The left ridiculed Bush

[TheBlueVue 177]

unmercifully for being as they loved to believe less than competent as POTUS. Here's a shocker.

http://theweek.com/s...s#axzz33oGcQIBW

I guess community organizing isn't a great breeding ground for developing the necessary skill set for the most powerful position on the planet. Not surprisingly, GWB made all of his academic records available but barry's are sealed. Another shocker amirite?

The guy in the WH is the biggest phony, by far, to ever sit on the Oval Office and the MSM has worked harder at covering his inadequacies than they did exposing GWB's and that is putting in serious work!

[AURaptor 1,137]

The Left accused W of 'unilaterally' taking us to war, when he did nothing of the sort.

Meanwhile, Barry has routinely and openly declared that if he doesn't get Congress to play his game, he'd " go it alone " and do what needs doing.

[AUFAN78 4,061]

The Left accused W of 'unilaterally' taking us to war, when he did nothing of the sort.

Meanwhile, Barry has routinely and openly declared that if he doesn't get Congress to play his game, he'd " go it alone " and do what needs doing.

When pressed on the issue they deflect and run! Every time. Their talking points only allow minimal conversation.

[AURaptor 1,137]

The Left think that, once their bumper sticker slogans have been chanted, the debate is over.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Here's the only slogan they could use with specific regard to the Irag War, if they were honest but, that's become a preposterous idea with the political climate as toxic as it has become. Lead by their messiah it seems lying has become the democrats go to solution on just about every topic from climate change, fast and furiious, the IRS, Benghazi to Bowe Bergdahl.

"I was for it before I was against it"

[alexava 6,974]

For it based on WMDs that were never found. Misled.

[AUFAN78 4,061]

For it based on WMDs that were never found. Misled.

sigh

[autigeremt 6,970]

For it based on WMDs that were never found. Misled.

Yet had bipartisan approval by Congress to go in and get and take down Saddam. I wouldn't have wasted the time, blood, and treasure over capturing our chemical weapons from the 70s and 80s (especially after they were taken to Syria) but that's just my opinion.

[alexava 6,974]

Why not go to Syria then?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Why not go to Syria then?

Barry gave the red-line threat.

Mission accomplished ?

[autigeremt 6,970]

Why not go to Syria then?

You'd have to ask Cheney, GWB, Rumsfeld, and the folks from both parties in the briefings throughout that process. They saw the trucks funneling into Syria. Ask them.

[alexava 6,974]

Syria was as guilty as the Taliban if this is true.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Syria was as guilty as the Taliban if this is true.

Well...Syria has been able to demonstrate it has the capacity, and I have a couple of former cohorts on a ship sitting off the coast of Syria trying to slowly destroy "some" of the chemical weapons Syria has.

[cptau 169]

Why not go to Syria then?

Putin. Obama is afraid of the Russian bear. Russia has a navy base in Syria and sells arms to them.

Putin then made it look like he was the peacemaker, but Syria still has its old government and chemical weapons. Putin ate Obama's lunch and took Crimea as dessert.

If all the rumors are true the Benghazi mess is a CIA arm deal for the Syrian rebels that went badly. 4 Americans killed and US arms appear to have gotten to enemy forces.

[alexava 6,974]

Why not go to Syria then?

Putin. Obama is afraid of the Russian bear. Russia has a navy base in Syria and sells arms to them.

Putin then made it look like he was the peacemaker, but Syria still has its old government and chemical weapons. Putin ate Obama's lunch and took Crimea as dessert.

If all the rumors are true the Benghazi mess is a CIA arm deal for the Syrian rebels that went badly. 4 Americans killed and US arms appear to have gotten to enemy forces.

back up 11 years when they (supposedly) aided and abetted Iraq in moving the WMDs out of the country. Was GWB afraid of Putin then?

[cptau 169]

Why not go to Syria then?

Putin. Obama is afraid of the Russian bear. Russia has a navy base in Syria and sells arms to them.

Putin then made it look like he was the peacemaker, but Syria still has its old government and chemical weapons. Putin ate Obama's lunch and took Crimea as dessert.

If all the rumors are true the Benghazi mess is a CIA arm deal for the Syrian rebels that went badly. 4 Americans killed and US arms appear to have gotten to enemy forces.

back up 11 years when they (supposedly) aided and abetted Iraq in moving the WMDs out of the country. Was GWB afraid of Putin then?

I don't think Bush was afraid of Putin. The US actually supported adding eastern European countries that bordered Russia to NATO and Russia didn't start reforming and modernizing its military until 2007 when it also started to modernize its Syrian naval base.. Going into Syria looking for the missing Iraqi WMDs would have spread the US military even thinner in the middle east. Russia was actually involved in putting down it own civil wars with terrorist and ethnic groups in Russia at that time.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Why not go to Syria then?

Putin. Obama is afraid of the Russian bear. Russia has a navy base in Syria and sells arms to them.

Putin then made it look like he was the peacemaker, but Syria still has its old government and chemical weapons. Putin ate Obama's lunch and took Crimea as dessert.

If all the rumors are true the Benghazi mess is a CIA arm deal for the Syrian rebels that went badly. 4 Americans killed and US arms appear to have gotten to enemy forces.

back up 11 years when they (supposedly) aided and abetted Iraq in moving the WMDs out of the country. Was GWB afraid of Putin then?

I don't think Bush was afraid of Putin. The US actually supported adding eastern European countries that bordered Russia to NATO and Russia didn't start reforming and modernizing its military until 2007 when it also started to modernize its Syrian naval base.. Going into Syria looking for the missing Iraqi WMDs would have spread the US military even thinner in the middle east. Russia was actually involved in putting down it own civil wars with terrorist and ethnic groups in Russia at that time.

Nah, Bush loved Putin:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/why-putin-plays-our-presidents-for-fools-20140302

[autigeremt 6,970]

Bush trusted Putin a bit too much in my opinion. Any US president that trusts Russia is in complete denial because that country needs more than 10-20 years of "democracy" to ward off the communism that is a part of their culture in Moscow.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Bush trusted Putin a bit too much in my opinion. Any US president that trusts Russia is in complete denial because that country needs more than 10-20 years of "democracy" to ward off the communism that is a part of their culture in Moscow.

A man like Putin is not concerned with whatever label is attached to their system of government, only that its power remain consolidated and in his hands. He would have been just as content if he lived in the time of Stalin and had to outmaneuver Khrushchev to succeed him. In actual application, the current Russian government is little different from the Soviet one. There is a small cadre of people at the top, the larger circle of people beneath them but maneuvering to rise, and senior military personnel that wield actual political clout. Names have changed, but lack of necessity is the only thing that keeps Putin from resuming the practice of summary executions in the Lubyanka basement. Russia has a long history of leadership that is willing to adopt savage brutality to achieve their goals, and it goes back further than Lenin's Red Terror. Russia needs a cultural revolution, but not one against communism. They need one against generations of repression and corruption, and a people conditioned to expect and accept it.

None of that actually makes them untrustworthy. With regard to us, we can certainly trust Russia (and Putin) to the extent that we can always count on Russia to do what is in Russia's best interests. Russia is no stranger to aggression, and they have no qualms with it at all, but they prefer to engage in conflict when the odds of victory are overwhelmingly in their favor. They seem to naturally gravitate toward empire. Modern Russia could easily be a valuable ally to the United States, or a patient and calculating enemy. Their short or long-term interests are the only things dictating which.

[homersapien 11,812]

Bush trusted Putin a bit too much in my opinion. Any US president that trusts Russia is in complete denial because that country needs more than 10-20 years of "democracy" to ward off the communism that is a part of their culture in Moscow.

A man like Putin is not concerned with whatever label is attached to their system of government, only that its power remain consolidated and in his hands. He would have been just as content if he lived in the time of Stalin and had to outmaneuver Khrushchev to succeed him. In actual application, the current Russian government is little different from the Soviet one. There is a small cadre of people at the top, the larger circle of people beneath them but maneuvering to rise, and senior military personnel that wield actual political clout. Names have changed, but lack of necessity is the only thing that keeps Putin from resuming the practice of summary executions in the Lubyanka basement. Russia has a long history of leadership that is willing to adopt savage brutality to achieve their goals, and it goes back further than Lenin's Red Terror. Russia needs a cultural revolution, but not one against communism. They need one against generations of repression and corruption, and a people conditioned to expect and accept it.

None of that actually makes them untrustworthy. With regard to us, we can certainly trust Russia (and Putin) to the extent that we can always count on Russia to do what is in Russia's best interests. Russia is no stranger to aggression, and they have no qualms with it at all, but they prefer to engage in conflict when the odds of victory are overwhelmingly in their favor. They seem to naturally gravitate toward empire. Modern Russia could easily be a valuable ally to the United States, or a patient and calculating enemy. Their short or long-term interests are the only things dictating which.

I would add, "if not welcome it".

Excellent points. This is less about Putin than it is historical/cultural legacy. The same can be said for lots of other "trouble making" countries.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Bush trusted Putin a bit too much in my opinion. Any US president that trusts Russia is in complete denial because that country needs more than 10-20 years of "democracy" to ward off the communism that is a part of their culture in Moscow.

A man like Putin is not concerned with whatever label is attached to their system of government, only that its power remain consolidated and in his hands. He would have been just as content if he lived in the time of Stalin and had to outmaneuver Khrushchev to succeed him. In actual application, the current Russian government is little different from the Soviet one. There is a small cadre of people at the top, the larger circle of people beneath them but maneuvering to rise, and senior military personnel that wield actual political clout. Names have changed, but lack of necessity is the only thing that keeps Putin from resuming the practice of summary executions in the Lubyanka basement. Russia has a long history of leadership that is willing to adopt savage brutality to achieve their goals, and it goes back further than Lenin's Red Terror. Russia needs a cultural revolution, but not one against communism. They need one against generations of repression and corruption, and a people conditioned to expect and accept it.

None of that actually makes them untrustworthy. With regard to us, we can certainly trust Russia (and Putin) to the extent that we can always count on Russia to do what is in Russia's best interests. Russia is no stranger to aggression, and they have no qualms with it at all, but they prefer to engage in conflict when the odds of victory are overwhelmingly in their favor. They seem to naturally gravitate toward empire. Modern Russia could easily be a valuable ally to the United States, or a patient and calculating enemy. Their short or long-term interests are the only things dictating which.

I would add, "if not welcome it".

Excellent points. This is less about Putin than it is historical/cultural legacy. The same can be said for lots of other "trouble making" countries.

Well, I will say that the Nazi's had an excellent reason for risking death to go out of their way to find Americans or Brits to surrender to, instead of the Russians.

"Other 'trouble making' countries" hints at a very interesting topic (to me at least). What countries did you have in mind?

[homersapien 11,812]

Bush trusted Putin a bit too much in my opinion. Any US president that trusts Russia is in complete denial because that country needs more than 10-20 years of "democracy" to ward off the communism that is a part of their culture in Moscow.

A man like Putin is not concerned with whatever label is attached to their system of government, only that its power remain consolidated and in his hands. He would have been just as content if he lived in the time of Stalin and had to outmaneuver Khrushchev to succeed him. In actual application, the current Russian government is little different from the Soviet one. There is a small cadre of people at the top, the larger circle of people beneath them but maneuvering to rise, and senior military personnel that wield actual political clout. Names have changed, but lack of necessity is the only thing that keeps Putin from resuming the practice of summary executions in the Lubyanka basement. Russia has a long history of leadership that is willing to adopt savage brutality to achieve their goals, and it goes back further than Lenin's Red Terror. Russia needs a cultural revolution, but not one against communism. They need one against generations of repression and corruption, and a people conditioned to expect and accept it.

None of that actually makes them untrustworthy. With regard to us, we can certainly trust Russia (and Putin) to the extent that we can always count on Russia to do what is in Russia's best interests. Russia is no stranger to aggression, and they have no qualms with it at all, but they prefer to engage in conflict when the odds of victory are overwhelmingly in their favor. They seem to naturally gravitate toward empire. Modern Russia could easily be a valuable ally to the United States, or a patient and calculating enemy. Their short or long-term interests are the only things dictating which.

I would add, "if not welcome it".

Excellent points. This is less about Putin than it is historical/cultural legacy. The same can be said for lots of other "trouble making" countries.

Well, I will say that the Nazi's had an excellent reason for risking death to go out of their way to find Americans or Brits to surrender to, instead of the Russians.

"Other 'trouble making' countries" hints at a very interesting topic (to me at least). What countries did you have in mind?

For good reason considering what the Germans did to them.

Afghanistan for one, along with several others in the Middle East and most of Africa. (Notice how they just can't seem to produce a democracy?) It's one of the failures of colonialism. At least the British left India with institutions to build off of, such as rule of law.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Bush trusted Putin a bit too much in my opinion. Any US president that trusts Russia is in complete denial because that country needs more than 10-20 years of "democracy" to ward off the communism that is a part of their culture in Moscow.

A man like Putin is not concerned with whatever label is attached to their system of government, only that its power remain consolidated and in his hands. He would have been just as content if he lived in the time of Stalin and had to outmaneuver Khrushchev to succeed him. In actual application, the current Russian government is little different from the Soviet one. There is a small cadre of people at the top, the larger circle of people beneath them but maneuvering to rise, and senior military personnel that wield actual political clout. Names have changed, but lack of necessity is the only thing that keeps Putin from resuming the practice of summary executions in the Lubyanka basement. Russia has a long history of leadership that is willing to adopt savage brutality to achieve their goals, and it goes back further than Lenin's Red Terror. Russia needs a cultural revolution, but not one against communism. They need one against generations of repression and corruption, and a people conditioned to expect and accept it.

None of that actually makes them untrustworthy. With regard to us, we can certainly trust Russia (and Putin) to the extent that we can always count on Russia to do what is in Russia's best interests. Russia is no stranger to aggression, and they have no qualms with it at all, but they prefer to engage in conflict when the odds of victory are overwhelmingly in their favor. They seem to naturally gravitate toward empire. Modern Russia could easily be a valuable ally to the United States, or a patient and calculating enemy. Their short or long-term interests are the only things dictating which.

I would add, "if not welcome it".

Excellent points. This is less about Putin than it is historical/cultural legacy. The same can be said for lots of other "trouble making" countries.

Well, I will say that the Nazi's had an excellent reason for risking death to go out of their way to find Americans or Brits to surrender to, instead of the Russians.

"Other 'trouble making' countries" hints at a very interesting topic (to me at least). What countries did you have in mind?

For good reason considering what the Germans did to them.

Afghanistan for one, along with several others in the Middle East and most of Africa. (Notice how they just can't seem to produce a democracy?) It's one of the failures of colonialism. At least the British left India with institutions to build off of, such as rule of law.

Afghanistan was actually on a decent track during the period when the US and Soviet Union were competing for influence by building their infrastructure. Then they had a revolution, then a civil war, then the Soviets invaded, then they had another civil war, then the Taliban took over, more civil war, and then finally we invaded. The groundwork was laid with a developing modern infrastructure, but nearly perpetual state of war from 1978 to today has erased that progress. Civil war will likely continue after we withdraw completely. Democracy requires education in order to work at even a fundamental level, and there has been no effective system of education operating there for basically an entire generation. Who would they vote for, and why? Then we get into the issue of ethnicity, and we can use the creation of what everyone here knows as the Northern Alliance as an example. Ahmad Shah Massoud controlled mostly Tajik forces, and Abdul Rashid Dostum controlled mostly Uzbek forces. Prior to joining forces against the Taliban, they were enemies. This illustrates the ultimate problem. Once the country was completely destabilized by the Soviets, different ethnic groups and ideologies have been fighting for control since (whenever they were not fighting foreign invaders). Given the elapsed time, and lack of education, fighting is all most of the people know. How do you fix that? I really do not know, but I do know that the answer will probably never be more airstrikes.

While Afghanistan is one of the most extreme examples, the same premise can be applied to the rest of the region. The Middle East has never really had adequate education infrastructure (at least not by our standards), and it shows in their people. Educated people tend to be inclined to leave, or try their best to live a quiet life. The ruling elite rarely has any interest in drastically changing the status quo. Massive social changes tend to be possible when you have a reasonable and/or educated populace to present reasonable arguments to. Another element at work is how they perceive our influence. For them, Islam is deeply ingrained into their culture. It's not merely the most popular religion, it is part at the core of most of their national identities. To us, religion is a personal choice, but not a determining factor in policy. To them, we are Western Christian outsiders attempting to influence their culture and identity.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is Turkey. While Turkey has just as many Muslims as any Islamic state in the Middle East, they maintain a secular government, and are more committed to educating their people. They are still not up to our standards, but they are trying. Turkey was smart enough to realize that the modern world has a lot to offer if you make a real attempt to join it.

[homersapien 11,812]

Bush trusted Putin a bit too much in my opinion. Any US president that trusts Russia is in complete denial because that country needs more than 10-20 years of "democracy" to ward off the communism that is a part of their culture in Moscow.

A man like Putin is not concerned with whatever label is attached to their system of government, only that its power remain consolidated and in his hands. He would have been just as content if he lived in the time of Stalin and had to outmaneuver Khrushchev to succeed him. In actual application, the current Russian government is little different from the Soviet one. There is a small cadre of people at the top, the larger circle of people beneath them but maneuvering to rise, and senior military personnel that wield actual political clout. Names have changed, but lack of necessity is the only thing that keeps Putin from resuming the practice of summary executions in the Lubyanka basement. Russia has a long history of leadership that is willing to adopt savage brutality to achieve their goals, and it goes back further than Lenin's Red Terror. Russia needs a cultural revolution, but not one against communism. They need one against generations of repression and corruption, and a people conditioned to expect and accept it.

None of that actually makes them untrustworthy. With regard to us, we can certainly trust Russia (and Putin) to the extent that we can always count on Russia to do what is in Russia's best interests. Russia is no stranger to aggression, and they have no qualms with it at all, but they prefer to engage in conflict when the odds of victory are overwhelmingly in their favor. They seem to naturally gravitate toward empire. Modern Russia could easily be a valuable ally to the United States, or a patient and calculating enemy. Their short or long-term interests are the only things dictating which.

I would add, "if not welcome it".

Excellent points. This is less about Putin than it is historical/cultural legacy. The same can be said for lots of other "trouble making" countries.

Well, I will say that the Nazi's had an excellent reason for risking death to go out of their way to find Americans or Brits to surrender to, instead of the Russians.

"Other 'trouble making' countries" hints at a very interesting topic (to me at least). What countries did you have in mind?

For good reason considering what the Germans did to them.

Afghanistan for one, along with several others in the Middle East and most of Africa. (Notice how they just can't seem to produce a democracy?) It's one of the failures of colonialism. At least the British left India with institutions to build off of, such as rule of law.

Afghanistan was actually on a decent track during the period when the US and Soviet Union were competing for influence by building their infrastructure. Then they had a revolution, then a civil war, then the Soviets invaded, then they had another civil war, then the Taliban took over, more civil war, and then finally we invaded. The groundwork was laid with a developing modern infrastructure, but nearly perpetual state of war from 1978 to today has erased that progress. Civil war will likely continue after we withdraw completely. Democracy requires education in order to work at even a fundamental level, and there has been no effective system of education operating there for basically an entire generation. Who would they vote for, and why? Then we get into the issue of ethnicity, and we can use the creation of what everyone here knows as the Northern Alliance as an example. Ahmad Shah Massoud controlled mostly Tajik forces, and Abdul Rashid Dostum controlled mostly Uzbek forces. Prior to joining forces against the Taliban, they were enemies. This illustrates the ultimate problem. Once the country was completely destabilized by the Soviets, different ethnic groups and ideologies have been fighting for control since (whenever they were not fighting foreign invaders). Given the elapsed time, and lack of education, fighting is all most of the people know. How do you fix that? I really do not know, but I do know that the answer will probably never be more airstrikes.

While Afghanistan is one of the most extreme examples, the same premise can be applied to the rest of the region. The Middle East has never really had adequate education infrastructure (at least not by our standards), and it shows in their people. Educated people tend to be inclined to leave, or try their best to live a quiet life. The ruling elite rarely has any interest in drastically changing the status quo. Massive social changes tend to be possible when you have a reasonable and/or educated populace to present reasonable arguments to. Another element at work is how they perceive our influence. For them, Islam is deeply ingrained into their culture. It's not merely the most popular religion, it is part at the core of most of their national identities. To us, religion is a personal choice, but not a determining factor in policy. To them, we are Western Christian outsiders attempting to influence their culture and identity.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is Turkey. While Turkey has just as many Muslims as any Islamic state in the Middle East, they maintain a secular government, and are more committed to educating their people. They are still not up to our standards, but they are trying. Turkey was smart enough to realize that the modern world has a lot to offer if you make a real attempt to join it.

I agree that the concept of a secular government operating within a religious culture - the separation of church and state - is an alien idea to them. It's very difficult for us "westerners" to "get" that.

I breaks my heart to watch documentaries of the common people in these countries - especially the young girls. I can also relate to the emotional response to "evil" that many posters on this forum exhibit. (Hi Weegle!)

The problem is, even well-intentioned military action typically just makes things worse in the long run. We would have to take over a given country and stay there for decades to have any hope of changing their culture.

[Strychnine 1,804]

I agree that the concept of a secular government operating within a religious culture - the separation of church and state - is an alien idea to them. It's very difficult for us "westerners" to "get" that.

I breaks my heart to watch documentaries of the common people in these countries - especially the young girls. I can also relate to the emotional response to "evil" that many posters on this forum exhibit. (Hi Weegle!)

The problem is, even well-intentioned military action typically just makes things worse in the long run. We would have to take over a given country and stay there for decades to have any hope of changing their culture.

Indeed, such is the nature of military action. The military is always concerned with more effective means of waging war and defense. That is what they are good at, and it is what we expect them to do. Due to this nature, they are ineffective as a nation-building or peacekeeping force. When you get down to it, everything they do and say is backed by a gun aimed at you. People tend to resent that. Bombing people into submission, and then proposing to help rebuild their country the "right way" might sound like a solid course of action to some people. However, it always has an unfortunate side effect. The people that lived through that bombing have memories, and they pass those memories on. The populace now has an ingrained distrust and fear of you, even though you only had the best long-term intentions for them. They don't care or know about the sequence of events in foreign relations that caused you to show up, they only know that bombs from US warplanes destroyed their village and killed their friends or relatives.

As you say, we would have to occupy an area for decades to have any hope of changing their culture. That simply is not cost-effective, it's a bad idea, and it's not our responsibility.