NationStates Jolt Archive

The following article details exactly my sentiments over the past few years here on NSG. Bush's failures are highlighted by the fact that he burnt the "Road Map to Peace" quite some time ago:

Bush's sinking ship of fools (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/12/12/bushs_sinking_ship_of_fools/)

In the greater struggle against Islamic extremism, the most important of the study group's recommendations was that the United States appear actively involved in trying to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Reacting against his father's and Bill Clinton's efforts, President Bush removed America from its role of honest broker in his very first National Security Council meeting, Ron Suskind reports in "The One Percent Solution." Colin Powell warned Bush that by not trying to limit Israeli violence against Palestinians he was "reversing 30 years of US policy." But Bush dismissed this, saying, " Sometimes a show of force by one side can really clarify things."

Since then, neither Bush's shows of force nor Israel's have clarified much other than the limits to the use of force.

According to co-chairman James Baker, virtually everybody the Iraq Study Group talked to said that the Israel-Palestine issue was the single most important one stirring up Muslim resentment around the world, and that the best way to help moderate Muslims combat extremism was for the United States to get involved -- not necessarily to solve the issue, but to seriously address it rather than letting it drift in an angry sea, as Bush has done for six years.
Bottom line? The Middle East is far more destablized today then when Bush took office. If Bush had stayed in Afghanistan and really worked on his road map to peace, I truly believe that the Middle East would have been far better off then it is now.

And now that the Democrats are in charge, putting people like Reyes in charge of the House Intelligence Committee will magically give our government the gift of intelligent decisionmaking.

After all, Reyes doesn't even know whether al-Qaeda is Sunni or Shia, and he knows absolutely nothing about Hezbollah.

And now that the Democrats are in charge, putting people like Reyes in charge of the House Intelligence Committee will magically give our government the gift of intelligent decisionmaking.

After all, Reyes doesn't even know whether al-Qaeda is Sunni or Shia, and he knows absolutely nothing about Hezbollah.

Everyones an expert ;)

It will take a sea change in US policy to even begin to address the morass its currently in.

And I don't see that happening.

Like lambs to the proverbial slaughter.

And now that the Democrats are in charge, putting people like Reyes in charge of the House Intelligence Committee will magically give our government the gift of intelligent decisionmaking.

After all, Reyes doesn't even know whether al-Qaeda is Sunni or Shia, and he knows absolutely nothing about Hezbollah.
Unlike Bush who was given tons of "intelligence" and plenty of advice and yet ignored it all in his haste to invade Iraq.

Unlike Bush who was given tons of "intelligence" and plenty of advice and yet ignored it all in his haste to invade Iraq.

I'm not saying Bush is not stupid.

I'm saying that if you think the Democrats are any smarter, or have all the right answers, I have a bridge in New York City I would like to sell you...

Unlike Bush who was given tons of "intelligence" and plenty of advice and yet ignored it all in his haste to invade Iraq.

Let's see...

You mean like the intelligence that George Tenet (a Clinton appointee) gave Bush - that finding WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk"?

Eh?

I'm not saying Bush is not stupid.

I'm saying that if you think the Democrats are any smarter, or have all the right answers, I have a bridge in New York City I would like to sell you...
I havn't seen anyone say that, except you. Maybe you should get down from your high horse and stop putting words in anyone's mouth who disagrees with your all approving view of Republicans.

Let's see...

You mean like the intelligence that George Tenet (a Clinton appointee) gave Bush - that finding WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk"?

Eh?

Shush. On NSG, Democrats are always right, and Republicans are always wrong. You should've learned that by now. :p

I havn't seen anyone say that, except you. Maybe you should get down from your high horse and stop putting words in anyone's mouth who disagrees with your all approving view of Republicans.

As opposed to your all-approving view of Democrats. Okay...

As opposed to your all-approving view of Democrats. Okay...

Look, more bullshit. This thread is like troll bait.
Unlike you and the puppet of some banned person, I'm not sitting here defending Democrats by attacking Republicans, I'm just attacking.

I havn't seen anyone say that, except you. Maybe you should get down from your high horse and stop putting words in anyone's mouth who disagrees with your all approving view of Republicans.
I'm approving of Republicans? No. I'm saying that people are stupid to believe that the Democrats are any smarter.

I wonder if Pelosi knew Reyes was this fucking stupid. Or is she stupid too?

Look, more bullshit. This thread is like troll bait.
Unlike you and the puppet of some banned person, I'm not sitting here defending Democrats by attacking Republicans, I'm just attacking.

Yes, because anything you disagree with is bullshit. Who's being the troll here again? :rolleyes:

I'm approving of Republicans? No. I'm saying that people are stupid to believe that the Democrats are any smarter.
Except for the fact that no one but you has said or even implied Democrats are any smarter. Strike 1.

I wonder if Pelosi knew Reyes was this fucking stupid. Or is she stupid too?

Irrelevant to the thread. Strike 2.

Yes, because anything you disagree with is bullshit. Who's being the troll here again?
Let me think
Shush. On NSG, Democrats are always right, and Republicans are always wrong. You should've learned that by now.
You.

Except for the fact that no one but you has said or even implied Democrats are any smarter. Strike 1.

Irrelevant to the thread. Strike 2.

It has been widely said (by many prominent Democrats) that Bush is stupid, and he makes stupid mistakes, therefore we should vote Democrat.

It follows that Democrats must somehow be smarter.

You lose. Game, set, match.

I'm approving of Republicans? No. I'm saying that people are stupid to believe that the Democrats are any smarter.

I wonder if Pelosi knew Reyes was this fucking stupid. Or is she stupid too?

If you ever say anything bad about Democrats, you must be approving of Republicans. It's that kind of polarized thinking that makes this whole place run. No room for any of the nuance that the "smart" partisans are capable of.

And Pelosi? Not dumb, just politically correct to the point of being incapable of running the House.

It has been widely said (by many prominent Democrats) that Bush is stupid, and he makes stupid mistakes, therefore we should vote Democrat.
Said by who?

It follows that Democrats must somehow be smarter.

You lose. Game, set, match.
I don't see how. Your first statement is something I am just supposed to take for truth since you have no proof and your second statement is a fallacious assumption - it doesn't follow at all, in fact, it is a non sequitur. If I somehow lose, you must be playing poker where I am playing Uno.

Said by who?


Ah, now you're going to deny all the Bush jokes, all the campaign ads, and all the rhetoric from Capitol Hill about how stupid Bush is...

Weak.

Ah, now you're going to deny all the Bush jokes, all the campaign ads, and all the rhetoric from Capitol Hill about how stupid Bush is...

Weak.

You can't quote anyone saying "we should vote democrat because Bush is stupid"?

Look, another non sequitur. People have made fun of Bush therefore they think he is stupid therefore they "said" we should vote Democrat.

You can't quote anyone saying "we should vote democrat because Bush is stupid"?

Look, another non sequitur. People have made fun of Bush therefore they think he is stupid therefore they "said" we should vote Democrat.

No, there are too many to quote.

Why don't we look at the Daily Kos?

Or Democrat Underground? That might be every single post there.

Have you tried searching NS General for "bush stupid"? It's a gold mine.

No, there are too many to quote.
"There are so many that I can't even quote one." Non sequitur.

"There are so many that I can't even quote one." Non sequitur.

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/blog/index.php

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/blog/index.php

Now I'm waiting for you to show me where it says a Democrat should be president because Bush is too stupid to be.

http://irregulartimes.com/stupid2.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2100064/

Or maybe you should ask Alec Baldwin what he thinks.

"There are so many that I can't even quote one." Non sequitur.

Someone learned a new word. Congratulations!

Kerry's whole campaign was based on Bush=Stupid; Kerry=Smart. Remember?

Someone learned a new word. Congratulations!

Kerry's whole campaign was based on Bush=Stupid; Kerry=Smart. Remember?

That's -EVERYONE'S- campaign. The whole idea of a campaign is to make your opponent look bad and make yourself look good at the same time. This is regardless of what political party you affiliate yourself with.

Bush has badly destabilised the Middle East. But for a man of his faith, it does not matter. After all, the worst thing that could happen is the end of the world, and that means our Jesus friend will be here.

Hopefully the next POTUS will show less faith and more pragmatism.

Bush has badly destabilised the Middle East. But for a man of his faith, it does not matter. After all, the worst thing that could happen is the end of the world, and that means our Jesus friend will be here.

http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/jesus_lol_1.jpg

The Middle East has been screwed up since the dawn of time. To blame it on Bush is just cynical.

No, there are too many to quote.

Why don't we look at the Daily Kos?

Or Democrat Underground? That might be every single post there.

Have you tried searching NS General for "bush stupid"? It's a gold mine.

But the OP didn't say that. All the OP did was to criticise Bush, then you made the assumption that he was therefore saying the Democrats would be better, which they didn't. Whether there are a lot of threads/Democrats saying that because Bush is bad there should be a Democrat president that is irrelevant since the OP did not say that.

The Middle East has been screwed up since the dawn of time. To blame it on Bush is just cynical.

Duh it's been screwed up, but he made it worse, and made them angrier at us than they've ever been.

The Middle East has been screwed up since the dawn of time. To blame it on Bush is just ignorant.

Fixed for accuracy.

Someone learned a new word. Congratulations!

Kerry's whole campaign was based on Bush=Stupid; Kerry=Smart. Remember?

And Bush's campaign was the inverse, what's your point?

The Middle East has been screwed up since the dawn of time.

That's ignorant.

That's ignorant.

*shrugs* I disagree - the middle-east has been messed up for a while. While the rest of the world has industrialized and become relatively prosperous, the mid-east has, in comparison, not grown nearly as much, and the people largely live in poverty and oppression governed by religion.

*shrugs* I disagree - the middle-east has been messed up for a while. While the rest of the world has industrialized and become relatively prosperous, the mid-east has, in comparison, not grown nearly as much, and the people largely live in poverty and oppression governed by religion.
At least pretend you studied world history. The Muslim Middle East > old Christian Europe. They preserved the culture and knowledge of the ancient civilizations Christian Europe sought to destroy.

At least pretend you studied world history. The Muslim Middle East > old Christian Europe. They preserved the culture and knowledge of the ancient civilizations Christian Europe sought to destroy.

Definitely - though the fact that you have to go that far back to find something they equate to on a greater scale just goes to prove my point.

That's -EVERYONE'S- campaign. The whole idea of a campaign is to make your opponent look bad and make yourself look good at the same time. This is regardless of what political party you affiliate yourself with.
Not in the blatant and explicit manner that characterized the attacks since the election was "stolen" in 2000.

Definitely - though the fact that you have to go that far back to find something they equate to on a greater scale just goes to prove my point.

Well, there's also the fact that Muslim armies swept across the Middle East and North Africa (even into Europe), forcing their beliefs on anyone in their path. TPH can pretend he knows world history, and he might. Apparently, though, he chooses to ignore certain facts that don't coincide with his apparent determination to defame the modern West.

Well, there's also the fact that Muslim armies swept across the Middle East and North Africa (even into Europe), forcing their beliefs on anyone in their path. TPH can pretend he knows world history, and he might. Apparently, though, he chooses to ignore certain facts that don't coincide with his apparent determination to defame the modern West.

Funny - I seem to remember all during school, from elementary up to 12th grade history class, constantly hearing about how EVERYONE was doing that back then - they had a silly word for it, too; called it Imperialism. I hear Britain was really big on it.

Definitely - though the fact that you have to go that far back to find something they equate to on a greater scale just goes to prove my point.
Irrelevant because I wasn't responding to something you said.

Funny - I seem to remember all during school, from elementary up to 12th grade history class, constantly hearing about how EVERYONE was doing that back then - they had a silly word for it, too; called it Imperialism. I hear Britain was really big on it.

"The sun never sets" and all. ;)

Well, there's also the fact that Muslim armies swept across the Middle East and North Africa (even into Europe), forcing their beliefs on anyone in their path. TPH can pretend he knows world history, and he might. Apparently, though, he chooses to ignore certain facts that don't coincide with his apparent determination to defame the modern West.
You fail history. Yes, Muslims forced their beliefs on "pagan" people, but they respected the beliefs of Christians and Muslims and Muslim kingdoms were far more tolerant of the various people than the Christian held kingdoms. Christians regularly persecuted and killed Jews and force them and Muslims to convert or die as opposed to Muslims who forced conversion or drove them out. Your history is true except that it lacks 99% of the facts. Your attempt to defame the Muslims again fails, go troll somewhere else.

Not in the blatant and explicit manner that characterized the attacks since the election was "stolen" in 2000.

Yeah, they've always done it. Negative campaigning has existed since people were given a choice on what they wanted. It's just since 2000, people can negatively campaign on Bush and hit many targets (every republican) as opposed to each person having to try to denounce each of their opponents one at a time. It's a matter of efficiency - the tactics haven't changed, but the strength at which they can be used has.

You fail history. Yes, Muslims forced their beliefs on "pagan" people...

Ah, I see. It's okay to force your faith on others as long as you label them pagans. How very enlightened of you.

Your attempt to defame the Muslims again fails, go troll somewhere else.

I haven't attempted to defame anyone. I readily admit that Christians did the same thing. But to pretend that Islamic history is somehow above reproach is just plain ignorant.

I see no trolling here. Flaming by you, sure, but no trolling.

Ah, I see. It's okay to force your faith on others as long as you label them pagans. How very enlightened of you.
Nice cherry picking there, don't suppose you work on cherry farms during the summer?

I haven't attempted to defame anyone.

Bullshit.

Nice cherry picking there, don't suppose you work on cherry farms during the summer?



Bullshit.

Come back when you have an intelligent response.

Come back when you have an intelligent response.
You can likewise do the same when you admit you are leaving out facts to defame the Muslim religion as a whole while ignoring the Christians of the same time period.

You can likewise do the same when you admit you are leaving out facts to defame the Muslim religion as a whole while ignoring the Christians of the same time period.

Again, I'm not defaming anyone. I've already acknowledged that Christians did the same thing. Your attempts to give Muslims some sort of higher moral ground fail, as does your crap flaming. Cripes...how hard is it to flame? You can't even do that properly.

Again, I'm not defaming anyone. I've already acknowledged that Christians did the same thing. Your attempts to give Muslims some sort of higher moral ground fail, as does your crap flaming. Cripes...how hard is it to flame? You can't even do that properly.
Because the Muslims did have the moral relativity high ground during the time period we are talking about.

Because the Muslims did have the moral relativity high ground during the time period we are talking about.

What time period? We've run the gamut from antiquity to the present here.

Keep trying the flaming, though. Maybe one of these days, you'll figure out how to do it.

And now that the Democrats are in charge, putting people like Reyes in charge of the House Intelligence Committee will magically give our government the gift of intelligent decisionmaking.

After all, Reyes doesn't even know whether al-Qaeda is Sunni or Shia, and he knows absolutely nothing about Hezbollah.

Better than Donald "Iraq War" Rumpsfeld.

What time period? We've run the gamut from antiquity to the present here.

Don't give me that shit, you know damn well what time period we are talking about.

Better than Donald "Iraq War" Rumpsfeld.

And thank you for that intelligent contribution. :rolleyes:

Don't give me that shit, you know damn well what time period we are talking about.

Not with you convoluting everything by going from the present back to the fourth century, I don't.

EDIT: And hmmm...getting your panties in a bunch there, eh? Not used to some calling you on your garbage?

Duh it's been screwed up, but he made it worse, and made them angrier at us than they've ever been.

Again, that's not necessarily true either. They've been angry since the Brits took it over from the defunct Ottoman Empire after the 1st World War.

Not with you convoluting everything by going from the present back to the fourth century, I don't.
Then come back when you figure it out, if it takes you too long, just go argue how evil Muslims are somewhere else since you obviously can't keep up with the conversation here.

PS. You don't know what time period we were talking about but you used the past tense when talking about Christian actions? Try harder next time.

And thank you for that intelligent contribution. :rolleyes:

And of course attacking any person who doesn't post atleast 14 paragraphs is REALLY contributing to this thread aswell. And I have a perfect right to say that. Its solely Rumpsfeld fault that the Iraq War began. He was even famously quoted saying that "Iraq would be easier to invade".

Because the Muslims did have the moral relativity high ground during the time period we are talking about.

And prey tell how did you come to that conclusion?

Then come back when you figure it out, if it takes you too long, just go argue how evil Muslims are somewhere else since you obviously can't keep up with the conversation here.

You can stop putting words in my mouth anytime now. Where have I said that Muslims are evil? Hmmm...wait. I haven't.

Again, who's the troll here? :rolleyes:

You can stop putting words in my mouth anytime now. Where have I said that Muslims are evil? Hmmm...wait. I haven't.

Havn't you figured out what time period we were talking about yet?

Havn't you figured out what time period we were talking about yet?

Not when we've run the gamut from the fourth century to the present, no.

Not when we've run the gamut from the fourth century to the present, no.

You don't know what time period we were talking about yet you feigned ignorance when replying to something I said where I quote you referring to Christian actions in the past tense? If I can pick out that kind of bullshit, you arn't trying hard enough.

Again, that's not necessarily true either. They've been angry since the Brits took it over from the defunct Ottoman Empire after the 1st World War.

Nono, he definitely made it worse. If you can't see that very simple fact, then we really have nothing to talk about, because I find it hard to talk to blind people when they're staring off into the distance to the right and I'm right in front of them.

Nono, he definitely made it worse. If you can't see that very simple fact, then we really have nothing to talk about, because I find it hard to talk to blind people when they're staring off into the distance to the right and I'm right in front of them.

Dude, I could run a litany of things that have pissed off the Muslims in the region. This Administration is just one more thing to add to the list but it is not the main thing. Due try to remember that.

The Middle East has been screwed up since the dawn of time. To blame it on Bush is just cynical.
Just because it has been screwed up for a long time doesn't mean that there isn't a solution. Bush unveiled his road map to peace and then pissed all over it. IF he had devoted the time spent on the invasion of Iraq on the peace process in Israel, I do honestly believe that the Middle East would be a lot more stable then it is now and Bush just might have been able to look like a hero instead of a "Pet Goat".

The world would have been a lot better off had Bush not invaded Iraq and had he invested much more time and resources to the impasse in Israel.

You don't know what time period we were talking about yet you feigned ignorance when replying to something I said where I quote you referring to Christian actions in the past tense? If I can pick out that kind of bullshit, you arn't trying hard enough.

You're trying far too hard to ignore both history and my posts here, what with conveniently forgetting Islamic history and putting the "Muslims are evil" words in my mouth and all. Nice try, but you fail. You can rail against the West all you like. Frankly, I can't be arsed with it any longer. Enjoy this thread. It's all yours. Enjoy the self-gratification you get by spewing your ignorance all over.

But let me tell you, masturbation is a lot easier.

There are Weapons of Mass destruction and nobody can see it?The WMD's are those extremist that strap bombs to themselves and walk into market places or any place with alot of people and take out 50-100 at a time.Let me see if you have say 10,000 extremist killing 100 people that would be ..ummmm 1,000,000 million ..looks like George W.has it right to me because if it was'nt on there streets it would be in our backyard.
O wait a minute it has already taken place in America ....or did we just forget that part?

