President George Bush Kicking A$$

[Rich]

Didn't you bemoan the near miss of VP Cheney?

>>So you want to see the president murdered by terrorists.<<

Not particularly, but if it happens I'll enjoy watching the liberals try and talk their way out of that one. It'll be Bush's fault of course but watching them try and explain away eight years of peace at home and not passing a homeland security bill with be comical. There will be other benefits of course, but that all depends on who's vice president.

[_JS]

eight years of peace at home

My math may be incorrect, but it has been roughly 2,443 days since September 11th. That makes it roughly 6.7 years. In fact, "eight years of peace at home" is not mathematically possible under Bush.

More to the point, who cares? Why is it better to bring war to the Iraqi people? The fact that a candidate for President uses the line, "better to fight them there than here" has to be one of the most arrogant statements ever uttered by a candidate for higher office.

[sirs]

Could be worse......could be statements claiming plans to meet with dictator despots and heads of terrorist sponsoring countries, with absolutely no preconditions what-so-ever, and then arrogantly claim it's analogus to Reagan and Gorbachev

[_JS]

Could be worse......could be statements claiming plans to meet with dictator despots and heads of terrorist sponsoring countries, with absolutely no preconditions what-so-ever, and then arrogantly claim it's analogus to Reagan and Gorbachev

No. I'm going to have to say that's still far more arrogant.

Think about it this way. What if the leader of Saudi Arabia told his people that, "hey, I've been a good king. At least the nutters have been attacking the Americans and not you." What if he went on to say that, "logic dictates that we should do everything within our power to keep the Islamic militants in America and out of Saudi Arabia."

Would you like that statement? It is saying the exact same thing only from another nation's view.

[Rich]

Any spelling corrections?

 

[sirs]

A) there are no statements being made by Saudi Arabia, so that's moot

B) Russia had thousands of nukes aimed at us.  There was an absolutely compelling reason to meet and talk with them, AND it included preconditions.  To claim that's the same as the highlighting a terrorist nation who could only throw suicide bombers our way, and have zip preconditions for meeting with them in the 1st place, is the height of not just arrogance, but a severe lack of foreign policy perspective, and JUDGEMENT (wow, there's that problem raising its ugly head again).  All it would do would be enabling folks like Iran to basically give us the finger, and turning the U.S. into the laughing stock it was under Carter.

Perhaps the people of the U.S. needs a reminder of how bad it was in the late 70's under perhaps the worst president this country ever had.   Couple that with an out of control spending Demcorat congress, for good measure.  It'd be like a country-wide version of the current state of California

[_JS]

I don't see how that was relevant to anything in this discussion.

Or as you put it, since I was only trying to explain...your point is moot.

[sirs]

Yea.......that's it


 


The point being on the arrogance scale as it relates to foreign policy, our current Democrat front runner takes home the Gold

[_JS]

Yea.......that's it


 


The point being on the arrogance scale as it relates to foreign policy, our current Democrat front runner takes home the Gold

Honestly Sirs, I brought up Saudi Arabia (or it could have been any country) as an example and you don't even bother to discuss it.

What is the point in even having a discussion with you? Are we not allowed to use examples now?

[sirs]

Sure, use all the speculative comments and examples you want.  I'll focus on acutal comments made and historical perspective, if that's ok with you

[_JS]

Sure, use all the speculative comments and examples you want.  I'll focus on acutal comments made and historical perspective, if that's ok with you

 

Who pissed in your Cheerios?

[sirs]

I see....stating how one person's egregiously arrogant foreign policy comments are far worse than what you claim is "pissing on cheerios"??

Whatever       

[_JS]

I see....stating how one person's egregiously arrogant foreign policy comments are far worse than what you claim is "pissing on cheerios"??

Whatever       

No, it is your comment "Sure, use all the speculative comments and examples you want.  I'll focus on acutal comments made and historical perspective, if that's ok with you." That brought about my comment.

I was not being "speculative." I was merely demonstrating the level of arrogance by demonstrating the same line of thought if it had come from another nation looking at us as their battleground as opposed to us looking at another nation (Iraq) as our battleground as if we have the right to just pick and choose anywhere we like, arbitrarily.

Your statement in response was very high and mighty.

I could give a shit less about Obama's statement or McCain's. If you're honest, both have said some really stupid things. Hell, Bush promised we would never engage in Nation Building back in 2000. But that didn't last very long.

And while you "wish" for a return to the late 70's, don't forget it took a lot of previous years of financial f***-ups to send the national economy into that spiral. Plus it took an additional decision to use Milton Friedman's monetarism (that would be one of your beloved economists) to really send us into the outhouse. So yeah, Carter deserves what he gets, but he inherited a true steaming pile from Ford and Nixon.

McCain or Obama, it won't matter which, will inherit a real steaming pile from George W Bush too. We have very expensive wars to pay for as we go deeper into debt. Meanwhile interest rates are still far too low and the effects of inflation can be easily seen on food, energy, and other prices. Throw in the always high medical inflation and you've got a nice volatile recipe before we've even elected the next Republicrat to office. We've removed the subsidy on diesel fuel so everything costs more to ship (have you seen diesel costs lately?). So yeah, we'll be thanking your beloved president for the next decade I'm sure.

No matter what the next president is a one-termer. He either can run away from the tough economic decisions (that's my bet on both of them) which means inflation gets worse while interest rates remain artificially low and the US Dollar is artificially raised in value. The dollar becomes worth more on paper than in reality which brings in people like your buddy Soros to really clean us out like a nice gastritis. Or they make the tough economic decisions and the dollar false apart to level at its actual value, the interest rates are raised to lower inflation, and subsidies are provided for diesel again. None of which makes the people very happy.

There, hope your Cheerios taste good now.

[sirs]

And ironically, I was merely demonstrating the level of arrogance of messer Obama, by bringing up actual comments and historical perspective.  You want to claim supreme arrogant comments as a supposed impediment "ever uttered by a candidate for higher office", I give you the current democrat front runner.

And my cherrios tasted just fine with milk alone

[_JS]

Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home.

Here is your historical quote taken from the State of the Union address in January 2007. He's actually said it before that time in interviews.

The problem is not only the arrogance, as I pointed out. Also, it falsely links terrorism, such as 9/11, with the Iraq War, which as you've stated many times is not why we invaded Iraq anyway. Moreover, it creates a false causality. It implies that if we ever left Iraq, we would be followed by Iraqi terrorists.

In reality most of the fighting in Iraq is done by insurgents who are fighting over the power vacuum left behind for the very reason that there was a war! We caused the very fighting taking place now. Whether that is worth the invasion is a completely different debate, but it is false to claim that terrorists are the bulk of the fighting in Iraq, that isn't even close to reality.