Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55

Thread: History's jury is still out on George W. Bush

  1. -41
    Tetragrammaton's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    9,546
    vCash:
    2328
    Thanks / No Thanks
    The decision to invade Iraq makes him a terrible President. The rationale was that Saddam Hussein was connected to Usama bin Laden and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, neither of which were true. Most would agree that "starting a war for no good reason" makes one a terrible President. Economics and domestic policy can be debated, but his legacy on both is pretty low. He might not have been as bad as Reagan or Clinton, but he did continue a trend of awful administrations with severe economic mismanagement and major human rights violations.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -42
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2010
    Posts:
    2,012
    vCash:
    5224
    Loc:
    Jersey
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Dolphins Homer1972 Dolphins Logo2013 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    I didn't want to get into it since it's such a contentious topic, but I actually don't think Bin Laden succeeds in his attack had Gore been President. I personally think if anyone else but Bush was President at that time, the attacks don't happen. You're right about the recently declassified documents. It looks like it was known an attack was being planned and the Bush administration just didn't take it seriously. All of this is my personal opinion, but I can't say for sure which is why I said I can't say whether or not the attack still would have happened.

    Things would be hugely different, and I think we'd have a very VERY pissed right leaning population. A left leaning judge would give the Supreme Court a liberal bias, probably making things like gay marriage and abortion rights a slam dunk if sent up. I much prefer the current set up with 4 lefties, 4 righties, and a moderate. Studies show that decision made with both supporting and dissenting views tend to have the best outcomes. As much as I'd like a left-leaning Supreme Court, I think it's in the U.S.'s best interest to have the current set up. Except Scalia. **** that guy. Can't wait until he retires. Replace him with a rightie who actually doesn't have his head up his ass...
    I'm sorry but what the **** is wrong with you. It wasn't bush's fault 9/11 happened. It was a bunch of terrorists from al Qaeda that executed the attack and no matter who was the president could have stopped it. It is a well known fact that different agencies had different bits and pieces of knowledge of the plan but due to lack of interagency dialogue no one but all the pieces together. Before you claim gore would have stopped it then why didn't he and Clinton take out Osama in the 90s when they had the shot? It's statements like this that offends me as someone who lost friends and family on 9/11, I don't care if you criticize his actions after the fact but to imply that people could have prevented it and actively chose to do nothing is disgraceful
    Quote Quote  

  3. -43
    J. David Wannyheimer's Avatar
    Why did it have to be snakes?

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2011
    Posts:
    14,172
    vCash:
    67783
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    How so? Gore won the popular vote Nationally, and in Florida. It took Supreme Court intervention to stop the counting in Florida. That's why it's still a major point of contention to this day. Had Bush won the popular vote in Florida, there would still be fringe people talking about it, but no where near the number of people there still is. By all accounts, Gore won in 2000 and it was taken from him by the Supreme Court...
    Gore lost the vote in Florida. The Herald even counted and recounted after the fact. That's just a fact. To assert otherwise is 100% delusion.

    Bush was a bad president but he was elected fairly.
    I'm here to tell the truth about top secret Air Force project BAR STOOL. Gamma ray radiation from the particle accelerator under Joe Robbie Stadium is real! Get out while you can! This bad football team is just a front for something far more sinister!
    Quote Quote  

  4. -44
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,855
    vCash:
    3242
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by mrhankey81701 View Post
    I'm sorry but what the **** is wrong with you. It wasn't bush's fault 9/11 happened. It was a bunch of terrorists from al Qaeda that executed the attack and no matter who was the president could have stopped it. It is a well known fact that different agencies had different bits and pieces of knowledge of the plan but due to lack of interagency dialogue no one but all the pieces together. Before you claim gore would have stopped it then why didn't he and Clinton take out Osama in the 90s when they had the shot? It's statements like this that offends me as someone who lost friends and family on 9/11, I don't care if you criticize his actions after the fact but to imply that people could have prevented it and actively chose to do nothing is disgraceful
    Know what offends me? How no one can offer a single critical statement without people flipping balls. The entire attitude of "You cant criticize a President in a time of war" is complete bull**** and it is absolutely fair game to question the events that lead to a war and calmly wonder(a decade plus later) if it all could have been avoided. You, of course, seem to agree with that since you didnt hestitate to bring up Clinton and the 90's.

    Also, it was lack of interagency dialogue? Really?

    That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

    The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
    But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

    In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

    “The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

    And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

    Yet, the White House failed to take significant action.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/op...f=opinion&_r=0

    Published 9/10/2012. You know, a day before the Benghazi attacks. I have no doubt youve heard of that attack, seeing as how even months later people and politicians are wondering how a terrorist attack could have been prevented all the while insisting that President Obama is to blame.

    Its unfortunate you lost people you care about to the attacks. You have my sympathies. I lost friends in Iraq and Afghan. But im not demanding anyone refuse to talk about those wars nor do i find it offensive when people do talk about it.
    Last edited by Spesh; 04-29-2013 at 02:34 PM.
    "I'm not here to be a distraction," Pouncey said.
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...ogical-testing
    Quote Quote  

  5. -45
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,782
    vCash:
    4734
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by registeredguy View Post
    Gore lost the vote in Florida. The Herald even counted and recounted after the fact. That's just a fact. To assert otherwise is 100% delusion.

    Bush was a bad president but he was elected fairly.
    Of course he lost the count. But I disagree that he lost the vote. It has been argued about the validity of the count, but that could go either way. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I'm not going to give credence to any black ops junk that some people on the left like to argue. It's the voters that were wrongly disenfranchised, disqualified, etc that is the point of contention. All of them who just so happened to come from the demographic that votes heavily Democrat. That's what I'm talking about when I say Gore won Florida.

    I did read a few articles talking about how Gore even still had more votes after recounts, which is what I was referencing in earlier posts. I'd post them if I had even the slightest clue where I saw them since this was years ago...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  6. -46
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,782
    vCash:
    4734
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by mrhankey81701 View Post
    I'm sorry but what the **** is wrong with you. It wasn't bush's fault 9/11 happened. It was a bunch of terrorists from al Qaeda that executed the attack and no matter who was the president could have stopped it. It is a well known fact that different agencies had different bits and pieces of knowledge of the plan but due to lack of interagency dialogue no one but all the pieces together. Before you claim gore would have stopped it then why didn't he and Clinton take out Osama in the 90s when they had the shot? It's statements like this that offends me as someone who lost friends and family on 9/11, I don't care if you criticize his actions after the fact but to imply that people could have prevented it and actively chose to do nothing is disgraceful
    You have no idea what you're talking about. Recently declassified documents that have been released (one of which Spesh cited) paint a VERY different picture. They show that intelligence told them an attack on U.S. soil was not only a possibility, but maybe even likely. It just wasn't taken seriously. No idea why, and I have no desire to speculate. But it's more than obvious that the Bush administration just didn't think it would happen. No one is saying Bush purposely let the attack happen. But had he taken the intel he had more seriously, this 100% could have been prevented...
    Quote Quote  

  7. -47
    J. David Wannyheimer's Avatar
    Why did it have to be snakes?

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2011
    Posts:
    14,172
    vCash:
    67783
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    Of course he lost the count. But I disagree that he lost the vote. It has been argued about the validity of the count, but that could go either way..
    The United States would never have gotten involved in Vietnam, a far more costly war, if John F. Kennedy had not stolen the 1960 election with voter fraud in Chicago.

    See how silly this is? Of course, the best part is that you can make a far better case for fraudulent activity in the 1960 election, but hey, that was 53 years ago, right?
    Quote Quote  

  8. -48
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,782
    vCash:
    4734
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by registeredguy View Post
    The United States would never have gotten involved in Vietnam, a far more costly war, if John F. Kennedy had not stolen the 1960 election with voter fraud in Chicago.

    See how silly this is? Of course, the best part is that you can make a far better case for fraudulent activity in the 1960 election, but hey, that was 53 years ago, right?
    Far before my time, so I can't comment on that.

    Silly or not, the question posed on the first page of the thread was how different would the country have been if Gore had one. This whole thread turned into hypotheticals at that point...
    Quote Quote  

  9. -49
    J. David Wannyheimer's Avatar
    Why did it have to be snakes?

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2011
    Posts:
    14,172
    vCash:
    67783
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    Far before my time, so I can't comment on that.

    Silly or not, the question posed on the first page of the thread was how different would the country have been if Gore had one. This whole thread turned into hypotheticals at that point...
    Sure. I was just commenting on your assertion that 'Gore won the popular vote... in Florida.' which is nothing but hypothetical.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -50
    JamesBW43's Avatar
    You're standing on my neck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    3,593
    vCash:
    4522
    Loc:
    Gainesville, Florida
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by registeredguy View Post
    Gore lost the vote in Florida. The Herald even counted and recounted after the fact. That's just a fact. To assert otherwise is 100% delusion.

    Bush was a bad president but he was elected fairly.
    Supposedly not all the ballots were made available, and some of these attempts to count the votes after the fact used different standards of determining which votes to count.
    Not every human is a manipulative, opportunistic, letch... or at least that's what I'm told.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 93
    Last Post: 07-15-2013, 05:52 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-27-2012, 11:26 AM
  3. Bush 2.0: 100 Ways Barack Obama Is Just Like George W. Bush
    By Dolphins9954 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-03-2011, 08:18 PM
  4. Laura Bush: George Bush 'Owes' Obama Silence
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-08-2009, 02:23 PM
  5. George W. Bush: The New LBJ?
    By Blitz in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-05-2005, 03:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •