe may be in the right place, but thag doesn't deduct from the fact that his methods and levels of sucsess were questionable.

Just wanted to point out: criticizing his methods his one thing, but as to "level of success" at keeping america safe, I don't think theres anything to really complain about. Like cancer said, we haven't had another major attack.

 

Really? Because our ports are wide open in case terrorists wanted to attack. The whole "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" is a delaying tactic.

Your arguing that we have not been safe the past 7 years because things "could have happened."

[SeVeR]

They aren't attacking America again for one very big reason: Post-9/11 anger is over, and the people of America are beginning to despise the war on terror. To attack again would be to beat themselves. Currently all the terrorist groups are using this ridiculous war in Iraq to get thousands of new recruits, thus perpetuating the cycle. They'll attack America again eventually, but this isn't the time.

[Bak]

Your arguing that we have not been safe the past 7 years because things "could have happened."

I was being safe when I didn't wear seatbelts because I didn't get in a crash.

I didn't use protection but we still had safe sex because I didn't get an STD/pregnant.

Russian Roulette is a safe game because I didn't get kill myself.

[Cancer+]

Astro,

 

I am moderate because I would like to see a president who stands for what HE/SHE believes in. Not what the damn party believes in. Parties are ran by money. This is why I hate politics and am moderate. I can't even say I'm moderate, because I don't like either side. I don't stand behind a certain party and whatever asshole has the money to get in that position wins...no fuck that.

 

So don't sit there and talk shit on other people's beliefs. This is what I believe in and what I stand for. I'm not compromising for anyone.

[FMBI]

Cancer, that's a good position except for the fact that, ever since Nixon and Reagan crushed the press, "moderate" in this country essentially means that you support the pro-corporate, pro-inequality, pro-religious - in short, right-wing - policies of the status quo, simply because you haven't thought about alternatives yet. You inadvertently demonstrate this through your arguments - the best excuses you can come up with to defend Bush are all Republican talking points with zero logical viability.

 

So be a "moderate" if you want - but be forewarned that to truly do so, you're going to have a make a lot of changes to your philosophy, because right now you don't seem to be so much a moderate as an under- (as opposed to completely un-) informed person.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[NBVegita]

"moderate" in this country essentially means that you support the pro-corporate, pro-inequality, pro-religious - in short, right-wing - policies of the status quo, simply because you haven't thought about alternatives yet.

 

That is utter bull shit.

 

Seriously I love how your mind works, if someone isn't as far left as you, they're automatically a right-wing nut job.

 

I view being a moderate as someone who holds ideals from both sides of the fence and can appreciate both sides of the fence.

 

I mean as a moderate Republican I voted for Obama, how do you explain that, being according to you, I'm a right-wing nut? In fact in the last 3 presidential elections I've only voted republican once.

[SeVeR]

you mean you voted for Bush? Was it the first or second term?

 

I was hoping you'd vote Obama NBV. I was thinking that if i called you out on all your right-wing views enough, you'd vote for Obama just to say "I voted for Obama, how do you explain that, being according to you, I'm a right-wing nut?".

 

But i'm sure that's not the reason. Anyhow, the thought had crossed my mind long ago.

[AstroProdigy]

Astro,

 

I am moderate because I would like to see a president who stands for what HE/SHE believes in. Not what the damn party believes in. Parties are ran by money. This is why I hate politics and am moderate. I can't even say I'm moderate, because I don't like either side. I don't stand behind a certain party and whatever asshole has the money to get in that position wins...no fuck that.

 

So don't sit there and talk shit on other people's beliefs. This is what I believe in and what I stand for. I'm not compromising for anyone.

 

No NBVegita is a moderate because he's carefully weighed in all the issues and decided his place is around the middle of the American political spectrum. You admit that you hate politics and you automatically think both sides must be bad and therefore the middle is the only place to go. You've made your decision without looking at the issues because you see two corrupt parties. Just because the two parties (the only ones capable of winning because of a flaw in the founding fathers' thinking) are corrupt that doesn't mean liberal and conservative ideas are automatically wrong. You're correct in hating the two party system as do I. I don't stand behind either party I just find the democrats less distasteful.

 

The funny thing is that "moderate" position you force yourself to take based on a flawed analogy is entirely shaped by the two party system. The strength the Republican party has had since Reagan means "moderate" has taken a distinctive tack to the right. Obama's presidency combined with Democratic control of Congress means "moderate" will take a leftward turn in the years ahead. I bet you'll follow just to be a "moderate". The funny thing is you're just as much a slave to the two party system as the people who follow one party or the other blindly.

 

That's what pisses me off about moderates (sorry to NBVegita). Most of them just become moderates out of ignorance and unwillingness to take a serious look at politics. At least conservatives care about something no matter how misguided I think their beliefs are.

Edited January 21, 2009 by AstroProdigy

[SeVeR]

Moderates are like people with hybrid cars, everyone else is beneath them. Anyway, a moderate is just an unrepresented member of a non-existent party.

[Cancer+]

So because I'm a "moderate", I am ignorant.

 

Now I remember why I don't post in this forum. Because everyone is right and nobody is wrong. Everyone's opinions are better than anyone else's. Nobody thinks logical.

