Quote of the day
posted at 9:20 pm on January 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
“[I]f Iraq overall represents a massive stain on Bush’s record, his decision to increase America’s troop presence in late 2006 now looks like his finest hour. Given the mood in Washington and the country as a whole, it would have been far easier to do the opposite. Politically, Bush took the path of most resistance. He endured an avalanche of scorn, and now he has been vindicated. He was not only right; he was courageous…
Today … it is conservatives who have been proven wrong again and again. Politically and intellectually, the right is discredited, and the arguments of its rump minority in Congress will be easy to dismiss. Liberal self-confidence is sky-high.
That’s why it’s important to admit that Bush was right about the surge. Doing so would remind Democrats that no one political party, or ideological perspective, has a monopoly on wisdom. That recognition can be the difference between ambition — which the Obama presidency must exhibit — and hubris, which it can ill afford.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
You people will never learn, will you?
benny shakar on January 17, 2009 at 9:23 PM
vero possumus to no hubris, I say
bwahahahahahah
billypaintbrush on January 17, 2009 at 9:24 PM
oh yeah, like the libs will EVER admit President Bush was right about anything.
I predict President Obama will fall flat on his butt in reality, but the press will cover for him so that he looks like the greatest president ever.
jdsmith0021 on January 17, 2009 at 9:24 PM
He was right on the surge. He was also wrong to go to war in the first place and he egregiously mishandled the war prior to the surge, but I have no problem admitting that the surge has worked.
crr6 on January 17, 2009 at 9:27 PM
That’s right. Democrats lied to get the Presidency. No surprise, here. Libs are unrepentant liars who care about nothing but getting power.
LOL. Everything on the left is emotional. In fact, the idiot messiah was very clear that he thinks there isn’t enough emotion in our judiciary (yeah, Haravard Law trains some really bright ones …). Today, the hesitation is the same as it was during the campaign, because the left are liars who will do, and jeopardize, anything to get power. The left are nothing but despicable people.
progressoverpeace on January 17, 2009 at 9:28 PM
“You People”?!?!?! Racist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
malan89 on January 17, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Andrew Sullivan swore up and down the surge would never work, when it did he swore it would never last, and he has never backed off it.
Instead he went on a Jihad to find the Truth about Baby Trig, because that is what really matters!
Mr. Joe on January 17, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Given the Sally Quinn article on Blair House and the lack of love between John Howard and Barack Obama, I’d say there’s already been a bit of hubris thrown on the barbie.
unclesmrgol on January 17, 2009 at 9:29 PM
What exactly is it that we’ve been “proven wrong again and again” on?
I’m sort of at a loss here.
jimmy the notable on January 17, 2009 at 9:32 PM
This was a very good article but my favorite part was this.
Glynn on January 17, 2009 at 9:36 PM
That has got to be one of the most chickenshit articles I’ve ever read.
Saltysam on January 17, 2009 at 9:36 PM
I was stunned at the level of whining the liberals have stooped to. That Quinn article was one long litany of whining presented as journalism. Poor Obama. They had to find another place to stay while enrolling their children in the Sidwell School which only costs $28,000.00 a year a piece not including any materials. I guess that left them unable to cough up for a decent hotel. Boo Hoo.
Glynn on January 17, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Said before in headlines:
Time can work some miracles.
silverfox on January 17, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Barry still wont admit the success, he will never reach the level of self-respect that President Bush has, Barry is the puppet and never the master. Anyone else notice that Barry has nothing of his own, he’s like a Chameleon.
christene on January 17, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Libs just like saying it. They have no details to offer, but it makes them feel better about the despicable, and stupid, people they are.
progressoverpeace on January 17, 2009 at 9:41 PM
That first paragraph sounds like high-octane hubris to me.
smagar on January 17, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Nice article…………….. yes, the surge worked, thank you very much the men and women of the United States of America combined military and Coalition forces.
Anyone remember that, anyone remember Hillary drilling General Petraeus……….?
Then we have now…………
…………. but turning off the 24/7 hatred of President Bush, which is then linked to the United States, it’s Military, and the American people as a whole isn’t that easy, is it?
From your earlier thread………….. the discussion turned to “propaganda”.
Years of planned, calculated, ideological harm in order to win power back is still in the air…….
…………. be prepared for full on, full throat, full “shovel it down your throat” change now that Mr. Obama has been selected for office.
You will see stories about how the economy is getting better, Europe likes us now, and even Iran isn’t burning pictures of Obama anymore ( they were burning pictures of Obama?!?!?!?!)
…………… yes, time for all of us to start taking our insulin shots,
This is going to get pretty………………… uber-sweet.
Seven Percent Solution on January 17, 2009 at 9:44 PM
The arguments will continue until infinity but Obama couldn’t be a pimple on Bush’s posterior . . . Bush wasn’t always right but he was one honorable, courageous bastard and a damn good man.
rplat on January 17, 2009 at 9:45 PM
what next, global warming isn’t that big a deal.
rob verdi on January 17, 2009 at 9:46 PM
I don’t think they will. There are people on the right that actually believe that when Obama takes the oath that Bush’s presidency is over. IT’S NEVER GOING TO END! BDS will continue to me the mainstay as well as the platform of the DNC to keep the party united. It will never end – and Bush will continue to be blamed for anything and everything.
JeffinOrlando on January 17, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Peter Beinart: The David Brooks of liberalism.
e-pirate on January 17, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Who taught Beinart how to write? I think he meant “Liberal confidence is high”, but it’s difficult to tell with the hard-of-thinking.
progressoverpeace on January 17, 2009 at 9:49 PM
A man can hope.
jimmy the notable on January 17, 2009 at 9:50 PM
I still wonder if the surge would have ever happened if the GOP hadn’t gotten spanked in ’06.
ChenZhen on January 17, 2009 at 9:51 PM
What do YOU mean you people?
- The Cat
MirCat on January 17, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Peter Beinert is a fool. Yes, educated and renowned, but still very much the fool.
May we be blessed to have all our opponents be as naive as he is.
smagar on January 17, 2009 at 10:03 PM
If he was wrong about the initial decision, then why not fault the people who informed his opiniions for years prior to his arrival in D.C., and the people who totally agreed with him at the time, and by “totally,” I mean they played one-upmanship in tough-as-nails hawk talk.
Would you rather we still patrolled the southern and northern thirds of Iraq with our fighters in perpetuity, while Saddam would take potshots at our pilots and thumbs his nose at the UN and the 14 (and presumably counting higher) Security Council resolutions? Please don’t counter with the “impatience, we needed to give UN inspections a chance” thing, that’s just BS that makes your side look stupid and naive and gives us a headache.
It’s so comfortable to play QB from your barcolounger, isn’t it?
silverfox on January 17, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Peter Beinert, you must be a racist.
Mr. Joe on January 17, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Although “W” will never admit it…. He did look into the mind of our enemy and felt it best to take it to their backyard.
The distance to mecca & medina from Iraq will be judged with centuries in mind and not miles.
History will prove that to be an absolute truth.
jerrytbg on January 17, 2009 at 10:08 PM
His little childish back patting of “big-ness” might be momentarily muted if he were to muse the question, “To what ends did it work?” There, in answering that, our little boy journalist, all grown up and able to now “admit” things, might find some ideologies that would turn his sensitive little stomach. For, “it worked” cannot simply mean that US deaths went down; seemingly the only marker that the Left and the Press looked to in determining if anything was “working”, as evident by his opening paragraphs. C’mon, Peter, pull away from your self gratifying “admissions” and ask “what” worked? Hint it’s not the “surge”. The “surge” was physical manifestation of something; the thing that actually worked, and has worked ever since this country began. Then ask what “worked”? For years you and the Left have scoffed at the notion of “success” in Iraq. Callers called into radio show after radio show and demanded the conservative host to “define success” in such defiant tones to suggest that there was no answer to their “brilliant” question. And now, you write in your column and “admit” that there has been “success in Iraq”. You’re going to have to dig a little deeper, Peter, for only then will you find out if Obama will offer ambition or hubris; then if you were to really admit something you’d admit that Bush showed the former, while Obama has already shown the latter.
Weight of Glory on January 17, 2009 at 10:12 PM
+1
katy on January 17, 2009 at 10:14 PM
:rolleyes:
toliver on January 17, 2009 at 10:18 PM
In fairness Bush did fail to stop Barney Frank and the Dems from giving us the Mortgage Meltdown, so I guess there is one failure.
18-1 on January 17, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Whether Bush did it intentionally or not, he drew large numbers of would be terrorist to Iraq, where they were exterminated by our military.
Johan Klaus on January 17, 2009 at 10:22 PM
That sounds strangely familiar to the situation in Iran now.
Johan Klaus on January 17, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Oh yeah, that’s highly likely, on so many levels or more like, on none of so many levels.
When the shine comes off the Obama promise, his fall from grace still won’t mean a thing for Conservatives unless they stand up with a loud, principled, message.
Speakup on January 17, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Let us not forget Johan, AQ stated they felt Iraq was the main battlefield…They ain’t very good in open battle are they…laaq
jerrytbg on January 17, 2009 at 10:29 PM
While I agree with Beinart’s overall idea and many of the particulars, like George W being utterly loathsome, I must object to the idea the Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. Invading Iraq was well worth the cost for two reasons. First, it freed Iraq from a sadistic tyrant. Second, it was an opportunity to see if humane approach to Islam will succeed. Perhaps, Iraq is the first step towards an Islamic world which is able to put aside it evil desires of global conquest and domination. If Iraq fails, what we need to learn is that Islam will accept nothing less than a death match with the rest of the world. We shouldn’t put our heads in the sand about a religion that is not much different in values than Naziism.
thuja on January 17, 2009 at 10:30 PM
The article is daming with faint praise.
Political discussion with the media, by and large, pandering to ideologues.
Republicans should just know the background of reporters, call out their previous hypocrisy as ideologues for the left and refuse access. O’Bama is doing the same to the right leaning journalists.
Treat the MSM as irrelevant. This article is irrelevant. Granting standing to even discuss is ridiculous. The 10% of what is left of the media that is reasonably fair and balanced, along with the internet blogs can get the word out. We should ignore them rather than continue to acknowledge this trash as anymore than partisan hit pieces.
I mean really, would the NY Times ever grant HotAir standing to be quoted in their paper with an article. No.
Starlink on January 17, 2009 at 10:32 PM
I do not think that there was much more that Bush could have done, but he did not have to make it worse with the bailout.
Johan Klaus on January 17, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Speckup,
In unison… as you moniker denotes.
jerrytbg on January 17, 2009 at 10:35 PM
I guess my point did not get through. :)
Bush had his failures, as he President does.
The most glaring ones are generally failing at a political level against the Dems – CRA/Mortgage Meltdown, not permanently lowering taxes, etc.
Of course, you could also blame him for not restraining spending, but seeing as Obama is about to ram through $1 trillion in lucre for his friends and allies, I guess by the Obama standard Bush really was a budget hawk.
18-1 on January 17, 2009 at 10:40 PM
No way can you hang all of that, or even the majority of that on Bush… It started with Carter and was exacerbated by Clinton…
jerrytbg on January 17, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Case in point!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlI16pbQ_WE
katy on January 17, 2009 at 10:42 PM
THere were weapons of mass destruction – read the books. No Nukes, but plenty of bad shit to be used on ISRAEL!
People forget that Saddam was paying suciders attacking Israel.
Regardless, nothing Bush did makes up for the blunders – the rabid spending by Hasert and his own party, the placating of the liberals like Kennedy to “get along” and the blatant disregard to cut off the flow of bad loans by the FMs.
Finally, the total disregard of our money and selling out our liberty right from under us to the bankers.
Liberty is Dead – thanks for nothing Prez-43.
klickink.wordpress.com on January 17, 2009 at 10:48 PM
You have got a point there.
Johan Klaus on January 17, 2009 at 10:49 PM
WOW!!!… MORE TO PASS ON…
jerrytbg on January 17, 2009 at 10:53 PM
http://husseinandterror.com
plenty of facts there.
also lets all re-read the Iraq War Resolution, alot more than WMD’s is in that thing.
jp on January 17, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Too bad his hair covers it up.
trailboss on January 17, 2009 at 11:04 PM
For all you blaming President Bush for the end-of-time I have a question…
Who did more to stop the end-of-time, you or him?
Limerick on January 17, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Would anyone here really look forward to another 4 years of GwB? Has this country been on the right track? Outside of the surge, what exactly did Bush get right in Iraq?
If Bush were able to run again, would you vote for him?
trailboss on January 17, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Yeah, good luck with getting The Left to admit fault.
SouthernGent on January 17, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Depends on who he was running against. Bush was always better then the alternative in each election he ran in, but never conservative enough and without enough fight in him for domestic politics.
So, put him again BO, and yeah, voting for Bush 43 would be the only sane choice.
18-1 on January 17, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Groundhog day came early this year!
blatantblue on January 17, 2009 at 11:10 PM
I suppose that depends on what your definition of ‘sane’ is. So would you be in favor of keeping him on for another term, if that were possible, and why?
trailboss on January 17, 2009 at 11:12 PM
How would things be today, had Kerry won?
no Obama = good
however, what would’ve happened with Iraq?
jp on January 17, 2009 at 11:17 PM
oh yeah, a really big one:
No Roberts and ALito had Kerry won. Courts would be activist left for decades
jp on January 17, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Wanna know how long it will take for this one? Substitute the above for any of the following.
