[ms61853]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091803049.html

For the past 150 years, most American war presidents -- most notably Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt -- have entered (or reentered) office knowing war was looming. Not so George W. Bush. Not so the war on terror. The 9/11 attacks literally came out of the blue.

Indeed, the three presidential campaigns between the fall of the Berlin Wall and Sept. 11, 2001, were the most devoid of foreign policy debate of any in the 20th century. The commander-in-chief question that dominates our campaigns today was almost nowhere in evidence during our '90s holiday from history.

When I asked President Bush during an interview Monday to reflect on this oddity, he cast himself back to early 2001, recalling what he expected his presidency would be about: education reform, tax cuts and military transformation from a Cold War structure to a more mobile force adapted to smaller-scale 21st-century conflict.

But a wartime president he became. And that is how history will both remember and judge him.

Getting a jump on history, many books have already judged him. The latest by Bob Woodward describes the commander in chief as unusually aloof and detached. A more favorably inclined biographer might have called it equanimity.


In the hour I spent with the president (devoted mostly to foreign policy), that equanimity was everywhere in evidence -- not the resignation of a man in the twilight of his presidency but a sense of calm and confidence in eventual historical vindication.

It is precisely that quality that allowed him to order the surge in Iraq in the face of intense opposition from the political establishment (of both parties), the foreign policy establishment (led by the feckless Iraq Study Group), the military establishment (as chronicled by Woodward) and public opinion itself. The surge then effected the most dramatic change in the fortunes of an American war since the summer of 1864.

That kind of resolve requires internal fortitude. Some have argued that too much reliance on this internal compass is what got us into Iraq in the first place. But Bush was hardly alone in that decision. He had a majority of public opinion, the commentariat and Congress with him. In addition, history has not yet rendered its verdict on the Iraq war. We can say that it turned out to be longer and more costly than expected, surely. But the question remains as to whether the now-likely outcome -- transforming a virulently aggressive enemy state in the heart of the Middle East into a strategic ally in the war on terror -- was worth it. I suspect the ultimate answer will be far more favorable than it is today.

When I asked the president about his one unambiguous achievement, keeping us safe for seven years -- about 6 1/2 years longer than anybody thought possible just after Sept. 11 -- he was quick to credit both the soldiers keeping the enemy at bay abroad and the posse of law enforcement and intelligence officials hardening our defenses at home.

But he alluded also to some of the measures he had undertaken, including "listening in on the enemy" and "asking hardened killers about their plans." The CIA has already told us that interrogation of high-value terrorists such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed yielded more valuable intelligence than any other source. In talking about these measures, the president mentioned neither this testimony as to their efficacy nor the campaign of vilification against him that they occasioned. More equanimity still.

What the president did note with some pride, however, is that beyond preventing a second attack, he is bequeathing to his successor the kinds of powers and institutions the next president will need to prevent further attack and successfully prosecute the long war. And indeed, he does leave behind a Department of Homeland Security, reorganized intelligence services with newly developed capacities to share information and a revised FISA regime that grants broader and modernized wiretapping authority.

In this respect, Bush is much like Truman, who developed the sinews of war for a new era (the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA), expanded the powers of the presidency, established a new doctrine for active intervention abroad, and ultimately engaged in a war (Korea) -- also absent an attack on the United States -- that proved highly unpopular.

So unpopular that Truman left office disparaged and highly out of favor. History has revised that verdict. I have little doubt that Bush will be the subject of a similar reconsideration.

[smitch124]

I think there's still room to squeeze him onto Mt. Rushmore...

[jtuck]

Great president if you can get over his administration's lying so that the public would support invading Iraq, which seems like a little bit of a big deal.

[MonkeyF0cker]

His face should be on the million dollar bill when all it buys us is a gallon of gas and a Kit-Kat, sometime in the next few years at the rate we're headed...

[ms61853]

Originally Posted by jtuck

Great president if you can get over his administration's lying so that the public would support invading Iraq, which seems like a little bit of a big deal.

What lie did he tell?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

[HeeeHAWWWW]

There's also the minor issue of leaving office with a humungous depression looming. Oh, and massively abusing constitutional rights, expanding the surveillance state etc. Oh, and spending like a drunken sailor, leaving gigantic debts so that future generatiojns will be paying higher taxes for decades to come. Oh, and having no plan for Iraq beyond the two weeks of initial conflict. Oh, and failing to stabilise Afghanistan so that 7 years after the invasion, the Taliban are still improving in strength. Oh, and completely ignoring the catastrophic destruction of a major American city, leaving the emergency response to somebody with zero qualifications beyond being his golf buddy.

Etc, etc, etc.

Worst president since Harding.

[ms61853]

Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker

His face should be on the million dollar bill when all it buys us is a gallon of gas and a Kit-Kat, sometime in the next few years at the rate we're headed...

Most definitely if Hussein Osama is elected.

[picantel]

Once again you guys are humoring this retard.

[Bluehorseshoe]

Great President........... if you work for.....


The Oil industry.


Haliburton.



Or on Wall Street.

[fiveteamer]

The progressive media watchdog group, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), criticized Krauthammer, along with political analyst William Kristol, for their profuse praise of George W. Bush's second inaugural address on January 20, 2005. On FOX News, Krauthammer called the speech "revolutionary" in its advocacy of universal freedom and compared Bush to former U.S. President John F. Kennedy whose inaugural address expansively pledged that "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” FAIR charged that both Krauthammer and Kristol failed to note that as advisers, they'd helped write the speech, an allegation that Krauthammer denies.

[HedgeHog]

Bush = Truman?

One similarity though is that Truman made the decision to nuke the Japs (twice), while instead GW nuked US: eroding rights, destroying the economy and creating never before seen debt. Yeah we need McCain to continue GW's BS policies.

[Helmut]

That piece of shit should be hung just like Saddam was.

[patsfan2727]

"Accomplishments" of George W. Bush, the worst president in U.S. History

1) Lied numerous times about Weapons of Mass Destruction that did not exist

2) Invaded a sovereign nation without provocation or justification

3) Lied during the State of the Union speech about Niger Uranium

4) Directly responsible for pre-9/11 intelligence failures

5) Allowed 9/11 murderers to remain free while diverting military and financial resources to war in Iraq

6) Lied about connection between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein

7) Turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground

8) Disrespected and alienated the US from many key allies

9) Lied to Americans about the real cost of war

10) Fostered an environment of torture at Guantanamo Bay

11) Invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq done simply to line Haliburtons pockets with huge no-bid contracts

12) Undermanned and underequipped armed forces in Iraq

13) Ignored Nulcear buildup in Iran/N.Korea

14) Lied about the effects of man-made pollutants to keep his Corporate cronies happy

15) Lied about the insolvency of the Social Security System

16) Gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy

17) Divided the nation among religious, ethical, and party preferences

18) Rewarded failures of Rumsfeld, Condelezza Rice with key promotions

19) Dreadful energy policies led to record gas and oil prices

20) Responsible for largest debt in US history

21) Oversaw collossal failure of FEMA during hurricane Katrina

22) Helped to mold No Child Left Behind, then watched it fail

23) Allegations of fraud surrounding BOTH elections in which he was nominated "president"

24) Not elected by a majority of the popular vote in 2000

25) Lowest public approval rating in the history of presidents

and last but not least........

26) LOWEST IQ OF ANY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY ( 91)

can you guess the president with the 2nd lowest IQ????

that's right, his daddy, George HW Bush, (98)

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." George W Bush, CNN, 18th December 2000

[slacker00]

Originally Posted by ms61853

What lie did he tell?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

That's the one. Hillary must've picked it up and ran it too, she deserves a footnote in W's reign of error.

[ms61853]

Originally Posted by slacker00

That's the one. Hillary must've picked it up and ran it too, she deserves a footnote in W's reign of error.

It wasn't just Hillary:


http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

[ms61853]

Do you clowns get all your knowledge from moveon.org talking points. Every item in that list is easily debunked. For example, the Presidential IQs are from a known spoof and is completely made up out of whole cloth.

[ms61853]

Originally Posted by fiveteamer

The progressive media watchdog group, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), [/b]

progressive -- code for radical left ideology; also known as moonbats.

[JC]

If someone can transfer some of these charts to here, I would appreciate it.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Have you seen what Bush has done to the national debt? Even if you take out the Iraq war, no President has presided over such a growth in the Federal government. Some conservative! Ha.

His folly in Iraq is nothing more than welfare for defense contractors. What costs $10 billion a month? Soldier's salaries, ammo, fuel? No, it's outsourcing the war and reconstruction to no bid contractors often using cost plus contracts.

Bush only sent 15,000 troops to Afghanistan, where the terrorists were. But he sends 150,000 troops to Iraq. If he had sent 150,000 to Afghanistan, they probably would have caught Bin Laden long ago.

What did this guy do right?

[slacker00]

Originally Posted by ms61853

It wasn't just Hillary:


http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

Flush them all down the toilet. I'm not a democrat, so I'm not going to defend anyone rubberstamping anything. I'm one of those famous "swing voters". Looks like Wisconsin might decide this election and I can't wait to cast my vote and communicate with all of my neighbors about my feelings on this election.

For the record, I've voted in 4 presidential elections so far:
1992: Ross Perot
1996: Harry Brown (Libertarian)
2000: GWB (I kick myself every day)
2004: Kerry (It was my anti-bush vote, I think Kerry is a joke)
2008: Probably Obama (I don't want another GWB, McCain is too old anyway, Palin is a joke)

If McCain would've been on the ticket in 2000, I absolutely would've voted for him, maybe even in 2004 because I don't think he could have handled 911 and Iraq any worse than GWB. Maybe McCain being a vet could have had some useful insight to steer our way in these catostrophic wars. As it is, McCain's ship has sailed and at 71 he's just too old to elect, IMHO.

[pavyracer]

I heard that the George W Bush presidential library will only store comic books.

