The Republican National Convention (RNC)

[Beanz]

I only listened to Rand Paul. I thought it was an average speech. I may go find Christie's speech later. I think both of the main party candidate are ultimately the same and ruinous for us. Maybe Romney would get to pick a good Supreme Court nominee but that is about all I'd hold my breath for if he wins.

I disagree, my main concern is getting the economy back up and running, job creation and working down the national debt. Obama had a chance do try and do this the past four years, and hasn't done shit, why should we believe he will in another 4 years. For me the choice is easy, with Romney and Ryan there's leadership and hope, with Obama we're headed for a huge economic disaster/recession, and a welfare state.
Everyone i'm talking to here in Texas wants Obama out, I think he'll be a 1 term president.

Romney is basically going to repeat the policies that led to the 2008 meltdown so how is he going to make things better, cut the deficit etc. ?

How is Obama going to make things much worse than they are now if he wins again?

The "2008 meltdown" of the economy wasn't all the fault of Bush and the Republicans, the Dems had a majority in congress at the time, so blaming it all on the Republicans or even most of it, is bullshit. And remember that little thing called 9/11? That, and the subsequent economy draining military defense of the U.S. was a big factor, 2 wars that were supported by the Dems at the time.

Tell you what, you can bash Bush, but I don't even want to think about a fucking Clown like Obama being the president/CIC during 9/11.

How did the Democrats having a majority in congress have anything to do with the 2008 meltdown? Or the government spending money on 9/11 and various wars?

How did Bush do a good job on 9/11? After hearing the country was under attack he sat and listened to a schoolkid reading a kid's book for half an hour. Then he got in his plane and flew off to Nebraska where he hid in the side of a mountain for a few days while Giuliani took chage in NY.

Sounds like you've been reading a lot of liberal media propaganda, Bush was back in the fucking Whitehouse a day or 2 after the attack, he wasn't "hiding" anywhere asshole, he was in a command post with his advisers.

BTW, Are you an American Kirkland?

I think Kirk f*ucked up on that one. Bush didn't go into hiding in Nebraska. That's ludicrous.

HOWEVER..... I didn't get any responses regarding Bush's "masterplan" WMD fiasco. He gets a huge "F" on that one, don't you think? I'm not ready to give Bush much credit for his handling of the 9/11 crisis. Any President would've handled it more or less the same. What Bush DID manage to do, however, was PISS AWAY any and all the goodwill he got for free from U.S. allies, by his ineptitude in the months and years after 9/11.

I look at it this way: Bush was a crappy President to begin with. He managed to ride the public and global outcry over 9/11 to vastly improved approval ratings, by doing what most any other President would've done. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know you have to respond with some type of force against a terrorist attack such as that. But what separates Bush from good Presidents, is that good Presidents would've used that support to his advantage, and continued the momentum going, especially at the global level. Bush was handed the keys to a Ferrari..... took it around the block for awhile..... and then smashed into the first light pole he could find.

Light pole? We call them lamp -posts.

[TitoFan]

I only listened to Rand Paul. I thought it was an average speech. I may go find Christie's speech later. I think both of the main party candidate are ultimately the same and ruinous for us. Maybe Romney would get to pick a good Supreme Court nominee but that is about all I'd hold my breath for if he wins.

I disagree, my main concern is getting the economy back up and running, job creation and working down the national debt. Obama had a chance do try and do this the past four years, and hasn't done shit, why should we believe he will in another 4 years. For me the choice is easy, with Romney and Ryan there's leadership and hope, with Obama we're headed for a huge economic disaster/recession, and a welfare state.
Everyone i'm talking to here in Texas wants Obama out, I think he'll be a 1 term president.

Romney is basically going to repeat the policies that led to the 2008 meltdown so how is he going to make things better, cut the deficit etc. ?

How is Obama going to make things much worse than they are now if he wins again?

The "2008 meltdown" of the economy wasn't all the fault of Bush and the Republicans, the Dems had a majority in congress at the time, so blaming it all on the Republicans or even most of it, is bullshit. And remember that little thing called 9/11? That, and the subsequent economy draining military defense of the U.S. was a big factor, 2 wars that were supported by the Dems at the time.

Tell you what, you can bash Bush, but I don't even want to think about a fucking Clown like Obama being the president/CIC during 9/11.

How did the Democrats having a majority in congress have anything to do with the 2008 meltdown? Or the government spending money on 9/11 and various wars?

