I'm starting to see more and more in the media about what kind of legacy the Bush administration will be remembered for. I like the subject--only because it reminds one that there will soon be an end to his reign.
So what do you think would be a good quote to memorialize the Bush administration?
I suggest the following to get the ball rolling:
"You can [indeed] fool most of the people all of the time."
Bush Legacy
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Re: Bush Legacy
Well, you can't use the one "I'll sleep with almost anybody.". That one's been used up by his predecessor.
Flying Lobster wrote:So what do you think would be a good quote to memorialize the Bush administration?
Bush Legacy
From my understanding it's kinda hard to sleep when you're standing up
the whole time. But I'm gonna try to stay out from between you two guys.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, rancerupp wrote:
> Well, you can't use the one "I'll sleep with almost anybody.". That one's been used up by his predecessor.
>
the whole time. But I'm gonna try to stay out from between you two guys.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, rancerupp wrote:
> Well, you can't use the one "I'll sleep with almost anybody.". That one's been used up by his predecessor.
>
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Re: Bush Legacy
Good point--but as the bumper sticker says--at least when Clinton lied nobody died!rancerupp wrote:Well, you can't use the one "I'll sleep with almost anybody.". That one's been used up by his predecessor.
Flying Lobster wrote:So what do you think would be a good quote to memorialize the Bush administration?
Great Googly-moo!
Bush Legacy
"Here's a $600 tax cut check; but we can't afford Social Security!"
Or "The Iraqis will welcome us with flowers!"
On 12 Jul 2005, at 10:25, rancerupp wrote:
> Well, you can't use the one "I'll sleep with almost anybody.". That
> one's been used up by his predecessor.
>
>
> Flying Lobster wrote:
> So what do you think would be a good quote to memorialize the Bush
> administration?
>
>
>
>
>
Or "The Iraqis will welcome us with flowers!"
On 12 Jul 2005, at 10:25, rancerupp wrote:
> Well, you can't use the one "I'll sleep with almost anybody.". That
> one's been used up by his predecessor.
>
>
> Flying Lobster wrote:
> So what do you think would be a good quote to memorialize the Bush
> administration?
>
>
>
>
>
Bush Legacy
How about Nixon squared and proud of it.
Bankrupt America Financially and Destroyed America's Moral leadership in the World.
Used America's Social Security Money for HIS WAR in Iraq.
Transformed the Republican party into God's Own Party, doing the Devils work well.
Never made a mistake, just ask George.
Joe
Bankrupt America Financially and Destroyed America's Moral leadership in the World.
Used America's Social Security Money for HIS WAR in Iraq.
Transformed the Republican party into God's Own Party, doing the Devils work well.
Never made a mistake, just ask George.
Joe
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Bush/Rove Blow Job
Or how about:
George's idea of a good blow[n cover] job: a female undercover CIA agent!
George's idea of a good blow[n cover] job: a female undercover CIA agent!
Great Googly-moo!
Whenever a single party has control of both the Congress and
the Executive, the extreme elements in that party have a field-day.
I usually cast my vote so as to pit the two against each other.
Not that I believe there's really all that much difference between
Repubs and Dems.
But when they are forced to compromise with
each other, the results are usually a little more sane.
Hopefully, after two Bush administrations, enough people will
say "enough" and things will start swinging the other way.
--mark
the Executive, the extreme elements in that party have a field-day.
I usually cast my vote so as to pit the two against each other.
Not that I believe there's really all that much difference between
Repubs and Dems.
But when they are forced to compromise witheach other, the results are usually a little more sane.
Hopefully, after two Bush administrations, enough people will
say "enough" and things will start swinging the other way.
--mark
Bush Legacy
Ah, but there are great differences between Republicans and Democrats:
constraints on economic activity vs. constraints on sexual activity,
whether to protect individuals against the power of corporations, how
much to take care of the "losers" in economic competition - or people
who just have bad luck (collective economic security vs. "winner takes
all"), whether deficits matter, abortion, international cooperation
vs. "go-it-alone", the environment, science (global warming,
evolution, whether smoking causes cancer, gravity, the heliocentric
theory of the universe - "all just theories"), separation of church and
state, acceptance or rejection of gays as legitimate members of
society... Elections, and individual votes, do matter. - Hugh
On 14 Jul 2005, at 01:03, markc wrote:
>
> Whenever a single party has control of both the Congress and
> the Executive, the extreme elements in that party have a field-day.