[FMBI]

"moderate" in this country essentially means that you support the pro-corporate, pro-inequality, pro-religious - in short, right-wing - policies of the status quo, simply because you haven't thought about alternatives yet.

 

That is utter bull shit.

 

Seriously I love how your mind works, if someone isn't as far left as you, they're automatically a right-wing nut job.

 

I view being a moderate as someone who holds ideals from both sides of the fence and can appreciate both sides of the fence.

 

I mean as a moderate Republican I voted for Obama, how do you explain that, being according to you, I'm a right-wing nut? In fact in the last 3 presidential elections I've only voted republican once.

 

Not what I said at all. I actually used both senses of the word, depending on what part of my post you look at. My point was that 99.9% of the people who call themselves moderates - and, believe me, virtually everyone I know is like this - can be beaten by the facts in any political argument, but they invariably end up saying "oh, this is a tough issue, let's agree to disagree" - before spewing more right-wing talking points half an hour later, and I'm getting kind of sick it. I guess I'm taking it out on Cancer since Ail isn't here.

 

 

 

Oh, and Veg, one more thing. Us far-lefties (or at least those of us who aren't 19-year old rejects, anyway) think through our positions just as hard and just as often as any moderate - it's just that, seeing as how the facts usually back us up (drug war, Bush doctrine, civil liberties, cultural assimilation, separation of church and state, etc), it's hard to find a real reason to make a 180-degree change.

 

edit - Oh, and one more thing. As far as your accusation of me disliking anyone who isn't far-left: I've always been a fan of David Brooks. He's what I would consider a real moderate, even though he actually calls himself a conservative; his articles during the campaign were remarkably balanced, and he didn't join the orgy of self-effacement among "conservative intellectuals" who suddenly forgot what the Bush doctrine was.

 

And also note that in this edit, I'm bringing up yet another definition of "moderate" in politics, so I'll just make a list and start putting the number of the one I mean from now on:

 

#1 - Someone who considers themselves a centrist but actually is just too ignorant to know what the real issues are;

#2 - Someone who is just in the exact middle on most issues (which, due to the changing "acceptability" of political views over time, often leads these people to radically change their views whenever the 6 o'clock news is on);

#3 - Someone like David Brooks, who openly admits to having one preference or another, but is always revising their position in view of the facts and new developments. Ultimately, in cases like this, what the person's preferred ideology is has remarkably little effect on their actual beliefs. Thus, (to use one of my favorite examples) a liberal can dislike immigration because of worries over the U.S.'s "carrying capacity"; a conservative can believe in fighting global warming because of worries over long-term economic and social health. Because of this, the people in this group can (in my experience) honestly see eye-to-eye, rather than coming up with some sad "I'll stop if you do" tacit agreement.

 

edit2 - Also, sorry, Cancer, I didn't realize at the time I posted how rude that would sound. Again, it isn't insulting you, just a large (and, sadly, growing) group of Americans who reflexively assume that anything too far to either the right or the left is inherently bad - and since the right has dominated the country for the last 30-40 years, that means, essentially, that even Bill O'Reilly can call himself a moderate and get taken seriously by a lot of people. I allowed my general despair to prevail over common sense in my reply. :\

Edited January 22, 2009 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[AstroProdigy]

So because I'm a "moderate", I am ignorant.

 

Now I remember why I don't post in this forum. Because everyone is right and nobody is wrong. Everyone's opinions are better than anyone else's. Nobody thinks logical.

No its because you are a moderate who hates politics and has become a moderate simply because you hate the party establishment. You'd be a legitimate moderate like NBVegita if you became one by looking at the issues and deciding that is where you fall instead of deciding to become a moderate simply because you think parties are corrupt and there are only 2 parties in our political system. I personally don't like the labels at all because they tie people down and pressure them to automatically take on the mainstream opinion of their general group instead of thinking about it logically and possibly coming to a different conclusion. These labels tend to box us into harmfully rigid positions on everything.

 

Not to be insulting, but it's for your own good and the good of everyone else if you go back to why you decided you had to be a moderate and think it through carefully and clearly and ask yourself "does this actually make sense?" You need to come to opinions on each issue through logic and while certain general ideals you have (everyone should be self sufficient, people should not be greedy, etc.) will influence your take on many issues the "I hate this particular two sided American party establishment so I'll take the middle ground" reason is just a load of crap. Imagine if there were three parties with a corrupt middle party what would you do then? By your logic you'd have to take a center left or center right position to not be part of any party establishment, but then you'd be taking a different position than you do now with no difference in the issues so you're not actually looking for what's the best position on issues and you're not helping anyone.

[Cancer+]

My opinion is that I have no opinions on the issues. If that isn't considered moderate, then I'm not a moderate. I am just neither republican nor democratic. I don't like politics because as I said before, everyone is right and noone is wrong. I dislike talking about politics for that very reason because everyone turn into cavemen when they talk about it.

 

In America, I am allowed to not like politics without having some douchebag jumping down my throat. So, I do not like politics, I just simply have opinions about some things here and there.

 

Good enough? Oh wait, it doesn't matter if its good enough for you, I don't care.