How did Bush do a good job on 9/11? After hearing the country was under attack he sat and listened to a schoolkid reading a kid's book for half an hour. Then he got in his plane and flew off to Nebraska where he hid in the side of a mountain for a few days while Giuliani took chage in NY.

Sounds like you've been reading a lot of liberal media propaganda, Bush was back in the fucking Whitehouse a day or 2 after the attack, he wasn't "hiding" anywhere asshole, he was in a command post with his advisers.

BTW, Are you an American Kirkland?

I think Kirk f*ucked up on that one. Bush didn't go into hiding in Nebraska. That's ludicrous.

HOWEVER..... I didn't get any responses regarding Bush's "masterplan" WMD fiasco. He gets a huge "F" on that one, don't you think? I'm not ready to give Bush much credit for his handling of the 9/11 crisis. Any President would've handled it more or less the same. What Bush DID manage to do, however, was PISS AWAY any and all the goodwill he got for free from U.S. allies, by his ineptitude in the months and years after 9/11.

I look at it this way: Bush was a crappy President to begin with. He managed to ride the public and global outcry over 9/11 to vastly improved approval ratings, by doing what most any other President would've done. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know you have to respond with some type of force against a terrorist attack such as that. But what separates Bush from good Presidents, is that good Presidents would've used that support to his advantage, and continued the momentum going, especially at the global level. Bush was handed the keys to a Ferrari..... took it around the block for awhile..... and then smashed into the first light pole he could find.

Light pole? We call them lamp -posts.

Go figure...

[Mars_ax]

I've met and shook hands with Bush and spoke with his wife Laura several times when he was Governor of Texas. I liked them both just fine then and still do. To be honest, I take offense at all the Bush bashing that goes on, much of which, isn't factual or fair.

Bush will be the 1st to tell you that he made mistakes when he was President, but he was put in a no win situation after 9/11. Some of you haters and critics might remember the old saying: "walk a mile in my shoes". There's 2 sides to every story, and i'm convinced that Bush did the best he could do at the time, and to blame him for every bad thing that happened during his Presidency is simply ridiculous.

[TitoFan]

George and Laura Bush may very well be nice people and all that. But there's a world of difference between being a nice guy and being a good President. Kirk's point on his "hiding" after 9/11 is stupid. Being in Nebraska or going to the White House, no one doubts that Bush was taking the events of 9/11 seriously. My point continues being that Bush squandered a golden opportunity to gain valuable, permanent diplomatic ground in the months and years after the attacks. His WMD fiasco, which still hasn't been responded to by any of the forum's known Bush supporters (yourself, Lyle, VictorCharlie).... was laughable and ridiculous. A skillful President at foreign affairs would've gotten 10 times the mileage out of 9/11 than Bush did. We're not in the Cold War years anymore, where it was just the U.S. and the USSR, and the rest of the world didn't matter. It's a bit more complicated now.

[Kirkland Laing]

George and Laura Bush may very well be nice people and all that. But there's a world of difference between being a nice guy and being a good President. Kirk's point on his "hiding" after 9/11 is stupid. Being in Nebraska or going to the White House, no one doubts that Bush was taking the events of 9/11 seriously. My point continues being that Bush squandered a golden opportunity to gain valuable, permanent diplomatic ground in the months and years after the attacks. His WMD fiasco, which still hasn't been responded to by any of the forum's known Bush supporters (yourself, Lyle, VictorCharlie).... was laughable and ridiculous. A skillful President at foreign affairs would've gotten 10 times the mileage out of 9/11 than Bush did. We're not in the Cold War years anymore, where it was just the U.S. and the USSR, and the rest of the world didn't matter. It's a bit more complicated now.

I'm not saying he didn't take the events of 9/11 seriously, I'm just saying he took them seriously from a safe distance. Giuliani was running the show until Bush eventually turned up for a stage-managed event with his bullhorn.

[Kirkland Laing]

Also, too, what do you mean when you say Bush "quandered a golden opportunity to gain valuable, permanent diplomatic ground in the months and years after the attacks." ?

[TitoFan]

Also, too, what do you mean when you say Bush "quandered a golden opportunity to gain valuable, permanent diplomatic ground in the months and years after the attacks." ?

After 9/11, even traditional U.S. enemies (or non-sympathizers) were totally lined up with the U.S. against Al-Qaeda and the forces of global terrorism. Bush's popularity at home reached record highs, and for the time being was not as despised abroad as usual. But his ill-aimed policies eroded any momentum he should've had after 9/11. You've already seen (and probably posted) Bush's atrocious approval ratings at home during his administration. Now see how he was viewed abroad during his term.


Global Public Opinion in the Bush Years (2001-200 | Pew Global Attitudes Project


Bush did himself no favors by insisting on the WMD campaign when it became painfully aware to everyone (here and abroad) that he was on a silly wild goose chase. He went to great lengths making airport terminals safer (albeit with a lot of inconveniences suffered by air travelers)..... but neglected to make the airplanes themselves safer. Tell me..... how is it that you cannot take a nail clipper on board, but the door to the cockpit is still as vulnerable as before? And why aren't there armed marshalls aboard every flight, like they reportedly do in Israel?

But globally, Bush was held in the same disdain toward the end of his term as he was before 9/11. If that's not squandering a golden chance to galvanize global opinion in his favor, I don't know what is.

[TitoFan]

George and Laura Bush may very well be nice people and all that. But there's a world of difference between being a nice guy and being a good President. Kirk's point on his "hiding" after 9/11 is stupid. Being in Nebraska or going to the White House, no one doubts that Bush was taking the events of 9/11 seriously. My point continues being that Bush squandered a golden opportunity to gain valuable, permanent diplomatic ground in the months and years after the attacks. His WMD fiasco, which still hasn't been responded to by any of the forum's known Bush supporters (yourself, Lyle, VictorCharlie).... was laughable and ridiculous. A skillful President at foreign affairs would've gotten 10 times the mileage out of 9/11 than Bush did. We're not in the Cold War years anymore, where it was just the U.S. and the USSR, and the rest of the world didn't matter. It's a bit more complicated now.

I'm not saying he didn't take the events of 9/11 seriously, I'm just saying he took them seriously from a safe distance. Giuliani was running the show until Bush eventually turned up for a stage-managed event with his bullhorn.

I'm sure we agree that was out of his hands. The Secret Service wasn't going to let the President board a plane and head to either the White House OR New York City, when it was still unclear whether any further attacks were planned. My own point is that Bush responded to 9/11 as much any other President would have. It's a carefully rehearsed script aimed at effective response to any national emergency. Which is why IMO Bush gets neither kudos or "demerits" for his own response. My point is Bush's continued response after the immediate events had passed. That's where his ineptitude began showing once again.

[Mars_ax]

George and Laura Bush may very well be nice people and all that. But there's a world of difference between being a nice guy and being a good President. Kirk's point on his "hiding" after 9/11 is stupid. Being in Nebraska or going to the White House, no one doubts that Bush was taking the events of 9/11 seriously. My point continues being that Bush squandered a golden opportunity to gain valuable, permanent diplomatic ground in the months and years after the attacks. His WMD fiasco, which still hasn't been responded to by any of the forum's known Bush supporters (yourself, Lyle, VictorCharlie).... was laughable and ridiculous. A skillful President at foreign affairs would've gotten 10 times the mileage out of 9/11 than Bush did. We're not in the Cold War years anymore, where it was just the U.S. and the USSR, and the rest of the world didn't matter. It's a bit more complicated now.

Why do you do you think me, Lyle, and VictorCharlie are "Bush supporters"? All I try to do is get some of you Bush bashers/haters to get your facts straight, it's not about "defending" or supporting Bush.
For what it's worth, at that time Bush was told by trusted military and intelligence advisers, that Iraq might either have nuclear weapons or was in the process of making them, much like Iran is now. (remember the climate of the times, this wasn't long after 9/11) It wasn't really hard to believe that Saddam might either have or was in the process of building nukes. If you want to believe that Bush used this as an excuse to wage an "illegal" war with Iraq & Saddam, and that Bush is a fucking "war criminal" fine, I for one don't.

[Mars_ax]

P.S. some of you blithering idiots still believe Bush planned 9/11 with Bin Laden. Bush's biggest fault: he's a wealthy/privileged 'white' male, and an evil conservative/republican.

[VictorCharlie]

Tito,

When have I posted in support of President Bush for much of anything? In fact I think where I break from most people on this forum is showing the across the board similarities of Obama's and Bush's policies and how they are horrible.

[TitoFan]

P.S. some of you blithering idiots still believe Bush planned 9/11 with Bin Laden. Bush's biggest fault: he's a wealthy white male, and an evil conservative/republican.

Has someone here claimed that??