>
> I usually cast my vote so as to pit the two against each other.
>
> Not that I believe there's really all that much difference between
> Repubs and Dems. But when they are forced to compromise with
> each other, the results are usually a little more sane.
>
> Hopefully, after two Bush administrations, enough people will
> say "enough" and things will start swinging the other way.
>
> --mark
>
constraints on economic activity vs. constraints on sexual activity,
whether to protect individuals against the power of corporations, how
much to take care of the "losers" in economic competition - or people
who just have bad luck (collective economic security vs. "winner takes
all"), whether deficits matter, abortion, international cooperation
vs. "go-it-alone", the environment, science (global warming,
evolution, whether smoking causes cancer, gravity, the heliocentric
theory of the universe - "all just theories"), separation of church and
state, acceptance or rejection of gays as legitimate members of
society... Elections, and individual votes, do matter. - Hugh
On 14 Jul 2005, at 01:03, markc wrote:
>
> Whenever a single party has control of both the Congress and
> the Executive, the extreme elements in that party have a field-day.
>
> I usually cast my vote so as to pit the two against each other.
>
> Not that I believe there's really all that much difference between
> Repubs and Dems.
But when they are forced to compromise with> each other, the results are usually a little more sane.
>
> Hopefully, after two Bush administrations, enough people will
> say "enough" and things will start swinging the other way.
>
> --mark
>
Bush Legacy
I read somewhere that the stock market does best when the prez is from one party and the congress is controlled by the other, and that it didn't make much difference which was which. I might be remembering wrong on the last bit.
Christy
markc <markc@chgpa.org> wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Christy
markc <markc@chgpa.org> wrote:
__________________________________________________Whenever a single party has control of both the Congress and
the Executive, the extreme elements in that party have a field-day.
I usually cast my vote so as to pit the two against each other.
Not that I believe there's really all that much difference between
Repubs and Dems.
each other, the results are usually a little more sane.
Hopefully, after two Bush administrations, enough people will
say "enough" and things will start swinging the other way.
--mark
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Bush Legacy
Well stated Hugh.
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: mcelrah@verizon.net [mailto:mcelrah@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 6:37 AM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Re: Bush Legacy
Ah, but there are great differences between Republicans and Democrats:
constraints on economic activity vs. constraints on sexual activity,
whether to protect individuals against the power of corporations, how
much to take care of the "losers" in economic competition - or people
who just have bad luck (collective economic security vs. "winner takes
all"), whether deficits matter, abortion, international cooperation
vs. "go-it-alone", the environment, science (global warming,
evolution, whether smoking causes cancer, gravity, the heliocentric
theory of the universe - "all just theories"), separation of church and
state, acceptance or rejection of gays as legitimate members of
society... Elections, and individual votes, do matter. - Hugh
On 14 Jul 2005, at 01:03, markc wrote:
>
> Whenever a single party has control of both the Congress and
> the Executive, the extreme elements in that party have a field-day.
>
> I usually cast my vote so as to pit the two against each other.
>
> Not that I believe there's really all that much difference between
> Repubs and Dems. But when they are forced to compromise with
> each other, the results are usually a little more sane.
>
> Hopefully, after two Bush administrations, enough people will
> say "enough" and things will start swinging the other way.
>
> --mark
>
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: mcelrah@verizon.net [mailto:mcelrah@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 6:37 AM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Re: Bush Legacy
Ah, but there are great differences between Republicans and Democrats:
constraints on economic activity vs. constraints on sexual activity,
whether to protect individuals against the power of corporations, how
much to take care of the "losers" in economic competition - or people
who just have bad luck (collective economic security vs. "winner takes
all"), whether deficits matter, abortion, international cooperation
vs. "go-it-alone", the environment, science (global warming,
evolution, whether smoking causes cancer, gravity, the heliocentric
theory of the universe - "all just theories"), separation of church and
state, acceptance or rejection of gays as legitimate members of
society... Elections, and individual votes, do matter. - Hugh
On 14 Jul 2005, at 01:03, markc wrote:
>
> Whenever a single party has control of both the Congress and
> the Executive, the extreme elements in that party have a field-day.
