blzrul Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 How do you manage to get such basic history wrong? Jan 72 - President Nixon announces the 7th withdrawal: 70,000 troops by 1 May 72 reducing the troop level in Vietnam to 69,000. 29 Mar 73 - 67 more US P.O.W.'s were freed in Hanoi. The same day, the US withdrew its remaining 2,500 troops from South Vietnam. This date also marked the actual end of military involvement in Vietnam. He was elected in 68 promising to end the war. He didn't. He was relected in 1972. So you are telling us that there were no casualties in those 4 years? Were you even BORN then? By the way, our victorious "retreat" from Vietnam was 1975. Hate statistics? Then don't look here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Don't be a dillhole. Just because you named a few bad presidents doesn't mean Bush doesn't rate up in the top 5 with them. For example, 5-3=2. Dude, what is wrong with your math skills?!? 5-3 = 3.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 People who say that really don't understand how truly horrible some presidents have really been. Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, anyone? Or Herbert Hoover, who unlike Bush actually managed to collapse the banks? GW should wake every morning giving thanks that Hoover existed, because without Hoover GW would have collapsed the banks. Now that doesn't mean that many presidents since good ole Herbert would have not failed miserably. Just saying that Bush should thank the lucky stars there are protections in place. As for Pierce and Buchanan you have to take that for what it is worth, they were products of antebellum America... That was one phucked up time, where nobody wanted to piss or get off the pot till Lincoln came along and brought things to a head. Think of it this way, Pierce and Buchanan were like the 0-14 Tampa team. Bush is like the 0-16 Lions. The Tampa team had an excuse for being bad... They were an expansion team that literally had to take players off the street. The Lions, they shouldn't have any excuse... Well, maybe Matt Millen. We surely have had phuck ups before Bush and then Bush goes and phucks up making the SAME dumb mistakes. I hold that more in contempt. In between passages of Eric Carle deep musings, surely there was time to reflect back on history. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I don't know. I think it's unfair to compare a modern day president to presidents of another era. Today, president's airplanes are bigger and faster, and the training and medical attention is better. For instance, no president today dies of pneumonia because he made a speech in the rain. True. Yet, just because the game is bigger and faster, that doesn't mean the game is any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Dude, what is wrong with your math skills?!? 5-3 = 3.5 So Bush is average? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 He was elected in 68 promising to end the war. He didn't. He was relected in 1972. So you are telling us that there were no casualties in those 4 years? Were you even BORN then? By the way, our victorious "retreat" from Vietnam was 1975. Hate statistics? Then don't look here. I suppose by your logic, Truman didn't end the war in Japan, since we still had people there for a while, and still do. No, on Nixon's first day in office, the nearly half million troops that were in Vietnam didn't jump on a big aircraft carrier and head to San Francisco. We won't see that in Iraq either on Obama's first day. It's interesting I can be more accurate talking about the future, than you can be talking about the past. Nixon initiated a gradual withdrawal, with casualties dropping by more than half every year after 1968, according to your own linked statistics. We did rely more heavily on air power during that period. Nixon's actions brought an end to the Vietnam War. We were essentially done by the time he started his second term. The POW's came home in early 1973. Your take on history is like granny's from the Beverly Hillbillies, who insisted the Civil War was when The North invaded The United States of America. BTW, about our previous conversation concerning Bush hiring telemarketers to slime McCain about his secret black daughter in the SC primary? Didn't happen. Those tapes you say you heard on a Dallas radio station--they don't exist. You may have been listening to a morning show. You don't have to have been in the radio biz, to know what happens on morning shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I always liked "dead or alive." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I am not sure I see anything that rivals "I am not a crook" although in the grand scheme of things I think Bush is definitely responsble for at least as much overall death and destruction (Nixon's failure to end the Vietnam war, in spite of making it a campaign promise in TWO elections, cost another what, 20k American lives and countless Vietnamese and other?).... We got past Nixon, it's going to take longer to dig out from under Bush and his messes, the key is to learn from his mistakes (and ours). Otherwise, it's just going to keep happening. How is this any different than the campaighn promises of all the mid term congressmen and senators in 2006 for the democrats who said they would never vote for a war funding bill. yet pretty much every last one got a little perk or rider added to the final bills and have now enmasse voted for the final bill to continue funding. Again the prseident cannot keep a war going unless congress approves funding. So as much as you want to blame Nixon and Bush, that isn't where the responsibility belongs and if you knew anything about how government works you could see that. But you and other look for the easy target even when that target is not responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 And just because I mentioned three, don't assume there's none worse. Grant, Harding (who ran an administration so corrupt it made Nixon's look like the Boy Scouts), Carter. I'm tempted to throw Johnson in the mix (many historians do. I personally think he wasn't a "horrible president" as much as he was simply an !@#$). I'd rank Bush...maybe twelfth-worst. People don't realize how truly awful fully a quarter of our presidents have been, or how resilient the US has historically been w/r/t bad leadership...which is why I've spent the last eight years laughing at the whole "Bush has destroyed the country!" crap. The only president that's managed that...has a memorial on the National Mall, actually... Now, if anyone wants to rank Congresses, I'd say all of them during the Bush Administration are among the worst. I judge presidents by what they do in their time. Lincoln is great because he navigated the Civil War--he may not have been anywhere near as successful as a peacetime president. On the flip side, Bush is one of the worst presidents because he was given a country with a strong economy, reasonably responsible budget (headed in the right direction), a bad but not-as-bad-as-he-made-it debt, respect for civil liberties, good international reputation. and on and on (stem cells)--and drove those into the ground while getting involved in an unwinnable war or 2. In short, over an 8 year period, he drove a thriving US into the shitter. As with all things presidential, maybe he's not all to blame for the current state of the US. But that's not how it works. We've had lots of other bad presidencies. Not many were worse than Bush's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 How is this any different than the campaighn promises of all the mid term congressmen and senators in 2006 for the democrats who said they would never vote for a war funding bill. yet pretty much every last one got a little perk or rider added to the final bills and have now enmasse voted for the final bill to continue funding. Again the prseident cannot keep a war going unless congress approves funding. So as much as you want to blame Nixon and Bush, that isn't where the responsibility belongs and if you knew anything about how government works you could see that. But you and other look for the easy target even when that target is not responsible. Yeah, but you're not this politically naive either. Once the president sends 130K troops overseas, he's got the upper hand on funding them. Refusing to fund those troops when the president has no intention of withdrawing them is not a realistic option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Yeah, but you're not this politically naive either. Once the president sends 130K troops overseas, he's got the upper hand on funding them. Refusing to fund those troops when the president has no intention of withdrawing them is not a realistic option. No, not naive, the people of this country are. The fact is they voted for a bunch of folks who "promised" to withdraw. yet they are blind to the fact that 2 years later funding continues and nothing changes. Fine 1 year I can understand, but with a majority they should have forced "withdrawal statements" in the final package, yet it was more about getting the riders than to actually to do what they promised. Makes it easy they just keep saying it's Bush's fault, the media keeps repeating it, and the lies continue from the congress critters. And people like blz continue to buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I'd go with Bush wanting OBGYNs to "practice their love with their patients," or the "fool me twice...won't get fooled again" quote over those two....at least for comedic value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Yeah, but you're not this politically naive either. Once the president sends 130K troops overseas, he's got the upper hand on funding them. Refusing to fund those troops when the president has no intention of withdrawing them is not a realistic option. The President is sending troops overseas so they will not turn on the politicians. We do not need to be in any country is we are not willing to kill the enemy and leave . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 No, not naive, the people of this country are. The fact is they voted for a bunch of folks who "promised" to withdraw. yet they are blind to the fact that 2 years later funding continues and nothing changes. Fine 1 year I can understand, but with a majority they should have forced "withdrawal statements" in the final package, yet it was more about getting the riders than to actually to do what they promised. Makes it easy they just keep saying it's Bush's fault, the media keeps repeating it, and the lies continue from the congress critters. And people like blz continue to buy it. Actually, the people aren't naive because they don't notice Congresscritters haven't followed through on their promise, they're naive for thinking they actually could follow through in the first place. I have to believe that most of the legislators who won on "I'll end the war" were whoring for votes and knew damned well that as a practical matter they had no power to influence it. Hell, Martin O'Malley won the governor's seat in MD in part on "I'll recall the Maryland National Guard from Iraq"...and he HAD to know full well he was shoveling a load of crap. These people - including Obama and Bush - will say what their electorate wants to hear to get elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 "Bring 'em on" was a good one. Really, what will stick in my head isn't any particular moment of his presidency, but how consistently uncomfortable and awkward he looks in a suit. You're an idiot. If you could even define "war crime", you still couldn't name one. If he wants to bring that up, he should be bringing up Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenet first- Bush and Cheney need to be looked at, but there were plenty of war crimes at Abu Ghraib and at Guantanamo Bay. War ceimes done with the rationalization that it "Made us safer." If going from the premises we were founded on to becoming what we say we're fighting against make us safer, what line do I get in to choose death. And as far as the "Few bad apples" excuse- it wasn't a few bad apples- it started up at the top where the orders were given. Not talking at you on this one DC- just taking his argument where I think he meant it to go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 If he wants to bring that up, he should be bringing up Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenet first- Bush and Cheney need to be looked at, but there were plenty of war crimes at Abu Ghraib and at Guantanamo Bay. War ceimes done with the rationalization that it "Made us safer." If going from the premises we were founded on to becoming what we say we're fighting against make us safer, what line do I get in to choose death. And as far as the "Few bad apples" excuse- it wasn't a few bad apples- it started up at the top where the orders were given. Not talking at you on this one DC- just taking his argument where I think he meant it to go Abu Ghraib was a joke . You have never been to war so comment on something you know about say CNN for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 When he was reelected after months of all the left wing whiners on this board predicting his defeat with maximum confidence/arrogance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 When he was reelected after months of all the left wing whiners on this board predicting his defeat with maximum confidence/arrogance. Yes, that was a great moment for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Abu Ghraib was a joke . You have never been to war so comment on something you know about say CNN for instance. Not registering prisoners by name IS a war crime. Not registering number of prisoners held IS a war crime. Not following the Geneva Conventions IS a war crime. I don't think I need you to tell me what to talk about. How about that ghost prisoner who offered no resistance- he was handcuffed, shackled to a wall and hung in a torture position....when the guards came back to "interrogate" him, they were "surprised" to see him dead with blood pouring out of his mouth. If we are fighting a war against terrorism, the culprits of this act should be locked away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Not registering prisoners by name IS a war crime. Not registering number of prisoners held IS a war crime. Not following the Geneva Conventions IS a war crime. Not if they're not POWs. Again, the status of captured members of al Qaeda is ambiguous as extra-nationals fighting a nation-state. And before you go off on me...in addition to saying that before, I've also said that Congress should make the determination that while the Geneva Convention does NOT apply to such prisoners, they should nonetheless as a matter of national law be entitled to the same rights and privileges embodied in the convention. I just happen to understand that the situation is FAR more legally ambiguous than your black-and-white declarations. (Note: I'm talking about Gitmo, not Abu Ghraib, which is a somewhat different story.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts