Big HT to Larry Elder, who brought this up on his radio show Tuesday (5/5/07). And thanks, Les!
On the May 26, 2007, episode of his syndicated radio show "Costas on the Radio," veteran sports broadcaster Bob Costas asserted that George W. Bush was not even "among the 500 most qualified people to be President." He then stated that it is "an inescapable fact," that "all doubt has been removed," that the Bush presidency is a "tragically failed administration."
Apparently in earlier recent episodes of his show, Costas had hosted guys like Tim Russert, Bernard Goldberg, Bill O'Reilly, and Bill Bradley. So it seems that Costas felt the need to air a few things out on this particular day. (All emphasis mine:)
Some people may wonder about the [political] feelings that I've expressed, and I won't get into all the particulars. I think it is now overwhelmingly evident, if you're honest about it, even if you're a conservative Republican, if you're honest about it, this is a failed administration. And no honest conservative would say that George W. Bush was among the 500 most qualified people to be President of the United States. That's not based on political leaning. If a liberal, and I tend to be liberal, disagrees with a conservative, they can still respect that person's competence and the integrity of their point of view. This administration can be rightly criticized by a fair-minded person smack in the middle of the political spectrum on a hundred different counts, and by now they're all self-evident.
Costas then stated he wanted to make it clear that he "did have" a relationship with George Bush "that dates back a long way." From exchanging words at Mickey Mantle's funeral to talking baseball when the President was with the Texas Rangers, Costas said he finds the President to be an "engaging and genial man. And if he were your next-door neighbor, or if you worked with him on some business project, I'm sure you'd be favorably impressed by him." Costas also remarked that the President "went out of his way to be cordial" to him after the 2001 election, even inviting him to conduct Bush's first interview as President. Bush also invited Costas to emcee the popular t-ball game on the White House lawn.
Costas then added, "I have voted for Republicans at various times of my life, but generally I tend to be a Democrat." With that said, Costas later continued:
Contrary to what Bush defenders now say about "Bush bashers," trying to dismiss or categorize all objections to the Bush administration as coming from some sort of "far left precinct" or people who just have it in for Bush. Contrary to that, witness somebody like me. I didn't vote for Bush, but certainly I had nothing but warm feelings toward him personally. And as a sensible and loyal American, on 9/11/2001, I not only supported George W. Bush, I was hoping that he would be one of the greatest Presidents America had ever had, because it was in the best interest of this country. And if we're honest, if we look back to the way the media covered things, if we look back to the way this country and all points virtually on the political spectrum. There may have been some on the extreme left - Ramsey Clark may have been out there, or Noam Chomsky may have been out there, or Michael Moore. But, by and large, virtually everybody, including the "sensible liberal wing" of the Democratic Party, they all supported President Bush. In retrospect, you may say they rolled over for him. Congress, the media, the vast majority of the American public wanted George W. Bush to succeed, because they saw this as "common cause" - what divided us as Americans, we're united in the notion that we have been attacked, and united in the notion that some action beyond diplomacy, or beyond police action, some aggressive action, was justified and prudent. And we expected that whoever occupied the White House, even if we have other policy differences, would bring to that role some measure of wisdom, good judgment, and competence. And on all those counts, despite extending the benefit of the doubt as much as we could, on all those counts, all doubt has been removed. It is sad to say, this is a tragically failed administration. That is to me an inescapable fact. I wish it were not so, and that accounts for some of the points that I've expressed with some of our guests. It's not a soap box I want to be on, and not something that I want to get to gratuitously, not because it's not valid, but because generally it's not where we're coming from on these programs ...
There's several points that could be made about Costas' remarks, but here's two quick ones:
1. How Costas concludes that President Bush was not "among the 500 most qualified people to be President" is not spelled out. However, Costas might want to be reminded of a few things. The President is a graduate of Yale. (Costas attended Syracuse.) Bush is also the only President to achieve an M.B.A., and he got it at a place called Harvard. He served in the Texas Air National Guard flying the F-102. President Bush also worked several years in different businesses (oil, baseball). He worked on his father's Presidential campaign. The President was also the governor of Texas (re-elected, also). Married (not divorced), father of two girls. I'm wondering what qualifications Costas is looking for.
2. Costas echoes a common Democratic talking point/canard by implying that the media somehow "rolled over" for Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Oh, really? Costas might want to take a look at the book by Bob Kohn, Journalistic Fraud. Kohn outlines at length how the New York Times, right off the bat, crusaded heavily against the United States entering Iraq. Kohn lists over 70 headlines from the Times just between February 2002 and November 2002 that "make up the Times' political campaign against the Bush administration's policies [on] Iraq." And the seventy headlines represent "just a small part" of the Times' large anti-Iraq War campaign, Kohn asserts. ("Our search of headlines containing the word 'Iraq' during this period did not turn up a single one that could be construed as favoring military action," wrote Kohn.) "Rolled over"? What's your proof? (Critics of this view like to point to some articles by Judith Miller as evidence that the Times somehow "cheerleaded" for the war, but Kohn demonstrates that this was not the case at all.)
To hear Costas' words, click here. Then click "Costas Weekend 5-26-07 Hour 1 (WMA)." Then go to about 6:30 into the broadcast.
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Gore, Kerry?
June 6, 2007 - 08:56 ET by reelman46Did Costas explain the unique leadership-management gifts of Gore and Kerry? Bet not. They have so much baggage they can barely walk... a rich neglected target area for response... but I must agree Bush has only 3 home runs: terror war, tax cut and SC appts, the rest just makes me shake my head in disgust.
He only needs one home run
June 6, 2007 - 12:10 ET by ArcherBForgive me for quoting the Democratic party's favorite campaign slogan of 1996, "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!" The American economy has NEVER been better. Never, as in, at any time since early July, 1776. More American's are working than ever before. Tax receipts are at an all time high. More Americans own homes that at any point in history. The stock markets break record highs at a regular basis. I could go on...
Costas could not be more wrong on every account. He needs to get back in locker room and stick to reporting on jocks.
If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell
Gee Bob Costas, have you heard of Scott Spradling ?
June 6, 2007 - 15:04 ET by SportPoliticsGee Bob Costas, have you heard of Scott Spradling ? You both clain to have the first Bush interview.... Scott was part of the CNN Republican Presidential debate last night... so which one of you two is lying ?
[ Scott currently anchors WMUR news 9 at 5:00 with Jean Mackin and covers New Hampshire politics throughout the year. Scott also hosts WMUR's Sunday political talk show "Close-up New Hampshire." He holds the distinction of being the first TV reporter to interview President Bush in the Oval Office after he was inaugurated in 2001.]
Hmmm.... Bob and Scott... would you like to get together and debate your greatness ?
LOL - liberal liars, always.
costas
June 6, 2007 - 19:20 ET by AppyAmericanNot wanting to defend his take on GWB's presidency, but I read his quote to mean that President Bush INVITED him to be the first, not that he was actually the first to interview him.
No big surprise that Costas i
June 6, 2007 - 09:06 ET by msh1973No big surprise that Costas is a liberal, but at least he comes out and admits it to his audience. I don't know about the rest of you but, I am so weary of all this Bush bashing...
the bush bashing from which s
June 6, 2007 - 09:13 ET by Leonthe bush bashing from which side? The right or the left? Because it appears to me he's getting bashed by everyone (finally!)
Leon, In general, not that he
June 6, 2007 - 09:30 ET by msh1973Leon,
In general, not that he doesn't deserve it on some level, it is just getting old.
msh, not saying he's not gett
June 6, 2007 - 09:32 ET by Leonmsh, not saying he's not getting socked, but if he deserves it, shouldn't he get it?
People should care about this. Liberals for their reasons and conservatives for their reasons. But in both camps he's messed up and he should be held accountable.
The problem with the Bush admin and the reason he's trampling all over the conservatives now (i.e. immigration) is because they never held him accountable. He was given a free pass to do whatever he wanted and his supporters trusted that he had their best interests at heart.
Now we see their trust was wholely abused and misplaced.
Again, I am not saying he doe
June 6, 2007 - 09:42 ET by msh1973Again, I am not saying he doesn't deserve the criticism...
Criticism is different than b
June 6, 2007 - 09:48 ET by mattmCriticism is different than bashing. Even Leon should be able to grasp that.
When do criticism and bashing
June 6, 2007 - 09:54 ET by LeonWhen do criticism and bashing become one in the same?
For many of you, the criticism that Bush was not a conservative was roundly dismissed (on this site especially) as bashing by those suffering from bush derangements syndrome several months ago.
However, now that many on the right have FINALLY begun to call out bush for not being a conservative, this charge is considered to be criticism.
So what's the deal?
You have BDS, any comments fr
June 6, 2007 - 10:03 ET by dscottYou have BDS, any comments from liberals like yourself are simply bashing because you're intent is to make negative points about Bush the person without any postive outcome. On the otherhand our criticism of Bush is from the point of, if Bush had to do it over, certain decisions would have yielded better results. We don't hate the person, we dislike certain decisions. Of course you being a lib don't get that, but what's new?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Bush a RINO
June 6, 2007 - 10:22 ET by NortoBeliever
I voted for GWB 2x and like an earlier post, the SC nominations(he nearly got that wrong) and signing the partial birth bill are about all there is to crow about for 6 years.
I think the war on terror was the right thing but stated for lots of wrong reasons. Oil is a matter of national security until the US will allows.
alternatives and up to a point, Israel needed our support.
This will sound like, BDS, but we have been crying to the WH and our reps for so long that well, it sounds like it. GWB never responded to those who got him there unless he went kicking and screaming and it looks like more of the same with the immigration debacle.
I expect him to ask Jeffords or TFK to slide over and give him room any day!
So I was right. It's merely
June 6, 2007 - 11:51 ET by LeonSo I was right. It's merely the context/source of the criticism. It matters not if it's the SAME EXACT CRITICISM?
This looks more like LDS than anything else. What a simple minded person you are.
The source (BDS) who's intent
June 6, 2007 - 12:09 ET by dscottThe source (BDS) who's intent is destruction of a person not criticism of actions, in religious terms it's called hating the sin, but loving the sinner, obviously a nuance you don't get which is also why libs accuse Religious people of being homophobic when they disagree with homosexuality.
Like I said before, you being a lib don't get that, but what's new?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I think the distinction is something else
June 6, 2007 - 15:16 ET by SportPoliticsI think the distinction is something else. Leon and lib idiots like he have been "bashing" Bush because LEON and his type TELL LIES constantly in order to make FALSE BASHES.
See, that of course is one big, big difference.
There is a second difference, that proves beyond any doubt libs like Leon are not only LIARS, but stab at themselves as they criticize...
When Bush did something considered leftist or liberal, the Leons started slamming away, claiming Bush is a liberal - in between their complaints of the LIBERAL action that they would LOVE if it came from a democrat...
So, Leon and his type are false bashers, liars, and even go so far as to go against their OWN POLICY WISHES if GWB does something to the left...
Yeah, that's Bush Derangement Syndrome... so incensed and crazed is their mental state that lying and even in effect bashing themselves and their ideology and policies over the head is ok, as long as they get a jab in at Bush.
See, that's the deal. That's how and why LEON and his type are pathetic creatures from the lib lying lagoon.
I voted for Reagan twice and
June 6, 2007 - 15:56 ET by TruthMongerI voted for Reagan twice and and W twice.
People like Costas used to insist that Reagan was the "worst president ever." Now they say it's GWB...
What did you think of Reagan's funeral Bob? See any Americans there...? You may be a little "out of touch" with the American people...
Maybe you'll be around to see W's funeral too:)...hee-heh-heh...
I'm here to help you Leon
June 6, 2007 - 12:23 ET by JimboLeon – I am quite literally wasting my time typing this, as it has all been said before and you have chosen to ignore it each and every time. The hatred that you and your ilk have for the President is starkly different than the criticism leveled at him by conservatives.
You hate the man. You hate him personally and you hate him viscerally. You hate what he stands for. Simply put, it is a personal issue with you libs.
We, on the other hand, do not hate the man. We recognize his accomplishments and criticize other decisions. We present alternatives that we think may have worked better. But at the end of the day, President Bush is still our president, and we respect the man as well as the office. If he were running for a third office, would we all vote for him again? Maybe, maybe not. But that doesn’t change anything mentioned in this post previously.
Read this post again and again Leon. Understanding your problem is the first step toward recovery.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
You libs make me sick.... you
June 6, 2007 - 10:13 ET by liberal_bug_zapperYou libs make me sick.... you use any excuse to bash Bush. We have conservative issues that we make our judgments from... you have hatred. We are not bashing Bush... we are critisizing the fact that he has gone too far from conservatism with this last issue. We will cast our opinions with our votes... we won't call for him to be hanged like you morons, we won't call for impeachment like you morons, we won't take to the streets and chant stupid slogans like you morons, we'll just vote conservative and vote out the non-conservatives. If the Republicans leave conservatism, I won't vote for them.... it's that simple.
I don't hate Bush like you, I just won't ever support any Republican ever again if they stand behind Bush on this immigration bill.
The worst thing that could happen to this country would be for a Liberal to take over. You totalitarians are just raring to take away our freedoms. Free speech, free markets, freedom of association, freedom of assembly... you name it... you libs want to take it from us if it is for conservative speech, markets, associations or assembly.
We need a fence on our southern border. We need to keep out the bloody socialists flooding in from Central and South America.... we need to keep out the uneducated riff-raff and socialist scum who only want our money... or worse, want to reclaim Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California for Mexico by sheer number of illegal squatter populations.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
Oh my god! You have LDS, o
June 6, 2007 - 10:20 ET by JasonCOh my god! You have LDS, or Liberal Derangement Syndrome! Every time you mention liberalism it's insanely, delusionally, paranoiacally negative! You think that every single US citizen left of Rush Limbaugh is out in the streets chanting slogans and calling for impeachment!
Socialist! Totalitarians! Christmas will be outlawed! They're taking away our free markets!
Good god, get a grip.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
His Name
June 6, 2007 - 10:30 ET by NortoBeliever
You dare to take His name in vain and then quote from His inerrant Word? Call it what you will, I will not judge and God will not be mocked. His name is spelled with a capital "G."
Uhhh, sorry big guy. My sh
June 6, 2007 - 10:41 ET by JasonCUhhh, sorry big guy. My shift key was stuck.
I've never seen you on here before, do you just prowl message boards looking for usages of the Lord's name in vain in which certain letters are mistakenly uncapitalized?
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
"Even Leon should be abl
June 6, 2007 - 13:44 ET by mattm"Even Leon should be able to grasp that."
er, maybe not...
mattm,What I am saying is tha
June 6, 2007 - 10:31 ET by msh1973mattm,
What I am saying is that I (personally) can only take so much negative media. It begins to change my life (ask my husband and kids), so I just need to take a break I guess.
Leon: The problem with the Bu
June 6, 2007 - 10:28 ET by general companyLeon: The problem with the Bush admin and the reason he's trampling all over the conservatives now (i.e. immigration) is because they never held him accountable.
That is wrong, their is a difference between bashing him for every teeny item, and criticizing him for his performance. The conservatives have criticized him for performance many times. The Dems feel the need to make up stuff because they cant get enough Bush bashing material from the what has actually happened. Free pass,,,,,,,BS!!! If anyone is getting a free pass it's the Democrat leadership. For every supposed failing they offer of Bush (true or not) their are real failures from the Dems!!!
Costas:That's not based on political leaning. If a liberal, and I tend to be liberal, disagrees with a conservative, they can still respect that person's competence and the integrity of their point of view.
Yea, since when?
not saying he's not getting
June 6, 2007 - 12:25 ET by ArcherBnot saying he's not getting socked, but if he deserves it, shouldn't he get it?
He deserves a bit on immigration, but he has done nothing to
warrant the abuse he has received. Remember his motorcade getting pelted
with snowballs on the way to the inauguration? The attacks have not let up except for a short time after 9-11. However, it wasn't long before the senate was pointing fingers and grilling Condi Rice about the title of a daily presidential brief.
Democrats and the media have been relentless toward GWB. The Dems call for a Prez that will unite the country, well, it's not the leaders job to unite, but for the followers to follow. A leader that bends to the will of the opposition is not really a leader, but a follower.
He was given a free pass to do whatever he wanted and his supporters trusted that he had their best interests at heart.
Two words: Harriet Meiers
Another two, Scooter Libby. (Libby gets two years and a $250,000 fine for "lying" about a non-crime. Sandy Berger got almost nothing for stealing classified documents. What would Scooter have gotten if he had stolen top secret docs concerning a national security investigation?)
No, I'm afraid that if GWB's supporters had given him the loyalty you claim, Harriet Meiers would be a Supreme Court Justice (good or bad), Scooter Libby would be free and Sandy Berger would be in a federal pen getting traded for generic cigarettes.
If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell
I am one conservative not com
June 6, 2007 - 14:59 ET by buddycI am one conservative not complaining. I have no doubt that he will go down as one of the great presidents of all time. He had brains, conviction, integrity and dignity. I am currently living in the greatest ecomonic time of my life thanks 100% to the determination of President Bush.
You like Bob Costas confuse i
June 6, 2007 - 09:44 ET by dscottYou like Bob Costas confuse individual policy disagreements with the overall record. For you libs anyone who disagrees is a failure, no matter what success they have.
What Costas is trying to do is tap into the dissatisfaction of Conservatives with Bush over Immigration policy & enforcement and his caving (in the name of compromise & concensus) into rampant spending of Congress by refusing to veto inappropriate spending.
Yes, Bush in retrospect made some bad decisions as far as Conservatives are concerned, you liberals don't count so butt out.
1. It started on day one when he failed to clean out all the Clinton operatives in 2001 under the false assumption that no one would sell out the American people for political gain, not even a Democrat.
2. He like his father thought compromise with the Dems was best for the country. In the end, the Dems screwed him over just like George Sr.
3. Because he failed to clean out the Clinton cronies, the Clinton initiated policy of non-enforcement of the border was dutifully carried on without the Bush Admin paying attention to the implications of that policy, hence 12 million illegals between them both.
4. While he did sound the alarm on Social Security, he failed to get Repub Congressional leaders to stop the earmarks and other pork barrel spending. The GOP leadership was at fault, not just Bush in this respect and as a result they found themselves doing what Dems do, attempting to buy votes with federal money, which of course was a direct violation with the Contract with America pledge.
5. His continuing failure to not listen to the base who got him elected. No to Immigration reform and yes to enforcement and building the fence. The point of representative government is to do what the governed told you to do, not what you feel you want to do.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Blame Clinton and the Dems.
June 6, 2007 - 09:47 ET by LeonBlame Clinton and the Dems. That's not lame or anything (#5 is your only valid point).
The apologism continues unabated.
Nice Leon
June 6, 2007 - 11:00 ET by JimboLOL! Nice response to a well thought out and fact based post.
Typical liberal trash.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
It is a tragically failed adm
June 6, 2007 - 09:12 ET by LeonIt is a tragically failed administration. Forget their domestic failures, one only need to look at Iraq to understand the true magnitude of their failure. Going into Iraq was the worst decision ever and a mistake that is inexcusable given what we should have learned from Vietnam.
It's interesting that Costas (the true gold medal winner of the Olympics) said this because I just read a passage in a great book last night that made an assessment about Vietnam that had striking parallels to our current situation.
The Vietnam War Almanac was written by Col. Harry G. Summers, Jr. and it provides a frank, honest assessment of the war. His book begins with a striking line, "One of the great tragedies of the Vietnam War is that although American armed forces defeated the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong in every major battle, the United States still suffered the greatest defeat in its history". Summers goes further to explain the major reason we lost the war using a story from the Yalta Conference in 1945. Below I have posted John Irving's synopsis of these events:
"On the first page of his book, Colonel Summers tells a story about President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference in 1945, when the Allied powers were trying to decide the composition of the postwar world. President Roosevelt wanted to give Indo-China to China's leader, General Chiang Kai-shek, but the general knew a little Vietnamese hisotry and tradition; Chiang Kai-shek understood that the Vietnamese were NOT Chinese, and that they would never allow themselves to be comfortably absorbed by the Chinese people. To Roosevelt's generous offer - to give him Indo-China - Chiang replied, "We don't want it." Colonel Summers points out that it took the US 30 years - and a war that cost them nearly 50,000 American lives- to find out what Chian Kai-shek explained to President Roosevelt in 1945" (John Irving, A Prayer for Owen Meany, p.358-359)
This passage shook me up last night when I read it. It speaks to our current situation and our utter failure to consider the Iraqi response to our invasion prior to beginning the war. And if Vietnam is the lesson we ignored, we could be in for a long, painful trip.
Iraq was one of the only thin
June 6, 2007 - 09:19 ET by liberal_bug_zapperIraq was one of the only things that he did right. You cowardly liberals will never get that. Afghanistan and Iraq and almost the whole war on terror has been done almost right... he's starting to waver which is a big mistake.... never compromise, never give up and never surrender.
This is nothing like Viet-Nam. Viet-Nam was a proxy war with the Soviets and the Commie Chinese, much like N Korea. What you Marxists hate is that we destroyed any chance for Communism to spread its death all over the world... Cry my a river commie.
Oh, and never ever give a liberal what they want... because they'll never appreciate it... they'll just demand more and more. Give an inch, they'll expect a mile.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
If you believe all that you w
June 6, 2007 - 09:21 ET by LeonIf you believe all that you wrote, than you are too far gone from reality to have any hope of ever returning.
Iraq has been done right? Are you joking? You must be joking or pulling my leg intentionally.
I have no qualms with Afghanistan. That makes sense in terms of fighting terrorism. Iraq however is complete mess and to argue that Bush is successful in Iraq is ABSURD!
War is hell. Every war is a f
June 6, 2007 - 09:44 ET by liberal_bug_zapperWar is hell. Every war is a failure until you win it. You libs just want to surrender. I say no. We go out there and kick their asses and make them beg us to stop... then we kick their asses some more until there are fewer of them to beg... and they accept all of our terms of surrender.... then we occupy their lands and rebuild until we've westernized the Islamo-fascist out of them. If you don't like it... too bad...because if we follow your idiot leader's plans.... we'll be fighting the war in American streets.... then all bets are off.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
This is simply unrealistic.
June 6, 2007 - 09:51 ET by LeonThis is simply unrealistic. Dangerously unrealistic.
What about the past 4 years actually makes you believe your plan will work? Westernization IS NOT going to happen.
All you have to do to understand why your plan is doomed is to imagine what you would do if a Muslim countrie's army invaded America and tried to convert us to Islam.
How would you respond?
Total fiction.... you live in
June 6, 2007 - 10:01 ET by liberal_bug_zapperTotal fiction.... you live in a total dream world. We're not going to allow them to keep their Islamic Sharia-Law nations.... we're going to have to destroy them. If we don't do it now... we will have to do it later. I do not want my daughter to suffer the war that will come if we neglect to take care of the growing problem now.
Islam is a cancer... and it must be taken care of.... by any means necessary.
I don’t think that we need to kill them all…. But we need to stamp out radical Islam… and the only way to do that is by force… like the only way to get rid of cancer is with chemo-therapy. Same here… only, we’re using lead-therapy.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
Hee Hee Hee...I've heard th
June 6, 2007 - 10:05 ET by The Wicked ConservativeHee Hee Hee...I've heard that acute lead poisoning can even cure liberalism. Sadly this is why political correctness is destroying our nation. We have been beaten into a pulp of little resolve that can't act unilaterally for anything.
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
Leon, how long did the wester
June 6, 2007 - 10:06 ET by bassndudeLeon, how long did the westernization of Germany take? Take a lesson from history Leon. The more you know about history, the better you will understand the world today. The better you will understand yourself and your nation. There is nothing new that can happen today, that hasent happened in the past, at some point in time. Im not talking technology here, but people.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Japan
June 6, 2007 - 10:39 ET by mikebromoJapan sure did have some stinking thinking back in the 30's and 40's. Much worse than radical islam today. Westernization of Japan has heled us all.
Going into Iraq was the worst
June 6, 2007 - 09:56 ET by BDGoing into Iraq was the worst decision ever? Why? Please be clear.
How could the decision to rescue millions of Iraqi's from Tyranny and begin the democratic process in the Arabic world as a counterweight to islamo fascism be in any way compared to the decision to abandon our friends in South Vietnam in 1975 and fail to provide the air support we had promised.
THe abandonment of South Vietnam in 1975 effectively surrended 40 Million humans to the tyranny of communism. A tyranny they suffer to this day.
THe support of South Vietnam could have been done cheaply, with limited casualties and destroyed the armored advance that North Vietnam pushed south with. It was the war we had been trying to fight in Vietnam for ten years, but the democratic congress forced us to leave just as it was coming down the road.
Interviews with former Vietnamese officials indicate that the North Vietnamese were forced for the first time to mobilize the children of the ruling class for that offensive - effectively throwing the seed corn into the fire. If that offensive could have been ground to a halt, the North would have been in serious trouble not only militarily but domestically.
Talk about someone who did not learn the lessons of Vietnam.
BD
June 6, 2007 - 10:54 ET by mikebromoWatergate forced Nixon to resign in 1974 and the Democrates gained control of Congress in the elections later that year. That was also a big win for the Vietnamese Communists. As soon as the Democrats were sworn into office of January 1975 the Communists started their march to Saigon. President Ford didn't have the authorization for funds to help the Republic of Vietnam. Saigon fell. About a million Vietnamese and 2 million Cambodians were slaughtered because of Democrat leadership [or lack of leadership] in the 70's under Carters Presidency.
1980 was the first time I voted for Republicans.
You're out of you mind. The
June 6, 2007 - 09:59 ET by mattmYou're out of you mind. The Mistake in Iraq was not going there, it was all the French and Spaniard types (and Leftists like you) who turned tail at the first sign of trouble and ran away like frightened little girlie men. You people are the terrorist enabling, Tokyo Rose equivalent, aiders and abettors of the enemies of freedom.
The lesson of Vietnam is that if we hadn't listened to the dope-headed hippie wuss ass traitors like you, we would have won.
Saddam Hussein is dead. The stock market is roaring. Even the weather is getting better, terror plots being foiled left and right... and, the Demogogic Congress has LOWER approval numbers than the constantly attacked Bush administration... doesn't sound like failure to me...
Go back under the rock you crawled out from....
Leon, you fail to address the
June 6, 2007 - 10:19 ET by bassndudeLeon, you fail to address the reason that Vietnam fell, and why we pulled out. If you look at what events transpired, you would know that at the Paris peace talks, N.V. was ready to capatiulate, but was convinced, (by an American?) to stay. An act of treason, no? After we pulled out, a Democrat congress reneged on the deal we had with SVN and cut off all aid and funds for parts and ammo for the south. Up to that point, things were going pretty well for the south. To bad the Democrats tarnished our image by not living up to our promise. Your right about one thing. If we ignore the lessons from Vietnam, we could lose this war. And it was people like you, non-military, non-service, non-combat folks that dident understand what it was about. Iraq is not Vietnam, but people like you are trying to change that.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Come on Leon!
June 6, 2007 - 11:15 ET by JimboLOL ! Read a passage did you? I read the whole book about a year ago and seem to recall it was about 500 pages long. I know 500 pages is probably a bit much for you, but let me say that my takeaways from that book are exactly opposite of your insights. It's no wonder you think the way you do since you gain your understanding from reading "passages" instead of being capable of seeing the broader picture.
You kill me Leon. Like a one legged man at an ass kicking contest.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
It is a tragically failed a
June 6, 2007 - 12:43 ET by ArcherBIt is a tragically failed administration. Forget their domestic
failures,...
Again, "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!"
one only need to look at Iraq to understand the true
magnitude of their failure. Going into Iraq was the worst decision
ever and a mistake that is inexcusable given what we should have
learned from Vietnam.
Iraq fired on American soldiers and pilots, tried to assassinate a former US President, invaded nearly all of its neigbors, ignored UN mandates (as did the UN, unfortunately), and of course, this does not include the children allowed to starve to death (half a million according to UNICEF) and the mass graves and so on... No, this war was no only justified, it was mandatory. The lesson we should have learned from Vietnam is that, as an opposition party, if you oppose your country, you are helping the other side and costing the lives of your own (read my sig). It is not up to GWB to surrender to Iraq, but for the Dems to support their country, even when it comes to things they don't like (Don't like it? Win the next election!) A prime example would be how the Republicans acted over Bosnia. They didn't like it, but the shut up and supported the country. Bosnia fell in short order, even with the support of the Russians. No one is supporting the terrorists in Iraq except for the Democrats in congress who keep giving them hope and telling them that if they kill more innocent people, they can win!
If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell
So why didn't we take out Sad
June 6, 2007 - 17:14 ET by LeonSo why didn't we take out Saddam after the Gulf War is he was such a threat to world security?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it because people like George Bush Uno and Dick Cheney realized it would nearly impossible? In fact, didn't Cheney say it would be a quagmire?
Iraq was never a threat to us. Furthermore, Iraq was a secular state in the center of the middle east that kept its neighbors, like IRAN, in line.
<i>So why didn't we t
June 6, 2007 - 18:44 ET by ArcherB<i>So why didn't we take out Saddam after the Gulf War is he was such a threat to world security?</i>
That was a mistake. I'll even go so far as to say that was one of the reasons GHWB lost his reelection.
<i>Iraq was never a threat to us. </i>
Uh, yeah. Just like Italy was not a threat to us in 1942. Just like N. Korea was not a threat. Just like Bosnia was not a threat. Just like Panama was not a threat. Just like Al Qaeda was not a threat in 1990... and the list goes on. Fact is, Iraq performed several acts that could easily be classified as an acts of war. First one that comes to mind is the attempt at GHWB's life when he was in Kuwait. That alone is reason enough to go to war, not to mention all the other goodies like mass graves, dead children, and the other items I've mentioned here.
Of course, we can't have a discussion like this without bringing up the whole George Tenet's "Slam Dunk" on WMD's quote added to Russian intel that indicated that Iraq was planning to attack America. Condi Rice was grilled over a memo that read "Al Qaeda determined to attack US". Could you imagine the uproar if a Iraqi sarin bomb went off in a NY subway and Tenet's and Russia's warnings came to light. Besides, do you really want a president that ignores such intel a year after 9-11?
<i>Furthermore, Iraq was a secular state in
the center of the middle east that kept its neighbors, like IRAN, in
line.</i>
Like they kept Kuwait in line? How long after the UN sanctions were lifted before Iraq built up a military strong enough to take Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or even Iran? How long before Saddam pointed his well funded terrorists away from Israel and toward the US? Yeah, Iraq was a threat all right. Granted, there was no danger of Iraqi T-72's rolling down PA Ave, but they were still a threat.
If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell
Leon, I just looked up "
June 7, 2007 - 11:21 ET by BeowulfLeon, I just looked up "clueless" in Webster's, and your picture was right next to it. All I can say is "thank God for autonomic functions", because without them, you'd probably forget to breathe. Now that I think about it, maybe I shouldn't be giving thanks...
Now, to work. So why didn't we take out Saddam after the Gulf War is he was such a threat to world security? - How about the UN limited our objectives. How about the coalition would have not only objected, but would have probably used force to prevent it. We could have easily rolled into Baghdad in '91 with little or no opposition, and whacked Saddam in a second. WE WERE'NT ALLOWED as we were actually still listening to the UN at the time (big mistake). I can't count how many troops, from generals to airmen and privates were pissed that we were forced to stop at the border.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it because people like George Bush Uno and Dick Cheney realized it would nearly impossible? In fact, didn't Cheney say it would be a quagmire?
Iraq was never a threat to us. Furthermore, Iraq was a secular state in the center of the middle east that kept its neighbors, like IRAN, in line. - Okay, consider yourself corrected. I answered the first part of this tripe above. As to the second, "Iraq was never a threat". Say WHAT? Iraq promoted and supported WORLD-WIDE terrorism. Iraq had chemical weapons, and used them profligately. Iraq was moving to militarily gain a monopoly on M.E. oil. How is this not a threat? As to Iraq being a secular state, so what? It was also a tyranical state, making war on its neighbors, which incidentally, constituted a threat to our national interests. Also keeping Iran in line was world opinion, not Iraq. And world opinion, thanks to people of your ilk, has turned to a kindler, gentler (read chickensh*t) method of dealing with morons like Imadinnerjacket. The fear of US military intervention was the main factor, one which has been eroded and derided by ignorant anti's like you.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Leon, you are a dumb ass.
June 6, 2007 - 12:54 ET by Dave RLeonovitch Trotsky,
The US did not suffer the greatest defeat in its history. We quit. We quit because of people like Walter Cronkite, Ted Kennedy and Jane Fonda.
As a result, three million people were murdered shortly after we left, as we weren't able to prevent it.
I lay the blame for their deaths squarely at the feet of those I just named. The truth of the matter is, those three people did not give a damn about people dying in that war. They only wanted to see this country defeated.
Do you and those aging hippies you listen to want to see that happen again?
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
I've been scrolling down the
June 6, 2007 - 15:59 ET by BeowulfLeon, I've been scrolling down the posts, reading your liberal tripe and watching you totally ignore factual rebuttals. But you (once again) went over the top with:
It is a tragically failed administration. Forget their domestic failures, one only need to look at Iraq to understand the true magnitude of their failure. Going into Iraq was the worst decision ever and a mistake that is inexcusable given what we should have learned from Vietnam.
What "domestic failures"? This has been addressed numerous times on this thread alone - least unemployment, strongest economy, highest home ownership, strongest stock market ever, ect.
And if "going into Iraq was the worst decision ever" and is "inexcusable", then why do I hear your silence on spreading the blame on all but the one congress-critter who voted for the war? And what is the comparison to Vietnam? The two situations have not the slightest similarity. Vietnam occured between two vastly disparate political philosophies. Iraq started over a world-threatening tyranical despot, and has turned into a conflict of religious interpretation. Even your example of Summers' book has absolutely no bearing on the comparison. If GWB has announced his intention of defeating the Iraqi people and handing the country over to, say, Saudi, then you might have a comparison.
Finally, and a point I have not seen addressed on this post, is the simple fact that since 2000, Bush's every action has been criticized, his every initiative stalled, his every attempt to secure this country exposed, and his every day in office threatened with censure and/or impeachment, and all by the liberals. I would place much of the blame on any Bush administration failures squarely on the obstructionist liberals. Not all, but much of the blame. This is a point always and most conveniently ignored by finger-pointers of your ilk. You are of the type of person who refuses to take blame for ANYTHING negative. Try stepping up for a change, instead of playing the long since nauseating game of "It's All Bush's Fault". It really is getting quite old.
P.S. Do you and tumbler hang out together, drinking Perrier w/a twist and thinking up this insanity?
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
There are a lot of good post
June 6, 2007 - 17:06 ET by general companyThere are a lot of good post in this thread, but ArcherB & Beowulf, excellent.
If it were not for two things
June 6, 2007 - 09:14 ET by liberal_bug_zapperIf it were not for two things, I would completely disagree with Bob Costas.
1. Bush's stance on domestic programs and spending make him far too liberal for my taste. Under Bush, our government spending actually went up. However I was willing to overlook that as an indiscretion of a man trying to please both sides... tax cuts for us, and more spending for the Dems.
2. Bush's stance on illegal immigration has lost me. I have vowed never to vote for a Republican again if this bill is signed into law.... and Bush, well, I think he is now proving all the critics right.... he is a moron. This legislation is not only bad for this country, but if he signs it into law, you can kiss away any chance we'll ever hold any significant power ever again.
The last part... his support for illegal immigration has lost me. I no longer support him.... at all. He can no longer count on me and I will now actively campaign against anything he or anyone even remotely associated with his cabinet wants. Me and my friends have all vowed to only vote for true conservatives... even if they never win... we don't care. Let the left have the country.... because I won't stand side by side with an ignoramus like Bush.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
I agree 100%.I just find it
June 6, 2007 - 09:18 ET by LeonI agree 100%.
I just find it amazing that it took you all this long to figure this out. It's been clear to over half of America for at least 5 years.
Do you like the tax cuts?Do y
June 6, 2007 - 09:21 ET by liberal_bug_zapperDo you like the tax cuts?
Do you believe we need to chase the terrorists everywhere, and that we need to take down every single rogue regieme that even slightly threatens us?
If not.... then we do not agree.
I don't support him because he's acting like a Liberal. Not because of the reasons you have. So don't get your hopes up.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
Of course not, I simply agree
June 6, 2007 - 09:24 ET by LeonOf course not, I simply agree with what you said above.
Chase terrorists everywhere huh? That's a cute plan, sounds like it should probably work. Haha. It's a shame our military is trapped in Iraq with a handful of terrorists while 10 of thousands roam the world free from fear of our military.
Utter sophistry! We've killed
June 6, 2007 - 09:56 ET by liberal_bug_zapperUtter sophistry! We've killed more foreign terrorists in Iraq than Iraqis. It's what you libs either purposely try and hide, or are just completely ignorant about.
We do not have our hands full. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. The only Generals who say anything of the sort are those who are Democrats and Liberals themselves. Our enemy is everywhere in this country... including in the Military. But most of them are getting out... thank goodness as most of them are a bunch of idiots and cowards.
Our military can and should take out Iran and Syria as well.... stir up the pot, then start bombing them into the stone age. Once they scream uncle.... nuke 'em. Then make them surrender completely and agree to our terms. I say we put the Jews in charge of all of them.... take all weapons from them and cars and bikes and trucks and make them use donkeys and carts. Then, send all the American liberals over there to work with them side by side since you all want them to win.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
Bug Zapper, You should read y
June 6, 2007 - 10:02 ET by LeonBug Zapper,
You should read your articles before posting them. This link in no way supports your assertion that we have killed more foreign fighters in Iraq than Iraqis (which is an absurd claim)
This article argues that 70% of the Foreign insurgents arrested in Iraq have come from Persian Gulf countries. It says NOTHING about how more foreign fighters being killed than Iraqis. NOTHING.
In fact, this article provides contradictory evidence to your claim. It weakens your argument, when it says, "A large percentage of insurgents in Iraq are Iraqis".
Is your reading comprehension so weak that you would actually post an article that doesn't support your argument, but further, says almost the exact opposite of your argument.
That's hilarious. Thanks for proving yourself wrong. Read your links before posting them.
Credibility = ZERO! ha.
And your point is? Simply t
June 6, 2007 - 10:19 ET by BDAnd your point is?
Simply the fact that those Insurgents that are products of the Fedayeen schooling system are the bulk of the fight compared to the alien insurgents means precisely... WHAT?
Heh, you moron... I knew that
June 6, 2007 - 10:34 ET by liberal_bug_zapperHeh, you moron... I knew that is what you would say. Do you know the ratio of insurgents killed to captured or arrested? Most don't since the Pentagon releases no official enemy body count.... but, as luck would have it, I have a friend in Iraq in the US Military who is keeping count. So far, of the officially recognized count is around 70k, and of that number, nearly half are foreign insurgents (who wear civilian garb) and of the half that is true Iraqi civilians, a third are killed by the insurgents and half are local insurgents.... the rest have died in local revenge attacks and Sunni vs Shia fights.
So the foreign fighter body count is nearly 35k.
But, if you think about the capture vs kill ratio, most won't be captured alive if they can help it. They are fanatics... and if 70% of those we capture are foreign fighters.... what does that say for those we kill?
I do read the articles before I post them you moron. And luckily for me... I read past the leftist spin.... as they have no supporting evidence that a large percentage of the insurgents are Iraqis.... they have none... but the arrests and body counts DO give us plenty of evidence....yet you believe the MSM who isn't even there.... you have to learn to read the truth out of the lies they try and pass off as truth.
Moron!
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
LBZ, obviously it is no
June 6, 2007 - 10:42 ET by shawn228LBZ, obviously it is not just Leon that feels that way, Most of the GOP hopeful also bashed Bush on the war yesterday, and Newt Ginchrich gave some pretty scathing remarks the other day as well.
Bug Zapper = Complete JOKE.1)
June 6, 2007 - 11:42 ET by LeonBug Zapper = Complete JOKE.
1) Why did you cite an article that in no way supported your claim? What's the point of that?
2) Are you really expecting to believe your friend's cousin's sister's boyfriend that is in Iraq single-handedly tracking all of the foreign fighters and he's successfully arrived at an accurate number of foreign fighters within the insurgency? That's strange considering most international organizations and the US government estimate the insurgency to contain a mere 3 - 4% foreign fighters and the rest are Iraqis. Furthermore, if this is true how come we haven't seen one governmental document backing this up? Don't you think the Bush Admin would be touting this fact all over the place? Also, could you provide any sort of documentary evidence to back up this claim? Sorry but I don't know your 'friend' or you so I can't just go on your allegorical evidence.
This claim about your friend is really insane and absurd.
Please tell me you are joking. Please I beg of you tell me that people so out of touch with reality like you don't actually exist in this country.
Leon = Typical Liberal MoronF
June 6, 2007 - 20:39 ET by liberal_bug_zapperLeon = Typical Liberal Moron
First, you can't read. Second, you think your media are always telling the whole story. Third, you are a moron to think that the whole story would be found in any one article since their goal is the same as yours: Destroy George Bush, and Destroy the US.
I've known my friend since we were kids. He is a Navy Corpsman and is on his second tour in Iraq. He is there now. He works in a Hospital. When not on duty, he has a lot of free time on his hands. He has information that most people don't get. He adds up the numbers. A large share of fighters in Iraq trying to foment a civil war and fighting against the US are foreign fighters from all over the gulf states. Abu Musab Al Zarqawi was a foreign fighter who led his band of foreign fighters against US troops. But since you are too stupid to realize who it is we are fighting, and since you are probably one of the idiots who believes that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened and let it happen so he and his buds at Haliburton could go in and get the oil… you’re not worth talking to.
Your opinion means less than that of a terrorist’s opinion to me.... since you are a liberal traitor... I see you as my enemy. A dangerous enemy within our country. One that is mentioned in the armed services oath, and it's an oath I took very seriously.
So Leon, one of the resident enemies of the Constitution, take a flying leap.... and please, for all of our sake, do it without a parachute.
____________________________________________________
"It's not that they're [liberals] not aware of all the things we're aware of, it's that they need to reject them in order to remain in this five-year-old utopia that they've been told is the only hope for mankind." ~ Evan Sayet
Our military can and should
June 6, 2007 - 10:15 ET by JasonCOur military can and should take out Iran and Syria as well.... stir up
the pot, then start bombing them into the stone age. Once they scream
uncle.... nuke 'em. Then make them surrender completely and agree to
our terms. I say we put the Jews in charge of all of them.... take all
weapons from them and cars and bikes and trucks and make them use
donkeys and carts. Then, send all the American liberals over there to
work with them side by side since you all want them to win.
Is this supposed to be funny? Do you even think about the consequences of your ideas? Or is this supposed to be hyperbolic enough that you won't be confused with the "cowardly" Democrats and liberals in the military that you mention? Which is, in and of itself, rather funny, considering how your type absolutely hits the roof when you feel that someone in the military has been maligned. Oh, but if their strategy doesn't involve nuking and subjugating entire cultures, then it's just fine, right?
Finally, your lame assertion that liberals want terrorists to win is perhaps the saddest little canard that your side has put forth in the last 4 years.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
1.) Just curious - what do
June 6, 2007 - 10:23 ET by BD1.) Just curious - what do you think is the current percentage of liberals in the US military.
2.) So, the crowds who gathered in the streets of the US in 1967-75 and chanted "Ho Ho Ho Chi Mihn, the NLF is GONNA win" were members of the College Republicans?
The guys who threw dirty water on me when I was in my dress uniform were the future editors of the Weekly Standard?
Bull,,,, Liberals usually DO want the US to lose.
Greetings BD. Good to see you
June 6, 2007 - 10:30 ET by bassndudeGreetings BD. Good to see you on here. I dont think you will get a reply out of Jason. If you do, it will not make sense. He banters, I think. Of course, it could just be my ADD...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Nice of you to go to the ef
June 6, 2007 - 10:38 ET by JasonCNice of you to go to the effort of posting just to say you don't think I'll reply and to impugn my writing style. You're really quite the contributor.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
Jason, in reality, I was just
June 6, 2007 - 10:48 ET by bassndudeJason, in reality, I was just welcoming BD. Dont get to see enough of him on here. You? You were secondary, way down on the list.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Actually, 75% of your post
June 6, 2007 - 10:52 ET by JasonCActually, 75% of your post pertains to me. Whatever, I just find it funny that you posted that prediction as I was typing my reply to BD.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
If you read it, you will see
June 6, 2007 - 11:00 ET by bassndudeIf you read it, you will see that the post also pretains to me. You got a problem with that to? Uh? 75% indeed. Just like a lib, pick and choose what he wants to see. I would say more like 33%. You think to highly of yourself there boy.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
BD, since you only engage w
June 6, 2007 - 10:35 ET by JasonCBD, since you only engage with my last remark, I'll assume you agree that LBZ's approach to war is hysterical and absurd.
As to your questions, I'll admit that there were some seriously misguided types in the 60s who thought that a communist victory in Southeast Asia would lead to the spread of liberalism and utopian ideals in the world. Unfortunate indeed.
I obviously have no idea about the percentage of liberals in the military, I was merely responding to LBZ's branding of Democrat military leaders as cowards and such.
I'll certainly concur that the overwhelming majority of those who actively oppose the US military and hope they lose are most likely radical liberals. The other few may be Fred Phelps types. I fervently disagree, however, that the majority of liberals, or even slightly left-of-center Americans, want the US to lose. Do you see how that works?
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
Yes, and those same liberals
June 6, 2007 - 10:43 ET by BDYes, and those same liberals who thought that utopia would spontaneously break out upon our defeat are now the liberal leadership. (Bill Clinton protesting in London & during visits to Russia only being the most mild example)
Some information for you: 85% of the US military self identifies in polls as Conservative. THat leaves 15% for the moderates and liberals to divide between themselves. Since moderates usually outnumber liberals I would say that perhaps liberals make up 5% of the US military.
Regarding the concept that only the radical liberals seek our defeat. That is not my experience. Even in my own family, the moderate liberals loathe the US military and seek its defeat in some manner. Most simply want us to lose, not be totally destroyed. Some DO seek our destruction. See how that works?
You might read that I posted
June 6, 2007 - 20:56 ET by liberal_bug_zapperYou might read that I posted the oath of enlistment above. You might also know that it carries beyond your term in the military. You may also know that when ex-generals and high level commanders openly say things like "We can't win in Iraq." this is treasonous and it breaks their oath. It also means they've decided to show their liberal cowardice. Let's face it... the generals who made it to general as paper pushers, who now retire and claim to know strategy or who claim that Bush is wrong or that the war is a failure are traitors and are liberal cowards. Bush didn't plan this war, it was generals at the pentagon. Bush authorized it as the commander in chief, but it's other generals that drew up the battle plans.
I don't know where this quote came from, but it seems appropriate;
A war is always deemed a series of mistakes and blunders and a failure until victory is achieved.
In Iraq, we have been fighting two distinct wars. One against the Saddam regime (which ended when Bush said it did) and now the new one against the foreign fighters.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
So, how could the 1ID, 1AD, 1
June 6, 2007 - 10:00 ET by BDSo, how could the 1ID, 1AD, 1MARDIV that you rclaim are "Trapped in Iraq" possibly hunt Osama in Waziristan?
"It's been clear to over
June 6, 2007 - 11:04 ET by Jimbo"It's been clear to over half of America for at least 5 years"
Really? How did Kerry lose then?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
I'm no fan of the President,
June 6, 2007 - 09:19 ET by GalvanicI'm no fan of the President, and Costas has the right to voice his opinion regarding the Bush Administration, but this 'top 500 qualified' list is totally ridiculous. The only qualifications to be President are (1) be a US citizen born in this country, (b) be at least 35 years of age, and (3) elected by a majority of votes in the Electoral College.
In terms of experience, Bush is certainly more qualified than, say, Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Joe Biden. Throw Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi into that mix.
But libs tend to base 'qualifications' on 'correct thinking.' Costas might recall how the libs and the MSM pundits attacked Bush Sr. in his run for the Presidency. GHW Bush was painted as a lightweight; even Garry Trudeau mocked the man. Yet, GHWB was arguably the most qualified American to have ever held the office. He had seen combat as as a Navy pilot in WW2, served as a Congressman, was Director of the CIA, and served as Ambassador to the People's Republic of China and the United Nations. He had also been a successful businessman in the commercial world. All this and 2-terms as Vice President, too.
I would hope that some guest on Costas' show would challenge him on the source of the 500 List.
You hit it on the head. In
June 6, 2007 - 09:34 ET by SmartypantsYou hit it on the head. In my lifetime, no Republican has ever been qualified to hold the office of the president. Every Republican president, or candidate for president, that I've known has had his credentials openly questioned by the msm. I have not seen this kind of treatment directed towards Democrat candidates, not to any significant degree anyway.
Costas is right!
June 6, 2007 - 09:30 ET by WiggyBy now It should be painfully clear that George Bush is no conservative. For six years while the Republicans had total control of the house and senate, he still pushed his my way or the highway crap. He would not work with them at all.
This man gave us:
No Child Left Behind
Dubai Ports
Harriet Miers
Immigration 'Reform'
Mel Martinez as the head of the RNC, who has the unmitigated gall to say that Immigration Reform will heal the GOP.
And the list goes on and on. When the DemocRATs rode into power on the guise of a corrupt GOP, GWB finally says he wants to work with Congress. The man has singlehandedly destroyed the GOP. He is the chief reason so many Republicans have changed their party affiliation to Independent.
He also gave us:The near abso
June 6, 2007 - 10:03 ET by BDHe also gave us:
The near absolute destruction of the Abu Sayyaf.
THe campaign to clear the horn of Africa of terrorists.
A free Afghanistan.
A free Iraq.
The legislation necessary to hunt terrorists in the US (Patriot Act.)
And that is only in his first couple of years.
I disagree with him on Immigration, but that is about it. (And I live on the border.)