Admit It: Reagan Was Right About The Soviet Union.
Admit It: McCarthy Was Right About Spies In The State Department.
Admit It: Liberals Were Wrong About The Cold War.
Lehosh on January 17, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Of course I’d rather President Bush over a Democrat ANY day of my lifetime.
He was very pro-life, installed some great conservative judges, instituted great tax cuts which kept this economy going, gave al-Qa’eda and Islamism abroad a severe defeat in Iraq, and has kept them on their heels in Afghanistan. Libya is disarmed.
He strengthened our alliances with Eastern European states, kept this country safe for seven long years, he hasn’t taken any crap from Russia about missile defense, and there are other things I can’t remember.
Of course he’s done us dirty on immigration, spending, and the bailouts, but I am not one of those people who think he was just a do nothing president.
blatantblue on January 17, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Again, what are my choices in the 2008 election? If Bush is the Rep candidate, then yes. And again, what sane person wouldn’t vote for Bush in this circumstance?
As for why? Bush was right on a majority* of the issues that came up during his terms, and the challenges likely to come up in the next four years.
Conversely, while Obama’s campaign promises all come with an expiration date, the policies that he is almost certainly going to support are bad policies. They’ve failed in the past, and they will fail again. The man has never succeeded at anything other then self promotion in his life, and is part of the Chicago political machine.
Now, one other caveat, Bush is clearly a spent man now. Presumably, for the purposes of this exercise, we are talking about the Bush of 2006 and the man still has *some* fight left in him.
*Yes, I know spending and immigration are a big deal.
18-1 on January 17, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Conservatism was not intellectually discredited–no one in this administration actually ruled by conservative principles! Someday maybe fiscal conservatism will be proven wrong but not on the basis of this administration, its wild spending, and its near nationalization of the financial industry.
PattyJ on January 17, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Never gonna happen because that is exactly what they don’t want – people thinking that they could ever be wrong, about anything.
FIFY
Rae on January 17, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Yes. This is true.
tartan on January 17, 2009 at 11:36 PM
What struck me abou the whole article was the base argument that they should admit Bush was right… not because he was right… but because some of them need a humbling experience.
Wow… shows the whole outlook from the left has nothing to do with reailty, or Truth… but only about how people need to feel…
Romeo13 on January 17, 2009 at 11:37 PM
There’s a big one and just as likely as crediting the surge and points out a significant honesty difference between left and right, abetted by the media of course.
Speakup on January 17, 2009 at 11:44 PM
I consider myself sane and wouldn’t vote for him again, ever.
Bush was right on immigration – a far more sane policy than the hard line ‘close the border’ bs. On tax cuts he was great, but forgot the flip-side: spending cuts. Tax cuts help restrain government, so he got it half-right, but half-right is not good enough – he never got a handle on spending.
He was dragged kicking and screaming into finally letting Rummy go, and finally doing the ‘surge.’ Many of his choices in gov’t departments sucked (Brownie and Gonzales are just the most salient).
He allowed Iraq to trump Afghanistan in terms of focus and resources – he should have finished the first before considering the second.
He may have improved relations with Eastern Europe, but he destroyed relations with Western Europe, and as for Russia, he was played for a fool by Putin.
On the country, he sucked so bad that fewer than 1/3 of Americans could stand another month with him in office. Thank God for short terms.
Finally, the only big issue Bush got right, really right, was Africa and AIDS.
Af for Obama. Well, he’s the Man now, and we should at least give him a chance to succeed; this country needs him to.
trailboss on January 17, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Well, I guess you’ve fully answered the question. You aren’t sane.
18-1 on January 17, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Thanks to Republican domination since pretty much 1994, most of them have never had the ideologically humbling experience of watching their political gods fail miserably, either.
Patience, folks.
ddrintn on January 17, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Problem with your assessment in Obama succeeding is that if he succeeds, the US fails.
Read this…
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/comment/Gerald-Warner-New-president-same.4887764.jp
katy on January 17, 2009 at 11:56 PM
What is so bullshitty about closing the border so illegals and terrorists cannot enter anymore?
blatantblue on January 17, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Hell, furthermore, SCREW Western Europe. It isn’t Bush’s fault they are too afraid to combat the enemy within their borders and abroad.
blatantblue on January 17, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Well, I don’t know that is exactly right.
Remember all the corporate crimes that occurred under Clinton’s watch? Or his failures in dealing with Al Qaeda?
The media just refused to talk about them in that light, and the Left pretends they didn’t happen. I’m sure BO can look forward to the exact same response to his failures.
Speaking of which, has BO ever made any comments on the CRA, especially before say 2007? Considering the spirit of the times, it would be fitting I suppose if he had some role in the economic failure that helped bring him to power.
18-1 on January 18, 2009 at 12:07 AM
No, he was wrong. The President must enforce the law. Anything less is a dereliction of duty.
This is pretty simple stuff, trailboss.
You have absolutely NO IDEA how a different course of action would have resulted. I suspect that had he taken that action, and it resulted in 50,000 American dead with no end in sight and Iraq’s Hussein consolidating his power while subverting the American effort in Afghanistan, you would be calling Bush an idiot for that, too.
Western Europe has failed to improve relations with the standard bearer of Western Civilization in the modern era, the US.
Saltysam on January 18, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Big green horse apples all over that. If he ‘succeeds’ we are done. Not just conservatives, but liberty and self determination. You’ll not get me to Vichy-up just so Barry can succeed.
Limerick on January 18, 2009 at 12:25 AM
In Bush’s last years France, Germany and Italy all went conservative. Where do you get your info? Hello??
Chirac and Schroeder were on the take in the oil for food scandel in Iraq so of course Bush was not in their good graces in his first term.
katy on January 18, 2009 at 12:26 AM
This feature (quote of the day) is really annoying because you always make it a task for the reader to FIGURE OUT WHO THE HELL IS BEING QUOTED!!!!!
I’ve been feeling this for over a year and now I am finally complaining.
DON’T MAKE IT A GOD DAMNED GAME.
A pissed off reader comments.
Sigh.
Clavius on January 18, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Let’s see, we have several Democratically-controlled states like Michigan, New York, California (with an impotent RINO governor, let’s be honest) turning into financial hell-holes and there is NO chance of a Republican take-over the poliical machine in any of those states and dozen more than I could name. Those Dems are immune to ideological humbling and will remain so for the rest of the lives. If some guy loses in job in the next 20 years, they’ll blame it on Bush. If a kitten drowns during a rainstorm, it’ll be Bush’s fault. They have their whipping boy and they’ll ride those excuses to their graves – and the media will help them.
PackerBronco on January 18, 2009 at 12:34 AM
I certainly do remember, and I remember also that the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, thereby providing another focus — which, in my opinion, they didn’t exactly play masterfully.
Look, if recent history is any guide, when Democrats run the show all by their lonesomes, they screw up royally. Give it time.
ddrintn on January 18, 2009 at 12:47 AM
hey trailboss
jerrytbg on January 18, 2009 at 1:14 AM
or
jerrytbg on January 18, 2009 at 1:16 AM
Um ok (1) it’s not clear that the surge was what achieved success but (finally) political reconciliation and the shift of the Sunni mullahs to the Coalition side. Still, I give him props for not withdrawing.
More to the point, he lead the biggest screw-up in the history of US foreign relations by making the case that Iraq had post-80s WMDs and nothing is going to change that fact.
Sorryyyyyyyy.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 1:23 AM
You must be on drugs of some kind, or naturally delusional, or in ‘love’ like the others. The last thing this country needs is for this narcissistic cipher to succeed. If he succeeds, you and the country, and the world, though it doesn’t know it yet, will be scroomed.
I’m with Limerick.
Entelechy on January 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM
It’s like if I said “Okay, let’s drive the car into this ditch because we’re going to hit a dog” but there was no dog. But then I devised a brilliant method of getting the car out and someone insisted I be hailed as a brilliant driver because of it.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Wow. The biggest? Bigger then FDR signing off eastern Europe to Stalin? Bigger then Truman believing that the Chinese would never cross the Yalu? Bigger then JFK abandoning his hired mercenaries to die in the Bay of Pigs? Bigger then Clinton pulling the plug on putting chunk of lead through Bin Ladin’s head?
Wow. I never realized how big it was.
Limerick on January 18, 2009 at 1:34 AM
I’ll concede that those had (probably) more serious consequences but they weren’t as avoidable, save perhaps the FDR example but then the Allies were hardly in a position to prevent that takeover in any case.
It was obvious enough to enough people that Iraq did not have new WMD which it had any capacity to use strategically to rank it as the most colossally avoidable !$&#-up in U.S. history.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 1:38 AM
And Carter….why would we even think he was FUBAR with Iran?
Limerick on January 18, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Limerick on January 18, 2009 at 1:40 AM
Yeah, no, granted my friend, granted. IMHO it still doesn’t exceed the singular stupidity of the case made for Iraq.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 1:43 AM
wtf? That makes so little cents….hope you can get your money back for that lesson in the course…
jerrytbg on January 18, 2009 at 1:44 AM
jerrytbg on January 18, 2009 at 1:44 AM
Please elaborate.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 1:45 AM
Did you actually read the authorization?
Google it…
jerrytbg on January 18, 2009 at 1:48 AM
I hope you enjoyed the music…I can change the genre if it was not your style…
you and trailboss should take it on the road…oh wait… you have.
jerrytbg on January 18, 2009 at 1:52 AM
jerrytbg on January 18, 2009 at 1:48 AM
Dude, I’m not disputing the legality. I’m saying it wasn’t (to quote Bush Sr.) prudent.
Besides, “brutal repression of its civilian population” could apply to half the countries on earth; “Iraq’s capability (…) to use WMD” was proven false; and “members of Al-Qaeda known to be in Iraq” again, applies to a sh*tload of countries including Indonesia and Somalia. Feel like invading those too?
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 1:56 AM
Anyhow, what was your beef with my analogy? Does it seem reasonable to you to hail the statesmanship of someone for getting us out of a situation which he was responsible for getting us into in the first place? I would call that “the least you could do.”
And please don’t tell me why Obama is worse because it’s really not relevant.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 1:58 AM
Yep, imagine our surprise when Barry doesn’t turn out to be Abe Lincoln but James Buchanan instead.
Limerick on January 18, 2009 at 2:03 AM
Naww, I think of Obama as being like as if one of Boss Tweed’s men from Tammany Hall had won the White House.
Sekhmet on January 18, 2009 at 2:08 AM
Hey Alex,
You and a handful of other folks…I can call you folks, right?
You guys keep bashing Bush and gnashing at the same talking points over and over again…
You get nowhere when the facts are revealed…
I know it’s convenient to omit the points that are damaging to your argument…
But history….if there is any to be written, will show Bush to have taken the right, although unpopular, course of action in confronting the scourge that is islam. Period…end of the chapter.
No hard feelings.
jerrytbg on January 18, 2009 at 2:08 AM
jerrytbg on January 18, 2009 at 2:08 AM
No hard feelings indeed. I hope things work out for the best in Iraq, of course. I imagine that ultimately the war may prove to have been a net plus for the region. That doesn’t detract, in my opinion, from the shame that was the case made for it.
If men are going to volunteer and lay down their lives for something they deserve to know exactly what that “something” is. Our leaders have a responsibility to get it right. I’m not a fan of the “noble lie” theory of governance.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 2:20 AM
Trailboss and Alex,
Let me type it slowly so you can understand:
In 2002, we had a war going with Afghanistan after this little incident you seem to keep forgetting. While we were fighting in Afghanistan, we noticed that one of our old enemies in the area was getting rather long in the tooth. Moreover, we also had good diplomatic intelligence to suggest that other nations on the Security Council we may have had to count on should Iraq go into some kind of crisis after Saddam Hussein’s death were on the take from Oil For Food.
It was bad enough having to play Whack-A-Mole over the untouchable Pakistani border. An Iraq with “new” Baathist leadership that had bribed much of the world to sit on their hands would be completely and totally free to act against us. The US figured our best bet was to make a case against Saddam and take him out, rather than let him die and let the rest of the world give Uday/Qusay Hussein umpteen “second chances”while they counted the Euros from their discounted oil leases.
It doesn’t effing matter if we ever find Iraq’s WMD. WMD was a pretext for our need to take out an enemy regime while we still could—and with all the dilatory actions by the UN, any WMD Iraq had could have been moved out long before the first American boot stepped on Iraqi soil.
Sekhmet on January 18, 2009 at 2:21 AM
Let me just say I respect your opinion, though. Sometimes I get too aggressive on here and it’s only because I’m expecting to be attacked from all sides.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 2:22 AM
Alex,
If you think I’m wrong and just regurgitating the soon to be opposition point of view…
Then you are either willfully disregarding the facts or limiting your research to what you want to believe…
Either way, you will know the truth in the future if you’re young enough.
I am saddened that I am of the generation that allowed this to get this bad…
We have not learned from History.
And with that I bid you a good night.
jerrytbg on January 18, 2009 at 2:24 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »