Feel better?

[TommyTuna]

Originally Posted by spence

So the idea that the Obama Administration could cleanly pull 90,000 US troops from Iraq over a year into the term isn't an accomplishment they can take credit for?

-spence

I guess that the fact the Status of Forces agreement to drawn down the troops in 2010 signed under Bush had nothing to do with it..fact wise that is.

Oh yes and Spence; Patrick Kennedy is not running for re-election, you should run for the seat, RI needs you, really needs you.

TT

[spence]

Originally Posted by TommyTuna

I guess that the fact the Status of Forces agreement to drawn down the troops in 2010 signed under Bush had nothing to do with it..fact wise that is.

Bush hasn't been POTUS for over a year now, these are Obama's orders and he hold the accountability for success or failure.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Bush hasn't been POTUS for over a year now, these are Obama's orders and he hold the accountability for success or failure.

-spence

You didn't get the memo?

Obama is the end all, be all - responsible for everything that is going on in the country - but only when that everything is dire and furthers the Conservative agenda. If something good follows through, well "Bush set the wheels in motion for that." They forget that 'Bush set the wheels in motion for the economy - right off a cliff' or that he 'set the wheels in motion to be in Iraq under false pretense for 7 years.'

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You didn't get the memo?

Obama is the end all, be all - responsible for everything that is going on in the country - but only when that everything is dire and furthers the Conservative agenda. If something good follows through, well "Bush set the wheels in motion for that." They forget that 'Bush set the wheels in motion for the economy - right off a cliff' or that he 'set the wheels in motion to be in Iraq under false pretense for 7 years.'

Perhaps you didn't get the memo circulating for the past eight years that Bush is the end all, be all of everything bad . . . oh . . . wait . . .you must have gotten the memo, or part of it--"the economy-right off a cliff" . . ."in Iraq under false pretense".

Actually, the economy was beginning its fall during the last year of Clinton's administration (the bursting of the dot.com bubble) and continued through the first year of Bush (of which Bush only served 7 or eight months--remember the delay due to Gore's challenge). Then Bush corrected the fall with tax cuts, etc., and the economy boomed again untill the banking failure that was inspired by, supposedly, a cluster of things that were initiated before Bush, and Bush again, initiated the corrective, the bank bailouts, taking the PR hit for doing so, and handed over (for Obama to inherit), an Iraq on its way to Biden's glowing appraisal, and the bank correction that "saved" the economy from depression, and Obama quickly acted by piling on to the correction an unnecessarily massive "Stimulus" and abandoned fixing the Social Security crisis by trying to add on to it a massively expensive public health care plan. And there's your economy being dragged toward the cliff again, and probably prolonged in the dumps longer than it normally would be.

Again, we get off topic.

And what is the opposite of a false pretense? A true pretense? Was Bush's pretense false because he knew WMDs didn't exist when he went searching for them. Or was his pretense a true pretense because he believed that there were weapons.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Bush hasn't been POTUS for over a year now, these are Obama's orders and he hold the accountability for success or failure.

-spence

Actually, O Slippery One, you know very well that if Iraq fails, Obama and his lefties will point to Bush and say "I told you so." If it continues to go well, AS BUSH PLANNED IT, Obama will take, and the left will give (as OBiden is futuristically doing) him the credit. If it tanks, it's Bush's fault. Win, win for OBama here. And you know it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, O Slippery One, you know very well that if Iraq fails, Obama and his lefties will point to Bush and say "I told you so." If it continues to go well, AS BUSH PLANNED IT, Obama will take, and the left will give (as OBiden is futuristically doing) him the credit. If it tanks, it's Bush's fault. Win, win for OBama here. And you know it.

Actually, if Iraq tanks under this Administration it's a loss for AMERICA and Obama will ultimately take a lot the responsibility.

As for Bush's "planning" this was shoddy at best and corruptly incompetent at the worst. Bush didn't "plan" for Iraq to be a success, rather they "dreamed" it and hoped for the best.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually, if Iraq tanks under this Administration it's a loss for AMERICA and Obama will ultimately take a lot the responsibility.


As for Bush's "planning" this was shoddy at best and corruptly incompetent at the worst. Bush didn't "plan" for Iraq to be a success, rather they "dreamed" it and hoped for the best.

-spence

We probably have different reasons for considering it a loss if Iraq tanks. I don't see how Obama would take responsibility since he has promised to remove us from Iraq.

Bush wanted to create a democratic state. That has happened. It could have been less "messy" if we would have had a strongly united front. But there was no way that any amount of competence, planning, or dreaming could possibly have cleanly and easily achieved it. I have no doubt that he knew the task was immense, mistakes would be made, blood and treasure would be lost. The decision to do it had to be immensely wrenching. No doubt, he knew that he would be opposed, and accused of profiting and having his cronies profit. I don't know in which way he has profited, nor do I believe that he was willing to put this nation and its sons and daughters at such risk for some personal profit, nor profit for oil companies, or any other companies. Oil companies were making plenty of profit before the war. Iraq as a democracy wasn't going to change that. I believe he took his oath of office as an actual oath, not just a verbal formality. I think he saw a growing threat, of which 9/11 was just the tip, and a threat, that if allowed to unobstructedly fester, could be more formidable than it was at the time. It was, and is, a movement that thrives on peaceful negotiations and dialogue to cover its gains. Forcing their hand early, when their strength was still surmountable was, I believe, proper. Waiting and talking was not going to persuade them to go away. The ouster of the Talilban and Bin Ladin from Afghanistan, which is supposed to be the "good" war, already stirred the hornet's nest. It was no time to stay still, but to expand.