EPTFound that on Digg.com. What the hell happened to bush in the process? I understand you got to promote yourself on those debates, but he's done exactly the opposite of what he's preaching.
Is This Bush?!
| Blogs > MeriaDoKk |
|
MeriaDoKk
Chile1726 Posts
Found that on Digg.com. What the hell happened to bush in the process? I understand you got to promote yourself on those debates, but he's done exactly the opposite of what he's preaching. | ||
|
stanley_
United States816 Posts
| ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
omfg... omfg hahahaha life would've been better if he'd kept those values oh WAIT a second, those are the shit he's saying in his campaign, obviously it'll be different. | ||
|
tec27
United States3702 Posts
On January 05 2009 18:23 stanley_ wrote: 911 and bush became a puppet pretty much afterward. Unfortunately thats not really the case. Bush pretty much abandoned everything he campaigned on the minute he stepped into office. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
For example, in 1999/2000 or so, I remember reading an article warning about Al-Queda's growing capacity to attack, claiming that they needed to be aggressively routed out, otherwise a large-scale terrorist attack would be likely. I believe the phrase used was "Bin Laden needs to meet he business end of a B-52 bomber." In hindsight, this would seem insightful premonition. But that was from the pages of Soldier of Fortune (or something similar) almost 10 years ago. That proactive-speak was considered war-monger right-wing drivel. In this 2000 campaigning, he's trying to appeal to Year 2000 moderates and left-of-centers. All those alignments have shifted since then. This hindsight comparison is as stupid as eating tortilla chips after chewing on a lemon ("ouch"). | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
 | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On January 05 2009 19:16 HeadBangaa wrote: Most of you are probably too young to remember the political climate pre-911. For example, in 1999/2000 or so, I remember reading an article warning about Al-Queda's growing capacity to attack, claiming that they needed to be aggressively routed out, otherwise a large-scale terrorist attack would be likely. I believe the phrase used was "Bin Laden needs to meet he business end of a B-52 bomber." In hindsight, this would seem insightful premonition. But that was from the pages of Soldier of Fortune (or something similar) almost 10 years ago. That proactive-speak was considered war-monger right-wing drivel. In this 2000 campaigning, he's trying to appeal to Year 2000 moderates and left-of-centers. All those alignments have shifted since then. This hindsight comparison is as stupid as eating tortilla chips after chewing on a lemon ("ouch"). Going after terrorists is one thing, but blatantly lying in order to invade iraq is inexcusable and shows that he was lying in the video above about being against nation building, which is exactly what he is doing in iraq. He went from weapons of mass destruction (ploy) to the reason being spreading democracy and freedom. His words, not mine. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On January 05 2009 21:15 fight_or_flight wrote: Going after terrorists is one thing, but blatantly lying in order to invade iraq is inexcusable and shows that he was lying in the video above about being against nation building, which is exactly what he is doing in iraq. He went from weapons of mass destruction (ploy) to the reason being spreading democracy and freedom. His words, not mine. Firstly, nothing you said contradicts me. You aren't responding to my post in the appropriate scope. I am speaking about the attitude shift. We puffed out our chests a bit. "Fuck terrorists!" The US took a more aggressive foreign policy stance in general. USA patriotism became vogue again; you no longer had to be a Reagan-era Republican to waive an American flag. What we Americans defined as "common sense" fundamentally shifted rightwards. As time passes, we are sliding back left in our rationale, scorning the reactionary attitudes most ALL of us experienced for individually-varying amounts of time immediately following the 9/11 attacks. And secondly, you are being intellectually dishonest by misrepresenting intent. Bad intelligence =/= "blatant lying" I'm not saying it wasn't a blunder, but, why criticize what is a clearly successful operation? Why not acknowledge that the operation that never-should-have-been has turned out pretty well? Iraq is looking pretty good and seems well on its way to legitimate rationale sovereignty. For the first time. | ||
|
Zeller
United States1109 Posts
| ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On January 05 2009 22:20 HeadBangaa wrote: Firstly, nothing you said contradicts me. You aren't responding to my post in the appropriate scope. I am speaking about the attitude shift. We puffed out our chests a bit. "Fuck terrorists!" The US took a more aggressive foreign policy stance in general. USA patriotism became vogue again; you no longer had to be a Reagan-era Republican to waive an American flag. What we Americans defined as "common sense" fundamentally shifted rightwards. As time passes, we are sliding back left in our rationale, scorning the reactionary attitudes most ALL of us experienced for individually-varying amounts of time immediately following the 9/11 attacks. And secondly, you are being intellectually dishonest by misrepresenting intent. Bad intelligence =/= "blatant lying" I'm not saying it wasn't a blunder. I guess we don't disagree then, except perhaps on the "level" of bad intelligence. On January 05 2009 22:20 HeadBangaa wrote: why criticize what is a clearly successful operation? Why not acknowledge that the operation that never-should-have-been has turned out pretty well? Iraq is looking pretty good and seems well on its way to legitimate rationale sovereignty. For the first time. Too many dead iraqis, and too much money spent for my tastes. Hopefully iraq will turn out well and we will be able to leave. | ||
|
prOxi.Beater
Denmark626 Posts
| ||
|
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
 | ||
|
naonao
United States847 Posts
| ||
|
InfeSteD
United States4658 Posts
On January 06 2009 00:26 naonao wrote: Presidents always lie when their running, making tons of false promises that can never be fulfilled, anything so that the masses will vote for them. After the election, most people will forgot the majority of their promises and they will do whatever they want. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
| ||
|
Raithed
China7078 Posts
| ||
|
MER
Bulgaria125 Posts
lol. sounds funny, but unfortunately lots of ppl had to suffer for this. | ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
He got manipulated by a lot of people, he probably actually tried to be a good president, but he just lacked the intelligence and character to do so. And so, just because this man is weak, hundreds of thousands had to die... What a funny place the world is. | ||
| ||
