W STAYS SILENT

[ABX]

What's the old saw about getting out of the way when your enemy is destroying himself.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Never, ever, EVER take the focus off the incompetent one in the White House.

Completely agree. As soon as W says something critical, the story changes to that. Just shut up and feel vindicated.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Because GWB got revenge on Hussein for his unsuccessful assassination attempt on his father's (GHWB)

That is not the only reason we took out Hussein, but I agree it a damn good one.  I respect the fact that Dubya is not acting like Carter has with each succeeding GOP President.  Dubya is sadly no longer President.  Obama was elected on a campaign to removing us from Iraq.  The American people don't want us there, anything Dubya could say won't change that.

10 years of freedom is still a blessing for those alive in Iraq.  They will need to fight for their future. 

IMO the reason we took out Hussein was to tell the Islamic fascists that if you attack the USA we will take you down, and we will take down your neighbor buddy as well and our people will cheer us on.  Whether the Iraqi people hold on to this chance doesn't change that message in response to 9/11.  That is IMO something worth the cost of US lives.

If Obama is unwilling to win the war then we should not be in Iraq.

[ABX]

That is not the only reason we took out Hussein, but I agree it a damn good one. 

Not to mention the legal justification that an attempted assassination of a national leader is considered an act of war.

[SPQR]

Leave him alone. Let him enjoy his retirement. Let Obama handle it.Its Obama's fault for an incoherent Middle Eastern policy

[SPQR]

Leave him alone. Let him enjoy his retirement. Let Obama handle it.Its Obama's fault for an incoherent Middle Eastern policy

Churchill had suffered a mild stroke while on holiday in the south of France in the summer of 1949. In June 1953, when he was 78, Churchill suffered a more severe stroke at 10 Downing Street.

[mrclose]

We criticize the left for being delusional but when someone criticizes our own delusions ...

Bush said immigration is important to pass because of a “broken system,” not to improve the Republican Party’s political standing among Latino voters.
(The 'system' has never been broken! The law, even under him was never enforced!)

He is on record(1999) as opposing the controversial Proposition 187 which would have barred illegal immigrants from state-supported benefits. 

And yes, Bush has been talking a lot.

Gay marriage?

President George W. Bush cautioned against criticizing gay couples, saying in an interview on “This Week” that you shouldn't judge others.

(Heck of a standing for a Christian)

You don't Judge the heart condition but you Do make necessary discernments as a Christian and homosexuality is wrong!

Next president?

Former President George W. Bush thinks his brother Jeb would make a great president and can provide some tips for his younger brother if he decides to run.

“Hey, Jeb, if you need some advice, give me a call,” Bush said in an interview airing Thursday with CNN’s Jake Tapper.

“I hope Jeb runs; I think he would be a great president,” the former president said of his brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

(No More Bush's!)

There will alway be some who will forever cling to their Bush fantasy scrapbook of regal imagery and style of personality over any substantive review of the Bush dynasty of faux conservatism. It's a pathological disorder much like liberalism.

Sorry but if you think that this is just ranting .. Oh well!

[sinkspur]

Pathological, huh?

OK.  One stupid pathological sonofabitch to another.

[DCPatriot]

George W. Bush is second only to Ronald Reagan in terms of being among the most positive, effective presidents in my adult lifetime.  That goes back to Kennedy.

NOTE:  We shouldn't kid ourselves that this faction of Al Qaeda is so brutal that "even the Taliban wanted nothing to do with them!"

Bullshit!   That's just a blatant effort to get 'us' to accept the Taliban.   These are one and the same....the same people who burned children alive because they happened to be attending school.

[Fishrrman]

Earlier in this thread, it was suggested that both G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney are "big picture" type of leadership guys.

So be it.

The only thing wrong is that in the time following the September 11th attacks, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, and certainly all their advisors, were looking at the -wrong- "picture".

As most of our "leaders" still do.

They figured they could go in with military power, overthrow or kill a leader or two, throw out the existing government and replace it with a new one ("elected" or not), and come out of that with something resembling "stability".

We're seeing how well that worked out, eh?

What neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Cheney (nor the rest of the power elites) could (or can) understand is that in dar el islam, whoever happens to be "sitting in the seat" at the moment isn't really the "leader" of those nations, and that the concept of "nations" (at least as -we- regard them) itself doesn't matter all that much.

The "leader" of those "nations" has been dead for 1400 years.
The "governments" over which they are ruled are inconsequential -- the true "operating system" of islamic nations was laid down in a book written by that guy who died 1400 years ago. There is no chance that they can be changed, because the book is recognized by the people who live in those nations as "un-changeable". It is what it is.

The countries have borders, but for all practical purposes, how life is going to be conducted in one nation of dar el islam doesn't vary much from the rest. That, too, is what it is.

And it's going to STAY that way, and grow worse, until The West wakes up and understands that if we wish to fundamentally (carefully chosen word) change dar el islam into a "dar" that resembles that of Western freedom, we're going to have to get rid of that book and free those populations from the thrall of that guy who has held them in his grip for fourteen centuries.

"That's impossible", you'll reply.
Very well. You're probably right.

But if that's the case, we'd better prepare ourselves for what's comin' down the pike.
Something that those "big picture" guys missed completely...

Hint: it's called "submission".

[Lando Lincoln]

GWB was under no such illusion.  He and his people knew the nature of these murderous, barbaric Seventh Century people.  We did the Afghanistan thing because it was necessary.  We chose Iraq because we knew it would be a killing field for these very folks you mention. 
Eliminating Saddam Hussein was a useful coincidence.  Everything about the landscape made it relatively easy to wage war in this killing field.  We killed a lot of them.  Not enough, as we know.  The Bush Doctrine was crystal clear.  You harbor these murderers, you are our enemy.  We will establish a presence in the Middle East and show you, Iraq, how to run a military and run your country.  High risk, high reward, to be sure.

Then we elected Obama. 

[Lando Lincoln]

Sorry for my staccato writing style.  Dogs are pestering me...

[Machiavelli]

I was not at all thrilled with GWB's domestic spending. He had no vetoes during his first term.

But he has class and decency and that counts a lot with me.

[Fishrrman]

Lando wrote above:
[[ The Bush Doctrine was crystal clear.  You harbor these murderers, you are our enemy...]]

But the problem with that "doctrine" is that it STILL has no meaningful application when dealing with dar el islam.

That "doctrine" assumes (see my post above) that if we get rid of the leaders "who are harboring the murderers", the problem is solved.
This cannot solve the problem with dar el islam, nor can it EVER solve it.

Do you remember "The Who"?
Did you ever listen to their greatest song, "Won't Get Fooled Again" ...??
Famous line from that song:
"Meet the new boss.... same as the old boss".

It doesn't matter how many "bosses" like Saddam we get rid of.
It doesn't even matter if we get rid of the taliban, or al qaeda.

Because, in dar el islam, they're not "the boss", nor have they ever been.

When you confront the reality of who "the boss" actually is, then -- and only then -- you will comprehend what needs to be done, if The West is to win this struggle.

I voted for Mr. Bush... twice.
I voted for his dad, too.

But I can state flat out that they didn't and don't comprehend what I just stated above.
(Aside: even if they did, they would never state as much publicly)

Until we have leaders in The West who do -- and until those WHOM they lead understand this as well -- the future of The West ain't lookin' all that good.