Oh that is complete bullplop. Being stupid, perhaps.

Really? You know damn well that if we were to get hit sometime in the next 3 years, it's going to be because "George W. Bush was a facist asshole who "tortured"". It's as clear as day what this whole thing is setting up for. It's just like Obama going over to Europe, in front of the adoring French and saying "I'm not George W. Bush, I am Barack Hussein Obama, so love me". So, being "stupid" or "nice" or whatever adjective you want to use, it's the same damn thing.

Really? You know damn well that if we were to get hit sometime in the next 3 years, it's going to be because "George W. Bush was a facist asshole who "tortured"". It's as clear as day what this whole thing is setting up for. It's just like Obama going over to Europe, in front of the adoring French and saying "I'm not George W. Bush, I am Barack Hussein Obama, so love me". So, being "stupid" or "nice" or whatever adjective you want to use, it's the same damn thing.

That's not how you said it in the post I was replying to. You said "Being nice got 3000 people killed". That implies that you're saying torturing someone could have stopped the attack that already happened that killed 3000 people. That is complete bullplop.

I find it ironic that people living in the middle of nowhere, who have a 1 in a billion chance of getting killed in a terrorist attack, are more vocal about this than people in NY, LA, Chicago.

I find this opinion exteremely moronic. I don't care where anyone lives... it's people that I care about. Apparently, you don't.

 

I'm going to go all Murphy's law here.

 

That same logic says Adolf Eichmann was an innocent man. He didn't personally kill anyone, he followed orders, he did his job methodically, did it very well, made sure the trains ran on time, and he was judged after the administrations changed. People went back and applied a different set of moral standards to the work he did after the fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

 

Good job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

 

Good job.

 

Ok, on that note, I'm out.

Really? You know damn well that if we were to get hit sometime in the next 3 years, it's going to be because "George W. Bush was a facist asshole who "tortured"". It's as clear as day what this whole thing is setting up for. It's just like Obama going over to Europe, in front of the adoring French and saying "I'm not George W. Bush, I am Barack Hussein Obama, so love me". So, being "stupid" or "nice" or whatever adjective you want to use, it's the same damn thing.

That isn't what Balta was saying.

That's not how you said it in the post I was replying to. You said "Being nice got 3000 people killed". That implies that you're saying torturing someone could have stopped the attack that already happened that killed 3000 people. That is complete bullplop.

No, that's not what I was implying, for the record. I was implying that ignoring the facts and not using the ability to gain intelligence is what killed 3,000 people. After the fact, you continue to use ways to get intelligence, and in fact it becomes more important so that it doesn't happen again.

 

Conversely, you have seemed incapable of ever giving him credit lately. It's Obama Derangement Syndrome, and it set it much earlier than Bush Derangement Syndrome set in for most liberals.

 

As for the second bolded part, isn't that for an investigation to determine?

 

 

 

Everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias. Aren't you accepting the claims that the information was good/ prevented attacks that otherwise wouldn't have been stopped at face value while scrutinizing any other claims much more heavily?

 

I call BS on this point. Because of the nature of the 2000 election and the aftermath of it, Bush was being stung before he even took office. Obama has had his critics, but it has been a vocal minority at best. For the most part he has generally gotten the benefit of the doubt on just about everything.

 

 

I call BS on this point. Because of the nature of the 2000 election and the aftermath of it, Bush was being stung before he even took office. Obama has had his critics, but it has been a vocal minority at best. For the most part he has generally gotten the benefit of the doubt on just about everything.

Bush got a big, big reprieve from 9-11 though.

Bush got a big, big reprieve from 9-11 though.

Not really. I remember full well after 9-11 the "CONSPIRACY" nutjobs went crazy... and this was well before Iraq.

Not really. I remember full well after 9-11 the "CONSPIRACY" nutjobs went crazy... and this was well before Iraq.

Meh, nutjobs are nutjobs. That's about 20% on either end of the political spectrum you can factor out immediately in any kind of discussion like this.

Not really. I remember full well after 9-11 the "CONSPIRACY" nutjobs went crazy... and this was well before Iraq.

You can't be serious here. That was like 1/100 of a percent of the population. Bush's popularity numbers, political capital, and leeway with Congress, went through the roof that day.

 

You can't be serious here. That was like 1/100 of a percent of the population. Bush's popularity numbers, political capital, and leeway with Congress, went through the roof that day.

Yes, for a very short time. It wasn't long before all the conspiracy bulls*** went through the roof.

 

And without the political capital you speak of, Congress wouldn't have voted for Iraq. I understand that, but I also know for a fact that there were a lot of people very unhappy with Bush and that never, ever changed, 9/11 included. There's a lot of them here.

 

Yea, about 6-8 months. That's about right.

 

Yea, about 6-8 months. That's about right.

The real damage didn't start until about mid-2003, that was all self-induced. Throughout most of 2002 everybody was still buying the BS, and they soured on it when we got there and didn't find anything. It was all a slow, painful fall downhill from there with a general election thrown in.

 

Thanks for that. It pretty much proves exactly how quickly Bush was ransacked. His approval rating was under 50% on Feb 1st of his first year. That is amazing.

The real damage didn't start until about mid-2003, that was all self-induced. Throughout most of 2002 everybody was still buying the BS, and they soured on it when we got there and didn't find anything. It was all a slow, painful fall downhill from there with a general election thrown in.

You and I agreed many times that the Iraq handling was a debacle.

 

Thanks for that. It pretty much proves exactly how quickly Bush was ransacked. His approval rating was under 50% on Feb 1st of his first year. That is amazing.

What did you expect from a President that lost the popular vote?

What did you expect from a President that lost the popular vote?

 

That is immaterial to the question at hand. Someone tried to make the point that Obama had critics before Bush did in relative stages of their service. Its simply not true.

Thanks for that. It pretty much proves exactly how quickly Bush was ransacked. His approval rating was under 50% on Feb 1st of his first year. That is amazing.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with that, obviously the debacle of 2000 hurt his approval ratings pretty bad and it stayed there for a while. But he got a dramatic bump after 9-11 that stayed with him until his handling of the war dragged it down.

You and I agreed many times that the Iraq handling was a debacle.

lol, I know. I guess I keep repeating myself because I feel like a lot of Bush's big mistakes were interconnected.

That is immaterial to the question at hand. Someone tried to make the point that Obama had critics before Bush did in relative stages of their service. Its simply not true.

 

I retract my initial claim.

 

BDS and ODS set in at early stages.

lol, I know. I guess I keep repeating myself because I feel like a lot of Bush's big mistakes were interconnected.

They were. He never got out of the "I'm going to blow s*** up and all is well" mentality until it was so unpopular that it didn't matter. With that said, I'm glad now that it's Obama's war (so to speak) it's all going well over there.

 

You and I agreed many times that the Iraq handling was a debacle.

The debacle was deciding to "handle" Iraq at all. All the debacles that followed were results of the first one.