[pico]

i see the bail out as an tax cut for the rich

[jtuck]

Originally Posted by ms61853

What lie did he tell?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Thanks, I'm well aware Democrats and Republicans both were led to believe there were weapons. Both parties are out to screw people over, this isn't a partisan deal. Its about right and wrong.

Facts
1. In 2003 George Bush said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The only problem is, this isn't true. Article to explain it.
2. One of their key witnesses for going to war, "Curveball", was seen by Germany and others as an unreliable source of information and was found to have lied about his personal background, yet this administration used his claims as fact.
3. Former CIA director George Tenet told President Bush that there was no evidence of WMD's in Iraq, yet for some reason the administration didn't tell congress about this before they voted to send us to war.

[patsfan2727]

Originally Posted by ms61853

Do you clowns get all your knowledge from moveon.org talking points. Every item in that list is easily debunked. For example, the Presidential IQs are from a known spoof and is completely made up out of whole cloth.

Ha, of course a Bush supporter only debunks the point about his IQ. Doesn't say anything about how Bush ruined the Economy, our foreign standing, and Americans' faith in government.

Since you're calling me a clown, maybe you would take a second to explain this....

We invaded Iraq for no reason, with no proof of any WMD.
Shocker, Haliburton gets no bid contracts as a result.

George Bush and Dick Cheney are war profiteers, in fact many
Americans in fact believe that they continued the war just to get re-elected. please America, don't let the same thing happen with McCainiac

[ritehook]

Bush is a bust.

He is to America what the iceberg was to the Titanic.

[ryanXL977]

Originally Posted by ms61853

It wasn't just Hillary:


http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

all you are proving is that bush isnt the only liar. difference is he started this war, not hillary

keep passging the buck though
make excuses for your leaders


zombie

[ryanXL977]

90% of bush voters see the disaster and are ashamed and they just dont talk about it

this guy brags about his vote for 10000 disasters

hilarious

[englishmike]

Originally Posted by ms61853

What lie did he tell?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

I don't really want to get involved in this because I dont know enough about it but I do know that Saddam Hussein puposely ordered thousands of chemical warfare suits before Iraq was invaded, presumeably to make people think he had chemical weapons even if he didn't. Tony Blair admitted that he probably put too much emphasis on the ordering of the suits but the suits were ordered nonetheless, presumeably because Hussein thought the coalition would think twice if they were risking losing thousands of men to chemical attack. All that happened to Saddam Hussein was his bluff was called, after he was told the invasion was coming and after he was offered safe haven in exile in more than one other country up until the night before the bombing started.

I'm not trying to make a point either left or right, but it is worth remembering that some of the events that led up to the invasion were non-political and required decisions 'on the fly,' that in hindsight were probably wrong and only compounded other bad choices made along the way. Sometimes things don't have to be political either way, it's possible theyre just incompetence and poor decisions by people who would lose their job in any other sphere, people don't always have ulterior motives, sometimes they're just dumb.

[ryanXL977]

they harbored no terrorists, they had nothing to do with 911

[Cloak & Dagger]

Originally Posted by ryanXL977

they harbored no terrorists, they had nothing to do with 911

I see you are becoming real popular here on SBR forum...

[ms61853]

1. In 2003 George Bush said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The only problem is, this isn't true.

That statement was not based on the forged documents and the British Butler Report maintains the statement is absolutely true.


The fact is there were two separate bipartisan investigation which concluded that the assessment of WMDs in Iraq was based on faulty intelligence available to everyone. Nobody "lied." Except those who want to insist Bush lied.

[ryanXL977]

keep making excuses for presidents
keep on cheerleading

you got your 8 years, hasnt worked out so hot. lets try something new.

hey, maybe you will like it

[ms61853]

We invaded Iraq for no reason, with no proof of any WMD.


Not according to the intelligence provided for years. And WMDs weren't the only reason cited for the invasion.

Shocker, Haliburton gets no bid contracts as a result.

Congratulations for working the moonbat anti-Bush word "Halliburton" into the discussion. You get 5 moonbat points for that. But what do they have to do with anything? Cheney? he severed ties with them in 2000.

[ryanXL977]

keep making excuses, first call the other side moonbat, then, disregard their points and call them unamerican

finally, make excuses for fully grown adults, men who are running the country

keep making excuses for leaders

you would be a great commie or nazi

yes sir dear leader!

[MonkeyF0cker]

Right. And Bush nor Cheney had no idea who Valerie Plame was. That's why Scooter Libby was convicted and Bush commuted his sentence. Are you that retarded to believe that? Or just too arrogant and bull-headed to ever admit that your side was at fault? Probably a combination of the two...

[ms61853]

Right. And Bush nor Cheney had no idea who Valerie Plame was.

It was Richard Armitage (a vocal critic of the Iraq war), not Bush or Cheney, who revealed her identity, and strangely, no charges were levied against him


That's why Scooter Libby was convicted and Bush commuted his sentence.

Sccoter Libby was convicted of supposedly lying to a grand jury because his recall of events differed from that of reporters. He was not convicted of any crime dealing with the actual outing of Plame.