Not true, but the difference between a blue and a white sky has a way of taking it’s toll on my motivation. Politics are driving me nuts – this new budget is an abomination. Tax cuts for the richest American earners are being cut at the same time as college loans. The Iraq War has put us into an enormous amount of debt, and sacrifice is being demanded of the poor, while the rich are given more.
Morally bankrupt…this period of American history is led by a man whose voters value ‘family values’, yet for millions of families across the nation, life is tougher now than it was in 1998.
Everyone’s forgotten about 9/11…wait, Bush mentioned that several times in his State of the Union speech, yet mentioned Katrina only once.
and here I thought you had a case of Blogger’s Block
Chris you are getting frazzled friend. Go sit in a quiet place and meditate on what it means to appreciate and live in our country. If you want to deal with GWB in a positive way try to recognize what he has done in a positive way for the nation. He isn’t evil nor is he perfect.
Far from perfect…
Paul:
Name one positive. I am not trying to be snarky, I just wonder what one thing Bush has done or tried to do that has actually worked the way it was supposed to.
Paul:
were you kidding about focus on the positive. If you were, sorry for missing the joke.
Should this guy be anywhere near nuclear weapons?
BREAKING NEWS
Updated: 3:59 p.m. ET Feb. 12, 2006
WASHINGTON – Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and injured a man during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, his spokeswoman said Sunday.
Harry Whittington, 78, was “alert and doing fine” after Cheney sprayed Whittington with shotgun pellets on Saturday at the Armstrong Ranch in south Texas, said property owner Katharine Armstrong.
Armstrong said Cheney turned to shoot a bird and accidentally hit Whittington. She said Whittington was taken to Corpus Christi Memorial Hospital by ambulance.
These guys…I read an article and I think it said that they drive around until they see a bunch of whatever they want to kill, then they get out and spray buckshot.
Never hunted in my life for anything with a heartbeat, but I have always thought that for it to be a sport, the animal has to have some kind of a chance.
Deer hunters have always creeped me out, but I know that it’s only the ones I’ve met. That is hunting as I see it…man, in the wild, hunting. Once you factor in a heated SUV, I’m against it.
Say what you all will, but GWB has some good qualities. I would trust him with nuclear weapons before I would the mad mullahs in Iran!
Who said anything about trusting the mad mullahs of Iran?? I don’t trust them either. Doesn’t mean that trust goes to GWB.
I guess if you set the bar low enough GWB looks good. I would agree that he slightly better than an Iranian mullah
Paul, I just don’t put as much value in the ‘finger on the button’ factor. If Reagan didn’t launch a nuke…while his guys traded weapons for hostages, slaughtered central americans (Negroponte), began the routine of wasting billions per year on Star Wars (hasn’t worked once…not once)…then I’m comfortable with whoever’s President at any given time.
It’s not something you can know one way or the other about a presidential candidate from seeing them on TV.
I just want whoever’s in charge to manage well, lead well – which inherently demands from a leader the willingness to hold people accountable and keep them honest.
When politicians are grabing cash with both hands on your watch, staffers going to jail or selling guns to 3rd world dictators, it’s time to step up, take out the trash and start listening to advice from some different people.
GWB is no Lincoln but neither was Clinton or Carter for that matter. They ALL have (had) warts.
Paul, did Clinton or Carter oversee the premature deaths of thousands because of their incompetence?
Paul, did Clinton or Carter oversee the premature deaths of thousands because of their incompetence?
No, these guys held the status quo, enabling dictators to “dig in” and prrepare for the genocides and invasions that better Presidents had to deal with. Carter didn’t think communist aggression was a problem so he left it to Reagon to fix. Clinton didn’t think bin laden/terrorsim was a problem so he left it to Bush to fix. Were always picking up after Democrats.
They also did not let Iran become a nuclear power. Nor did they squander the US milatary to the point that the US cannot do much about Iran.
Reagan stood up the the Soviets by arming and training Bin Laden, and Reagan stood up to Iran by arming and training Iraq. Seems like someone left a bit of a mess. In addition Bush invaded Iraq on information provided by Iran. Nice of us to help create another Theocracy for Iran.
They also did not let Iran become a nuclear power. Nor did they squander the US milatary to the point that the US cannot do much about Iran.
What about North Korea? Clinton actaully gave then nuclear fuel if I rememebr right.
Are you saying you would have preferred that we not liberate Afganistan, Kuwait and Iraq so that we would have enough troops to invade Iran? Would you also have us invade North Korea?
Reagan stood up the the Soviets by arming and training Bin Laden, and Reagan stood up to Iran by arming and training Iraq. Seems like someone left a bit of a mess.
Reagan beat the Soviets with economy, the Societs were invading Afganistan an arming Iran. Saddam, before he went nuts, was fighting against the Jihad we are now all experiencing.
In addition Bush invaded Iraq on information provided by Iran. Nice of us to help create another Theocracy for Iran.
Not this tired bit of misinformation again. I mind, we are just delaying the inevitable World War 3 when Islam marches on Europe, the Middle East and Africa. We are already surrendering our freedoms of speacha nd religion to Islam, history is repeating itself.
Right, karl’s response is valid. You point the finger and cite inaction from Carter and Clinton, yet Reagan’s actions created problems we’re still struggling to deal with today.
Do you concede that our arming of Iraq and Iran during their war, as well as the arming of Osama, were both mistakes?
Right, karl’s response is valid. You point the finger and cite inaction from Carter and Clinton, yet Reagan’s actions created problems we’re still struggling to deal with today.
Clinton and Carter ignored important events in the world where as Reagon responded to them. It’s easy to look back and say Reagan screwed up but at least he did something other than pass the buck.
Do you concede that our arming of Iraq and Iran during their war, as well as the arming of Osama, were both mistakes?
Based on what we knew then? Absolutely not. At the time these actions kept the Ayatohla at bay and kept the Russians from expanding communism. Obviously Reagan didn’t know Osama would attack the U.S. almost 30 years later. Reagan and now Bush make the hard decisions and don’t just pass the buck to the next guy.
So your argument is basically that any action at all is better than no action? Regardless of the outcome, aggression is better policy than diplomacy?
Reagan’s policy was to bolster the profits of arms manufacturers as I see it. If this isn’t the case, then why was it his policy to sell arms to both the Iraqis and the Iranians?
What is the logical end that he hoped to achieve by doing this?
Right, first off, communism had nothing to do with the Iran-Iraq war. The only thing that ended that conflict without the destruction and occupation of Baghdad was Saddam’s use of chemical weapons on the Iranians. Everything I’ve read on that period of history points to that single act.
When that happened, Reagan was silent. So what was the foreign policy? Besides making money off of the conflict, what was our motivation to sell arms to both countries? Because when you cite our desire to contain the Ayatollah, it doesn’t make any sense to sell arms to him if that’s our goal.
So your argument is basically that any action at all is better than no action? Regardless of the outcome, aggression is better policy than diplomacy?
Aggression is better when diplomacy fails, or in the case of Clinton and Carter, when there was no diplomacy at all.
Reagan’s policy was to bolster the profits of arms manufacturers as I see it. If this isn’t the case, then why was it his policy to sell arms to both the Iraqis and the Iranians?
Any sources on this? Iran was an ally before Islam over threw the legitimate government and we didn’t want the same to happen to Iraq. Again, it’s easy for you to sit back 25-30 years later and make armchair policy decisions based on the events of today. Clinton and Carter were foreign policy failures, and mostly domestic failures as well.
Right, first off, communism had nothing to do with the Iran-Iraq war. The only thing that ended that conflict without the destruction and occupation of Baghdad was Saddam’s use of chemical weapons on the Iranians. Everything I’ve read on that period of history points to that single act.
Yes, I meant to say the communism issue was Afganistan and the Islamic issue was Iran. Both are bent on domination and subjugation.
When that happened, Reagan was silent. So what was the foreign policy? Besides making money off of the conflict, what was our motivation to sell arms to both countries? Because when you cite our desire to contain the Ayatollah, it doesn’t make any sense to sell arms to him if that’s our goal.
As posted above, Iran was an ally until 1979. Do you have proof of arms sales to Iran by Reagan after the 1979 Islamic coop/insurgency?
If you look Reagans legacy it is pretty sad. We are still losing the war on drugs, the US traded arms for hostages and let the contras sell drugs to help finance an illegal war. Essentially Reagan and his policies were the start of Americas slide into a moral abyss. The US is no longer the good guys. We are the ones who run the gulag.
If anything the cold war lasted longer than it should of because reagan gave the soviet block countries something to fear and probably kept them together longer than they would have, given their economies were collapsing.
Reagans legacy is bin laden, right wing death squads in El Salvadore, and he was the man who gave Saddam Hussien poison gas. I wonder how many problems Bush is causing right now that that in 25 years someone else will have to deal with.
BTW
the war on drugs should have been named to quagmire on drugs.
Right:
If we didn’t want islam to overthrow the government in Iraq why did we go there and help them do it.
I think we can all agree that a secular government in Iraq is preferable to the Mullah lite system they have now. The only people who don’t get this, unfortunately, are the people running our the country.
The war on drugs is the most damaging aspect of his legacy in terms of the domestic situation here in America. Mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent crime is a travesty.
A drug dealer is a danger to the community, but there wouldn’t be drug dealers if the market wasn’t there. Supply and demand creates drug dealers, and once you lock one of them up, their market share is gobbled up by another one. The cycle doesn’t end when this guy is locked up for 20+ years.
You can lock up 100 drug dealers and it won’t change the bottom line one bit. Though, the bottom line has never been a factor in the war on drugs…all the program hopes to accomplish is the APPEARANCE of progress.
The appearance of progress satisfies the masses.
If you look Reagans legacy it is pretty sad.
Reagan will be seen, historically, as one of the nations best Presidents. Just to be an American during his tenure you felt a great sense of satifaction, hope and joy. He was such a powerful presence you felt it, I know I did.
We are still losing the war on drugs,
What did Clinton do to reverse this “trend”? Why did Carter let it get so bad?
the US traded arms for hostages
Not quite, but I wasn’t fond of the situation either.
finance an illegal war
Which laws did this war violate?
If anything the cold war lasted longer than it should of because reagan gave the soviet block countries something to fear and probably kept them together longer than they would have, given their economies were collapsing.
This is 100% wrong. Plastic-man can’t stretch this much.
and he was the man who gave Saddam Hussien poison gas.
No he didn’t, they never found WMDs in Iraq, Joe Wilson proved it. Iraq was about oil only, so Reagan couldn’t have sold poison gas to Saddam. I’ve been waiting to use tha for a long time, thanks Karl. I love it when the liberal misinformation comes full circle.
I wonder how many problems Bush is causing right now that that in 25 years someone else will have to deal with.
Well, I can tell you with Clinton and Carter we didn’t have to wait 25 years. We waited 9 months after Clinton.
the war on drugs should have been named to quagmire on drugs.
Well, Karl, if you would just put the crack pipe down you could make a contribution.
If anything the fact that it is illegal subsidizes it by keeping the prices high.
Most people out of politeness don’t usually tell the truth about reagan, it is sort of like making fun of the handicapped, but it is time to take a realistic look at what he did.
The one positive thing Reagan did was to raise SS taxes and help shore up the system and if Bush could he would ruin that accomplishment.
If we didn’t want islam to overthrow the government in Iraq why did we go there and help them do it.
We didn’t.
I think we can all agree that a secular government in Iraq is preferable to the Mullah lite system they have now.
Anything is preferable to what was there before. It can’t get any worse, well, except for socialism.
Why was Rumsfeld hanging out with Saddam during that time if not to help arm him?
As far as the reagan years making you feel good, it is sort of like Crack, the good feeling comes with a price.
Maybe that is the difference between Cons and Libs, I want a president who does his job. You guys want one who makes you feel good.
I have to get to work( you cannot call me a hippie anymore) but nice chatting have a good night.
Why was Rumsfeld hanging out with Saddam during that time if not to help arm him?
You are asking why a senior administration official made a diplomatic stop in Bagdad, part of a string of diplomatic stops? Isn’t that part of what politicians do? Rumsfeld also has been to Germany, are we arming them too?
Maybe that is the difference between Cons and Libs, I want a president who does his job. You guys want one who makes you feel good.
If I feel good then it means he is doing his job. I never felt good about clinton, probably because he spent his time getting jobs rather than doing his job. What is your excuse for Carter? No one flet good and he wasn’t doing his job.
I have to get to work( you cannot call me a hippie anymore) but nice chatting have a good night.
Oh, yeah???
Right – Saddam used chemical weapons on the Iranian army. This is a fact. The guy couldn’t manage to develop a nuke. It was out of his reach. The shelf life of the chemical weapons he acquired (he didn’t create them on his own) in the 80s was long past due by the time this war began.
If we hadn’t intervened in the 80s, he would have been run down by Iran. At that point in time, the world with Saddam was better for the USA than a world without him. The ayatollah ruling both countries wasn’t what we wanted to see, so Reagan’s people chose the lesser of two evils.
That aspect of it is certainly justified if Americans are/were interested at all in the business of those two countries. Undoubtedly, like LBJ’s and Nixon’s advisors, the situation was sold to Reagan with a doomsday scenario. All of mankind was at stake…if ‘country A’ falls, it will start a domino effect…yada yada
The line was crossed when Saddam used the chemical weapons on the Iranians, and circumstantial evidence points in one direction in terms of ‘where’ he got them.
If you’re comfortable with all that…the actual facts, the history, then that’s one thing. What we have to do though is get away from generalities and deal in the facts of what went down.
Under Reagan, it was a free for all…he didn’t make decisions, he was fed one load of crap after another about ‘dire circumstances’ in places like Afghanistan, Iran, Central America, and wasn’t smart enough to realize that a lot of dirty shit was being done in his name.
A presidency cannot be judged with a simple good or bad…Americans are getting dumber by the year because we’re addicted to perceiving complex things as black and white. Check the test scores, then turn on cable news for an hour…the public is all about the warm & fuzzy vibe.
It’s no secret why American Idol is #1 in the ratings. We elect our leaders the same exact way. And if the illusion of whatever we’re looking for in politics is perceived in a candidate, that’s who we go for, and the actual performance doesn’t matter. After that it’s all bias to most of the country.
Reagan was a president for 8 years, and within that time, a LOT happened. In spite of this, I never hear anything more than a few lines on his Presidency from people who liked him.
The federal defecit, the amount of crimes committed under his watch by government officials…all that is ignored, and Bush/Rove are counting on it happening again. Maybe they’re right…maybe 15 years from now every Republican in the country will play dumb and pretend the Iraq war and Katrina never happened.