Bush's former press secretary says Bush misled U.S. on Iraq

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

McClellan has some kind words for Bush, calling him "a man of personal charm, wit and enormous political skill." He writes that the president "did not consciously set out to engage in these destructive practices. But like others before him, he chose to play the Washington game the way he found it, rather than changing the culture as he vowed to do at the outset of his campaign for the presidency."

This right here is why I feel that GW2 is a rather unremarkable president.

Lots of the decisions he made, that people hound him for, seemed to be decisions of circumstance. A better man perhaps would have gone beyond the status quo, and made the less fundamental decision and would have produced better results, but GW pretty much was the run-of-the-mill decision maker.

We've seen better, we've seen worse, and we will probably have worse in the future. That's my official position on the Bush Administration.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

This right here is why I feel that GW2 is a rather unremarkable president.

Lots of the decisions he made, that people hound him for, seemed to be decisions of circumstance. A better man perhaps would have gone beyond the status quo, and made the less fundamental decision and would have produced better results, but GW pretty much was the run-of-the-mill decision maker.

We've seen better, we've seen worse, and we will probably have worse in the future. That's my official position on the Bush Administration.

Couldn't have said it better. Bush the president was average in most respects. Good in a few respects and awfule in a few others. I don't think he is a bad guy but I think his admiistration was a joke. He had power mongers who had no problem throwing him under the bus as they steered him off course. A stronger man could have prevented this. I don't fault him for that as much as I feel disappointed. I fault guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld who screwed up everything in the name of politics.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Couldn't have said it better. Bush the president was average in most respects. Good in a few respects and awfule in a few others. I don't think he is a bad guy but I think his admiistration was a joke. He had power mongers who had no problem throwing him under the bus as they steered him off course. A stronger man could have prevented this. I don't fault him for that as much as I feel disappointed. I fault guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld who screwed up everything in the name of politics.

Yeah I definitely think, from all I've heard and read, that Rumsfeld played a huge role in all this mess. More so than advertised. W's decision to essentially fill his staff with people who have been in the White House since the Ford administration was probably more so a curse than a blessing. I think it's important to have a mix of established people and fresh faces. Or he could have done like my man Ike and totally gone with outsiders.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Yeah I definitely think, from all I've heard and read, that Rumsfeld played a huge role in all this mess. More so than advertised. W's decision to essentially fill his staff with people who have been in the White House since the Ford administration was probably more so a curse than a blessing. I think it's important to have a mix of established people and fresh faces. Or he could have done like my man Ike and totally gone with outsiders.

rumsfeld almost single handedly f'd the whole thing up himself. the military and various civilian advisers who knew what they were talking about and had planned for the post war contingencies and logistics were completely (and i mean COMPLETELY) ignored, because he thought he was SOO much smarter than everyone else's combined intellect.

we had a plan, but the guy torched it so he could play it by ear. brilliant! i guess it's not that bad, i mean, it's not like those decisions cost large scale loss of life... oh wait.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

This right here is why I feel that GW2 is a rather unremarkable president.

Lots of the decisions he made, that people hound him for, seemed to be decisions of circumstance. A better man perhaps would have gone beyond the status quo, and made the less fundamental decision and would have produced better results, but GW pretty much was the run-of-the-mill decision maker.

We've seen better, we've seen worse, and we will probably have worse in the future. That's my official position on the Bush Administration.

What B's GW has gone against the grain and the media for a ton of things that have brought his ratings down just because he thought it was protecting the US. Do I really need to start naming them. There everyday in the news for the past 6 years or so.

[dblanch66]

Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Whig, Tory...doesn't matter. Bush sucks as a president. I don't care how much of a "good guy" he is, he was our worst president besides Hoover. I'd rather have a president who's an asshole as long as he or she knows how to run the country with forsight, intelligence, tact, diplomacy, creativity, toughness, open mindedness and humility. None of which George Bush possesses.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Whig, Tory...doesn't matter. Bush sucks as a president. I don't care how much of a "good guy" he is, he was our worst president besides Hoover. I'd rather have a president who's an asshole as long as he or she knows how to run the country with forsight, intelligence, tact, diplomacy, creativity, toughness, open mindedness and humility. None of which George Bush possesses.

