- Jun 24, 2001
- 24,195
- 857
- 126
When discussions turn political in other forums, we are often pointed here with no specific thread to resume the conversation, so...
People just LOVE imagining that they are smarter than the president. Yes, many are, but far fewer than you believe. Go on stroking your ego. He was elected to make decisions with more info than you and I are allowed to know. He made the wrong ones, but you need to pick apart the real reasoning instead of just calling him an "idiot" to stroke your own "I'm smarter than the president" ego. He was in a position to make a much more informed decision than you were. Iran and North Korea had far more bearing in the war than you would initially think, and they couldn't just tell everyone what they knew about Iran and NK.
The finances of doing this any other time put pressure on the administration to make a misguided case for war when the evidence was clearly planted by Iraq to intimidate neighbors (Iran had to THINK de-clawed Iraq might have WMDs for Iraq's own good). We could and did see right through it like Iraq thought we would, but the president still presented it as a case for war (IOW, he lied). This and his ridiculous spending are the main reasons I do not like the man or his presidency. They tried to imply that Al Qaeda could have operations in Iraq and it could be a potential ally or safe-haven for their leader, but he did not use 9/11 as a justification and I roll my eyes every time someone says that. You'll see if you go back and listen to the "case for war" by Colin Powell and stop hearing "Al Qaeda" as "9-11." I didn't then or now. We were lied to, it just wasn't the way the narrative says which re-writes your memory ("Bush lied! He said Iraq was involved in 9-11!"). It was a lot more subtle. Using known-bad evidence to make an example of Iraq to Iran and North Korea was a calculated move (remember, he named all three as the "Axis of Evil"). It actually did intimidate them enough to suspend their nuclear weapons programs for years, but it ultimately turned the world against us and emboldened them and the programs were resumed with a vengeance. It worked, but it didn't work for long and anyone could see that happening. That bad judgement is major reason #3 that I hated that president. Kicking out the UN inspectors alone was justification enough for war because they were part of the terms of surrender from the first Gulf War. It could have been the resumption of that rather than fumbling around and being unable to produce the imaginary WMDs.
You know what? After all that, my absolute biggest complaint about the man was letting the financial crisis build up and doing nothing to stop it. No party wanted to be the ones to tell the single mom with no income, no job, and no assets that she couldn't buy that house, but at least some conservatives were sounding the alarms. Barney Frank and co kept telling us that there was no housing bubble and that Fannie and Freddie were in no danger. This caused more bi-partisan programs and legislation encouraging banks to loan money with the promise that they would be bailed out if anything were to go wrong. This is why it disgusts me when a politician responsible for this spotlights an executive golden-parachute. Should the banker have just rolled over to do what the government asks, give up his own perks and benefits, do something he KNOWS may negatively impact performance based on the government's promise, and then just let them take everything by going back on their promises and demonizing him? It's not all class warfare, it's an inexcusable blame-shift. If you want, you can easily find videos of John McCain warning of it years earlier and Barney Frank out-right lying in return. No campaigning. This was long before the 2008 elections.
Now, compare your reasoning to my carefully thought-out and considered reasons for disliking the same president. Your simplistic view is cute. It fits into your narrative and, thus, is all you need for it to be "true."
If you say it enough times, that must make it true.
Harvard has graduated its fair share of idiots, especially legacy admissions. Bush shows just how far an idiot son from the right family can go in America.
People just LOVE imagining that they are smarter than the president. Yes, many are, but far fewer than you believe. Go on stroking your ego. He was elected to make decisions with more info than you and I are allowed to know. He made the wrong ones, but you need to pick apart the real reasoning instead of just calling him an "idiot" to stroke your own "I'm smarter than the president" ego. He was in a position to make a much more informed decision than you were. Iran and North Korea had far more bearing in the war than you would initially think, and they couldn't just tell everyone what they knew about Iran and NK.The man used Iraq's actions as a pretext to carry out the Clinton-established US regime-change policy toward Iraq because we were already deployed in Afghanistan and it would have only been more expensive to completely re-deploy in the future. Those actions? Pretending to have WMDs, kicking out UN inspectors, moving things intended to look like mobile chemical weapons depots when satellites came overhead, ordering items known to be used in refinement operations for radioactive materials, etc.
The finances of doing this any other time put pressure on the administration to make a misguided case for war when the evidence was clearly planted by Iraq to intimidate neighbors (Iran had to THINK de-clawed Iraq might have WMDs for Iraq's own good). We could and did see right through it like Iraq thought we would, but the president still presented it as a case for war (IOW, he lied). This and his ridiculous spending are the main reasons I do not like the man or his presidency. They tried to imply that Al Qaeda could have operations in Iraq and it could be a potential ally or safe-haven for their leader, but he did not use 9/11 as a justification and I roll my eyes every time someone says that. You'll see if you go back and listen to the "case for war" by Colin Powell and stop hearing "Al Qaeda" as "9-11." I didn't then or now. We were lied to, it just wasn't the way the narrative says which re-writes your memory ("Bush lied! He said Iraq was involved in 9-11!"). It was a lot more subtle. Using known-bad evidence to make an example of Iraq to Iran and North Korea was a calculated move (remember, he named all three as the "Axis of Evil"). It actually did intimidate them enough to suspend their nuclear weapons programs for years, but it ultimately turned the world against us and emboldened them and the programs were resumed with a vengeance. It worked, but it didn't work for long and anyone could see that happening. That bad judgement is major reason #3 that I hated that president. Kicking out the UN inspectors alone was justification enough for war because they were part of the terms of surrender from the first Gulf War. It could have been the resumption of that rather than fumbling around and being unable to produce the imaginary WMDs.
You know what? After all that, my absolute biggest complaint about the man was letting the financial crisis build up and doing nothing to stop it. No party wanted to be the ones to tell the single mom with no income, no job, and no assets that she couldn't buy that house, but at least some conservatives were sounding the alarms. Barney Frank and co kept telling us that there was no housing bubble and that Fannie and Freddie were in no danger. This caused more bi-partisan programs and legislation encouraging banks to loan money with the promise that they would be bailed out if anything were to go wrong. This is why it disgusts me when a politician responsible for this spotlights an executive golden-parachute. Should the banker have just rolled over to do what the government asks, give up his own perks and benefits, do something he KNOWS may negatively impact performance based on the government's promise, and then just let them take everything by going back on their promises and demonizing him? It's not all class warfare, it's an inexcusable blame-shift. If you want, you can easily find videos of John McCain warning of it years earlier and Barney Frank out-right lying in return. No campaigning. This was long before the 2008 elections.
Now, compare your reasoning to my carefully thought-out and considered reasons for disliking the same president. Your simplistic view is cute. It fits into your narrative and, thus, is all you need for it to be "true."
Clinton had the chance to take out Osama bin Laden before the USS Cole and 9-11 attacks. I guess Clinton was somehow not a non-idiot?
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter