• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How Quickly the Tide Turns

C

charrison

Lifer
He was once extremely popular. Right after the war, I?m talking unprecedented popular. He could do no wrong. He was a hero. Then things got messy.

The easy victory turned into the messy rebuilding. The vanquished enemy wasn't entirely vanquished. There remained pockets of stubborn resistance. Soldiers died. Rebuilding took longer than thought. Cost more than thought. Created a lot more controversy than thought.

Weeks, stretched into months...in time, they were talking years. Suddenly the popular leader wasn't so popular. The great victory more a great memory.

Opponents who stood by him during the war, left him in droves after the war. They questioned the sacrifice. They questioned the cost. They questioned his leadership. His poll ratings at home dropped. His support abroad dropped even more.

Then they were back to talking about the economy and how bad it was. And how bad it was staying. How quickly the tide had turned.

Back then. Way back then, because I?m not talking "now" after a war called Iraq. I'm talking 1948, more than three years after a war called the big one, World War II.

And I?m not talking about a president named George W. Bush. I'm talking about a president named Harry Truman (search).
Click to expand...
linkage
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Brie
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Neil Cavuto kicks ass.
Click to expand...

Something about him really bothers me.
Click to expand...

It could be arrogance, Brie; you seem to be missing the usual conservative portion.
Click to expand...

Bah I don?t know. I think that he has a know-it-all attitude. In the email segments, FOX prints the opposing viewpoints to support their claim of being "fair and balanced.? In the end Cavuto still has the last word which I hate because it ignores the whole point of printing the emails in the first place. His job should be to just report the news, not add his smart a-- comments every 5 minutes. All of this is fine, but it isn?t "fair and balanced." As a conservative, I know what I think, so I don?t need Cavuto telling me what I already know. When I watch the news, I enjoy hearing opposing viewpoints because it makes me reflect and question my own. This is something that FOX does not give me. I watch FOX to be amused not informed. 😀
 
Did he write the shortest article without a point or is this typical of FOX reporting?

On the other hand he could be making an argument that Bush needs to stay at war though term(s) for re-election, which is also typical of FOX reporting.
 
So you think Dubya's situation in Iraq is similar tp Truman's in WW2? I don't believe the Dubya should be mentioned in the same breath as Truman.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you think Dubya's situation in Iraq is similar tp Truman's in WW2? I don't believe the Dubya should be mentioned in the same breath as Truman.
Click to expand...

Ya the buck stops at Condi's desk not his.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you think Dubya's situation in Iraq is similar tp Truman's in WW2? I don't believe the Dubya should be mentioned in the same breath as Truman.
Click to expand...

Comparing GWB to Truman is even more desperate than comparing Dan Quayle to JFK.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
He was once extremely popular. Right after the war, I?m talking unprecedented popular. He could do no wrong. He was a hero. Then things got messy.

The easy victory turned into the messy rebuilding. The vanquished enemy wasn't entirely vanquished. There remained pockets of stubborn resistance. Soldiers died. Rebuilding took longer than thought. Cost more than thought. Created a lot more controversy than thought.

Weeks, stretched into months...in time, they were talking years. Suddenly the popular leader wasn't so popular. The great victory more a great memory.

Opponents who stood by him during the war, left him in droves after the war. They questioned the sacrifice. They questioned the cost. They questioned his leadership. His poll ratings at home dropped. His support abroad dropped even more.

Then they were back to talking about the economy and how bad it was. And how bad it was staying. How quickly the tide had turned.

Back then. Way back then, because I?m not talking "now" after a war called Iraq. I'm talking 1948, more than three years after a war called the big one, World War II.

And I?m not talking about a president named George W. Bush. I'm talking about a president named Harry Truman (search).
Click to expand...
linkage
Click to expand...

Neil Cavuto is an idiot.

Bush is no Harry Truman.

Truman was decorated for his actions fighting in France during WW I. Bush had daddy set up a stint in the Texas Air National Guard to avoid Viet Nam and then went AWOL from his post.

As a US Senator Truman won national respect for attacking companies involved in war profiteering. Bush is involved with companies with close ties to his administration helping them reap the windfall from his unnecessary war.

Truman was instrumental in creating NATO. He was devoted to the alliance and recognized its importance. Bush did more to destroy NATO in 2 years than the Soviets did in 50.

As Commander-In-Chief Truman took full responsibility for everything that happened in his administration. "The buck stops here" was Truman's motto. Bush, as he has all his life, is busy pointing fingers at anyone and everyone rather than take the responsibility for his own actions. With Bush it's always been "the buck stopped there."

Anyone who compares Bush with Truman is a fool. "Give 'em hell Harry" must be turning in his grave.

I wish President Truman was still alive. He'd tell Cavuto and Bush where to get off in his plain talking, no nonsense style. Not the fake county euphamisms of the patrician cowboy Bush.
 
Comparing Bush to Truman and the aftermath of Iraq to the aftermath of WWII must be a joke. I mean it should be a joke, right? To bad he's serious.
 
Man, look at you guys squirm. LOL. Not a single good retort either.

Anyway, I think this isn't so much a comparison of Truman to GW Bush (unless there's a secret paragraph you can only read if you're a registered liberal), but, rather, a view of that wishy washy segment of American society whose fickle convictions allow them to be railroaded both ways and why they, ultimatly, are not the indication of a successful or unsuccessful campaign.
 
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Man, look at you guys squirm. LOL. Not a single good retort either.

Anyway, I think this isn't so much a comparison of Truman to GW Bush (unless there's a secret paragraph you can only read if you're a registered liberal), but, rather, a view of that wishy washy segment of American society whose fickle convictions allow them to be railroaded both ways and why they, ultimatly, are not the indication of a successful or unsuccessful campaign.
Click to expand...

They only squirming I'm aware of is the squirming of the worms in the Bush administration.

The wormy fingers they are pointing. The wormy defections. The wormy excuses. All full of holes. Worm holes. Not the interstellar variety. The slimy variety. Worms may be good for a garden but the Bush worms are harmful.

PS Your failure to defend Bush as Truman (which is the implied point of this ridiculous article) is proof of the effectiveness of our "retort."

On the best day of his life Bush is no more than an alcoholic draft dodging AWOL rich kid who never had to take responsibility for anything in his life. Little wonder he's refusing to take any responsibility now.

Truman my A$$. He's just a useless wastrel frat boy playing cowboy-in-chief. At everyone else's expense.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Did he write the shortest article without a point or is this typical of FOX reporting?

On the other hand he could be making an argument that Bush needs to stay at war though term(s) for re-election, which is also typical of FOX reporting.
Click to expand...

This was one of his Common Sense segments of his show. This was probably the worst one I've seen. Obviously Bush is no Truman.
 
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Man, look at you guys squirm. LOL. Not a single good retort either.

Anyway, I think this isn't so much a comparison of Truman to GW Bush (unless there's a secret paragraph you can only read if you're a registered liberal), but, rather, a view of that wishy washy segment of American society whose fickle convictions allow them to be railroaded both ways and why they, ultimatly, are not the indication of a successful or unsuccessful campaign.
Click to expand...

They only squirming I'm aware of is the squirming of the worms in the Bush administration.

The wormy fingers they are pointing. The wormy defections. The wormy excuses. All full of holes. Worm holes. Not the interstellar variety. The slimy variety. Worms may be good for a garden but the Bush worms are harmful.

PS Your failure to defend Bush as Truman (which is the implied point of this ridiculous article) is proof of the effectiveness of our "retort."

On the best day of his life Bush is no more than an alcoholic draft dodging AWOL rich kid who never had to take responsibility for anything in his life. Little wonder he's refusing to take any responsibility now.

Truman my A$$. He's just a useless wastrel frat boy playing cowboy-in-chief. At everyone else's expense.
Click to expand...

And you continue to completely ignore the overriding point of the comparison, which is more between the time periods and public opinion than it is between the Presidents involved. Of course, you have no response to that comparison so you seize on something else entirely and run with it, to nowhere in particular. Keep it up -- it's amusing.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you think Dubya's situation in Iraq is similar tp Truman's in WW2? I don't believe the Dubya should be mentioned in the same breath as Truman.
Click to expand...

Ya the buck stops at Condi's desk not his.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahah. That's gold. 😀
 
I don't really see how anyone can compare WWII and Operation Iraqi Freedom. There's so many differences, I don't even know where to start...
 
First of the guy isn't comparing Bush to Truman. He is compare the aftermaths of two wars, GW2 and WW2. He is simply stating that both wars were popular at the start but when it came time to clean up and act responsible everybody had a different opinion about what should be done and how causing descention in the ranks / world. After everywar that there was a reconstruction there is a huge disagreement about how things are done this is common sense. Politicians get together say we have to fight this war let the generals decide how but the clean up everyone wants to put there 2cents in and everything gets fvcked up. Thats life live with it.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Did he write the shortest article without a point or is this typical of FOX reporting?

On the other hand he could be making an argument that Bush needs to stay at war though term(s) for re-election, which is also typical of FOX reporting.
Click to expand...

all the FOX bashing but honestly I have seen more reports show up here that were first seen on Fox than anywhere, IMHO there is an insider at the WH tipping them off but they stuil have consistently beaten even CNN on getting breaking news out...

and for those that cannot distinguish fact from opinion I understand your hatred of Fox, even if I think it's rather comical considering where the problem really lies...
 
I could see the similarity from my seat on the left 🙂
except of course WW2 is based 100% on legitimate reasons while Iraq war is based on 90% illegitimate excuse (the 10% is removing cruel dictator thus quite legit)...
yet the selfish behaviour of the Republican party that quickly oppose and criticize Trumman was not surprising as it has been consistently displayed until now, during the Clinton admin and now trying their best to defend the undefendable war...of course democrats ain't blameless too
I think they should at least try to help Bush with the current situation in Iraq and managing them, like offer their brain-power and talent that the Bush admin seemed to lack sorely especially at the top Pentagon position (of course the president himself retain the no.1 title)...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top