All you anti-Bush folks

[grampster]

That pic is a pun.

We've had nearly 10 years to hash this over.  As an old guy I keep remembering the tired old slogan; The Lesson Of Vietnam.  How soon we forget.  So, I'll remind you of it..the real lesson.

War is serious business.  It is not a game.  If it needs to be employed, and at times it is necessary, then it should be employed in Old Testament fashion.  It is full tilt boogy, not surgical.  I recall the words Shock and Awe.  I was shocked and awed that it was not shocking nor awe inspiring.  And here we are, 10 years later, broke and still electing stupid, cowardly, self serving people.

I think America had some legitimate reasons to give an exhibition of our power as a lesson to the world that peace is better than war.  Don't Tread On Me is a valid national slogan that represents us.  If you tread on us, we will destroy you with no regard to what you think about it, or what anyone else thinks about it.  If it is the only thing to be done, then it will be done.  We can be poles apart in dogma, but whatever bad things one might believe are righteous within one's tribal religious fanaticism, it should not be exported.  The Lesson Of Vietnam has been forgotten, or in reality never really understood or learned, and more thousands of noble American lives have been shed, not in vain, but worse yet, in egregious stupid.

Though I supported beginning what was begun in response to 9-11, it is now time to say lesson given, and again taken.  We're done.  Understand if we have to come back, you don't want that.  It will be different next time.  It is simple what you must do.  Don't export what we don't want.

Yes, it is more complicated than this and many things are intertwined.  But that is for another discussion.

 

[Ron]

Though I supported beginning what was begun in response to 9-11, it is now time to say lesson given, and again taken.  We're done.  Understand if we have to come back, you don't want that.  It will be different next time.  It is simple what you must do.  Don't export what we don't want.

I agree with this.

[roo_ster]

Remember what Hussein did to the Kurds? Mid-Late 80's?

He gassed them. I have an image etched in my mind's eye that I will never be rid of, an image from Newsweek. A Kurd woman attempting to shield her child from the gas but they both succumbed.

Now, even the right wing finds fault with G.W.
 
I, myself, do not. Count me with the lunatic fringe, I guess, on that count.  G.W. made some hard decisions, ones that no president had the balls to make, previous. G.W. ended Saddam Hussein's reign of gassing women and children. If supporting him put's me on the fringe... so be it.

WHY? Those folks sent 3,000 or so of our countrymen to their graves. Over THEOLOGY. I see folks becoming complacent about it and it pisses me off.

Saddam did not attack us on 9-11 and there is no good evidence linking him to that attack to be found.

OTOH, GWB was good-to-go legality-wise vis a vis Congress and internat'l law in making war on Saddam.  All legal-based arguments cross-wise with this are either ignorant or dishonest.  GWB had a decade's worth of Congressional authorizations and policies going back to Gulf I and through Clinton's years & the UN resolutions & Saddam's violations of the cease fire agreement. 

Besides, Saddam needed killing.

Problem was, GWB screwed the pooch so hard (in Iraq and Astan) when he decided to go all nation-buildy/COIN, etc. rather than letting his Inner Jacksonian loose and just killing and destroying until the threat was bloody rubble.  Toss in GWB's using the COTUS as toilet paper (PATRIOT, DHS, etc.) and my opinion of him is "nuanced."


Just because one savage slaughters other savages in job lots does not make it either in our interests or our moral duty to intervene.  If the Kurds were the ones with the T72s and mustard gas, they would have been the ones slaughtering Arabs.  As long as they do not threaten American interests or citizenry, let them kill each other with wild abandon.

[roo_ster]

Point of contention - GW did that all by himself, did he? He created the Patriot Act, the TSA, and Homeland Security all by executive order? No Congressional influence? Don't sell me bridges.

He supported and pushed the legislation and signed the bills.  If he had a lick of respect for the COTUS he would not have done so.  It is just to hold GWB in contempt for his dereliction of duty and oath-breaking.

[Ben]

I agree with everything Grampster said.

In my theoretical world, we leave them alone, they leave us alone. But that doesn't happen in the real world. Unfortunately, when we do get into wars, we drag them out, even after winning (or at least reaching a goal). How long were (are) we in Germany? Unlike Grampster, few seem to read or understand Clausewitz. Get in, be devastating, leave. Much less death and destruction on both sides. It's just not pretty to watch ((see the opening scene in Private Ryan).

I hate the Patriot Act, TSA, and a good number of Homeland Security Directives. Yet Bush was a better president than the alternative, and a better president than the current guy. Sad that we have to work off 'lowest common denominator", but there it is.

I'm certainly less free since 9/11, but I can replace "9/11" with "X" and the statement still holds true. In my 51 years on the planet, I have never been left "more free" by any presidential administration (which can't always be focused on the President, but on Congress and the Senate as well). Some were less egregious than others, some gave some freedoms while taking others away. The net result though, is that at the end of every administration in my lifetime, I've been left with more laws, more regulations, and less freedom.

[grislyatoms]

That pic is a pun.

We've had nearly 10 years to hash this over.  As an old guy I keep remembering the tired old slogan; The Lesson Of Vietnam.  How soon we forget.  So, I'll remind you of it..the real lesson.

War is serious business.  It is not a game.  If it needs to be employed, and at times it is necessary, then it should be employed in Old Testament fashion.  It is full tilt boogy, not surgical.  I recall the words Shock and Awe.  I was shocked and awed that it was not shocking nor awe inspiring.  And here we are, 10 years later, broke and still electing stupid, cowardly, self serving people.

I think America had some legitimate reasons to give an exhibition of our power as a lesson to the world that peace is better than war.  Don't Tread On Me is a valid national slogan that represents us.  If you tread on us, we will destroy you with no regard to what you think about it, or what anyone else thinks about it.  If it is the only thing to be done, then it will be done.  We can be poles apart in dogma, but whatever bad things one might believe are righteous within one's tribal religious fanaticism, it should not be exported.  The Lesson Of Vietnam has been forgotten, or in reality never really understood or learned, and more thousands of noble American lives have been shed, not in vain, but worse yet, in egregious stupid.

Though I supported beginning what was begun in response to 9-11, it is now time to say lesson given, and again taken.  We're done.  Understand if we have to come back, you don't want that.  It will be different next time.  It is simple what you must do.  Don't export what we don't want.

Yes, it is more complicated than this and many things are intertwined.  But that is for another discussion.

 

I agree with this.

So war is total, no quarter given, none taken? GW was of that mind, but he was hamstrung and frustrated by Congress, I believe. It was not the man himself. Hence my argument, that hanging everything on GW doesn't resonate.  
You folks who were over there, and still over there... if I may give my respect as a free man, it is yours and it comes freely.
I will not presume to put words in the mouths of our vets; yet that is how I feel about the issue.

[longeyes]

Bush is an anti-John the Baptist.  Without him we wouldn't have the anti-Messiah we have now.  Just remember, they both work for The Man.

[41magsnub]

Was he better than Gore or Kerry would have been?  Yes.  Was still pretty bad? Yes.  I guess he gets points for being the lesser of the evils but as mentioned he did some pretty awful things and I firmly believe the country is in a worse place in a number of categories after his term than before it.  There is of course plenty of blame to go around, it is not all on GWB.

[brimic]

For all of Bush's faults, and they were numerous, without him, we would have had Al Gore running the show. Given the choice of having Obama now, or Gore then, I'd take Obama every time. Obama maybe an ineffective narcissist, but at least he hasn't proven himself to be insane (yet).

[longeyes]

Cut to the chase: W. is part of a continuum of American leaders whose agenda should scare any liberty-loving American.  It didn't start with W. and it won't end with Obama.  It goes back decades and includes all of the American Presidents thereafter, without exception.  Even Reagan wasn't blameless and wasn't exempt.

[longeyes]

For all of Bush's faults, and they were numerous, without him, we would have had Al Gore running the show. Given the choice of having Obama now, or Gore then, I'd take Obama every time. Obama maybe an ineffective narcissist, but at least he hasn't proven himself to be insane (yet).

"Ineffective narcissism" is the least of Obama's manifest toxicities.  He embodies a movement for which narcissism is really just the arrogation of absolute power but is more symptom than cause.  Ineffective?  Look around you.  I'd say he's done a pretty good job of swinging the wrecking ball.

[brimic]

It goes back decades and includes all of the American Presidents thereafter, without exception.  Even Reagan wasn't blameless and wasn't exempt.

It goes all the way back to Washington.

[brimic]

"Ineffective narcissism" is the least of Obama's manifest toxicities.  He embodies a movement for which narcissism is really just the arrogation of absolute power but is more symptom than cause.  Ineffective?  Look around you.  I'd say he's done a pretty good job of swinging the wrecking ball.

That wrecking ball was in full swing as W left office. Obama really hasn't done much besides sign off on whatever Pelosi/Reid put in front of him. He's been too busy taking vacations, playing basketball, golfing, and appologizing about America to really focus on doing any harm on his own so far.

I believe that if Gore were president, We'd all be unemployed, as just about all human activity would be taxed under some sort of carbon/global warming scheme or another.

[Perd Hapley]

Answer this question:
Are you more free, or less free, post 9/11?[/b][/i]

That's a very complex question. Gun laws are much better now. Bush's court appointments brought us the Heller decision, which will continue to help the cause of freedom.

[mtnbkr]

That's a very complex question. Gun laws are much better now. Bush's court appointments brought us the Heller decision, which will continue to help the cause of freedom.

Frankly, more guns aren't very comforting given the other aspects of Freedom we've lost over the years.  It's almost as if they're saying, "if we give them their toys, they won't care when we curtail other freedoms".

I'll take another AWB any day to ensure I maintain the other 9 Amendments that make up the BoR.

Chris

[Perd Hapley]

I'll take another AWB any day to ensure I maintain the other 9 Amendments that make up the BoR.

Chris

You have a point there, so long as you admit that the gains of Heller, the continuing legacy of Roberts and Alito, and the steady advance of carry legislation (just to hit the 2A highlights) stack up to much more than what we gained with the AWB sunset.

Not that Bush receives all the credit for these things, but Jamis's question was not that specific.

This is not a pro-Bush rant. More of a Microbalrog-style "But things are getting better!" speech.

[Fitz]

This is a repost

I saw this topic on here... several years ago

[longeyes]

Frankly, more guns aren't very comforting given the other aspects of Freedom we've lost over the years.  It's almost as if they're saying, "if we give them their toys, they won't care when we curtail other freedoms".

I'll take another AWB any day to ensure I maintain the other 9 Amendments that make up the BoR.

Chris

I hear ya, but if tyranny weren't an inherent part of human nature we wouldn't need the BoR, RKBA, or to worry about self-defense.

[mtnbkr]

I hear ya, but if tyranny weren't an inherent part of human nature we wouldn't need the BoR, RKBA, or to worry about self-defense.

I'll buy into that when people start taking action.  Right now, it's all talk and bluster.  For the time being, the other amendments have a greater impact into my life.

Chris

[Jamisjockey]

That's a very complex question. Gun laws are much better now. Bush's court appointments brought us the Heller decision, which will continue to help the cause of freedom.

Warrantless wiretapping.  Being groped just to partake in air transportation.  Layers upon layers of new bureacuracy, regulations, and laws.  Creeping incrementalisim of the word "terror" being attached to more and more crimes (and along with it, the loss of due process). And the growth of the police state.  Huge increases in the welfare state.
And before Obama's drunken orgy of a spending spree, Bush and the Congress were spending us down the path of indentured Chinese servitude.

I would argue the most nefarious of Bush's follies was actually his both public and corporate welfare sprees.  Increases to Medicare and Chip, as well as TARP.  Those things make slaves of the taxpayer classes, pure and simple.

[roo_ster]

So war is total, no quarter given, none taken? GW was of that mind, but he was hamstrung and frustrated by Congress, I believe. It was not the man himself. Hence my argument, that hanging everything on GW doesn't resonate.

GWB was given his head to do as he saw fit in Astan & Iraq.  The Dems squawked (especially on Iraq), but they went along with and voted for them.

Given the Congressional authorizations and his position as Commander in Chief, damn straight he is responsible for for the feckless not-so-Grand Strategy he saw fit to implement.

[drewtam]

I partly disagree with Ben. I am more optimistic about the future. Based on literature and history, the 1760s to 1830s was the peak of classic liberalism in the US. The hallmarks of this peak are obvious in the UK literature, US revolution and the spread to the French revolution.

From that peak, a trend towards more gov't and more planning emerged. It wasn't just Marx, but many thinkers of the time began the intellectual and popular trends towards expanded roles of gov't and elite power.
This trend peaked in the time from 1920s to 1990s. This periods most rapid change was hallmarked in the US by SS, unemployment insurance, the NRA, and other large public works projects. According to Hayek, Germany and Russia went much further down this same path, each installing totalitarian power. The US seemed to be moderated by the horrors of Germany and USSR. But intellectual thought still based itself on more central "planning".

The 80's and 90's are powerful turning markers in this reversal of the planning trend. By 2010, the installation of mandatory private health insurance was passed against the will of the majority of Americans and its repeal has become a popular election promise. The average American is also ready to discuss the necessary cuts in SS and Medicare and Medicaid, like no other time in history. There is no interest in raising taxes to support more gov't efforts, and deregulation is still preferred for most people.
Both democrat and republican oriented people hate the anti-freedom parts of the Patriot act. The same complaints can be seen here on APS as on a leftist site.
The narrative of intellectual thought and policy from authoritarians is falling apart while the intellectual influence of classical liberalism is ascendant.

[longeyes]

Well, you're right, you certainly are an optimist.

[brimic]

The narrative of intellectual thought and policy from authoritarians is falling apart while the intellectual influence of classical liberalism is ascendant.

You might be right, especially considering some of the political movements that are/have been occuring recently and simultaneously in several states.

[Perd Hapley]

Warrantless wiretapping.  Being groped just to partake in air transportation.  Layers upon layers of new bureacuracy, regulations, and laws.  Creeping incrementalisim of the word "terror" being attached to more and more crimes (and along with it, the loss of due process). And the growth of the police state.  Huge increases in the welfare state.
And before Obama's drunken orgy of a spending spree, Bush and the Congress were spending us down the path of indentured Chinese servitude.

I would argue the most nefarious of Bush's follies was actually his both public and corporate welfare sprees.  Increases to Medicare and Chip, as well as TARP.  Those things make slaves of the taxpayer classes, pure and simple.

As long as we consider the whole spectrum, good as well as bad.