>
> I usually cast my vote so as to pit the two against each other.
>
> Not that I believe there's really all that much difference between
> Repubs and Dems.
But when they are forced to compromise with> each other, the results are usually a little more sane.
>
> Hopefully, after two Bush administrations, enough people will
> say "enough" and things will start swinging the other way.
>
> --mark
>
Re: Bush Legacy
mcelrah wrote:Ah, but there are great differences between Republicans and Democrats:
Pssst! Notice the smiley face!On 14 Jul 2005, at 01:03, markc wrote:
[....]
> Not that I believe there's really all that much difference between
> Repubs and Dems.
Bush Legacy
Problem is repetition of that egregious canard since many numbskulls
actually believe it. Bush has laid that myth to rest. - Hugh
On 14 Jul 2005, at 23:47, markc wrote:
>
>
> mcelrah wrote:
> Ah, but there are great differences between Republicans and Democrats:
>
> (end of quote)
>
>
>
> Quote:
>
> On 14 Jul 2005, at 01:03, markc wrote:
>
> [....]
>> Not that I believe there's really all that much difference between
>> Repubs and Dems.
>
>
> (end of quote)
>
>
> Pssst! Notice the smiley face!
>
>
>
actually believe it. Bush has laid that myth to rest. - Hugh
On 14 Jul 2005, at 23:47, markc wrote:
>
>
> mcelrah wrote:
> Ah, but there are great differences between Republicans and Democrats:
>
> (end of quote)
>
>
>
> Quote:
>
> On 14 Jul 2005, at 01:03, markc wrote:
>
> [....]
>> Not that I believe there's really all that much difference between
>> Repubs and Dems.
>
>
> (end of quote)
>
>
> Pssst! Notice the smiley face!
>
>
>
-
bustedwing2
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:58 pm
- Location: McConnellsburg,Pa
Tweedledee and Tweedledum
WW2=Democrat,Korea=Democrat,Vietnam=Democrat then Republican who inherited the war,Serbia/Bosnia=Democrat with cruise missle/F16 diplomacy,he sent nissiles to Afganistan too,Gulf 1=Republican,Gulf 2=Republican, the argument can be made in all of them that our vital interests were threatened,without a Congressional Declaration of War,and the resulting conquest with unconditional surrender of our opponent the resolution will always be muddied and uncertain for decades(N.Korea is still kicking the trash can).I forget if it was Animal Farm or 1984 that had the neverending war that geve the powers that be the excuse to reighn in freedoms and choices under the guise of for the good of the nation,sound familiar? Conflict is a neverending story,it has always been and always will be,it is the history of mankind and the future too.Each successive generation pays the price with the blood of it's children,35 years ago I was one of those unfortunate few who had to do his duty for his country. It saddens me that nothing has changed and the reality is that nothing will.
-
batmanh3
Each successive generation pays the price with the blood of it's children,35 years ago I was one of those unfortunate few who had to do his duty for his country. It saddens me that nothing has changed and the reality is that nothing will
It saddens me more that you consider yourself as "unfortunate" that you had to do your duty for your country. I'm sure many men and women would feel pity upon you while they have given up their lives for something that they feel honor in doing. I for one served my country as I felt it was something that I owed for the wonderful things we get to experience in the USA that many truly "unfortunate" people will never get to experience. Many people have died so you have the freedom to say what you want without fear of retribution for your opinions.
Chris
It saddens me more that you consider yourself as "unfortunate" that you had to do your duty for your country. I'm sure many men and women would feel pity upon you while they have given up their lives for something that they feel honor in doing. I for one served my country as I felt it was something that I owed for the wonderful things we get to experience in the USA that many truly "unfortunate" people will never get to experience. Many people have died so you have the freedom to say what you want without fear of retribution for your opinions.
Chris
Bush Legacy
I wonder how many covert operations were compromised with the White House leak of a CIA operative for political revenge? Were any people hurt or killed as a result? Most certainly we lost assets who are now not willing to help us with our war effort as a result. It may be that more than one person in the white house or vice presidents staff was involved, maybe even the president and or vice president. If I were a CIA operative right now would I be concerned that our President does not have the integrety to identify, fire and if appropriate prosecute the person or persons involved. Would not doing so violate the Presidents oath of office or maybe even be considered a high crime in itself. Oh I forgot, this is the moral president of the religious right. There is no offence if sex is not involved.
Joe
Joe
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
At the risk of descending into a locker-room arguement of the relative size (or lack thereof) of parts of male genetailia--I have to respond to Chris's post.
Chris--you seem to continue to fail to understand that attacking Bush's obviously flawed agenda IS NOT an attack on the military or the respect we have for service members--present or past. To willingly volunteer and sign an oath pledging your service to your country is indeed a higher calling which many cannot hope or be expected to understand. Having said that--eyes wide-opened and you did choose that path.
I know many servicepeople from all branches of the services, some retired, some active, some decorated, some purple heart, yet none of them openly talk about their service in duty the way you do. Sorta of like in flying, they let their actions speak for themselves. So, if your point is that those who serve their country in the military deserve respect for their duty to protect our country--I AGREE 1000%!
The problem nowadays is that the general population feels totally disconnected from participatory democracy--and with good reason. Most everyone I know--whether Repub or DEm--right or left--feels that their individual voice makes no difference because of the overwhelming integration of special interest money and government.
In my opinion, those in government are there to SERVE US, not the other way around. Therefore, it is not only our right, but our responsibility to sound the alarm when we feel there is reasonable cause to call into question any official or law of the land that we feel is bringing harm to any individual, or, as in the case of GW, possibly the long term health of the entire nation.
It is impossible for me to understand how any rational, caring person can look at the world today as a result of Bush's policies and not realize the astronomical damage he has done to the long-term economic, political and security well-being of the United States--and the rest of the world. Sometimes I truly believe the entire nation is being anesthetized as one deception after another slips by without responsibilty being taken at the top. Really makes me sick.
marc
Chris--you seem to continue to fail to understand that attacking Bush's obviously flawed agenda IS NOT an attack on the military or the respect we have for service members--present or past. To willingly volunteer and sign an oath pledging your service to your country is indeed a higher calling which many cannot hope or be expected to understand. Having said that--eyes wide-opened and you did choose that path.
I know many servicepeople from all branches of the services, some retired, some active, some decorated, some purple heart, yet none of them openly talk about their service in duty the way you do. Sorta of like in flying, they let their actions speak for themselves. So, if your point is that those who serve their country in the military deserve respect for their duty to protect our country--I AGREE 1000%!
The problem nowadays is that the general population feels totally disconnected from participatory democracy--and with good reason. Most everyone I know--whether Repub or DEm--right or left--feels that their individual voice makes no difference because of the overwhelming integration of special interest money and government.
In my opinion, those in government are there to SERVE US, not the other way around. Therefore, it is not only our right, but our responsibility to sound the alarm when we feel there is reasonable cause to call into question any official or law of the land that we feel is bringing harm to any individual, or, as in the case of GW, possibly the long term health of the entire nation.
It is impossible for me to understand how any rational, caring person can look at the world today as a result of Bush's policies and not realize the astronomical damage he has done to the long-term economic, political and security well-being of the United States--and the rest of the world. Sometimes I truly believe the entire nation is being anesthetized as one deception after another slips by without responsibilty being taken at the top. Really makes me sick.
marc
Great Googly-moo!
Ref Bush Legacy
I have to agree with Marc.
As a veteran who orginally thought that we were in Vietnam for right reasons, I finally realized our country had mislead everyone, both unintentionally and intentionally, about what we were there for. I lost total faith in the leadership of our country when Ronnie Reagan had his own personal war with the Iran Contra affair and got away with it. George Bush took that one step further and deliberatly mislead the country into starting a war that will soon establish an Islamic state in Iraq. All at the cost of billions to the US taxpayer, really our kids since he is charging it on the nations debt, and the blood of our military members.
We should always support or military members regardless of the political leadership, but we should never stop questioning the political leaders about what they are doing and why. We are living with the most corrupt goverment since Nixon. Bush and Cheney should both be impeached in my view for their lies and deceit in leading us into Irag and now for the leak of a CIA operative from their offices and staff.
The best thing we could do for our troops is to bring them home from Iraq now.
Joe
As a veteran who orginally thought that we were in Vietnam for right reasons, I finally realized our country had mislead everyone, both unintentionally and intentionally, about what we were there for. I lost total faith in the leadership of our country when Ronnie Reagan had his own personal war with the Iran Contra affair and got away with it. George Bush took that one step further and deliberatly mislead the country into starting a war that will soon establish an Islamic state in Iraq. All at the cost of billions to the US taxpayer, really our kids since he is charging it on the nations debt, and the blood of our military members.
We should always support or military members regardless of the political leadership, but we should never stop questioning the political leaders about what they are doing and why. We are living with the most corrupt goverment since Nixon. Bush and Cheney should both be impeached in my view for their lies and deceit in leading us into Irag and now for the leak of a CIA operative from their offices and staff.
The best thing we could do for our troops is to bring them home from Iraq now.
Joe
Bush Legacy
I pretty much agree with every statement except bringing the troops home
now - that would be like being halfway through an operation, then
realizing it was a mistake and walking away to let the patient bleed to
death on the table. Much as I dislike being there in the first place, I
think we now have a moral responsibility for finishing the job. It's all
just a damn shame.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Joe Schad wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Marc.
>
> As a veteran who orginally thought that we were in Vietnam for right reasons, I finally realized our country had mislead everyone, both unintentionally and intentionally, about what we were there for. I lost total faith in the leadership of our country when Ronnie Reagan had his own personal war with the Iran Contra affair and got away with it. George Bush took that one step further and deliberatly mislead the country into starting a war that will soon establish an Islamic state in Iraq. All at the cost of billions to the US taxpayer, really our kids since he is charging it on the nations debt, and the blood of our military members.
>
> We should always support or military members regardless of the political leadership, but we should never stop questioning the political leaders about what they are doing and why. We are living with the most corrupt goverment since Nixon. Bush and Cheney should both be impeached in my view for their lies and deceit in leading us into Irag and now for the leak of a CIA operative from their offices and staff.
>
> The best thing we could do for our troops is to bring them home from Iraq now.
>
> Joe
>
now - that would be like being halfway through an operation, then
realizing it was a mistake and walking away to let the patient bleed to
death on the table. Much as I dislike being there in the first place, I
think we now have a moral responsibility for finishing the job. It's all
just a damn shame.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Joe Schad wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Marc.
>
> As a veteran who orginally thought that we were in Vietnam for right reasons, I finally realized our country had mislead everyone, both unintentionally and intentionally, about what we were there for. I lost total faith in the leadership of our country when Ronnie Reagan had his own personal war with the Iran Contra affair and got away with it. George Bush took that one step further and deliberatly mislead the country into starting a war that will soon establish an Islamic state in Iraq. All at the cost of billions to the US taxpayer, really our kids since he is charging it on the nations debt, and the blood of our military members.
>
> We should always support or military members regardless of the political leadership, but we should never stop questioning the political leaders about what they are doing and why. We are living with the most corrupt goverment since Nixon. Bush and Cheney should both be impeached in my view for their lies and deceit in leading us into Irag and now for the leak of a CIA operative from their offices and staff.
>
> The best thing we could do for our troops is to bring them home from Iraq now.
>
> Joe
>
Bush Legacy
I'm with Thomas Friedman on Iraq: it might have been worth doing if
we had committed to doing it right. It was the breathtaking
incompetence of the administration - the Vice President and the
Secretary of Defense - in refusing to plan seriously for the post-
conflict phase that got us into this - yes! - quagmire. Military
officers know how to do this sort of detailed planning; it's in the
doctrine to do so; they were forbidden to participate in meetings
called by Department of State to initiate such planning. I think the
administration was so bore-sighted on overcoming opposition to going
in that they did not want to be "confused with facts" about what
would be required after "victory". - Hugh
On 27 Jul 2005, at 08:46, Vant-Hull - Brian wrote:
>
>
> I pretty much agree with every statement except bringing the troops
> home
> now - that would be like being halfway through an operation, then
> realizing it was a mistake and walking away to let the patient
> bleed to
> death on the table. Much as I dislike being there in the first
> place, I
> think we now have a moral responsibility for finishing the job.
> It's all
> just a damn shame.
>
> Brian Vant-Hull
> 301-646-1149
>
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Joe Schad wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I have to agree with Marc.
>>
>> As a veteran who orginally thought that we were in Vietnam for
>> right reasons, I finally realized our country had mislead
>> everyone, both unintentionally and intentionally, about what we
>> were there for. I lost total faith in the leadership of our
>> country when Ronnie Reagan had his own personal war with the Iran
>> Contra affair and got away with it. George Bush took that one
>> step further and deliberatly mislead the country into starting a
>> war that will soon establish an Islamic state in Iraq. All at the
>> cost of billions to the US taxpayer, really our kids since he is
>> charging it on the nations debt, and the blood of our military
>> members.
>>
>> We should always support or military members regardless of the
>> political leadership, but we should never stop questioning the
>> political leaders about what they are doing and why. We are
>> living with the most corrupt goverment since Nixon. Bush and
>> Cheney should both be impeached in my view for their lies and
>> deceit in leading us into Irag and now for the leak of a CIA
>> operative from their offices and staff.
>>
>> The best thing we could do for our troops is to bring them home
>> from Iraq now.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>
>
>
we had committed to doing it right. It was the breathtaking
incompetence of the administration - the Vice President and the
Secretary of Defense - in refusing to plan seriously for the post-
conflict phase that got us into this - yes! - quagmire. Military
officers know how to do this sort of detailed planning; it's in the
doctrine to do so; they were forbidden to participate in meetings
called by Department of State to initiate such planning. I think the
administration was so bore-sighted on overcoming opposition to going
in that they did not want to be "confused with facts" about what
would be required after "victory". - Hugh
On 27 Jul 2005, at 08:46, Vant-Hull - Brian wrote:
>
>
> I pretty much agree with every statement except bringing the troops
> home
> now - that would be like being halfway through an operation, then
> realizing it was a mistake and walking away to let the patient
> bleed to
> death on the table. Much as I dislike being there in the first
> place, I
> think we now have a moral responsibility for finishing the job.
> It's all
> just a damn shame.
>
> Brian Vant-Hull
> 301-646-1149
>
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Joe Schad wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I have to agree with Marc.
>>
>> As a veteran who orginally thought that we were in Vietnam for
>> right reasons, I finally realized our country had mislead
>> everyone, both unintentionally and intentionally, about what we
>> were there for. I lost total faith in the leadership of our
>> country when Ronnie Reagan had his own personal war with the Iran
>> Contra affair and got away with it. George Bush took that one
>> step further and deliberatly mislead the country into starting a
>> war that will soon establish an Islamic state in Iraq. All at the
>> cost of billions to the US taxpayer, really our kids since he is
>> charging it on the nations debt, and the blood of our military
>> members.
>>
>> We should always support or military members regardless of the
>> political leadership, but we should never stop questioning the
>> political leaders about what they are doing and why. We are
>> living with the most corrupt goverment since Nixon. Bush and
>> Cheney should both be impeached in my view for their lies and
>> deceit in leading us into Irag and now for the leak of a CIA
>> operative from their offices and staff.
>>
>> The best thing we could do for our troops is to bring them home
>> from Iraq now.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>
>
>
Bush Legacy
The military kept telling Rumsfeld he'd need 4 to 5 hundred thousand
troops. Rummy didn't like it so he went shopping until he found a guy
down in Florida who said Iraq could be taken down with 50,000 troops. The
guy was right...so long as you don't care what happens afterwards. The
pentagon managed to talk the number up to 150,000. Remarkable short
sightedness on the part of the administration. It's all in a Frontline
documentary "Rumsfeld's War"; they interviewed the top Pentagon brass who
had made the original recommendations, and they didn't have alot of nice
things to say. No wonder the administration is pushing to rein in PBS.
