The legacy of President George W. Bush - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-10-2007, 07:35 PM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


nowhere in this thread do I mention Nixon. He was a balanced president however, both foreign and domestic.
Not my point. I'm saying your judgment of president's doesn't have the best track record.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 07:49 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


nowhere in this thread do I mention Nixon. He was a balanced president however, both foreign and domestic.

Well, but your opinion of Nixon voiced in the Nixon thread hasn't changed, has it?

People often like to forget about the bad things, and start to paint everything nicer that it was later. Hence the saying of the good ol' times. You can see it with some East Germans who are now getting nostalgic about the GDR and the good aspects of it, conveniently leaving out how bad they wanted to get out of there because of lack of freedom, goods and oppression etc.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:24 PM   #18
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega



Well, but your opinion of Nixon voiced in the Nixon thread hasn't changed, has it?

People often like to forget about the bad things, and start to paint everything nicer that it was later. Hence the saying of the good ol' times. You can see it with some East Germans who are now getting nostalgic about the GDR and the good aspects of it, conveniently leaving out how bad they wanted to get out of there because of lack of freedom, goods and oppression etc.
the nixon thread has nothing to do w/ this thread.
__________________
struckpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:25 PM   #19
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Not my point. I'm saying your judgment of president's doesn't have the best track record.
there we go. since i disagree with you on nixon, i have a bad track record. every time someone does not agree with you, you give them a negative view. great way to live life.
__________________
struckpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:27 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 03:01 PM
Bush will be remembered as being terrible, there's no doubt about that.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:29 PM   #21
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
Bush will be remembered as being terrible, there's no doubt about that.
how so? there have been no terrorist attacks here since he became president. 9/11 is directly related to clinton and his failures to do anything about it. i would call that a huge success. have you not read about the different plots that have been foiled? or are you to high to read anything positive about bush?
__________________
struckpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:35 PM   #22
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
 
LMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 37,609
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx
or are you to high to read anything positive about bush?
That sentence kills me.

Bush Jr. will go down in history as one of the worst presidents of all time. Not just because of his policies, but his mishandling of said policies and corrupt, bureaucratic administration.

I'd put him on the list right now with Richard Nixon, Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, and Herbert Hoover.

At this point, it would not surprise me if Bush was the last president before the apocalypse.
__________________
LMP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:36 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


the nixon thread has nothing to do w/ this thread.
"Based on the fact that you are in the very small minority about Nixon, I feel safe that Bush's legacy will paint him as one of the worse presidents in history."

My, is it so hard? Your opinion about Nixon is the same, isn't it?
Taking this, BVS concluded that you set different standards for a President to perform well under your eyes.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:40 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


how so? there have been no terrorist attacks here since he became president. 9/11 is directly related to clinton and his failures to do anything about it. i would call that a huge success. have you not read about the different plots that have been foiled? or are you to high to read anything positive about bush?
Wrong. It was an attack on the "Western World", which is neither related to Bush sr. Clinton, or Bush jr.
They didn't care who was President and what he did.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:41 PM   #25
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


Wrong. It was an attack on the "Western World", which is neither related to Bush sr. Clinton, or Bush jr.
They didn't care who was President and what he did.
Clinton's administration has gone on the record saying they had prior intelligence relating to 9/11 type attacks.
__________________
struckpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:42 PM   #26
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
 
LMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 37,609
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


Clinton's administration has gone on the record saying they had prior intelligence relating to 9/11 type attacks.
when?
__________________
LMP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:43 PM   #27
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


how so? there have been no terrorist attacks here since he became president. 9/11 is directly related to clinton and his failures to do anything about it.
Funny, I seem to remember Bush getting an urgent memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack United States" and doing nothing about it, and Ms. Rice even publicly admitting as much. Richard Clarke also spoke of trying to pass on information about terrorist activity once the Bush administration took over, and essentially being brushed aside. Those seem like pretty large failures there.

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that 9/11 is directly related to Clinton and his failures to do anything about it? Because that's not the kind of claim you can make without presenting some sort of evidence.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:58 PM   #28
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


Funny, I seem to remember Bush getting an urgent memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack United States" and doing nothing about it, and Ms. Rice even publicly admitting as much. Richard Clarke also spoke of trying to pass on information about terrorist activity once the Bush administration took over, and essentially being brushed aside. Those seem like pretty large failures there.

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that 9/11 is directly related to Clinton and his failures to do anything about it? Because that's not the kind of claim you can make without presenting some sort of evidence.
good source, Richard Clarke. Let's decipher the critiques he makes of the Clinton administration in his fine book about the lack of organization they used towards combatting al-Qaeda.

examples from his book for reference:

pg. 223 - it says that in late 2000, of the National Security Council convened — among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike.

Of course today we know Al Qaeda was behind it, for they have even admitted it publicly.

pg. 204 - Clarke vents his frustration at the CIA’s slow-walking on the question of killing bin Laden. Why could we not find a group of Afghans, Americans, third-country citizens, etc. to kill him?

pg. 210 - on the CIA's refusal to budget the money towards al-qaeda: “The formal, official CIA response was that there were [no funds],” Clarke writes. “Another way to say that was that everything they were doing was more important than fighting al Qaeda.”

pg. 217 - describes a colleague, Roger Cressey, who was frustrated after meeting with an FBI representative on the subject of terrorism. “That fucker is going to get some Americans killed,” Clarke reports Cressey saying. “He just sits there like a bump on a log.”

Clinton had the best opportunity to kill Bin Laden, take care of the movement that we see today, but he did nothing. The commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act.

So, Mr. President Clinton, the next time you are on Fox dissing Bush, remember your history of leading our country during a time of terror. All of these relate directly to 9/11
__________________
struckpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 09:01 PM   #29
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Hmmm, all of those seem to be more of a problem with the CIA and not Clinton directly.

And none of that explains the fact that for the first 8 months of Bush's presidency he did nothing to combat terrorism either.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 09:12 PM   #30
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
Hmmm, all of those seem to be more of a problem with the CIA and not Clinton directly.

And none of that explains the fact that for the first 8 months of Bush's presidency he did nothing to combat terrorism either.
source/evidence?
__________________

__________________
struckpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com