Bush vs. Obama

I leaned more toward the Republican side til W. took office and started carrying out his own dangerous agenda. Afghanistan should have been first then take on the others - not immediately go after a dictator (Hussein) who created stability in a region that needed it just because you wanted to make daddy proud.

That mistake blew everything to hell! That is just my opinion

But of course the only thing we can do is live off the what if possibilities.....

He wasn't the only one. If I recall, there were quite a few Democrats that agreed with him. Quite alot, actually.
PLUS, did you see the 60 Minutes interview with Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia? He was asked if he also believed that there had been stockpiles of weapons in Iraq.His response(quote) "Of course. Everyone thought so." Originally Posted by Sweet Heather

and if you watched the 60 Minutes show that interviewed the FBI agent who talked to Sadam every day for 6 months, he said as soon as the heat was off he was building them again.

He also said he did not think GW had the guts to come all the way to Bagdad

Anybody noticed the unrest there is in Iran because they see Iraq and all the freedoms they NOW have thanks to GW. I predict the people of Iran will revolt thus solving another problem

George Bush = Stupid. I mean, really just plain old dumb.
Barak Obama = Ineffective. Great speaker, can't walk the talk.
Republicans = American Taliban. Lunatics. Sarah Palin.
Democrats = Crooked incompetents. Will never get anything done. Nancy Pelosi.
Tea Party = Can't even spell. These are the imbeciles who will even listen to "drill baby, drill" from Sarah Palin. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Can we not go back to the days of Conservatives and Liberals, with intelligence in each party? Can we please focus on conservative and liberal agendas and leave religion out of it? Can we please stop stepping on our dicks on the world stage?

I'm incredibly proud to be an American but I'm fucking embarrassed by the Bush and Obama regimes.

Hmm...

I remember when Reagan was in the White House. We had Bobe Hope and Johnny Cash.

Now with Obama in the White House, we have no HOPE... and no CASH.

Trooper H

OK, so we have some facts, or at least references from sources that may/ may not be fact. By this I mean that Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman talk but do not necessarily represent facts.

I am a feel sorta guy. Does this feel like it is going in the right direction? If so, why?

looked like a good copy and paste job, prolly from a left leaning website. both sides can go fuck each other but its funny how libs still refer to blame everything on Bush when Obama has been President for over 6 months and he has total accountability. it seems the libs want to talk about Bush because their own idiot sucks as bad or actually much worse.

Coke vs. New Coke
ADM has their dick up both asses.

The OP was right here are more facts with the sources to back the facts up that Bush was a complete Fuck Up:
. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq. A fraction of the cost in terms of GDP that Johnson spent on Vietnam. . . a country of absolutely no strategic importance to the US. . . as I agree Afghanistan is. . . but Iraq is strategic.
Source: American Progress
2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees. He also didn't send them with megwatt pulse rifles. . . for the same reason, the armored Humvees did not exist. But the body armor issue was a lie from day one. . . at least according to my son, my two nephews, my brother's nephew and my sister -in -laws nephews who combines served 7 tours in Iraq and 1 in Afghanistan (2 going back there in the spring) in 3 different branches of the armed forces.
Sources: Fox News, The Boston Globe
3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.
Source: PBS Seems to be the SOP in DC, since Big O ignored his general for months, then ponies up 2/3 of the troops he asked for. . . with a very low percentage as combat arms.
4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq. Again, according to the first hand accounts of my relatives, most did just that.
Source: The Washington Post
5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.
Source: globalsecurity.org Wow, a President who could not prevent casualties. . . during a war. What an incompetent.
6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.
Source: Yahoo News He was right, that carrier's deployment was ending as was the conventional war. The military had accomplished the mission they had been given. Where he fucked up was giving them the new mission of nation building. Every fuck up he did was when he mimicked what the left wanted or had previously done.
7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda. The same folks on the commission who thought Fannie was fine. Self serving political hacks. MSNBC, now there's a source LMFAO
Source: MSNBC , 9-11 Commission
8. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," warning "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The government's top nuclear scientists had told the Administration the tubes were "too narrow, too heavy, too long" to be of use in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes.
Source: New York Times
9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction. First he spent too much, now not enough heh?
Source: USA Today
10. According to the Administration's handpicked weapon's inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so." After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, "There was a risk--a real risk--that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons, or materials, or information to terrorist networks." He damned sure won't now, will he? Unless you count the 15 semis that moved into the Bacca valley before the invasion.
Sources: New York Times, White House news release
11. According to Duelfer, the UN inspections regime put an "economic strangle hold" on Hussein that prevented him from developing a WMD program for more than twelve years. Is this the same UN filled with officials who were personally paid off with oil by Sadam?
Source: Los Angeles Times
TERRORISM
12. After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America," President Bush continued his monthlong vacation. Meanwhile, Obama, like so many who voted for him. . . thinks he's Tiger Woods.
Source: CNN.com
13. The Bush Administration failed to commit enough troops to capture Osama bin Laden when US forces had him cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in November 2001. Instead, they relied on local warlords.
Source: csmonitor.com Pretty much what O is doing today.
14. The Bush Administration secured less nuclear material from sites around the world vulnerable to terrorists in the two years after 9/11 than were secured in the two years before 9/11.
Source: nti.org Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Jimmy Carter gave nuclear technology to North Korea. . . top that for incompetence. . . oh wait, O has almost 3 more years. . . never mind.

To expand on Wellendowed1911 comments on terrorism,

TERRORISM
12. After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America," President Bush continued his monthlong vacation.
Source: CNN.com
13. The Bush Administration failed to commit enough troops to capture Osama bin Laden when US forces had him cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in November 2001. Instead, they relied on local warlords.
Source: csmonitor.com
14. The Bush Administration secured less nuclear material from sites around the world vulnerable to terrorists in the two years after 9/11 than were secured in the two years before 9/11.
Source: nti.org

I recommend reading "Marching toward Hell: the US and Islam after Iraq" by Michael Scheurer, former head of the Bin Laden section at the CIA. Then you can experience the true sense of outrage due items 12, 13 and 14.

sancocho.

Well isn't that special.

If Slick Willie Clinton, your hero, had gotten Bin Laden when offered on a silver platter, 9/11 most likely never would have happened.

And like others living in a fantasy land, Presidents aren't on vacation when they are not in the White House in August. The people's business doesn't come to a halt. Bush worked while in Texas. keep reading and watching that Commie News Network, it will really educate ya.

We ought to be figuring out how to work together to solve the problems we're facing rather than placing blame. Some of the issues facing us are of such magnitude, and pose such a significant risk to our nation, that one would hope we could set aside the partisanship to try to get something done...alas....

That's impossible so long as the Republican's agenda is driven entirely by trying to ensure Obama fails at everything he tries to do so they can get back in power.

As for Obama's competence, or lack thereof, I note that's the buzzword/talking point all the republican/conservative zombies keep chanting. No doubt a result of hearing it over and over from the conservative entertainment industry types(Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) used by the GOP as their PR department. What the republicans learned as a result of the '06 and '08 election losses was that the stunning lack of competence displayed by the Bush administration doesn't bode well for incumbents. So, they've decided to do what they always do: repeat something that lacks any significant factual foundation until people start believing it may be true.

On a different, but related, topic: it's a long way off and anything could happen....but, who is it exactly that you GOP types think is going to have any chance at all of beating Obama in the 2012 presidential election?

timpage,

Republicans agenda is for him to fail? Really?

The VAST majority of the nation did not want Obamacare yet the Dems forced it through using slick tactics to ram it through without following proper procedures.

How is the GOP agenda different from the rest of the people out there? I'd say that it's the same.

I'd say that Obama going on an apology tour when he was first in office didn't sit well with more than just the GOP. And his recent speech calling WWII the Great Patriotic War was a slap in the face to every veteran of WWII still alive and an insult to those killed by the Russians prior to them switching sides when Hitler double crossed Stalin.

When Obama sat on his ass for over 2 months while the generals asked for more troops, the Commander in Chief sat on his hands (or played golf) and failed to act and even then, he didn't send the troops requested. Funny how folks like to claim Bush didn't use enough troops in Iraq but ignore this very recent example where Obama did worse.

Well said LL

Very nice Iaintliein. Owned. Originally Posted by bslither10

+1

Tell us who are out of work for the first time in 40 years just how great Obama's job stimulus has worked.

We ought to be figuring out how to work together to solve the problems we're facing rather than placing blame. Okay. Some of the issues facing us are of such magnitude, and pose such a significant risk to our nation, that one would hope we could set aside the partisanship to try to get something done...alas.... Agreed, I just read that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs now says our debt is the biggest threat to national security.

That's impossible so long as the Republican's agenda is driven entirely by trying to ensure Obama fails at everything he tries to do so they can get back in power. But, of course the Democrats' blind obidience to Obama's agenda ensuring he gets everything he wants is hunky, dory, yes, I understand you. . . perfectly.

As for Obama's competence, or lack thereof, I note that's the buzzword/talking point all the republican/conservative zombies Name calling, an excellent way to promote unity and time proven way for the left to address an issue. . . well done. keep chanting. No doubt a result of hearing it over and over from the conservative entertainment industry types(Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) used by the GOP as their PR department. So, those of us who do not agree with you must be programmed because anyone who thinks for themselves, like you for example, must agree with Obama's agenda, got it. What the republicans learned as a result of the '06 and '08 election losses was that the stunning lack of competence displayed by the Bush administration doesn't bode well for incumbents. Certainly the GOP (of which I am not a part, just to burst one more popular assumption) does, in fact need to learn from those elections, they need to learn that trying to outflank the left to the left never works. So, they've decided to do what they always do: repeat something that lacks any significant factual foundation until people start believing it may be true Like socialism? Big government spending programs? More government involvement in the economy?

On a different, but related, topic: it's a long way off and anything could happen....but, who is it exactly that you GOP types think is going to have any chance at all of beating Obama in the 2012 presidential election? Again, I am not a "GOP type" ,but in consideration of a few facts, like despite having every major news outlet in the country openly promoting him, Obama won by a narrower margin than Bush did in '04, despite the continued support of every major news outlet and their history of blatantly and continuously attacking Bush for many years, Obama's popularity has fallen farther and faster than Bush's. . . well gee, who could beat a guy like that?

It's an academic question in my opinion anyway. The Clintons underestimated Obama once, they won't do that again. My prediction is that his only involvement in the next election will be as a photo op for Hillary. Originally Posted by timpage

Of course, if unity really is what you are after, you could simply abandon your belief in big government being the solution and join us, you are more than welcome.

Regards,