The following article details exactly my sentiments over the past few years here on NSG. Bush's failures are highlighted by the fact that he burnt the "Road Map to Peace" quite some time ago:

Bush's sinking ship of fools (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/12/12/bushs_sinking_ship_of_fools/)


Bottom line? The Middle East is far more destablized today then when Bush took office. If Bush had stayed in Afghanistan and really worked on his road map to peace, I truly believe that the Middle East would have been far better off then it is now.



"virtually everybody the Iraq Study Group talked to said that the Israel-Palestine issue was the single most important one stirring up Muslim resentment around the world"-this what I've been saying for a long time, this iis what Zionists have been trying to deny, solve the Palestinian problem and Muslim terrorism will fade away. Preaching democracy, freedom and justice all the while denying it to the Palestinians is a hypocrisy the entire world can see all to clearly....well the entire world except for the USA....

Just because it has been screwed up for a long time doesn't mean that there isn't a solution.

Oh I agree with you 100%.

Bush unveiled his road map to peace and then pissed all over it.

And yet the constant terror attacks had nothing to do with the road map collapsing? The Palestinians are just as much at fault as the Israelis were. Bush did his damndest to bring peace but yet, the terror attacks and retaliations have squashed that. Not Bush's fault that the road map (hailed by many as the best hope for peace) actually failed.

IF he had devoted the time spent on the invasion of Iraq on the peace process in Israel, I do honestly believe that the Middle East would be a lot more stable then it is now and Bush just might have been able to look like a hero instead of a "Pet Goat".

Nice pipe dream. I doubt it highly though.

The world would have been a lot better off had Bush not invaded Iraq and had he invested much more time and resources to the impasse in Israel.

Did it work with Clinton who spent most of his time dealing with this question? No it did not! Why? Because there are certain elements in the Arab world that do not want peace and did their best and succeeded in derailing it.

There are Weapons of Mass destruction and nobody can see it?The WMD's are those extremist that strap bombs to themselves and walk into market places or any place with alot of people and take out 50-100 at a time.Let me see if you have say 10,000 extremist killing 100 people that would be ..ummmm 1,000,000 million ..looks like George W.has it right to me because if it was'nt on there streets it would be in our backyard.
O wait a minute it has already taken place in America ....or did we just forget that part?-"in our backyard" it's called "payback is a bitch"...it was only a matter of time before the US mainland was attacked.....you sit there in your comfortable home nice and safe while your government carries out a war of ethnic cleansing with Israel as it's proxy, how naive can you be to think nothing would happen?....The USA fully supports Israel in defying the Geneva Convention and the UN, supplies Israel with the military means and money to oppress an ethnic group you are the ally of Israel "the enemy", you are a target....

"virtually everybody the Iraq Study Group talked to said that the Israel-Palestine issue was the single most important one stirring up Muslim resentment around the world"-this what I've been saying for a long time, this iis what Zionists have been trying to deny, solve the Palestinian problem and Muslim terrorism will fade away. Preaching democracy, freedom and justice all the while denying it to the Palestinians is a hypocrisy the entire world can see all to clearly....well the entire world except for the USA....
Exactly. The Bush administration has thrown up tons of road blocks in the Middle East. That administration became the lightning rod for Middle East discord by declaring Iraq and Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" and by ignoring the election of Hamas by the Palestinians and cutting their funding. Bush sloughed it all off by stating the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" ideology. What a crock of shit that is.

By ignoring the Palestinian situation and making it worse, the inevitable conflict deteriorated and we end up with Israel bombing the crap out of Lebanon. Meanwhile, all hell is breaking loose in Iraq and Afghanistan IMHO is no better off today then it was 5 years ago.

Oh I agree with you 100%.
You might agree that there is a solution but I do believe that we fundamentally disagree on the peace process. It should never have been sidetracked by an ill advised invasion of Iraq.

And yet the constant terror attacks had nothing to do with the road map collapsing? The Palestinians are just as much at fault as the Israelis were. Bush did his damndest to bring peace but yet, the terror attacks and retaliations have squashed that. Not Bush's fault that the road map (hailed by many as the best hope for peace) actually failed.
Bush did little to bring peace to that situation. In fact, he made it much worse by siding exclusively with the Israelis.

Nice pipe dream. I doubt it highly though.
Better to have a dream rather then creating a nightmare. Bush succeeded in creating a nightmare.

Did it work with Clinton who spent most of his time dealing with this question? No it did not! Why? Because there are certain elements in the Arab world that do not want peace and did their best and succeeded in derailing it.
You just want to blame the Arabs? That is the problem. It is a two sided coin. Both parties are at fault and Bush needed to deal with both sides firmly but fairly. It wasn't in the cards. Bush is/was a total failure.

See you that lambast our policy in the Middle East just don't get it do you?
The Almighty God told Abraham in Genesis and i qoute
"I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curseth you"
The God of Israel who protects that nation also has his hand on America so yes we will continue to sit back in our comfortable homes and enjoy what was promised to us.
The muslims believe a lie and have for thousands of years because Allah = Satan but they don't see that .

Exactly. The Bush administration has thrown up tons of road blocks in the Middle East. That administration became the lightning rod for Middle East discord by declaring Iraq and Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" and by ignoring the election of Hamas by the Palestinians and cutting their funding. Bush sloughed it all off by stating the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" ideology. What a crock of shit that is.

By ignoring the Palestinian situation and making it worse, the inevitable conflict deteriorated and we end up with Israel bombing the crap out of Lebanon. Meanwhile, all hell is breaking loose in Iraq and Afghanistan IMHO is no better off today then it was 5 years ago.

-Iraq and Afghanistan-

Iraq is doomed to a civil war and partition there is no controlling this, this was the fear when the US went in but know one wanted to listen.
Afghanistan-The Taliban can not be defeated, as a guerrilla force they will strike when and where they want and can afford to wait 5-10-15-20yrs for the Nato forces leave, best to make a negotiated settlement with them and move on.

See you that lambast our policy in the Middle East just don't get it do you?
The Almighty God told Abraham in Genesis and i qoute
"I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curseth you"
The God of Israel who protects that nation also has his hand on America so yes we will continue to sit back in our comfortable homes and enjoy what was promised to us.
The muslims believe a lie and have for thousands of years because Allah = Satan but they don't see that .

too funny that!!!!

God of Israel has his hand on America? tell that to the families of the 9/11 victims I'm sure they'll be comforted by that....

You might agree that there is a solution but I do believe that we fundamentally disagree on the peace process. It should never have been sidetracked by an ill advised invasion of Iraq.

You just might be surprised at what you might learn CH.

Bush did little to bring peace to that situation. In fact, he made it much worse by siding exclusively with the Israelis.

To be honest, when one side is blowing up your ally civilians on purpose, I would do exactly the samething.

Better to have a dream rather then creating a nightmare. Bush succeeded in creating a nightmare.

Blame the Brits and not the Americans for the nightmare of the Middle East. After all, it was the Brits that divided up the land and approved by both the League of Nations (which the US was not involved in) and the UN.

You just want to blame the Arabs?

Nope but when people single out one group of people, it is my responsiblity to point out that the other side is just as guilty.

That is the problem. It is a two sided coin. Both parties are at fault and Bush needed to deal with both sides firmly but fairly.

Agreed.

It wasn't in the cards. Bush is/was a total failure.

He just gave the Palestinians a choice and they choosed violence. Ergo, they won't be getting a state anytime soon.

Bush is a visonary that is ahead of his time, he did not invade Iraq for Hussein but to warn off the Iranians. The same intelliagance that bush had was from other european nations that agreed with the findings. The real issue is Iran, once that country has a nuke IT WILL USE IT!. But the nations of Europe once again are appeasment minded, but this time the US wont be able to help them when Iran decides to attck. The Iraq Surrender group was made up of a bunch of politicians and hacks; Vernon Troyer-A Lobbyist was even on the group what militiary experince does he have? If we pull out of Iraq, Iran will see this as oppurtunistic and start WWIII. Most people dont realize though that IRAN, CHINA, NORTH Korea, are all puppets of Russia. Russia is slowly going back to communisim right before our eyes.:eek: :eek:

Bush is a visonary that is ahead of his time, he did not invade Iraq for Hussein but to warn off the Iranians. The same intelliagance that bush had was from other european nations that agreed with the findings. The real issue is Iran, once that country has a nuke IT WILL USE IT!. But the nations of Europe once again are appeasment minded, but this time the US wont be able to help them when Iran decides to attck. The Iraq Surrender group was made up of a bunch of politicians and hacks; Vernon Troyer-A Lobbyist was even on the group what militiary experince does he have? If we pull out of Iraq, Iran will see this as oppurtunistic and start WWIII. Most people dont realize though that IRAN, CHINA, NORTH Korea, are all puppets of Russia. Russia is slowly going back to communisim right before our eyes.:eek: :eek:
Feck. Orf.

Bush is a visonary that is ahead of his time, he did not invade Iraq for Hussein but to warn off the Iranians. The same intelliagance that bush had was from other european nations that agreed with the findings. The real issue is Iran, once that country has a nuke IT WILL USE IT!. But the nations of Europe once again are appeasment minded, but this time the US wont be able to help them when Iran decides to attck. The Iraq Surrender group was made up of a bunch of politicians and hacks; Vernon Troyer-A Lobbyist was even on the group what militiary experince does he have? If we pull out of Iraq, Iran will see this as oppurtunistic and start WWIII. Most people dont realize though that IRAN, CHINA, NORTH Korea, are all puppets of Russia. Russia is slowly going back to communisim right before our eyes.:eek: :eek:

Bush a visonary??:rolleyes:

the european nations agreed with his intelligence? ya right, that's why there was great support for his lunacy

have you been living a cave somewhere for the last 20yrs?

To be honest, when one side is blowing up your ally civilians on purpose, I would do exactly the samething.
That's the whole source of the problem, though, you dumbarse.

"They've done something bad!"
"Let's try to do outdo them in the revenge attack!"

Repeat for about 4000 years.
Blame the Brits and not the Americans for the nightmare of the Middle East. After all, it was the Brits that divided up the land and approved by both the League of Nations (which the US was not involved in) and the UN.
Blame 'em both,

Britain -

- Held the land, technically.
- Tried to fob the Jews off with Kenya.
- Didn't allow Hitler the use of the Suez Canal to put the Jews on Madagascar, which sort of led to the holocaust.

The US -

- Set up the League of Nations without joining it, leaving it without a major world power at the time
- Sent back ships carrying Jews due to its ridiculous quota system and didn't think Hitler was all that bad
- Has been supporting Israel over everyone else no matter what it does for the last 50-ish years.
Nope but when people single out one group of people, it is my responsiblity to point out that the other side is just as guilty.
Yes, but when one side is up its own arse about the morality of the situation, it could really do to speak in actions, not words, and could avoid blowing peoples cars up etc. for just a bit, really.
He just gave the Palestinians a choice and they choosed violence. Ergo, they won't be getting a state anytime soon.
They never will, because Israel doesn't want them to have one, and its bumchums in the US delgation to the UN will deleage anything that it doesn't want to happen.

Bush is a visonary that is ahead of his time, he did not invade Iraq for Hussein but to warn off the Iranians.

Yeah, that worked well. :p

Iran is bolder than ever. They're stronger than ever. They have the perfect vehicle to grow stronger still(Iraq), and the complete lack of progess on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has given them a rallying call.

If Bush is a visionary, I think he should get an eye exam. :p

That's the whole source of the problem.

I never would have guessed. :rolleyes:

Britain -

- Held the land, technically.
- Tried to fob the Jews off with Kenya.
- Didn't allow Hitler the use of the Suez Canal to put the Jews on Madagascar, which sort of led to the holocaust.

Very good. You do know your History. Besides, the madagascar plan was rediculous anyway.

The US -

- Set up the League of Nations without joining it, leaving it without a major world power at the time

Economic power at least. Militarily, we were not a power.

- Sent back ships carrying Jews due to its ridiculous quota system and didn't think Hitler was all that bad

Another good and accurate historical fact.

- Has been supporting Israel over everyone else no matter what it does for the last 50-ish years.

Wrong. We have not been supporting Israel for over 50 years. We didn't fully start supporting them till the '67 war and more so during the Yom Kipur War of 1973.

Yes, but when one side is up its own arse about the morality of the situation, it could really do to speak in actions, not words, and could avoid blowing peoples cars up etc. for just a bit, really.

And yet, by doing so, they do not receive sympathy from the rest of world by blowing up innocent men, women, and children. They criticize Israel for doing so when it retaliates after a terror attack but yet praise it when one of their own blows themselves up. Don't you love hypocracy?

They never will, because Israel doesn't want them to have one,

BULLSHIT!!!!!

It's tragic. Absolutely tragic. We are at a time when our entire species is at a crossroads. We have come to rely on a single source of energy to run this experiment in civilization and the availability of that source is encountering strong resistance from geology. What we need now is leadership of the Lincoln, Kennedy, Truman and Roosevelt kind and what we have is a moron in the White House and a group of people in our Congress that don't appear to know as much about what is going on in the world as a bunch of people who just read the news and posts about it on the internet. Instead of leading our allies into a program to reduce our dependance on a depleting source of fossil fuels, these people have driven our allies away and severly damaged our standing on the world stage. The US is the only country in the world with the military and economic clout to lead the kind of WWII, Apollo program we need to launch on a global scale and this president and the last congress pissed away all of our political clout. We're in for a very rough ride. Instead of the kind of cooperation we need, a kind of cooperation that was possible, what we'll have is the final showdown over the last of the world's dwindling energy resources.

Bush is a visonary that is ahead of his time, he did not invade Iraq for Hussein but to warn off the Iranians. The same intelliagance that bush had was from other european nations that agreed with the findings. The real issue is Iran, once that country has a nuke IT WILL USE IT!. But the nations of Europe once again are appeasment minded, but this time the US wont be able to help them when Iran decides to attck. The Iraq Surrender group was made up of a bunch of politicians and hacks; Vernon Troyer-A Lobbyist was even on the group what militiary experince does he have? If we pull out of Iraq, Iran will see this as oppurtunistic and start WWIII. Most people dont realize though that IRAN, CHINA, NORTH Korea, are all puppets of Russia. Russia is slowly going back to communisim right before our eyes.:eek: :eek:

You guys have to admit it's a great strategy. If someone is threatening you the best way to get them to heel is to kill their worst enemy.

You can't quote anyone saying "we should vote democrat because Bush is stupid"?

Look, another non sequitur. People have made fun of Bush therefore they think he is stupid therefore they "said" we should vote Democrat.

I'll say it.

Uh..hmmmm.....

You should vote Democrat because Bush is stupid and wee need someone to stand in the way of his agenda whether they're smarter or not.

Bush is a visonary that is ahead of his time,
No he isn't. People have been invading countries and curbing personal liberties for (what he thinks is) national gain since time immemorial.

he did not invade Iraq for Hussein but to warn off the Iranians.
With great success, it seems. Because they are too shit scared to consider, say, working on nuclear energy programmes when nobody really wants them to?

The same intelliagance that bush had was from other european nations that agreed with the findings.
In other words: if he got it from other European countries he's just a copycat. Luckily, none are actually as stupid as Bush. Even Blair.

The real issue is Iran, once that country has a nuke IT WILL USE IT!.
No it won't. Because they know they will be nuked back.

But the nations of Europe once again are appeasment minded, but this time the US wont be able to help them when Iran decides to attck.
Iran? Attack Europe? Are you completely out of your mind?

The Iraq Surrender group was made up of a bunch of politicians and hacks; Vernon Troyer-A Lobbyist was even on the group what militiary experince does he have?
Hopefully less than the 'experts' that told us about 45 minutes.

If we pull out of Iraq, Iran will see this as oppurtunistic and start WWIII.
I would call this a 'slippery slope' logical fallacy, but that would indicate that there is some underlying logic behind your post. Which there isn't.
Most people dont realize though that IRAN, CHINA, NORTH Korea, are all puppets of Russia.
Jesus fucking christ. Can I please have whatever it is you're smoking, or judging by the contests of your post, injecting? I'm doing a hard chemistry project, and could do with a dose of Discworld, Narnia, or whatever world you're describing here.

Russia is slowly going back to communisim right before our eyes.:eek: :eek:
Yeah. All the corrupt oilmen like Branovitch who run the place want to see their assets seized, right?

I have a bridge in New York City I would like to sell you...

Really? How much? :D

You just might be surprised at what you might learn CH.
What I have learned is that Bush is a warmonger and certainly nowhere near the "compassionate conservative" ideology that he wanted to portray. In other words a complete phony.

To be honest, when one side is blowing up your ally civilians on purpose, I would do exactly the samething.
Excuses, excuses. That is all we see and hear. The violence is on both sides. Bush has set the peace process back big time.

Blame the Brits and not the Americans for the nightmare of the Middle East. After all, it was the Brits that divided up the land and approved by both the League of Nations (which the US was not involved in) and the UN.
As long as the US continues to fund bombs and bullets for Israel, I am going to place the lion share of the blame on Bush.

Nope but when people single out one group of people, it is my responsiblity to point out that the other side is just as guilty.
Both sides are guilty but one side is more guilty then the other? Great logic.

He just gave the Palestinians a choice and they choosed violence. Ergo, they won't be getting a state anytime soon.
Bush never offered anything meaningful to the process at all.
This sums it up quite well:

Google search for "failure" (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=failure&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

Excuses, excuses. That is all we see and hear. The violence is on both sides. Bush has set the peace process back big time.

Yes both sides have used violence. It has been this violence that has set the peace process back. Maybe Bush had some things to do with this and maybe he didn't. To say that he alone has set the peace process back shows ignorance. Come on CH! I've known you to be a better person than this.

As long as the US continues to fund bombs and bullets for Israel, I am going to place the lion share of the blame on Bush.

Why when Israel has to do what it can to prevent Hamas from blowing up more of its citizens? Why not place the blame on Hamas as well as on Israel?

Both sides are guilty but one side is more guilty then the other? Great logic.

As opposed to blaming one person as you seem to be doing now?

The rest I'm just ignoring because frankly, I am tired of listening to the same "blame bush for everything" arguments.

Bottom line? The Middle East is far more destablized today then when Bush took office. If Bush had stayed in Afghanistan and really worked on his road map to peace, I truly believe that the Middle East would have been far better off then it is now.

I'm sorry, I take it all back Mr. Bushfinger, that plan is inspired /sean connery.

Yes both sides have used violence. It has been this violence that has set the peace process back. Maybe Bush had some things to do with this and maybe he didn't. To say that he alone has set the peace process back shows ignorance. Come on CH! I've known you to be a better person than this.

Why when Israel has to do what it can to prevent Hamas from blowing up more of its citizens? Why not place the blame on Hamas as well as on Israel?

As opposed to blaming one person as you seem to be doing now?

The rest I'm just ignoring because frankly, I am tired of listening to the same "blame bush for everything" arguments.
It is easy to blame everything on Bush. He is arguably the worst President the US has ever had. Everything he has touched in his life has turned to shit. He has the reverse Midas touch.

It is easy to blame everything on Bush. He is arguably the worst President the US has ever had. Everything he has touched in his life has turned to shit. He has the reverse Midas touch.

Actually, we have had worse presidents than Bush. Anyways, I am off to bed. I'll be around later today if I am not busy with my gf or typing out my final paper that is due saturday. God I hate finals week.

Actually, we have had worse presidents than Bush. Anyways, I am off to bed. I'll be around later today if I am not busy with my gf or typing out my final paper that is due saturday. God I hate finals week.
Will you ever revive Corneliu or are you looking for a newer image? :eek:

You guys are forgetting several major historical facts.

1. The Middle East has been simmering with anti-Anglo-Saxon/anything that looks, smells, or tastes like anglo-saxon rage for the past...oh, near on one hundred years.

2. Over the course of that century, a collective consciousness seems to have evolved among the Arab and Middle Eastern Societies that closely resembles an inferiority complex meant to compensate for the mental dissonance caused by claiming to be the heirs of a proud, nay, MAGNIFICENT culture and yet being dirt poor in most cases, starving in some, and outclassed, bought, and fought by westerners in all (prior to 2000) cases.

3. Logically, any involvement in ANY middle-eastern adventure by the U.S. under the above conditions is doomed to failure, even if we shower money on the Syrians, Iraqis, and Palestinians from B-52s for a week straight.

A side note to all those who bring up the ISG report.

click here (http://www.slate.com/id/2154164)

I don't understand Bush. Before election as president he seemed to be dead set against the 'Democrat' policy of nation building. Once he's in office he seems to want to install democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, but seems to all to happy to give about $200 million to the Uzbek regime to help them torture their own citizens. Oh, and he abruptly loss his ability to string sentences together. Is a lobotomy a precondition to becoming president or something?

I'm not quite sure when Bush suddenly became a neo-con. But he suddenly appeared keen on intervenetion, so keen that he was willing to fabricate evidence that Saddam had acquired WMD. A claim that was disputed then both publically and secretly in the civil service. And there are civil servants who have since made public their concerns at the time. And MI6 has backtracked saying its intelligence was misused to create false statistics...

I don't understand Bush. Before election as president he seemed to be dead set against the 'Democrat' policy of nation building. Once he's in office he seems to want to install democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, but seems to all to happy to give about $200 million to the Uzbek regime to help them torture their own citizens. Oh, and he abruptly loss his ability to string sentences together. Is a lobotomy a precondition to becoming president or something?

I'm not quite sure when Bush suddenly became a neo-con. But he suddenly appeared keen on intervenetion, so keen that he was willing to fabricate evidence that Saddam had acquired WMD. A claim that was disputed then both publically and secretly in the civil service. And there are civil servants who have since made public their concerns at the time. And MI6 has backtracked saying its intelligence was misused to create false statistics...


The short answer is that his post 9.11 popularity went to his head.

Will you ever revive Corneliu or are you looking for a newer image? :eek:

I told you CH, that I'm closer to the Center than I appeared to be with Corneliu. However, if it makes ya happy, I could revive it and act like a maniac with it (as usual) and maintain civility with this one.

I told you CH, that I'm closer to the Center than I appeared to be with Corneliu. However, if it makes ya happy, I could revive it and act like a maniac with it (as usual) and maintain civility with this one.
No, that is ok.....creamed corn is much easier to digest then corn on the cob. :)

It is easy to blame everything on Bush. He is arguably the worst President the US has ever had. Everything he has touched in his life has turned to shit. He has the reverse Midas touch.

And Democrats like Reyes have the answers?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tapped to head the Intelligence Committee when the Democrats take over in January, failed a quiz of basic questions about al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of the key terrorist organizations the intelligence community has focused on since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

When asked by CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda is one or the other of the two major branches of Islam -- Sunni or Shiite -- Reyes answered "they are probably both," then ventured "Predominantly -- probably Shiite."

That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics.

Reyes could also not answer questions put by Stein about Hezbollah, a Shiite group on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations that is based in Southern Lebanon

A side note to all those who bring up the ISG report.

click here (http://www.slate.com/id/2154164)
Although Iraq might have seemed ripe for the picking and all the right pieces of the puzzle might have been in place in 1992, one must consider these facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#Gulf_War):

In a foreign policy move that would later be questioned, President Bush achieved his stated objectives of liberating Kuwait and forcing Iraqi withdrawal, then ordered a cessation of combat operations —allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power. His Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq".[11][12]

In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, President Bush said, "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."[13]
Interesting stuff indeed. It appears that Bush the Lesser found that "quagmire" that Cheney alluded to in 1992. The irony of it all?

No, that is ok.....creamed corn is much easier to digest then corn on the cob. :)

Oh now that's funny :D

The short answer is that his post 9.11 popularity went to his head.I found a longer answer. He has pre-senile dementia, or Alzheimer's. That diagnosis was given a certain Dr Joseph Price in The Atlantic's 2004 October issue.

And Democrats like Reyes have the answers?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahah!

I know! What an imbecile! Did you read the actual article? It's even funnier than the news reports about the article! Here's a couple key quotes from it!

To his credit, Reyes, a kindly, thoughtful man who also sits on the Armed Service Committee, does see the undertows drawing the region into chaos.

For example, he knows that the 1,400- year-old split in Islam between Sunnis and Shiites not only fuels the militias and death squads in Iraq, it drives the competition for supremacy across the Middle East between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.

That’s more than two key Republicans on the Intelligence Committee knew when I interviewed them last summer. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., and Terry Everett, R-Ala., both back for another term, were flummoxed by such basic questions, as were several top counterterrorism officials at the FBI.

I thought it only right now to pose the same questions to a Democrat, especially one who will take charge of the Intelligence panel come January. The former border patrol agent also sits on the Armed Services Committee.



And another from further down! hahahahahaha...

The best argument for needing to understand who’s what in the Middle East is probably the mistaken invasion itself, despite the preponderance of expert opinion that it was a terrible idea — including that of Bush’s father and his advisers. On the day in 2003 when Iraqi mobs toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, Bush was said to be unaware of the possibility that a Sunni-Shia civil war could fill the power vacuum, according to a reliable source with good White House connections.

If President Bush and some of his closest associates, not to mention top counterterrorism officials, have demonstrated their own ignorance about who the players are in the Middle East, why should we expect the leaders of the House Intelligence Committee to get it right?


It's comedy! :p

http://public.cq.com/public/20061211_homeland.html

AAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahah!

