Blogs » rom12921's blog
rom12921

Bush bashers believe bunk

Posted 11 weeks 5 days ago by rom12921

With the Clinton speech about 4 more years of the last 8 years and the "hits" mentioned by Respectfulguest about Obama, it occurred to me that I see no comparison to the "hits" on foreign policy and the economy taken by President Bush.

I will admit I do not agree with the Bush foreign policy.  Pre-emptive strikes cannot be carried out consistently or logically. With limited intelligence and resources we simply cannot address every threat to U.S. interests abroad. Pre-emption would leave us the choice to pursue those we perceive, but cannot know, are most hostile to neighbors or the United States through terrorism and exhaust taxpayer resources in pursuing this strategy. I support the Constitutional definition "...provide for a common defense..."  which would include a defense from international terrorists, but would preclude occupation and reconstruction to the extent that now exists in Iraq. Pre-emption is a lose-lose.

However, some notions about the Bush Administration actions and motivations are just wrong. Those columnists and "Bush lied, people died" profiting from the idea should drop their poison partisan persecution (Al Gore defeated- get over it) and review the facts before trying to attached further fictional accounts to Senator McCain.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/who_lied_about_iraq.html

Economically, inflation is cyclical and the current cycle is a pattern beginning in the early 1900's. Certain fiscal policies can aggravate the condition, but this Bush bashing blame game seems to ignore the cyclical nature of the economy in favor of a politicized attack. 

 http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/Inflation_trends.asp

This is not a Rodney King plea, or a "play nice" request, or even a defense of President Bush (please criticize all you want. American soldiers have fought and died so you can).  It is an appeal to reason to try to encourage understanding of events that have happened to avoid prolonging the perpetual partisan plague of propanganda. Let's make sure the "hits" to Senator Obama or Senator McCain have some basis in the issues and reality.

  

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket

Thoughts

Clinton vs Sam Donaldson

Submitted on August 28th, 2008 by rom12921

"...not pre-emptive, but rather a culmination of non-compliance of UN Resolutions." Good point.

"...the Bush Administration does need held to account and deserves harsh criticism for miscalculating the task at hand and lack of planning for post-war Iraq." Indeed. The Administration has admitted as much.

I have not hear "Iraq" mentioned in coverage I have watched of the DNC. I've heard ambiguous assertions "mess" of last 8 yrs,etc. Why would the DNC acknowledge success in Iraq?

Senator Biden voted for use of force, then voted against funding the war at least once. What does he think our soldiers are supposed to do?

IMO PResident Bush has taken more "hits" unjustifiably than any President I've seen. I don't think President Clinton could have handled a Sam Donaldson type.

$.02

Submitted on August 28th, 2008 by Respectfulguest

In general I agree pre-emptive war is a "lose-lose".

The Bush Administration could make the case the decision to invade Iraq was not pre-emptive, but rather a culmination of non-compliance of UN Resolutions by the Iraqi Government. In short, Saddam had plenty of chances to comply, he did not and finally an Administration had the back-bone to do something about it.

Also as most Democrats and some Republicans bailed when things were not going well, the decision to use force against Iraq was overwhelmingly approved by the majority of both Democrat and Republican Politicians.

As for the "Bush lied, people died" and "no blood for oil" contingent... Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and most high profile dems all voted for the use of force or publicly stated the use of force was necessary in Iraq.

It is unfortunate with conditions in Iraq stabilizing, we no longer hear much about Iraq through the media. Even the DNC that is currently taking place has rarely mentioned Iraq (go figure?). One would think more attention should be given to the courageous men and women of our Armed Forces that are making this work, but since reporting any progress in Iraq is politically incorrect according to the DNC and most media outlets these contributions are mostly ignored.

Although conditions have improved, the Bush Administration does need held to account and deserves harsh criticism for miscalculating the task at hand and lack of planning for post-war Iraq. Lots of people to blame, but the buck stops at the Commander and Chief.

Regarding the economy, I agree economic conditions are rather cyclical in nature and Presidential Administrations are given too much credit in good times and too much blame in bad.

For example President Clinton rode the tech bubble right through the end of his term, shortly after, the tech bubble burst and then 9/11. Both events happened on President Bush's watch, but the tech bubble and 9/11 were in the making well before President Bush ever stepped into office.

Anyhow, my view with no propoganda intended, great topics Rom.