Note that both the current joint chief of staff and the previous joint
chief of staff has been sidelined by the civilian hawks.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 mcelrah@verizon.net wrote:
>
> I'm with Thomas Friedman on Iraq: it might have been worth doing if
> we had committed to doing it right. It was the breathtaking
> incompetence of the administration - the Vice President and the
> Secretary of Defense - in refusing to plan seriously for the post-
> conflict phase that got us into this - yes! - quagmire. Military
> officers know how to do this sort of detailed planning; it's in the
> doctrine to do so; they were forbidden to participate in meetings
> called by Department of State to initiate such planning. I think the
> administration was so bore-sighted on overcoming opposition to going
> in that they did not want to be "confused with facts" about what
> would be required after "victory". - Hugh
>
troops. Rummy didn't like it so he went shopping until he found a guy
down in Florida who said Iraq could be taken down with 50,000 troops. The
guy was right...so long as you don't care what happens afterwards. The
pentagon managed to talk the number up to 150,000. Remarkable short
sightedness on the part of the administration. It's all in a Frontline
documentary "Rumsfeld's War"; they interviewed the top Pentagon brass who
had made the original recommendations, and they didn't have alot of nice
things to say. No wonder the administration is pushing to rein in PBS.
Note that both the current joint chief of staff and the previous joint
chief of staff has been sidelined by the civilian hawks.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 mcelrah@verizon.net wrote:
>
> I'm with Thomas Friedman on Iraq: it might have been worth doing if
> we had committed to doing it right. It was the breathtaking
> incompetence of the administration - the Vice President and the
> Secretary of Defense - in refusing to plan seriously for the post-
> conflict phase that got us into this - yes! - quagmire. Military
> officers know how to do this sort of detailed planning; it's in the
> doctrine to do so; they were forbidden to participate in meetings
> called by Department of State to initiate such planning. I think the
> administration was so bore-sighted on overcoming opposition to going
> in that they did not want to be "confused with facts" about what
> would be required after "victory". - Hugh
>
Re: Bush Legacy
I like this better: " The price of freedom is not free"
And before you start celebrating that there will not be a President Bush in January of 2009,........beware of Jeb from Florida....my prediction to "inherit" the throne after "W". We already know he can "win" in Florida.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
And before you start celebrating that there will not be a President Bush in January of 2009,........beware of Jeb from Florida....my prediction to "inherit" the throne after "W". We already know he can "win" in Florida.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Flying Lobster wrote:I'm starting to see more and more in the media about what kind of legacy the Bush administration will be remembered for. I like the subject--only because it reminds one that there will soon be an end to his reign.
So what do you think would be a good quote to memorialize the Bush administration?
I suggest the following to get the ball rolling:
"You can [indeed] fool most of the people all of the time."
-
hepcat1989
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:15 pm
Do votes matter? What kind of statement would be sent if no one voted?I really don't think the people spoke when GW was handed his job again. He didn't win his job to begin with.I don't think votes matter anymore. Nobody likes GW,his approval now is down to 24%. I don't think the american people on a whole are that G-DAMM stupid.Hence, I don't think votes matter! Shawn.
State Dept & Husband outted CIA agent
I wonder how many covert operations were compromised with the White House leak of a CIA operative for political revenge? Were any people hurt or killed as a result? Most certainly we lost assets who are now not willing to help us with our war effort as a result. It may be that more than one person in the white house or vice presidents staff was involved, maybe even the president and or vice president. If I were a CIA operative right now would I be concerned that our President does not have the integrety to identify, fire and if appropriate prosecute the person or persons involved. Would not doing so violate the Presidents oath of office or maybe even be considered a high crime in itself. Oh I forgot, this is the moral president of the religious right. There is no offence if sex is not involved.
Joe
YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN JOE !!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01460.html
Joe
YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN JOE !!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01460.html