Tiberius Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 That is what a lawyer would say not a world leader. That's like a burgler breaking into a lawyer's home, holding him and his family at gun point and the lawyer saying "you know, you've committed at least 6 major felonies here. We need to sit down and discuss this." He is doing a lot more than Bush did over Putin's last military adventure. Seems Obama just has a lot more credibility in the world than idiot Bush did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 He is doing a lot more than Bush did over Putin's last military adventure. Seems Obama just has a lot more credibility in the world than idiot Bush did What's Bush got to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 What's Bush got to do with anything? Seriously?? In gator's mind everything! He is doing a lot more than Bush did over Putin's last military adventure. Seems Obama just has a lot more credibility in the world than idiot Bush did Wait a minute. I thought that this was a family issue and we should just stay out. So according to you Bush did the right thing. Did I get that right?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Seriously?? In gator's mind everything! I blame Nixon. Why not? Why stop at Bush for Obamas failures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I blame Nixon. Why not? Why stop at Bush for Obamas failures? Actually it's God's fault. He created all us idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 What's Bush got to do with anything? Quite a bit, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Quite a bit, actually. Oh. I see now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Oh. I see now. Excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Quite a bit, actually. Let's hear it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Seriously?? In gator's mind everything! Wait a minute. I thought that this was a family issue and we should just stay out. So according to you Bush did the right thing. Did I get that right?? Your reading skills....where did you see I approved or disapproved of what Bush did or didn't do? I was just stating a fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Your reading skills....where did you see I approved or disapproved of what Bush did or didn't do? I was just stating a fact Did you not call this a "family squabble"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Let's hear it then. For all the (righteous) criticism directed at Obama for his ineffective response to this crisis from the hawks and hard right, they conveniently gloss over, or omit the fact that the most potent weapon in America's geopolitical arsenal was rendered moot by our country's actions in Iraq. Whether knowingly or not, Bush and his administration perpetrated an invasion of another country based on information that turned out to be false. It was done on a world stage and the thud we made when the WMD search fell on its face in the desert is still reverberating. Actions have consequences as much as Obama's inaction does. Just because it happened 10 years ago doesn't make it ancient history. The country's mistakes in Iraq make it very difficult, if not impossible, for any American president, let alone this one who's own foreign policy is non-existent, to take the moral high ground. How can we stand up and blast Russia for inventing a pretext for military action when we are still standing in the shadows of our own !@#$-up? We can't. At least we can't and be taken seriously in Europe, especially when Putin can look into a camera and point out Russia's intervention in the Ukraine was done without a shot fired while our move into Iraq was done with "Shock and Awe" and B-2 bombers. Of course, the Russian move into the Ukraine is not the same thing as our move into Iraq. But it doesn't matter in the propaganda war that's raging on the ground in both Europe and Russia right now. Bush's move into Iraq under false pretenses squandered not only 4,000+ American lives, but also shattered any credibility this country has on the issue of international sovereignty. Of course, this is all an undercurrent to the current crisis and is not, as I'm sure it's being interpreted by many right this moment, an excuse for Obama and the current administration. Obama bears the primary responsibility for this situation and our response. He's the Commander in Chief and the buck stops with him. So far he has done a middling to poor job dealing with this crisis (and even I admit that's being kind). But forgive me if I find it hard to listen to any of the hawks on the airwaves these days gleefully smashing Obama's ineptness while completely ignoring the larger context -- that it was largely these same hawks that beat the drums of war that destroyed our international credibility and weakened our ability to combat such a crisis in the first place. We are fighting with one arm tied behind our back as a nation. We don't have the higher ground any longer -- and that can be traced back to the decision to go into Iraq under the guise of looking for WMDs. So, even though it's silly for Libs to make everything Bush's fault. But it's equally as silly to pretend Bush's policies have no bearing on the current situation. Edited March 7, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Did you not call this a "family squabble"? What does that have to do with what I said about Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 For all the (righteous) criticism directed at Obama for his ineffective response to this crisis from the hawks and hard right, they conveniently gloss over, or omit the fact that the most potent weapon in America's geopolitical arsenal was rendered moot by our country's actions in Iraq. Whether knowingly or not, Bush and his administration perpetrated an invasion of another country based on information that turned out to be false. It was done on a world stage and the thud we made when the WMD search fell on its face in the desert is still reverberating on the international stage. Actions have consequences as much as Obama's inaction does. Just because it happened 10 years ago doesn't make it ancient history. The country's mistakes in make it very difficult, if not impossible, for any American president, let alone this one who's own foreign policy is non-existent, to take the moral high ground. How can we stand up and blast Russia for inventing a pretext for military action when we are still standing in the shadows of our own !@#$-up? We can't. At least we can't and be taken seriously in Europe, especially when Putin can look into a camera and point out Russia's intervention in the Ukraine was done without a shot fired while our move into Iraq was done with "Shock and Awe" and B-2 bombers? Of course, the Russian move into the Ukraine is not the same thing as our move into Iraq. But it doesn't matter in the propaganda war that's raging on the ground in both Europe and Russia right now. Bush's move into Iraq under false pretenses squandered not only 4,000+ American lives, but also shattered any credibility this country has on the issue of international sovereignty. Of course, this is all an undercurrent to the current crisis and is not, as I'm sure it's being interpreted by many right this moment, an excuse for Obama and the current administration. Obama bears the primary responsibility for this situation and our response. He's the Commander in Chief and the buck stops with him. So far he has done a middling to poor job dealing with this crisis (and even I admit that's being kind). But forgive me if I find it hard to listen to any of the hawks on the airwaves these days gleefully smashing Obama's ineptness while completely ignoring the larger context -- that it was largely these same hawks that beat the drums of war that destroyed our international credibility and weakened our ability to combat such a crisis in the first place. We are fighting with one arm tied behind our back as a nation. We don't have the higher ground any longer -- and that can be traced back to the decision to go into Iraq under the guise of looking for WMDs. So, even though it's silly for Libs to make everything Bush's fault. But it's equally as silly to pretend Bush's policies have no bearing on the current situation. Thanks Mr Stewart/Maher Of course the difference is, did Mr Bush actually believe there were WMD's in Iraq in comparison to did Putin really believe Russians were in danger in Crimea? I know your answer and i'll say your wrong but that's just me saving you the time of having to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 What does that have to do with what I said about Bush? Answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 For all the (righteous) criticism directed at Obama for his ineffective response to this crisis from the hawks and hard right, they conveniently gloss over, or omit the fact that the most potent weapon in America's geopolitical arsenal was rendered moot by our country's actions in Iraq. Whether knowingly or not, Bush and his administration perpetrated an invasion of another country based on information that turned out to be false. It was done on a world stage and the thud we made when the WMD search fell on its face in the desert is still reverberating. Actions have consequences as much as Obama's inaction does. Just because it happened 10 years ago doesn't make it ancient history. The country's mistakes in Iraq make it very difficult, if not impossible, for any American president, let alone this one who's own foreign policy is non-existent, to take the moral high ground. How can we stand up and blast Russia for inventing a pretext for military action when we are still standing in the shadows of our own !@#$-up? We can't. At least we can't and be taken seriously in Europe, especially when Putin can look into a camera and point out Russia's intervention in the Ukraine was done without a shot fired while our move into Iraq was done with "Shock and Awe" and B-2 bombers. Of course, the Russian move into the Ukraine is not the same thing as our move into Iraq. But it doesn't matter in the propaganda war that's raging on the ground in both Europe and Russia right now. Bush's move into Iraq under false pretenses squandered not only 4,000+ American lives, but also shattered any credibility this country has on the issue of international sovereignty. Of course, this is all an undercurrent to the current crisis and is not, as I'm sure it's being interpreted by many right this moment, an excuse for Obama and the current administration. Obama bears the primary responsibility for this situation and our response. He's the Commander in Chief and the buck stops with him. So far he has done a middling to poor job dealing with this crisis (and even I admit that's being kind). But forgive me if I find it hard to listen to any of the hawks on the airwaves these days gleefully smashing Obama's ineptness while completely ignoring the larger context -- that it was largely these same hawks that beat the drums of war that destroyed our international credibility and weakened our ability to combat such a crisis in the first place. We are fighting with one arm tied behind our back as a nation. We don't have the higher ground any longer -- and that can be traced back to the decision to go into Iraq under the guise of looking for WMDs. So, even though it's silly for Libs to make everything Bush's fault. But it's equally as silly to pretend Bush's policies have no bearing on the current situation. That's a giant load of crybaby bull ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Answer the question. I did, it was an implied yes, now you answer the question That's a giant load of crybaby bull ****. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Thanks Mr Stewart/Maher Of course the difference is, did Mr Bush actually believe there were WMD's in Iraq in comparison to did Putin really believe Russians were in danger in Crimea? I know your answer and i'll say your wrong but that's just me saving you the time of having to respond. But you're missing the point by asking that question. It doesn't matter if Bush believed there were WMD's or if he knowingly fabricated evidence to support that theory. Regardless of his intent, on the world stage the country was shown to be wrong. That has an impact. From Putin's perspective it doesn't matter if he believes Russians are in danger or not, he can successfully argue that he did just as Bush and company can continue to say they honestly believed they were right. That's a giant load of crybaby bull ****. Have you been to Russia or Europe recently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 But you're missing the point by asking that question. It doesn't matter if Bush believed there were WMD's or if he knowingly fabricated evidence to support that theory. Regardless of his intent, on the world stage the country was shown to be wrong. That has an impact. From Putin's perspective it doesn't matter if he believes Russians are in danger or not, he can successfully argue that he did just as Bush and company can continue to say they honestly believed they were right. Have you been to Russia or Europe recently? I went to Europe 2 years ago. I have friends that have been to Russia. And no I don't agree with your point. There are different levels of being wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) I went to Europe 2 years ago. I have friends that have been to Russia. And no I don't agree with your point. There are different levels of being wrong. You don't have to agree with it, it's still accurate. It's hard to fight a propaganda war against a tyrant when your own recent history of righteousness is shoddy at best. EDIT: Different levels of wrong is exactly the point. Of course there are different levels, and the US used to be able to make that distinction clearly on the world stage in times like this. But now our words are seen as hollow (whether they are or not) by the rest of world in part because of the mistakes made in the lead up to Iraqi Freedom. So, you're right that there are different levels of being wrong and Putin's invasion of the Crimea pales in comparison to ours in Iraq in terms of cause... but because we were proven to be wrong in Iraq we have lost the ability to point out said differences to Joe Schmoe European on the street. Edited March 7, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts