Well, well, well . . . What do you know? Thomas Friedman, the liberal columnist of the New York Times, is crediting George Bush with helping to create fundamental changes in the Middle East and make democracy possible: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14friedman.html?_r=1 Friedman argues that real and significant change is taking place in the Middle East right now, and it's time to start paying attention. I guess the Libs had to get Bush out of Washington before they could start being honest about his achievements.
But I thought we weren't supposed to trust the liberal media??? Now you're quoting them? This is why you are the party of no credibility. HTH POST ON VALIANT WARRIOR!
Shooter, my friend - unlike your side, we libs can admit when we might be wrong, even when that collides with our ideology. See for instance the thread "Bush foreign policy in retrospect" wherein many of us begrudgingly admit that Iraq is turning out better than we thought it would, thankfully. The difference is that you guys can only only see through your right wing lens and cant ever admit you made a mistake or may have been wrong. That's too bad.
It should also be noted that President Bush's actions neutered Libya. Qaddafi now does everything he can to stay on the right side of us. Of course, it was too late to save my friend from being blown to bits over Lockerbie, but future lives were saved.
If we would have kept our foot on the pedal in Afghanistan, I have no doubt that we would be in a better situation now than we currently are. The situation on the ground in Iraq has certainly improved, but at what cost? In terms of real dollars and in terms of American lives? I would have liked to seen us finish the job in Afghanistan instead of diverting our attention to Iraq. I have yet to see one credible piece of intelligence that Saddam possessed WMD's or the ability to use them; or that there were active terrorist cells and training camps akin to those in other Middle Eastern nations. There are plenty of nations with oppressive governments that do deplorable things to its citizens. Maybe we should start using military force to overthrow all of those governments as well. You know ... continue to stretch our military resources thin and spend taxpayer dollars to spread democracy. I refuse to give Bush credit for a flawed strategy. I mean, sure, if you throw enough troops and money at a situation, there is bound to be improvement. But his administration cost thousands of families their fathers, sons, mothers, daughters, brothers, sisters, etc. and compromised our domestic economic strength. Meanwhile, the situation in Afghanistan has gotten drastically worse, with the Taliban once again taking root and opium farms providing up to 80% of the funding for extreme terrorist cells in the Afghani-Pakistani mountains. -Pop
Ha, ha, ha. "Throwing troops and money" at the situation was exactly what the Left was ridiculing us for all during the war. They said it would only make things worse, would only unite Iraq against us, blah, blah, blah. Now you're saying just the opposite, because apparently the strategy succeeded. Except that you refuse to give Bush any credit for the strategy. Bravo, my friend. Bravo!!
So Bush was right to liberate Iraq--he just did it inefficiently? Our victory in WWII could have been executed "more efficiently," too. We lost 9,387 American troops in the invasion of Normandy alone, but nobody criticizes FDR for that battle. In fact, it is considered a gallant sacrifice by our troops to help liberate a local population from a tyrant, which is exactly what we did in Iraq.
Afghanistan is nation building from scratch. That is a completely unraveled society. What the Soviets didn't demolish, the Taliban did. The key there isn't military conquest, but providing schools, hospitals and infrastructure. The challenge in Iraq is simply to quell rebellion so the nascent democratic institutions can grab hold. Iraq has enough infrastructure to move forward on its own after that. As I explained above, they're two different issues. Afghanistan is going to take decades to straighten out. At least a generation and possibly two. I think the dead Kurds and Iranians are all the evidence you need. That being said, I think the intelligence was so compelling (and this is just my theory) because Saddam's scientists were too scared to tell him they couldn't build a nuclear weapon. I think everyone was telling Saddam that they were close, that they were putting on a good show of acquiring the materials and evading the UN to buttress it. I think Saddam thought they were close. However, I think it was all a show for him and they really didn't possess the technology. And the sham was so they (the scientists) could keep their lives. That's why there was so much chatter in and out of Iraq that they were close. Again, that's just my opinion, but on this score EVERYONE was wrong, so there has to be some explanation. So, do you also refuse to give Obama credit for a flawed strategy on the stimulus package? I mean, sure if you throw enough bureaucrats and borrowed money at a situation, there is bound improvement. But his administration is costing hundreds of thousands of families the jobs their fathers, sons, mothers, daughters, brothers, sisters, etc. and compromised our domestic economic strength. As long as they have safe haven in Pakistan, they're going to continue to grow in power. Remember, the worst thing for the Taliban is for democracy to flourish in Afghanistan.
You raise two points. Did Saddam have WMDs? For this reason (below), he had to be disarmed. Disarmed meaning never able to rearm or whatever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack If you're looking for people who saw the intel and voted for the war, there are a stream of Democrats including both Clintons, John Kerry, and many others who were briefed and have connections with foreign powers and oversight responsibility. As we know, Pelosi and several other Democrats were briefed all along about the gory details of what we were doing and only came out against those things when it was politically beneficial. Second issue you raise is whether we should overthrow other dictators. Saddam was an evil of our own making. If you're familiar with Iran-Contra, you know we were playing both sides against the other in the Iran-Iraq war, even selling arms to Iran. The thing is, Iraq won the war after we shared satellite intel with Saddam's armed forces so they knew all the positions of Iran's planes, tanks, jeeps, control centers, and forces. When it was all said and done, Saddam was in power with one of the strongest militaries in the world, and he used that might to repress the people there. Blood was on our hands. Not so of other places. However, we can see what happens when we use force in a place like Kosovo and we can see what happens when we don't in a place like Rwanda. Iraq is a lot closer to the situation in Kosovo than Rwanda. Lincoln had to replace his top generals several times during the Civil War until he found the right one who had the winning strategy. It's not a whole lot different than what happened with Iraq. We had the right guy to accomplish the mission of ending Saddam's government and disbursing his military, but we didn't have the right one to win the hearts and minds of the people and to rebuild the place in shorter order. Though shorter order may not have been possible under any circumstances. Has it gotten worse since Obama escalated the troop levels there? Maxiep is spot on that Afghanistan is a country in the stone age with virtually no history, one major highway in the whole country, one major city, and the bulk of their population living in tents or mud huts scattered across the landscape. Compare to Iraq which is the oldest civilization on the face of the earth, with modern cities, hospitals, universities, grade schools, and an actual source of revenue that isn't illegal like poppies. I haven't heard one word about any offensive ordered or supported by Obama to go after the poppy fields, have you? If you're so worried about that money funding terrorist activities and organizations, maybe you should speak up for doing that kind of thing. Realize it will really impoverish that nation, since they have nothing else to bring money in and potentially improve their standard of living. Afghanistan is Obama's war now, and he's chosen to send more troops there. While I don't support that kind of effort, I'm not going to pound away at him for doing so because I saw what the left did to the effort in Iraq. An outright disgrace. I hope we win there and win soon. Whatever win means.
This is the dirty little secret about "Bush's War" that the Libs keep trying to sweep under the carpet. The fact is, it wasn't Bush's war; it was Congress' war, too. They all (and that includes the Democrats) saw the same intel that Bush did, and they all bought it. I could give you countless clips of Dems like Bill and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry urgently pleading the case for action against Saddam Hussein. You can't lecture liberals about war, because they don't know the first thing about it. They have no idea how to fight a war, win a war, or keep the peace. That's why the last two Democrat presidents (Clinton and Obama) have both appointed Republicans to head up the U.S. military.
On the other hand, we've been killing democratically elected leaders in the Middle East, for decades, and sometimes installing tyrants in their stead. Only someone who is incredibly ignorant, or is getting paid to write propaganda would say that Bush is improving the Middle East. Don't be so foolish guy. Do your homework. Iraqi journalists are still being executing under the new regime for criticizing the government. Freedom? And last time I checked, Iraq was still being occupied by a foreign military power. And horrible atrocities are being committed against the people of Iraq everday. It would be like if China invaded and occupied us, through our people into torture camps, then their press called us free, and dipshits in China believed they were doing us some kind of favor.
Speaking of "homework," have you done yours? If so, please show me the evidence you have that Thomas Friedman is either ignorant, or getting paid to write propaganda. Friedman wrote an excellent book on the Middle East called "From Beirut to Jerusalem" (which I have read) and he is universally regarded as an expert in the Middle East. He travels there on a regular basis, and has many, many contacts in the region. Uh, the Iraqi government is begging our troops to stay, or haven't you noticed? We are helping them build up their military and police forces, and helping to keep the peace until they are ready to stand on their own. As for those "horrible atrocities" being committed against the Iraqi people, those are all being done by their own Muslim brothers in the name of terrorism. The U.S. forces are trying to prevent them from happening!
I love when people spend all their time dedicated to posting "look, i'm right about X" messages on a stupid message board about basketball. Real contributors to society... just imagine how fucked up the children of such person must be...
How did that economic thing work out after FDR invaded Normandy oh right 60 years of prosperity and lets see under Bush we have oh right a recession/depression. Come on Bush/Clinton/Obama All terrible all virtually worthless stopped clock right twice a day etc.
60 years of prosperity? According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the non-partisan group that defines recessionary periods, there have been 10 recessions since World War II. http://www.bicycleretailer.com/news/newsDetail/2198.html