I wasn't alive for Hoover but I was for Jimmy Carter and all the adults around me were ready to revolt if he had been reelected. There's no way he would have survived a second term. He was positively reviled. Also, Bush will not face an impeachment hearing which is something Clinton, Nixon, and Johnson couldn't say. In addition, James Buchanan, who was an homosexual, allowed the country to slip to the brink of civil war, so your history is off.

[70Chip]

Christopher Hitchens weighs in:

If you want to read a serious book about the intervention in Iraq, try War and Decision. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I wasn't alive for Hoover but I was for Jimmy Carter and all the adults around me were ready to revolt if he had been reelected. There's no way he would have survived a second term. He was positively reviled. Also, Bush will not face an impeachment hearing which is something Clinton, Nixon, and Johnson couldn't say. In addition, James Buchanan, who was an homosexual, allowed the country to slip to the brink of civil war, so your history is off.

Everything I heard and read about Carter indicates he was pretty awful, and has only made things worse over the years. Maybe he should have just stuck with Habitat for Humanity

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/v...10824?page=all

Buchanan is interesting, because his worst crime (apart from apparently being pro-slavery) is that he really did nothing because he felt (I think correctly) that constitutionally he didn't have the power to do anything (in regards to secession). Today, we complain when a President invokes executive power and takes action, but we could have avoided a major civil war had Buchanan (and Pierce) done such a thing over 150 years ago. (I mean I believe Lincoln did so during the Civil War) Then again, it may have made no difference.

As for the homosexual part. I never knew that was actually proven. I've only heard it speculated. Secondly, what does it matter? What was the point of even throwing that comment in there?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Everything I heard and read about Carter indicates he was pretty awful, and has only made things worse over the years. Maybe he should have just stuck with Habitat for Humanity

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/v...10824?page=all

Buchanan is interesting, because his worst crime (apart from apparently being pro-slavery) is that he really did nothing because he felt (I think correctly) that constitutionally he didn't have the power to do anything (in regards to secession). Today, we complain when a President invokes executive power and takes action, but we could have avoided a major civil war had Buchanan (and Pierce) done such a thing over 150 years ago. (I mean I believe Lincoln did so during the Civil War) Then again, it may have made no difference.

Despite how we view Honest Abe we can trace the socialization of our republic back to his decisions. Up until the Civil war our country operated much differently and more within the ideals of the founding fathers in terms of limited national government. After the war our country became much more nationalistic and states rights have been eroding ever since.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Despite how we view Honest Abe we can trace the socialization of our republic back to his decisions. Up until the Civil war our country operated much differently and more within the ideals of the founding fathers in terms of limited national government. After the war our country became much more nationalistic and states rights have been eroding ever since.

FDR had a big part in that too

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I wasn't alive for Hoover but I was for Jimmy Carter and all the adults around me were ready to revolt if he had been reelected. There's no way he would have survived a second term. He was positively reviled. Also, Bush will not face an impeachment hearing which is something Clinton, Nixon, and Johnson couldn't say. In addition, James Buchanan, who was an homosexual, allowed the country to slip to the brink of civil war, so your history is off.

Just because Bush didn't face impeachment doesn't mean he SHOULDN'T. He managed to worm out of that due to a lack of intestinal fortitude by the Dems. My history is not "off". I suppose you believe Pearl Harbor was a "surprise attack" and that Oswald acted alone. Mine is a matter of opinion based on fact. Gee...you would't be a ....republican that voted for Bush would you? Hoover was mentioned as an example, not ultimate definition. Were there other bad presidents? Of course. None, however, could possibly have been as braindead and dogmatic as the current President Fuckhead.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Just because Bush didn't face impeachment doesn't mean he SHOULDN'T. He managed to worm out of that due to a lack of intestinal fortitude by the Dems. My history is not "off". I suppose you believe Pearl Harbor was a "surprise attack" and that Oswald acted alone. Mine is a matter of opinion based on fact. Gee...you would't be a ....republican that voted for Bush would you? Hoover was mentioned as an example, not ultimate definition. Were there other bad presidents? Of course. None, however, could possibly have been as braindead and dogmatic as the current President Fuckhead.

What law did he break that should have gotten him impeached

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by steveo395

What law did he break that should have gotten him impeached

This will go nowhere. We already had at least one thread all about this in the past that was highly unproductive

[dblanch66]

QUOTE=steveo395;451206]What law did he break that should have gotten him impeached[/QUOTE]
startling. just startling.