Bush had a successful 2007

thats kinda like saying hmm well i have killed thousands of people.
took away almost every liberty that the people have,.
I have made millions and probably billions of dollars.....soo
did I have a succesful 2007...i guess that depends on how you look at it huh?

-Bobby

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


I agree with you statement regarding the surge SAP.

The MSM has no intention of covering the progress being made. They have chosen to sweep it under the rug instead.

Just a few short months ago, many MSM outlets were trotting out any General with a chest full of accomodations who would speak out against the surge and the war as a whole.

Where are these people now. Thank God for Holloway, Hilton, Global Warming (?) and the mud slinging presidential primaries. Otherwise, they will need to take their shows down to thirty minutes.

Becker

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by Becker44

 

To me, what's most telling is the manor in which the MSM drum beat over Iraq has essentially vanished. The surge - against my personal belief - has worked/is working.

Overall, I think it's been a good year for him, despite the challenges.

While the surge has worked, why wasn't it done in the beginning, could of saved some lives?

Bush 2007 when compared to 2006 was better, but when your starting from a low level its easy to do better and by the way the economy is zooming, just ask Larry!

1929 around the corner?????

PS - Becker sorry to critique your fishing abilities!

reply to post by mel1962

While the surge has worked, why wasn't it done in the beginning, could of saved some lives?

Isn't that kind of like saying, "Hey, why didn't we drop the A-Bomb on day one and get the Japanese to surrender much sooner?"

Developments in a war merit varying tactics.

Just curious.

Becker

Is it not so that the best yardstick for the Presidency is not necessarily how well the President does, but how well the American people do?

After all Ronald Reagan asked us, "Are you better off today than four years ago?"

Originally posted by Becker44
reply to post by mel1962

 

While the surge has worked, why wasn't it done in the beginning, could of saved some lives?

Isn't that kind of like saying, "Hey, why didn't we drop the A-Bomb on day one and get the Japanese to surrender much sooner?"

Developments in a war merit varying tactics.

Just curious.

Becker

No, its more like when one of your top General tells you that your going to need the extra men to secure the peace before the invasion and instead of listening to him you fire him, claim victory and let the country explode into choas.

Than 4 years later after firing your defense secretery and numerous yes men generals, you finally realize you may have a legacy and better do something to stablize Iraq that you were told to do in the first place by military experts . . . I am . . . missing . . . something . . . I don't believe a troop surge has to be invented like an A-Bomb . . . IMHO!

reply to post by mel1962


I agree!

As a former soldier, I am 110% anti-war. If the time comes (and sometimes it does), I believe you go in with overwhelming force, lethality and destructiveness. Anything else is cruel. The quickest way to end the suffering is to get it over with as soon as possible and in such a way that the other guy never, ever wants to do it again.

Why, as you ask, did we wait? Why didn't we go in there with enough force to do the above plus have the capabilities to get post-surge results, without ever having to do a surge in the first place?!

Hope that makes sense.

Originally posted by DCP
fuel cost...supply and demand...tell your congressmen to drill in ANWR to increase the supply that will lower the price

One cannot ignore the war factor in the oil prices. Every time there is a war or a crisis, prices go up but almost never down. It's like a ratchet.

housing crash probably wouldn't have happened if the loan institutions didn't feel government pressure to lower loan standards

First time I hear about that...

illegal immigration unless you want bush to have the army put down some landmines it up to the congress to pass tougher laws and the judiciary to enforce them.

It's true that the congress reneged on this, but where is goddamn leadership from the President?

reply to post by mel1962


Mel,

Not trying to fire you up here. I've looked through you posting history and unfortunately I was unable to find any suggestions from you sharing this 20/20 hindsight concerning the surge.

If you were so certain this was the answer, I for one feel it would have been your patriotic duty to inform the rest of us.

You see, I'm just not a big fan of "Arm Chair Quarterbacking" It seems quite prevelant on the so called "left" side of the arguments. It's the ole' complain without a viable solution speak that really drives me crazy!

Becker

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Is it not so that the best yardstick for the Presidency is not necessarily how well the President does, but how well the American people do?

After all Ronald Reagan asked us, "Are you better off today than four years ago?"

Good Post, I guess as I look it as follows from a personal perspective, the first one is between 2000 and 2007 and the second is between 1993 and 2000:

myself
mom&dad
brother
sister-in-law1
sister-in-law2
cousin1
cousin2
cousin3
cousin4
friend1
friend2
friend3
friend4

The totals 1993 - 2000 12 up 1 down
2000 - 2007 6 up 7 down

I don't think I have to comment on the numbers, but it was an interesting excercise, thanks Skip!


[edit on 12/26/07 by mel1962]

[edit on 12/26/07 by mel1962]

[edit on 12/26/07 by mel1962]

reply to post by Becker44


Becker

no offense taken, I enjoy the debate!

I joined ATS after the war started, you will have to make my word for it, I wanted a full invasion of Iraq with 1/2 million men like the 1st Gulf War. I am not arm chair quarterbacking, my idea is that armies are for winning war's and war is the failure of politics, so when we go to war the politicians need to give the military all the men, materials and moral support . . . period!

By the way I am not a lefty, but slightly right of Pat Buchanan, who I believe has been one of the lone voices in the reckless direction of the once "conservative" republican party!


[edit on 12/26/07 by mel1962]

reply to post by mel1962


Well Mel, I threw you a star cause I like ya! Plus you've got the whole Jim Thorpe thing going on as well.

I like Pat B. He's a no nonsense guy. I bet we're in agreement that the U.S. desperately needs one thing....................

LEADERSHIP.

Becker

reply to post by Becker44


Ditto, Ditto and I enjoyed the debate, have a great New Year!

Originally posted by SkipShipman

After all Ronald Reagan asked us, "Are you better off today than four years ago?"

Oh Hail yeah!
..howbout yew? How do yew doo?

The housing bubble, like the savings and loans bubble was caused by deregulation allowing banks and mortagage companies to lower stardards to attract more business. The anti-regulation crowd either ignore history or hope others do... the same sort of schemes, but in the stock market as opposed to the housing market was one of the chief causes of the great depression...i.e. allowing people who didn't have the money to do so to by stock on credit... there were other factors as well but when that bubble burst the whole house of cards came crashing down.

reply to post by grover


Is that a Belgian Terv that you are using as your avatar? It looks like one.

reply to post by GKHaley


That is Grover Maxwell Underfoot the great, prince of dogs.... the SPCA told me he was Chow, border collie and pomerianian.... he's about 45 lbs, has a purple sploched tongue and a very curly tail and is all love. Somebody else suggested he was a kesiu (? spelling) hound from belgium as well.

reply to post by grover



LOL! That is quit a name. He looks like a good dog. He has some good breeds in his blood. Working dogs are the best. Especially herders.

Originally posted by grover
The economy sucks bub... Milk cost more than gas and that ain't cheap,

Grover, being a Milk drinker, I can tell you that its cost has been increasingly going up for the lasy 10 years or better.

So, wait. Credit is being given to Bush for another year without a terrorist attack?

Shouldn't that be taken as a given? Let's be honest here, wardrum rhetoric aside, we're not looking down the barrels of monthly 9/11-scale attacks... or even, well, attacks of any scale here.

Giving credit to Bush - or anyone, really - for the lack of terrorist attacks is like thanking the Pope for the sun coming back after an eclipse, or what have you.