For a variety of reasons I think Bush
[quote=“skullboy”]For a variety of reasons I think Bush
He is very entertaining.
Really! This “God made me do it” thingy is cool.
He almost beat Dick Cheney at tic-tac-toe. Once.
He appointed John Roberts to the Supreme Court and revived the defense industry.
I’ll work on some more but it’s not coming easily.
[quote=“spook”]He appointed John Roberts to the Supreme Court and revived the defense industry.
I’ll work on some more but it’s not coming easily.[/quote]
I for one appreciate the effort spook. 
[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“spook”]He appointed John Roberts to the Supreme Court and revived the defense industry.
I’ll work on some more but it’s not coming easily.[/quote]
I for one appreciate the effort spook. [/quote]
You’re a good man yourself, jd, even if your cousin Fred is the hardcase he is.
I’d appreciate it more if Spook took his meds but …
I would say, ask your average American whether they would have wanted Bush or Gore on 911? Bush or Kerry? Bush or Carter? Bush or Clinton? Enough said.
Now, looking through the Middle East, which countries are worse off since Bush roared through the region? Morocco? Nope. Algeria? Much better. Tunisia? nope. Libya? Much better. Egypt? Moderately better. Sudan? Much better. Gulf Arab states (no more Saddam)? Hugely better. Saudi Arabia (no US troops, no threat from Saddam, elections)? Much better. Iraq? I would say much better and even in terms of deaths, much better than under Saddam? Iran? Still the same crap leadership but that’s not our fault. Afghanistan? Much much much better so much better that 4 million refugees have returned. Lebanon? Much better. Israel? Much better. Jordan? Much better. Pakistan? Tremendously better! I could go on on and on but that is just this one region alone. Talk to the Central Asian republics. Talk to the Baltics. Talk to the Eastern Europeans. Talk to Ukraine and Georgia.
I fail to understand why the bitching and moaning of a bunch of leftie Brits, the French establishment (and really only the Le Monde Diplomatique set, Chirac and Villepin and why should they count more than their own defense and military establishment?) and some crackpot 68ers from Germany with a few sour grapes in Russia. Should we have left Ukraine to stay under the Russian orbit? Really?
He survived that pretzel.
And he is heart-warming.
spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0 … 76,00.html (German stuff)
In Kyoto/Japan he is stating that China should give freedom to people, China should follow Taiwan for democracy and Chinese want to print Bibles and other holy books without fear.
Germany on the other hand wanted to sell nuclear stuff to China. I like him saying such things. Making clear that China is a dictatorship oppressing freedom IS a success. People hear it and remember it. And he strengthens Taiwan by it.
Schroeder on the other hand gave the impression as everything would be fine with China.
I’d buy this list of achievements if it was backed-up with some fiscal fortitude. You can’t try to reshape the world on your credit card. Whether you go the multilateral route (UN, whatever) or the unilateral route (coalitions of the willing and so on) it all costs money. The tax cuts in the opening years of the Bush Administration signaled once and for all where his political priorites reside. Until such time as we get a balanced budget (and yes, as a foreigner I can legitimately say ‘we’ here since the lion’s share of US public debt is not domestic) then there have to be question marks over Bush’s FP commitments.
But then, I guess I’m just a leftie ‘Brit’ - you left ‘Ozzie’ off the list of undesirables, so I guess that’ll have to do… 
[quote=“fred smith”]
Now, looking through the Middle East, which countries are worse off since Bush roared through the region? Morocco? Nope. Algeria? Much better. Tunisia? nope. Libya? Much better. Egypt? Moderately better. Sudan? Much better. Gulf Arab states (no more Saddam)? Hugely better. Saudi Arabia (no US troops, no threat from Saddam, elections)? Much better. Iraq? I would say much better and even in terms of deaths, much better than under Saddam? Iran? Still the same crap leadership but that’s not our fault. Afghanistan? Much much much better so much better that 4 million refugees have returned. Lebanon? Much better. Israel? Much better. Jordan? Much better. Pakistan? Tremendously better! I could go on on and on but that is just this one region alone. Talk to the Central Asian republics. Talk to the Baltics. Talk to the Eastern Europeans. Talk to Ukraine and Georgia. [/quote]
Now, I am more than ready to admit that I do not know a hell of a lot about some of these countries and how they have inproved but I do find it interesting. I have basically the same question for most of these countries which is “How have they improved and how is this directly related to the Bush administration and it’s policies?” I know that this is a pretty damn big question so do you have a couple of sites that you could direct me to where I could check this stuff out?
I know that Libya gave up it’s weapons etc. but is this because of Bush or just because Quadaffi (sp) saw a chance to come back into the diplomatic fold without it costing him to much? Are things truly different or better in Libya for the people living there?
The Israelis and Palestinians still seem to be blowing the shit out of each other aren’t they? This has calmed down a bit but is that because of Bush or because of the fact that Arafat died and Isreal is willing to talk to the new guy?
Pakistan and India have cooled off but was this a direct result of something Bush did? I mean Pakistan and India saw support for the war on terror as a way of getting of everyone’s shit list because of their nuclear weapons. Now it doesnt seem so important that they have them and the sanctions are being lifted. Are things in Pakistan so much better?
