Bush '41 better than Bush '43?

Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

Geez, I remember the last time we had a war in the Persian gulf, our president (Bush '41) built a powerful coalition of countries to go along with the U.S. Even the Egyptians sent troops into battle with us. Russia supported us too.

What gives? After 9-11 there was a tremendous out pouring of sympathy for the U.S. all over the world. But now we are not even sure we can pass a resolution to attack thru the UN security council. So...is Bush '43 simply not up to the effective diplomacy that his father was? Bush '43 seems to have only made things worse in terms of getting countries to cooperate with us.

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

Bush '41 was much better than Bush'43.

Bush '43 is delusional. He started the American people on a war against terrorism, but then pulled a switch to a war on Iraq. The connection of the two is something only Bush '43 sees. Iraq is a secular state. Al Quaida is a religeous movement to replace all secular Arab governments with Right wing Moslem governments. The only way Al Quaida would ally with Saddam is if they had a common enemy, us. So this is a self-fullfiling prophecy. Far from promoting the war on terrorism, a war with Iraq will likely disrupt much of the cooperation needed to hunt down the terrorists.

Bush '43 is delusional. He thinks Turkey's refusal to support a northern front isn't important.

Bush '43 is delusional. He thinks that after we invade Iraq in defiance of world opinion, somehow they will all just drop their objections and start helping out. He thinks the various factions in Iraq will just stick together as one country when Saddam is gone; that the Kurds won't fight for a homeland, that Turkey won't resist, and that we won't end up on one side against the other. Then there are the Shiites who may deceide they have more in common with Iran, and the Islamic fundamentalists who will sabotage any friendly government that starts to form, like they do in Palestine.

Bush '43 is dishonest. He pretends that the costs in lives, political fallout, economic disaster, and just plain money can't be estimated in advance and don't matter. Even he must know better.

Bush '43 will be the first American president tried as a war criminal, if he doesn't die with the rest of us.

That said, once he starts his war I will try very hard to support the poor *******s that have to fight, hold my tounge until it is over, and hope somebody rational runs against Bush next year.

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

Couldn't have said it better myself! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

Yes. Our troops have taken an oath of honor to follow the commands of our Commander in Chief (at least, all legal commands). The troops deserve our highest respect and support.

And...since they are honor bound to obey, it is up to all other Americans to be sure we use the military in a manner that is best for our country.

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

There's a huge difference no one is seeing. This time a Christian nation was attacked instead of a Muslim nation. That's why there is no coalition.

France, Germany and Russia have huge interests in Iraq. They have tanks, jets, bunkers, missles, defenses, etc. in Iraq. Once America shows how ineffective their designs are their value on the international arms market will be hugely devalued. If America doesn't hand their *** to them in a bucket then they can keep selling their hardware at full price.

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

In the first Persian Gulf war, we had solid support from everyday Britons. All the polls I see now show a majority of Britons opposed to this war. What's different?

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

I suspect they think the war on terrorism is more important than the war on Iraq. War on Iraq will be a marvelous recruiting tool for terrorist organizations. A US occupation force in Iraq will be a marvelous target. War on Iraq will shake loose essential allies who are not so firmly in the anti-terrorist camp.

Also, this time Iraq did not invade Kuwait. There is no recent agression to eliminate all doubt.

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

It's nearly funny how the left conveniently forgets or ignores what Bush really says. Bush's words like, "I do not want to go to war". "War is my last option." "It is up to Saddam to follow res. 1441 to avoid war." They get so absorbed in their dislike for the man that "took" the Presidency from their Buddhist monk loving, internet inventing, secret to China giving buddy Gore that they hear what they want to hear and damn reality. I understand most lefties feel we would be in far better shape if Gore were President now. They might feel Mr. Gore could put Saddam in a lockbox and not touch it.

Here are my two favorites from this thread so far

Evan said,
Bush '43 is delusional. He started the American people on a war against terrorism, but then pulled a switch to a war on Iraq. The connection of the two is something only Bush '43 sees.

Most Americans DO see the connection. It could be made correct by saying. Some of the left can't see a connection because they keep their eyes, ears and minds closed.

Evan said
War on Iraq will shake loose essential allies who are not so firmly in the anti-terrorist camp.

I propose to Evan that if you not so firmly in the anti-terrorist camp you are NOT an essential ally to begin with.

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

No Way! I despised and mistrusted Bush 41.
Still do. Him and his "New World Order" crud, and subjecting the US to the will of the UN- He subordinated the Soverignty of the United States to the will of the UN almost as much as clinton did.

Heck, until Clinton won the election, I really had a suspicion that George Herbert Walker Bush might be the Anti-Christ (I was reading a lot of Nostradamus then, and SO MANY things fit...)

Thank goodness Bush 43 takes more after his mother than his father.

When Bush first received the nomination, I was worried that he might be just like his father, but the more I learned about him, and from everything I have seen since, I respect and admire him.

You people that hate and fear him and think he is stupid are letting your political prejudices get in the way of rational analysis.

Current President Bush is trying to re-establish the Soverignty of the US that his father and bill clinton gave away, just like President Reagan had to do after Carter's debacle.

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

It's not that we don't hear Bush '43 when he says he doesn't want to go to war, its that we think he's lieing.

As to shaking loose essential allies, I give you Pakistan, which is only a heartbeat away from being our worst enemy in the war on terrorism. So Bush '43 is going to force Pakistan to go on record supporting a war the people of Pakistan abhor. But then it worked so well in Turkey.

Bush '43 was so convinced everything Clinton said was a lie that he neglected terrorism and Israel until they became the problems they are now. Heck, Clinton practiced diplomacy, so I guess that explains why Bush '43 won't. Bush '43 whines about what he inherited from Clinton, but I don't recal Clinton whineing about what he inherited from Bush '41, Clinton had more brains and more class.

Let's spend 60 million dollars to see if Bush '43 really did make his fortune on insider trading of Hadson Defense; or if Cheney practiced Enron accounting at Halburton. It would be cheaper and more fun than a war.

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

[ QUOTE ]
Evan said:
It's not that we don't hear Bush '43 when he says he doesn't want to go to war, its that we think he's lieing.


I can understand why you might think a President is lying to you. It was ROE for 8 years.


As to shaking loose essential allies, I give you Pakistan, which is only a heartbeat away from being our worst enemy in the war on terrorism. So Bush '43 is going to force Pakistan to go on record supporting a war the people of Pakistan abhor. But then it worked so well in Turkey.

First, None of those countries are ESSENTIAL allies in my mind. I am not being trying to be Clintonesque or cute but I guess we would have to define essential. I think our essential allies are the ones that have backed us up when it was hard, like GB. Pakistan seems to be more helpful in recent weeks and I believe Turkey will come around as well. As usual, I could very well be wrong.

Bush '43 was so convinced everything Clinton said was a lie that he neglected terrorism and Israel until they became the problems they are now. Heck, Clinton practiced diplomacy, so I guess that explains why Bush '43 won't. Bush '43 whines about what he inherited from Clinton, but I don't recal Clinton whineing about what he inherited from Bush '41, Clinton had more brains and more class.

Clinton's diplomacy is much of the reason we are where we are today with North Korea and to a lesser extent Iraq. I haven't heard Bush complain about Clinton in a long time but then again I am not looking for it. I actually heard him defend Clinton tonight. You might could make an argument about brains, but class? I may agree there as well if you are talking about Clinton having a lot of class, all LOW. You must have been kidding with the class thing.

Let's spend 60 million dollars to see if Bush '43 really did make his fortune on insider trading of Hadson Defense; or if Cheney practiced Enron accounting at Halburton. It would be cheaper and more fun than a war.

I wish we could do that and it would save money. I have seen the new report that shows the financial cost of another major terrorist attack to be much higher than the potential cost of going to war with Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

[ QUOTE ]
Evan said:....Bush '43 whines about what he inherited from Clinton, but I don't recal Clinton whineing about what he inherited from Bush '41, Clinton had more brains and more class....

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, current President Bush has personally said almost NOTHING about what Clinton did or didn't do, which shows that he has a lot of class. His most common statement when asked about whether he blames Clinton for ...whatever... Is: "lets just move on from that and deal with the current problem, not recriminations." or words to that effect. He has actually asked the GAO to NOT investigate certain allegations against the Clintons because it would be a distraction from what is important.

It is only us stupid, no-class conservative "regular folks" that are sick and tired of revisionist, kool-aid drinking leftists and kneepad wearers who understand nothing of history, economics and want to blame Bush for everything that treasonous, lying, hedonistic scumbag clinton caused by action or inaction that are saying that kind of stuff.

And SOME of what us stupid, no-class, Bush supporters blame clinton for aren't really his fault but are actually naturally occuring economic cycles, even though clinton could have helped minimize their curent effects if he hadn't been so busy chasing Monica and trying to find the meaning of "is".

Saying that Clinton has class is like saying that Saddam is a great humanitarian and that Osama Bin Laden only wanted all peoples and all religions to live together in peace..

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

Hmmm. I'll try to get this back on thread just a bit...

Let's ask this simple question:

In the last Persian Gulf War, most Britons supported the U.S. Now, although the British Prime Minister supports Bush '43, most Britons are against this war. How come?

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

this bush is much more polished than dad and will make billions in the coming war due to the fact that dad sits on the board of the 11th largest defense contractor in the world! its easy to find the truth, just turn off the TV and search the net and shortwave, they cant suppress all the facts.

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

Amazing... Most of the Bush haters say that he is a stupid, no-class, crude cowboy, Yet others call him "polished".

Some say he is a transparent, lying, con-man and no one supports his policies, Yet he has managed to convince more than half of this world's "democratically" elected leaders to "his" cause, and most of the few that oppose him is because they have their own investments or culpabilities to cover up. (Although I must admit that I don't have any good idea why Russia is opposing it.)

His father IS polished, (if less charismatic than Bush 43)and "connected" and manipulated things behind the scenes for his own profit and that of his fellow "Skull & Bones" club members.

My father was polished, "connected" and manipulated things behind the scenes too (state level, not nationally).

Doesn't mean I'm polished, connected or manipulate things, just because I am his son. (I can't even get a zoning variance from the Village council to build a hidden shed in my back yard yet they gave my neighbor one for a larger and "not hidden" one at the same time., much less get the time of day from the Governor, whom I have known personally for about 25 years, {but thats whole 'nother story}.)

Current President Bush says what he means and means what he says, and that is one thing that liberals can't stand.

Most Bush haters adore clinton; They hate Bush because he started out wealthy and his family and friends MAY make some money because they are "connected". And they hate him because he is mostly conservative, and they hate him because he goes to church and he actually prays.

They hate him because he USED TO BE a drunk, and possibly occasionally used some drugs, yet they adore Teddy Kennedy who is, was and always will be a drunk.

Liberals hate a person who overcomes his / her weaknesses, but love a person who wallows in their weaknesses.

Clinton came into office with almost no money and no assets and left a multi-millionaire, half at direct tax-payer expense and the other half because of "gifts" from friends for whom he was able to do some "favors". But that's OK with the Bush haters.

Look at the Democrat leaders: Many of them are big-investors or on the boards of companies that stand to make big profits directly from government contracts or other governmental decisions. But I have never heard one of you liberals saying anything bad about that. If it fits your agenda, you don't care about opportunism or even outright theft by your own idols.

If you have ONE IOTA of proof that George Bush is manipulating the world for family oil profits, turn that proof over to Larry Klayman at Judicial Watch, and he will have a court case against Bush within the week.

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

More class? How in the world can you say Clinton had more class? I have never felt embarrassed to have a president before Clinton was on the scene. I think his actions were a disgrace to the office. I think you just discredited yourself with that statement. Also, it is spelled "whining", not "whineing", and "lying", not "lieing".

Clinton had the good fortune of riding the wave of a great economic period. He was certainly brilliant but brilliance alone is insufficient to become elevated to the level of greatness; He definitely had other downfalls which prevented that from ever happening.

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

speaking of economics, i recall reading in several journals an interesting and well accepted theory: in general, it requires 6-8 years for an economy to fully respond to government changes.

i am not an economist, but my financial advisor agrees.

this means that Clinton was indeed "riding the wave" of economic prosperity brought on by Reagan (it took years for Reagan to rectify Carter's mess).

you could also extrapolate that Bush is currently struggling with the Clinton econ legacy.

uh, oh. here it comes! the tax rebates vs the budget surplus/deficit. i really liked the idea of getting MY money back, but i am aware that many hated it.

Bob<--wearing my asbestos jammies...

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

6 to 8 years for government policies to kick in, so then Carter must have been struggling with the Nixon/Ford mess. In the line of thought, what your saying is that when the economy tanked under George H. Bush, he was feeling the impact of the policies left behind by Reagan during the 8 years that he was president. The leap frog game is really fun!

Remember 50% of economists are wrong 50% of the time

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

didnt you like nixon/ford? perhaps they did goof things up...i wasnt paying attention back then.

your response sounds as if you dislike conservatives...am i correct?

the economy didnt "tank" as you put it. what are you speaking of? please give me examples.
i didnt suffer during that period. my investments even grew in value.

also, there are natural economic cycles, which include mild recessions--which are not greatly influenced by government policy. i would hardly call the Bush 41 years terrible.

i did not state it took 6-8 years for the policies to "kick in". i stated it may take that long to fully respond to changes. there may be some immediate effects, but the FULL effect may not be realized for a very long time.

i appreciate thoughtful responses...pehaps you should simply refute what i stated, instead of twisting my words and using really "cool" catchy stats. way rad, doood.

you might teach me something--or even change my mind.


Bob

Re: Bush \'41 better than Bush \'43?

Bolstering my point