Some of those "first hand accounts" came from Vietnam era vets I served with in the US Army. They do not have websites and as such can not be documented via a source link.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. This speaks for itself. Your argument fails. That's all I'm going to say.
I said "some" not "most" or "all". You also omitted my line about checking the bookshelf.
Unlike McNamara or Rumsfeld, I know a quagmire when I see it - but I just can't resist. However, I'm not going to post anything else in response to these arguments after this.
Time - I detect no real substance in this article.
NYT - The fourth paragraph contradicts the previous two articles.
See kids? That's why it's so important to stay in school and not slack off. Reading comprehension can be important in later life. Mr. Steve has difficulty reading for comprehension. We don't know if it's an actual learning disability or if he's just lazy.
The Washington Post piece - Shifting goals? The only goal I know of in Iraq has been the goal of creating an ally in the Middle East that will do something to stop terrorism.
Apparently, you do know of other goals. Mendacious much?
But the American drawdown from Vietnam was hardly abrupt, and it lasted much longer than many people remember. The withdrawal actually began in 1968, after the Tet offensive, which was a military defeat for the Communist guerrillas and their North Vietnamese sponsors. But it also illustrated the vulnerability of the United States and its South Vietnamese allies.
That paragraph holds the essence of what so many Vietnam vets told me about leaving Vietnam. We left just as victory was in our hands.
That is a very shallow interpretation of Tet and its aftermath. Some random guy you don't even name may think it was a "victory" for the U.S., but it showed us that our leaders were lying to us about how well the war was going. No one thought at the time that Tet meant that "victory was in our hands" as you say, and no one thinks so now. Finally, it took until 1973 to finally get out. That hardly qualifies as "leaving just as victory was in our hands."
Tet was a turning point for public opinion. We knew that, no matter how many victories on the ground we might enjoy, those victories were irrelevant since we could never pacify the region. Tet might have been a military victory, but it was a political defeat. That pesky representative democracy just won't seem to let you fight a war without paying attention to politics.
As for Republicans abandoning him and his platform that is politics and those who leave just because things are getting tough should not be re-elected. Either you have core principles or you do not. By jumping it either says you are abandoning your core principles now or you abandoned them when you first jumped on.
That pesky representative democracy again . . . Things would be so much nicer if this was a dictatorship, huh?
Some of those "first hand accounts" came from Vietnam era vets I served with in the US Army. They do not have websites and as such can not be documented via a source link.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. This speaks for itself. Your argument fails. That's all I'm going to say.
I said "some" not "most" or "all". You also omitted my line about checking the bookshelf.
Check your booksehelf. It's probably next to the book about the society that killed its king every four years. I'll be waiting, because I really want to read one of these books.
Though parts of the work have been found to be wrong - The Golden Bough is the one where the four year kings come from.
That pesky representative democracy again . . . Things would be so much nicer if this was a dictatorship, huh?
They are a pain in the ass in Civilization as well. Always signing treaties behind your back when you are just about to crush their empire!
One of the Vietnam books was called something akin to "Tank Commander" but I'll have to check for sure. I checked Amazon and got too many matches, mostly Word War II.
See-Saw...See-Saw...that's all the 2 parties do you know? Up, Down, Up, Down. Every once in a while they get off and switch sides but otherwise it's a see-saw. I prefer to decide on a case by case basis how best to balance that see-saw rather than picking one side and hoping for the best. Thanks to Bush we DESPERATELY need to balance the see-saw.
In my opinion, we've given Bush the power to do what he wants. It all started with 9/11. America doesn't really care about the rest of the world until it is affected directly. Nobody cared about what was happening in Iraq before 9/11. The second we got hurt, people screamed for "revenge" in a sense. The only reason we got involved with Iraq is so Bush could take down some terrorists. He spiced his argument up with "they have weapons of mass destruction", but I think that the citizens already knew Iraq didn't have that. In the beginning, the people of the United States were kind of pissed too. We wanted to kick some ass after 9/11.
Personally I think this "War Against Terrorism" is such crap. You can't fight "terrorism", it's a war tactic. That's like saying "let's try to destroy gorilla warfare". It just doesn't work that way.
To sum it all up, the only reason this war is going on is because we were pissed at the terrorists. It's nothing more than simple revenge for 9/11. Helping Iraq seems to be more of an after-thought.
To sum it all up, the only reason this war is going on is because we were pissed at Al Qaeda. It's nothing more than simple revenge for 9/11.
That would be fine if there were any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. However, there is no such connection.
It all started with 9/11. America doesn't really care about the rest of the world until it is affected directly. Nobody cared about what was happening in Iraq before 9/11. The second we got hurt, people screamed for "revenge" in a sense. The only reason we got involved with Iraq is so Bush could take down some terrorists.
Actually, GWB was planning to invade Iraq before 9/11.
1. Does anyone really believe in that letter he read? As in, did a real person actually write it or was it written by someone in the Shite House?
2. If I hear that "Freedom isn't free" BS one more time, I'll snap. How many times does it have to be said that nothing in Iraq has anything to do with our freedom? GWB is doing lots more to restrict our freedom than anyone in Iraq ever did or is ever likely to do.
3. Why does he keep talking about Anbar being safe when the dude he met with JUST LAST WEEK was blown up right before the speech?
4. What 36 countries are our allies on the ground in Iraq?
5. Could someone please make him stop invoking 9/11 during speeches about Iraq? How many times does it have to be said that there is no connection between the two?
6. I think anyone who really believes him when he says the U.S. can maintain this level of involvement without a draft probably still believes there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11. He was making veiled threats to Iran in the same speech. It's not a political or philosophy question, but a numbers question. Look at the numbers: If we get involved with Iran, there won't be any more volunteer troops left.
GWB is making a virtue out of necessity in bringing some of the troops home. It's not a crazy conspiracy theory; it's simply arithmetic: A draft is on the horizon if things keep going at this pace.
7. After all that crowing about progress, the Shite House is going to release a report today that only 1 out of 18 benchmarks have been met since July.
8. What happened to "no timelines, no benchmarks"?
8. What happened to "no timelines, no benchmarks"?
What they meant was they wouldn't follow any benchmarks or timelines, regardless of what the rest of the country said or wanted.
Except when they say (like GWB said last night), "We'll pull out such and such number of marines on such and such date, then pull out such and such number of soldiers by such and such date." Isn't that a timeline?
You know, when you give a man more money in his pocket - in this case, a woman - more money in her pocket to expand a business, they build new buildings. And when somebody builds a new building, somebody has got to come and build the building. And when the building expanded, it prevented (sic) additional opportunities for people to work. Tax cuts matter. I'm going to spend some time talking about it . . .
My job is a decision-making job. And as a result, I make a lot of decisions . . .
I delegate to good people. I always tell Condi Rice, `I want to remind you, Madam Secretary, who has the Ph.D. and who was the C student. And I want to remind you who the adviser is and who the president is.'
I got a lot of Ph.D.-types and smart people around me who come into the Oval Office and say, `Mr. President, here's what's on my mind.' And I listen carefully to their advice. But having gathered the device (sic), I decide, you know, I say, `This is what we're going to do.' And it's `Yes, sir, Mr. President.' And then we get after it, implement policy . . .
I wonder if his decision making is working for the nation? Also what is a "Ph. D type" , is he trying to talk like a cowboy? I mean he is not even from the southwest he was born in the Northeast. I will keep saying that I will never follow someone dumber than me. But then again I look at himself and I say what does he have to lose? , Does he really care?
I forgot to mention this when I first received this email a few weeks ago:
President Bush today signed an Executive Order that all executive branch departments and agencies of the Federal Government will be closed and their employees excused from duty on Monday, December 24, 2007. Until we have received official guidance from VA, do not cancel any patient care appointments scheduled on that day. Another message will be sent out when we have further information to share with employees.
I remember the he also gave us the Christmas Eve after 09/11 off as well. As much as I don't really care for this man, I'm not complaining of getting a 4 day weekend. ^_^
OK, the whole Nazi thing is a little over the top. I don't think we are in danger of falling under the same nationalistic drive found in Germany in the late 30's.
The telecoms are highly regulated. If the government went to them and said "install this" they wouldn't ask questions they would install it. They don't have a choice, the FCC allows them the privilege of doing business every day. Now if this bill is/was unconstitutional or the "spy" equipment installed in the telco offices was outside of the scope of the law then the people that ordered the equipment to be installed should be held accountable. This is one area where you should not blame the telephone company.
Oh, and Bush's legacy... good or bad I don't know if we will understand all the implications of his term in office 5 years from now.
Why, exactly, is it over the top? Because of the Godwin rule that some people so slavishly propound?
Just because someone has come up with an amusing meme involving comparisons to Hitler does not mean that all comparisons to the German government of the time are necessarily invalid. Listen again to what he said. A retroactive immunity for the telecoms is, in fact, very similar to what he described happening in Germany at that time.
But, if you insist on discounting every comparison to the Germany of the 30s as "over the top", ask yourself, what did the telecoms do that makes GWB so desperate to provide them immunity?
And while you're at it, tell me why we have to wait five years to decide whether GWB has complete contempt for our legal system. Did you read that link? Does it bother you that, instead of simply vetoing a law, he'll sign it and tell us that he has no intention of complying with the law? Does it bother you in the least that he's issued more signing statements than any other president in history, telling us the same thing, namely that he has no intention of complying with the law?
Well, it's over the top in that it took a few months in Germany, and GWB was at it for 8 years, and you're not exiled yet. Also, you still have more than one party, you're not forced to be part of a union that belongs to that one party. The police is still the police, and does not have several paramilitary organisations that do the same tasks and belong to the party (->SS, SA). Furthermore, the state Hitler built had a dual structure. There was always a state organization, and next to that a party organization that was responsible for the same things. There are no Blockleiter, and it's not in sight that there will be in the near future. Congress never burned. Not all comparisons are invalid, but it is an entirely different process we're in right now. The American system is not nearly as fragile as the Weimar republics, and I hope the slow (compared to the end of the Weimar Republic) erosion of civil rights seen in almost every western industrialized nation right now will come to an end in time.
He's not using the comparison to say that we're that far down the road. He's using it to say that bad things happen when government immunizes corporations from lawsuits.
Can we get beyond the comparison and focus on the fact that there is an actual guy that says he was actually ordered to secretly surveil U.S. citizens for no real reason and that GWB seems awfully intent on getting immunity for stuff he doesn't want to tell us about? Or are you okay with all that?
I'll be perfectly straight: I think GWB is way too stupid to cause any harm by himself. I'd really like to know how much impulse he really gives himself and how much that has happened over the last years originates from other, smarter people using him as a puppet. Also, you still do live in a democracy. The fact that he became president *and* got reelected is not some kind of accident. And about the surveillance for no real reason: That's a development that is not unique to the US. Right now, that kind of stuff happens everywhere in the industrialized world, it's the political Zeitgeist. I see laws and measures allowing more surveillance on communal, state, federal and European level. There are forces as well into that as into the opposite direction, and we will see if it stops or goes back eventually, or if it keeps going in the direction of an Orwellian panoptical dystopia. Anyway, we will see whether the new president of the United States will continue the trends or not.
I was recently reading that surveillance cameras are so bad in the UK that people have taken to wearing hoodies everywhere they go. At one point an older woman (65+) was not allowed into a government building unless she removed her hoodie first.
Yes it bothers me that the government was spying. If you check the original story, from well over a year ago now, the guy lost his job then blew the whistle. He just connected the cable to equipment in another room. There are no details about what was in that "secret room". It bothers me that they don't explain what was in the room. There is a lot of shit that bothers me about our government. I think the people that thought monitoring huge amounts of private communication was a good idea should explain themselves. If it was Bush sitting in the Oval Office, fine. I'd bet he didn't know about the equipment until after the fact. Some over zealous security group in the government just thought it seemed like a good idea. It will be a while before we know the truth about that whole mess.
My point about waiting 5 years, goes to the thread's question. What is Bush's legacy? I don't think we can say right now. Let current events play out for a couple years.
George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has dropped to a new low in American Research Group polling as 78% of Americans say that the national economy is getting worse according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 14% approve and 79% disapprove.
Among Americans registered to vote, 18% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 78% disapprove. [Emphasis mine]
That is just mind-blowing. How does it compare to other presidents? There's no comparison.
Nixon, as he was hounded out of office in August 1974, never dipped below the mid-20s.
Here's a pretty good compilation of poll numbers from Roper. To summarize the highlights:
Clinton low: 36 percent, May 1993 (early missteps like Zoe Baird)
George H.W. Bush low: 29 percent, August 1992 (recession)
Reagan low: 35 percent, January 1983 (recession)
Carter low: 28 percent, July 1979 (high gas prices)
Ford low: 37 percent, January 1975 (economy, Nixon pardon)
Nixon low: 23 percent, January 1974 (Watergate)
Johnson low: 35 percent, August 1968 (Vietnam)
Lowest ever? That would be Harry Truman during the Korean War, in February 1952, at 22 percent.
And so now George W. Bush has shattered a record that has stood for 55 long years, and there's not any one reason. It's everything, although I suspect that liberals would more likely say Iraq and torture, conservatives would say immigration and runaway spending, and everyone would now say the economy.
Comments
Tet was a turning point for public opinion. We knew that, no matter how many victories on the ground we might enjoy, those victories were irrelevant since we could never pacify the region. Tet might have been a military victory, but it was a political defeat. That pesky representative democracy just won't seem to let you fight a war without paying attention to politics. That pesky representative democracy again . . . Things would be so much nicer if this was a dictatorship, huh? Check your booksehelf. It's probably next to the book about the society that killed its king every four years. I'll be waiting, because I really want to read one of these books.
One of the Vietnam books was called something akin to "Tank Commander" but I'll have to check for sure. I checked Amazon and got too many matches, mostly Word War II.
In my opinion, we've given Bush the power to do what he wants. It all started with 9/11. America doesn't really care about the rest of the world until it is affected directly. Nobody cared about what was happening in Iraq before 9/11. The second we got hurt, people screamed for "revenge" in a sense. The only reason we got involved with Iraq is so Bush could take down some terrorists. He spiced his argument up with "they have weapons of mass destruction", but I think that the citizens already knew Iraq didn't have that. In the beginning, the people of the United States were kind of pissed too. We wanted to kick some ass after 9/11.
Personally I think this "War Against Terrorism" is such crap. You can't fight "terrorism", it's a war tactic. That's like saying "let's try to destroy gorilla warfare". It just doesn't work that way.
To sum it all up, the only reason this war is going on is because we were pissed at the terrorists. It's nothing more than simple revenge for 9/11. Helping Iraq seems to be more of an after-thought.
Edit: Al Qaeda to terrorists.
1. Does anyone really believe in that letter he read? As in, did a real person actually write it or was it written by someone in the Shite House?
2. If I hear that "Freedom isn't free" BS one more time, I'll snap. How many times does it have to be said that nothing in Iraq has anything to do with our freedom? GWB is doing lots more to restrict our freedom than anyone in Iraq ever did or is ever likely to do.
3. Why does he keep talking about Anbar being safe when the dude he met with JUST LAST WEEK was blown up right before the speech?
4. What 36 countries are our allies on the ground in Iraq?
5. Could someone please make him stop invoking 9/11 during speeches about Iraq? How many times does it have to be said that there is no connection between the two?
6. I think anyone who really believes him when he says the U.S. can maintain this level of involvement without a draft probably still believes there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11. He was making veiled threats to Iran in the same speech. It's not a political or philosophy question, but a numbers question. Look at the numbers: If we get involved with Iran, there won't be any more volunteer troops left.
GWB is making a virtue out of necessity in bringing some of the troops home. It's not a crazy conspiracy theory; it's simply arithmetic: A draft is on the horizon if things keep going at this pace.
7. After all that crowing about progress, the Shite House is going to release a report today that only 1 out of 18 benchmarks have been met since July.
8. What happened to "no timelines, no benchmarks"?
Oh yeah, here's a fact check on the speech.
. . . and GWB once again shows the contempt he has for our laws . . .
The telecoms are highly regulated. If the government went to them and said "install this" they wouldn't ask questions they would install it. They don't have a choice, the FCC allows them the privilege of doing business every day. Now if this bill is/was unconstitutional or the "spy" equipment installed in the telco offices was outside of the scope of the law then the people that ordered the equipment to be installed should be held accountable. This is one area where you should not blame the telephone company.
Oh, and Bush's legacy... good or bad I don't know if we will understand all the implications of his term in office 5 years from now.
Just because someone has come up with an amusing meme involving comparisons to Hitler does not mean that all comparisons to the German government of the time are necessarily invalid. Listen again to what he said. A retroactive immunity for the telecoms is, in fact, very similar to what he described happening in Germany at that time.
But, if you insist on discounting every comparison to the Germany of the 30s as "over the top", ask yourself, what did the telecoms do that makes GWB so desperate to provide them immunity?
And while you're at it, tell me why we have to wait five years to decide whether GWB has complete contempt for our legal system. Did you read that link? Does it bother you that, instead of simply vetoing a law, he'll sign it and tell us that he has no intention of complying with the law? Does it bother you in the least that he's issued more signing statements than any other president in history, telling us the same thing, namely that he has no intention of complying with the law?
Furthermore, the state Hitler built had a dual structure. There was always a state organization, and next to that a party organization that was responsible for the same things. There are no Blockleiter, and it's not in sight that there will be in the near future. Congress never burned.
Not all comparisons are invalid, but it is an entirely different process we're in right now. The American system is not nearly as fragile as the Weimar republics, and I hope the slow (compared to the end of the Weimar Republic) erosion of civil rights seen in almost every western industrialized nation right now will come to an end in time.
Can we get beyond the comparison and focus on the fact that there is an actual guy that says he was actually ordered to secretly surveil U.S. citizens for no real reason and that GWB seems awfully intent on getting immunity for stuff he doesn't want to tell us about? Or are you okay with all that?
And about the surveillance for no real reason: That's a development that is not unique to the US. Right now, that kind of stuff happens everywhere in the industrialized world, it's the political Zeitgeist. I see laws and measures allowing more surveillance on communal, state, federal and European level. There are forces as well into that as into the opposite direction, and we will see if it stops or goes back eventually, or if it keeps going in the direction of an Orwellian panoptical dystopia. Anyway, we will see whether the new president of the United States will continue the trends or not.
I think the people that thought monitoring huge amounts of private communication was a good idea should explain themselves. If it was Bush sitting in the Oval Office, fine. I'd bet he didn't know about the equipment until after the fact. Some over zealous security group in the government just thought it seemed like a good idea. It will be a while before we know the truth about that whole mess.
My point about waiting 5 years, goes to the thread's question. What is Bush's legacy? I don't think we can say right now. Let current events play out for a couple years.
Worst. President. Ever.
Is this for real?
I hope not.