Why does anyone still support GW Bush?- Page 3

[kjklo]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:01am

Yes, there are still troops in Afghanistan, but I don't think it can be denied that the situation there was never properly stabilized. I would argue that opportunity was lost when the Bush administration became distracted with the Iraq adventure (misadventure).
Updated On: 1/15/07 at 11:01 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:03am

we were never going to deny them everything in afghanistan, but they are no longer in control of the government and while they have caves that they can call their own the fact is that most of afghanistan is free from their influence. we were not going to get bogged down in the kinda cave to cave fighting that caused the soviets to lose afghanistan, nor were we going to install an american regime. we kicked 'em out of the halls of power and stabilized the place.

but just destroying the taliban or al qaeda is not enough (which i agree we haven't done, but i don't think it was possible to do). it's like saying if we kill every member of the ku klux klan that we'll end racism.

a major change in policy had to happen and that change was iraq. have we f*cked it up after the fact? yes. was the aftermath poorly planned? heck yeah. was it the right thing to do? absolutely. is all lost there? no.

Updated On: 1/15/07 at 11:03 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:03am

More from 60 Minutes:


“You seem to be saying that you may have been wrong but you weren't dishonest,” Pelley remarks.

“Oh, absolutely. Everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction and there was an intelligence failure that we’re trying to address. But I was as surprised as anybody he didn't have them,” Bush tells Pelley.

“Instability in Iraq threatens the entire region,” Pelley remarks.

“If the government falls apart, it'll invite Iran into the Shia neighborhoods, Sunnis, Sunni extremists into the Sunni neighborhoods, Kurdish separatist movements,” Bush says.

Asked if it wasn't his administration that created the instability in Iraq, Bush says, "Our administration took care of a source of instability in Iraq. Envision a world in which Saddam Hussein was rushing for a nuclear weapon to compete against Iran. My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the correct decision in my judgment. He was a significant source of instability."

"It's much more unstable now, Mr. President," Pelley remarks.

"Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable. But the question is can we succeed. And I believe we can. Listen, I’d like to see stability, a unified Iraq. A young democracy will provide the stability we look for,” Bush says.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:05am

Papa--his naivete toward Islam and democracy is so stupid it's criminal. He killed over 3000 American soldiers because he doesn't understand middle-east politics.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:11am

sadly, Papa...we WILL go into Iran, we have no choice, and we'll probably screw that up, also...and somewhere in the Middle East or Europe will be nuked.....mark my words.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:20am

Aspiring to be a prophet and moderator of this board?

whoa, you are really ambitious for a person of such limitations.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:21am

depends on your definition of going "into iran." if you mean some kind of military action (bombing, missile attack, helicopter assault), i'd agree that it looks possible (i disagree that it's inevitable). if you mean an invasion (by invasion i mean a complete mechanized assault, not just spec ops raids inside iran's territorial integrity), i disagree.

whew, that's enough parentheticals.

somebody somewhere eventually will be nuked, i agree. but i don't think that there's any way to prevent that short of the human race unlearning how to use nuclear power.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:21am

The minute we found out they didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so.”

LOL! This guy is a total liar.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:41am

Last night, in what may be the defining surreal moment of 2007, Bush told 60 MINUTES he has an obligation to "educate" Americans about Iraq. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:54am

Maybe Bush and his pals need to be educated to the fact that we don't have a dictatorship here in the USA. He seems to be unaware of that fact.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 12:07pm

I'll say it till I'm blue in the face: Bush was stupid about Islam. Bush was stupid about Iraq. Bush is stupid about Iran.

Updated On: 1/15/07 at 12:07 PM

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 12:18pm

Sounds like the lyric to a bad Broadway ballad as sung by a pound puppy.

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 12:19pm

^ Sounds like a bad line to a bad play by a hateful writer.

Just sayin'.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 12:25pm

"""I'll say it till I'm blue in the face: Bush was stupid about Islam. Bush was stupid about Iraq. Bush us stupid about Iran."""

Since my comment was about the above statement made by another writer, I agree with your analysis.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 12:29pm

Hey look, guys, I made a doody! It's in the post above mine.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 4:59pm

Yes, a bad lyric from a Broadway flop...congratulations.

[mattnyc2]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 7:00pm

"Anyone who favors bringing the troops home now is in total agreement with the terrorists. (I know its inconvenient, but it is still true!)

Any person who opposes George bush's new strategy in Iraq has the terrorists in their corner."

Oh really? Because I don't want another single American soldier to lose their life I'm a terrorist? Because I don't want one more family to lose their son/daughter/mother/father/etc I'm a terrorist? Because I don't mind discussing politics with someone from the right as long as its calm, rational and without name calling I'm a terrorist.

Boy you best go back to school because you obviously don't know the definition of the word "terrorist"

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 7:02pm

HDT = #2

[jimnysf]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 7:29pm

Maybe they support Bush because if he's impeached, this is what we end up with....

[ComaBaby01]

Posted: 1/16/07 at 12:39am

good god thats scary.

manhunting will become legal.

"Maybe Bush and his pals need to be educated to the fact that we don't have a dictatorship here in the USA. He seems to be unaware of that fact."

amen.

one more step towards fascism.

[ggersten]

Posted: 1/16/07 at 10:42am

all I know is that W caved into one of AQ's primary goals - he's removed American troops from Saudi Arabia.
W also produced a great promotional spot for AQ during the campaign.
Richard Clarke testified and has stated numerous times the invasion of Iraq has been great for AQ.
Terrorism has been very very good politically for W.
And of course, this can't be the greatest threat ever to the US or a defining moment that requires all our resources, when W won't devote those resources (draft, tax increases to pay for it, overwhelming military strength).
W is like the drunk failed oilman he is - convinced that the next hole he drills will strike oil.
And then there are those who suspect W let OBL go at Tora Bora for a pledge to not attack on US soil.
So, who's with the terrorists?

[TAFKASP]

Posted: 1/16/07 at 4:44pm

...and why does anyone still think attacking Iraq was the right thing to do?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/16/07 at 8:00pm

According to the new Secrtary of Defece, it doesn't look like we "stabilized" Afghanistan much.

===

Defense Secretary Gates says Afghan attacks up
Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:13pm ET25
By Andrew Gray

KABUL (Reuters)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday insurgent attacks from Pakistan into Afghanistan were increasing, hours after Pakistan launched an air strike on a militant camp near its Afghan border, killing up to 20 people.

Violence in Afghanistan surged last year to its worst since 2001. While fighting has tailed off since winter set in, big clashes have been taking place in the south and east and U.S. and NATO forces expect a fresh Taliban offensive in the spring.

Thirteen Taliban were killed in clashes in the southern province of Helmand, where two British soldiers were killed in recent days, and Afghan authorities arrested an aide to Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar in a town on the Pakistani border.

As violence has increased in Afghanistan, pressure has mounted on Pakistan to tackle Taliban sanctuaries on its side of the lawless border, where its troops have also been battling militants.

Gates, while hailing Pakistan as "an extraordinarily strong ally" of the United States in the war on terrorism, said militancy on the Pakistani side of the border would have to be dealt with.

"There are more attacks coming across the border, there are al Qaeda networks operating on the Pakistan side of the border, and these are issues that we clearly will have to pursue with the Pakistani government," Gates told a news conference in Kabul.

The United States has about 22,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

[more at link]

Defense Secretary Gates says Afghan attacks up

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 1/16/07 at 9:45pm

Would you like for america to win the war on terror?

Do you believe that there is a global war on terror and Islamic-fascists?

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 1/16/07 at 10:09pm

"Why does anyone still support GW Bush?"

No. I don't think the Bush Administration even does.