First Draft of History Looks a Bit Rough on Bush

[Old Hippie]

"...or you European America-bashers, including the monomaniac Bush-haters (yes, he's not so good, we know that already, but he is not a monster):..."

 

 

Yeah, he more less is, and many argue is guilty of war crimes etc...Something needs to be done about it. Doubt anything will be done.

[Old Hippie]

"...But beyond all that, and what makes his terms in office rise far above the current clod is that, as I remember it, most people...especially in his first term, felt very positive about being an American in those years. After watching the Iranians take our people hostage...we were strong again. It was "morning in America"..."

 

 

I recall that as well, that is until we learned that his administration manipulated the amount of time the hostages remained held.

[rogueyam]

...his administration manipulated the amount of time the hostages remained held.

 

False.

[Old Hippie]

Then what was all that fuss on the issue raised during the Iran contra arms deal? for which Reagan was nearly impeached. And why were/are there law suits from some of the former hostages based on this believe/fact you call false?

 

While "the October Surprise" was never "proven," it is certainly possible that those involved in it were also capable of covering it up. Do you honestly believe these people were doing back handed arms deals with the enemy, and not manipulating things to their own advantage in the process? Government is a dirty business full of lies and deceit (regardless of party) time you come to terms with this, and realize "your guy" might not be so perfect and clean.

[devils reject]

Who said anything about Europe?

 

You' date=' when you said "...or anyone else".

So the world only consists of two nations?

 

Over 70% of Americans think the current administration sucks balls.

 

Over 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Yeah sure, by lefty pinko commie USA haters. Do you actually believe the drivel you post? Are you Sean Hannity in disguise?

[playtheblues]

But he got rid of Saddam Hussein, a genuine monster. This seems to be totally forgotten in the debate. The international community has not only the right but also the duty to intervene against a tyrant who commit serious crimes against his own people. Now, the intervention was unilateral, and that's indeed an issue, but also remember that the left kept quiet when Clinton intervened in Bosnia.

 

There's a lot of accusations against Bush out in the air right now, and some, but not all of them, will stand scrutiny. Remember those 600000 deaths published in a scientific monthly last year? This was an intentional falsification by a leftist group, aimed at discrediting Bush, it's now revealed and admitted to.

 

I think Bush ( and Blair) actually believed in the prospect of spreading democracy in the ME, by eliminating Saddam and his clique, but they and the Bush administrations terribly neglected the enourmous problem of rebuilding a society almost totally lacking national unity.

 

And the oil of course. But don't forget that the aim to prevent future oil supply to be controlled by Saddam and other ME autocrats also was intended for the comfort of those European free riding caviar leftists who denounce Western over- consumption from their first class seats.

 

And it also seems forgotten that a lot of Americans initially supported the invasion despite doubts about the WMD motive.

 

(Cannot believe that I seem to defend Bush, but, again, it's only as a balancing act...)

 

 

[Old Hippie]

"...Now, the intervention was unilateral, and that's indeed an issue, but also remember that the left kept quiet when Clinton intervened in Bosnia...."

 

 

Clinton took action in Bosnia, and left, Bush, AGAINST the best advice INVADED Iraq and apparently plans to be staying there for god knows how long. There is also the question of whether or not, the congress/senate and the American people/world were lied to about it all...remember, it was first about WMD, then Sadaam, then Al Quaida...the mission statement/terminology changes as needed.

 

My gut feeling is if there was no oil, we would have cared less. Depending on who you talk to, Iraq may have been better off WITH Sadaam as opposed to without him. The country is trash now, and people are still dying. The problems with Sadaam may well have started when he was more less ignored by the U.N./world regarding the disputed territory which was the subject of the first Iraq/Kuwait/Dessert storm war. Highly possible there would be a different set of circumstances had we listened to him, and maybe brokered a peaceful deal. But that is water under the bridge now. But best we remember it for the next time.

[playtheblues]

"My gut feeling is if there was no oil, we would have cared less. Depending on who you talk to, Iraq may have been better off WITH Sadaam as opposed to without him."

 

Oil is a very important motive for the West (including, again, the free riding caviar leftists) to have a stable supply of it guaranteed. Usually the oil motive is painted like in one of those hopelessly complicated (and boring) plots in a George Clooney movie, where people in high places always CONSPIRE with oil executives to do nasty things in the ME, but in fact common American voters tend to react hysterically to oil price hikes.

 

Well, one of the really bad things about the Bush administration is its neglect to create alternatives to oil for energy use. I think we have a combination here of corporate greed and voters' conformism with status quo.

 

I believe most Iraqis are relieved to have escaped the horror of the Saddam Husssein regime.

 

Obama will face big problems to fix a dead-line for Iraqi withdrawal if he is elected. Time is not ripe and will not be for a long time.

[Neo]

But he got rid of Saddam Hussein, a genuine monster. This seems to be totally forgotten in the debate.

 

He did a lot better job running Iraq than all our trillions of dollars have done. Let's not forget in the end "the monster" agreed to every single thing asked of him like letting the weapons inspectors back, ability to see all restricted areas and palaces, releasing all the thousands of WMD program documentation demanded, and he was even willing to step down in exchange for amnesty. Nothing was good enough, we just had to go in guns blazing. That kind of war mongering by the super power of the world meanwhile its allies, laws, and international organizations it was a member of said don't do that. Now that is a monster!

 

[Neo]

And for expats' date=' you probably know the big one. There was a time Americans used to carry a good deal of respect around the globe. Now...[/quote']

 

I've been hearing this here and abroad for thirty years. I suspect it has been said for the last two hundred.

 

Good for you, I have not. In this decade some even feel it is prudent to claim they are from Canada rather than the US. That is pretty sad that Bush's "safer world" has led to its people being in fear or shame of revealing where they are from. The flow of instant information around the globe now educates the world on what is really happening unlike ever before. And in many cases, people often don't like the picture.

 

 

Grow a pair, already.

 

Insults are not welcome here. If you have information about what people were saying 30 years ago about diminishing feelings towards Americans abroad, I am sure it would be an interesting read however.