It's comedy! :p

http://public.cq.com/public/20061211_homeland.html

Yes, I know!

What I'm laughing about is that while Bush is stupid (or Republicans are stupid), the party that ran on "Kerry is smarter than Bush, Democrats are smarter than Republicans" is now caught with an equal amount of dumbassery.

Yes, I know!

What I'm laughing about is that while Bush is stupid (or Republicans are stupid), the party that ran on "Kerry is smarter than Bush, Democrats are smarter than Republicans" is now caught with an equal amount of dumbassery.

Sure. But let's not brush aside the fact that the last six years belong wholly and squarely to the Republican party. All of it. Every last bit. From the demise of the dollar as an international currency, to the failure of the federal response to Katrina, to the disintegration of the only real democracy in the Middle East, Lebanon all the way on up to Iraq. From the loss of our leadership position in the world t our failure to prepare for the worst energy crisis mankind may have ever faced. From our disappearing borders to the teetering of the democracy we helped build in Afghanistan. From the balloning of our national debt from about $4 trillion to more than $8 trillion to our failure to deal effectively with the Chinese in areas of copyright infringment and monetary policy and the subsequent evaporation of, not just low wage jobs like toilet scrubbing, but to high wage jobs like tax preparation. All of it, every last single bit of it, occurred under President Bush and a Congress totally controlled by the Republican party. ;)

Sure. But let's not brush aside the fact that the last six years belong wholly and squarely to the Republican party. All of it. Every last bit. From the demise of the dollar as an international currency, to the failure of the federal response to Katrina, to the disintegration of the only real democracy in the Middle East, Lebanon all the way on up to Iraq. From the loss of our leadership position in the world t our failure to prepare for the worst energy crisis mankind may have ever faced. From our disappearing borders to the teetering of the democracy we helped build in Afghanistan. From the balloning of our national debt from about $4 trillion to more than $8 trillion to our failure to deal effectively with the Chinese in areas of copyright infringment and monetary policy and the subsequent evaporation of, not just low wage jobs like toilet scrubbing, but to high wage jobs like tax preparation. All of it, every last single bit of it, occurred under President Bush and a Congress totally controlled by the Republican party. ;)


There was plenty of national debt beforehand - more than I believe any nation could pay off. And the Mexicans came across the border long before Bush was President - it's been a problem for decades.

What I love is that each party is taking it in turn to say, "we're the party who can fix this" and then they fuck it up.

Reyes is just the herald of more fuckups to come.

There was plenty of national debt beforehand - more than I believe any nation could pay off. And the Mexicans came across the border long before Bush was President - it's been a problem for decades. A debt isn't a problem if you control it. It's how we got out of the depression. You're supposed to build a debt in teh bad times and repay it in the good times. Under Clinton, once we got out of the recession the debt was balanced and we started paying it off.

http://www.pushby.com/friends/jesse/archives/images/budgetdeficit.gif

Under Bush the economy started roaring with the housing boom and we just went into more debt. Bush has not one single time in his presidency ever vetoed a spending bill. Not once. That's unprecedented. Instead, he gave rich people a tax cut and just kept spending. He calls the Democrats "tax and spend liberals." That's much better than "cut taxes for rich people and spend a lot more conservatives."

What I love is that each party is taking it in turn to say, "we're the party who can fix this" and then they fuck it up.Can't argue too much with that assessment, bt there's fucking things up and there's destroying America. The Republican party under Bush has earned the latter distinction.

Reyes is just the herald of more fuckups to come.

Probably.

The Mexicans came across the border long before Bush was President - it's been a problem for decades.

Mexican immigrants are hardly a major problem. The USA may not like them, but it needs them for its economy to continue to function.

Reyes is just the herald of more fuckups to come.

Thats been true of just about every political party elected into office in recent history.

A debt isn't a problem if you control it. It's how we got out of the depression. You're supposed to build a debt in teh bad times and repay it in the good times. Under Clinton, once we got out of the recession the debt was balanced and we started paying it off.


Incorrect. The graph is misleading.

The overall deficit (total amount) was never balanced.

We did, on a few years during the Clinton Administration, balance or better within each year - but in terms of the overall debt, we didn't make a visible dent.

We're unlikely to pay off the debt. Everyone knows that. But, the people holding the T-bills aren't going to be able to call the US on it - if they do, the whole world economy goes down the toilet in one big flush.

Sure. But let's not brush aside the fact that the last six years belong wholly and squarely to the Republican party. All of it. Every last bit. From the demise of the dollar as an international currency, to the failure of the federal response to Katrina, to the disintegration of the only real democracy in the Middle East, Lebanon all the way on up to Iraq. From the loss of our leadership position in the world t our failure to prepare for the worst energy crisis mankind may have ever faced. From our disappearing borders to the teetering of the democracy we helped build in Afghanistan. From the balloning of our national debt from about $4 trillion to more than $8 trillion to our failure to deal effectively with the Chinese in areas of copyright infringment and monetary policy and the subsequent evaporation of, not just low wage jobs like toilet scrubbing, but to high wage jobs like tax preparation. All of it, every last single bit of it, occurred under President Bush and a Congress totally controlled by the Republican party. ;)

But of course it's all Clinton's fault. At least if you're a Bushevik :D

Incorrect. The graph is misleading.

The overall deficit (total amount) was never balanced.Not incorrect. The debt was not repayed, of course, but the budget was balanced and we were making a net payoff of the debt. In other words, we were paying off more bonds than we were issuing.

We did, on a few years during the Clinton Administration, balance or better within each year - but in terms of the overall debt, we didn't make a visible dent.Imagine if we had kept the same spending principles once the Republicans won the White House.

We're unlikely to pay off the debt. Everyone knows that. But, the people holding the T-bills aren't going to be able to call the US on it - if they do, the whole world economy goes down the toilet in one big flush.

They'll just stop financing our spending spree. They may not be able to force us to pay our debt, but we can't force them to buy any more of it, either.

But of course it's all Clinton's fault. At least if you're a Bushevik :D

I am waiting with baited breath for how the Republicans are going to blame this on Clinton. The tortured logic I'm sure will be amazing to behold - especially since it looks like the Republicans will actually keep control of the Senate.

On second thought, if the last six years is any indication, the Republicans will probably just follow Karl Rove's example and just chant over and over again, "It's all Clinton's fault," enough times for really stupid people to come out and vote for them again. Who needs logic when you can sell a failed war policy with nothing other than, "Freedom is on the march!"