I’m not sure what’s better in Jordan unless bombs going off there can be termed better. What else has been happening in Jordan that is an improvement over what was occurring before Bush was elected?
I guess I am also not sure if I understand what you mean by “better off”
Like I said, I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of these areas is limited but I am interested in how all of these so called “good things” can be attributed to Bush unless you feel that Bush can claim responsibility for them because they occurred while Bush was president. If you have a couple of sites I could check out I would appreciate it.
Pandora
Box
open
duck!
Everybody already knows that if Bill Clinton could run, he’d be re-elected in a second, so I’m not sure what your point is here. Of course everyone would have preferred Clinton, but he wasn’t eligible anymore.
The real question is: who was the #2 choice? Maybe Bush had a chance here, though his recent numbers are not what they once were.
And Fred Smith: please look up “post hoc ergo propter hoc.”
Our Iraq and Afghanistan commitments make up about 1.5 percent of the total budget AND this involves a lot of shifting from costs formerly incurred from keeping two aircraft carriers in the region and maintaining the no-fly zones over Iraq (US$36 billion per year). So, I would say this is not the problem. The problem is social programs and here I would scream along with you. We did not elect Bush to spend more on failed educational programs to curry favor with Teddy Kennedy. Cut, cut Cut!
Everyone knows we need social security reform. Bush tried to step up to the plate to discuss it but … we saw how that worked. What are we going to do? Wait until we are Germany or France to deal with this?
Only if after 40 years of bad behavior, you believe that he chose to approach who? the US and UK not France or Germany or the UN to give up his weapons of mass destruction amazingly on the very day we chose to invade Iraq and coughed them up the very day we pulled Saddam out of that hole. Yes, what a miracle that it all happened so closely with specific events?
Israel has pulled out of Gaza. The world is losing sympathy with the Palestinians because of Arafat (removed) then (dead) and tougher action is being demanded to deal with terrorists.
Strange that Pakistan decided to end support of the Kashmir insurgents AFTER we parked lots of troops in Afghanistan, and amazingly they shut down Dr. Khan likewise afterward (he had free reign for 30 years) and then started talking to India and cracking down (somewhat) on madrassas and insurgents. All coincidentally after we were busy in Afghanistan. Amazing coincidence?
Jordan was sympathetic to Iraq before both invasions and was allowing major smuggling. The government there now is cooperating much more fully. Don’t hear too much about Jordan being used as a launch pad to funnel terrorists to Iraq do you despite its long “unprotected” border, etc.
Cooperative. Cracking down on terrorist organizations. Looking to liberalize economy and politics.
One major achievement that gets little attention is the Algerian civil war which has quieted to the point that travel is now possible in many parts of Algeria. All of this miraculously occurred after we invaded Iraq because the nasties are going there to fight. They had been in Afghanistan and when the Soviets pulled out they moved back home and when did that insurgency start in earnest? 1991? Coincidence? And after we invade Iraq in 2003, the Algerian civil war goes all quiet? Coincidence? And we are catching 25 percent of the foreign insurgents with Algerian passports. Coincidence?
They would be fighting somewhere else. This is a global fight. This is not about Iraq alone and that is why we must do something about Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia. We must remove all of these distractions before the real war begins, a Pakistan with a fanatic at the healm. Think of it and be VERY VERY afraid. We must hurry to take these other actors out so we can concentrate fully on Pakistan when and if this occurs. That is the only nation that scares the living F*** out of me and it should scare you as well. So rather than argue among ourselves about rights for terrorists and whether we were right to invade Iraq, let’s get moving before it is too late.
If only Musharraf would concentrate all the nukes and technology in one place so we could take it out in that eventuality, but I think that the forces that do not want this to happen are strong enough to prevent him from doing so. He may be in charge of the switch but they are in charge of the physical possession. And for the life of me, if he is ever gone, we are going to pay dearly unless we can work fast to stop them.
Fred, while I sometimes find your posts amusing, this one scares me.
Good. I hope you are scared because while we waste valuable time infighting our chances of dealing with a nuclear Pakistan gone tribal is moving inexorably toward reality. Wake up people! We need to finish off these other campaigns as soon as possible. I aint’ trying to be funny.
Bush’s successes, Mmm? He got elected, twice! I think that covers it 
Interesting, interesting…
[quote="spook
"]He appointed John Roberts to the Supreme Court and revived the defense industry. [/quote]
I agree with the roberts statement. He’s not on my ideological wavelength but at least he seems to be a a smart guy. But would you consider his appointment a success so far? Merely because he’s yet to prove himself a decent judge I don’t think of this as a success yet.
As for Fred…I was really looking for a domestic focus…mainly that’s because I kind of consider Bush’s foreign policy legacy as a disaster that’s alienated most of the world, not just the “enemies of the American people”. Maybe that’s just my perspective though which is nicely juxtiposed with Fred’s defination of “better off”.
[quote="fred smith
"]Cooperative. Cracking down on terrorist organizations. Looking to liberalize economy and politics. [/quote]
I’m more inclined to think that better off means less people dying, more freedoms, better standards of living. As opposed to “cooperating”.
But I guess I was asking for other people’s perspective…
Anything else? education? Health? Environment? Economy? Leadership? Or returning decency to the White House?