DescentBB

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:59 am**

\"Bush sorry over Berlusconi insult\"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7495754.stm

Okay all you that pilloried Obama for letting is staff manipulate a couple of muslim women for a photo-op
viewtopic.php?t=14071
now let's see you have a go at W. Bush for letting his staff insult a world leader. I guess it shows just how unsuited for high office that man really is, doesn't it?

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:13 am**

Do you think Bush sits in staff meetings and helps outline strategies to insult the Italian prime minister as a matter of strategy? I don't think that is what happened. I think someone made a mistake.

I know Obama claims to be Muslim friendly, and I do think Obama sat in on campaign meetings where the strategy for projecting his image was outlined and he was told he needs to avoid appearing too Muslim.

So although Bush needs to take the hit for what his staff did, the comparison you make doesn't quite work for me.

On Bush's part he's guilty of an insult, somebody cut and pasted some text that would best be left out...lazy workmanship.

On Obama's part he not only insulted the Muslims but it was purposeful and it exposed his lack of leadership and principles on matters of bigotry.

For me Bush's staff's mistake isn't a reflection of his character where as Obama's act is a reflection of his.

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:29 am**

Difference here is Bush will only be in office for another 7 months. Mistake at this stage are, well, unimportant.

Obama on the other hand is a potential upcoming leader of our country. Obama's (and McCain's) character short comings are important to know for who we will vote into office.

Apples and oranges.

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:38 am**

I think we already deduced enough that Bush was a bad president.

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:45 am**

TIGERassault wrote:I think we already deduced enough that Bush was a bad president.

Compared to what President that was good?

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:41 pm**

TIGERassault wrote:I think we already deduced enough that Bush was a bad president.

Spoken like a true American.

Whoops thats right you dont qualify

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:26 pm**

CUDA wrote:
TIGERassault wrote:I think we already deduced enough that Bush was a bad president.
Spoken like a true American.

Whoops thats right you dont qualify

He is not American, he is from Ireland. He just likes to think he is.

Edited: OPPS - Forgot to scroll down

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:50 pm**

woodchip wrote:
TIGERassault wrote:I think we already deduced enough that Bush was a bad president.
Compared to what President that was good?

George Washington? He was a bit old fashioned, but at least he refused to be elected for a third term.

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:18 pm**

Ford Prefect wrote:"Bush sorry over Berlusconi insult"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7495754.stm

Okay all you that pilloried Obama for letting is staff manipulate a couple of muslim women for a photo-op
viewtopic.php?t=14071
now let's see you have a go at W. Bush for letting his staff insult a world leader. I guess it shows just how unsuited for high office that man really is, doesn't it?

The man's totally innocent. He was set up by the CIA, Aliens, Canada, and the Democratic national convention. Bastards were just waiting for their chance!

Actually I don't know much about Italy. Is the article about their president true?

What could he hope to accomplish if this were purposeful?

Will Robinson wrote:Do you think Bush sits in staff meetings and helps outline strategies to insult the Italian prime minister as a matter of strategy? I don't think that is what happened. I think someone made a mistake.

X2

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:55 pm**

As usual I'll fall back on music.
Arlo Guthrie to be exact:

Nobody elected your family,
and we didn't elect your friends,
no one voted for your advisers,
and nobody wants amends,
You're the one we voted for, so you must take the blame,
For handing out authority to men who are insane

He was writing about Trickie Dickie but then it should apply to all politicians shouldn't it.

Posted: **Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:28 pm**

Trickie Dickie was the MAN!!

Posted: **Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:43 am**

woodchip wrote:
TIGERassault wrote:I think we already deduced enough that Bush was a bad president.
Compared to what President that was good?

Just about all American presidents other than Nixon were better than he is.

Cuda68 wrote:He is not American, he is from Ireland. He just likes to think he is.

This is an American forum, any threads about countries without a relationship to the US generally don't get attention.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Actually I don't know much about Italy. Is the article about their president true? What could he hope to accomplish if this were purposeful?

From what I have heard of him, it's partly true. He does indeed have a considerable influence over Italian media, and he is hated by many mostly because of his tendency to use very controversial jokes. But he wasn't necessarily a bad Prime Minister. For example, he managed to reduce accidents caused by driving by 15% (lethal accidents caused by driving reduced by about 20%) and introduced a ban on smoking in public buildings.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:04 am**

Governing Italy is like making a pile of water or herding cats. Takes an unusual set of abilities to make anything work at all.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:42 am**

TIGERassault wrote:
woodchip wrote:
TIGERassault wrote:I think we already deduced enough that Bush was a bad president.
Compared to what President that was good?
Just about all American presidents other than Nixon were better than he is.

Really? Care to give some sort of yardstick to measure good from bad?

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:22 am**

TIGERassault wrote:
woodchip wrote:
TIGERassault wrote:I think we already deduced enough that Bush was a bad president.
Compared to what President that was good?
Just about all American presidents other than Nixon were better than he is.

well you obviously know little or nothing about the Nixon presidency then do you. maybe you should read up on the Carter presidency for starters

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:19 pm**

I know how to herd cats…Pssss Pssss Psssss…”CAT NIP”

I also know how to pile water…

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:22 pm**

Change your name to Spidiro and run for Parliament in Italy. They need the help.

Actually other than his disastrous war policy the Nixon presidency was not so bad. He was a venal, foul mouthed, egocentric,petty minded, crook. But that didn't mean he didn't know when to kiss some Chinese butt.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:28 pm**

I know, the nerve of that guy, to actually try and win the Vietnam war.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:50 pm**

And the nerve of JFK to first get us involved in Vietnam.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:19 pm**

woodchip wrote:And the nerve of JFK to first get us involved in Vietnam.

Could not have been JFK, he was a Democrat. They don't start wars, only war mongering Republicans do that.

Harry S. Truman, a Democrat, ordered the twin nuclear strikes against Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Dang Republicans are sneaky blaming the Democrats.

Posted: **Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:17 pm**

I think you need to hang that albatross more on Johnson than JFK. Things were a pretty low level until LBJ fell for that whole Gulf of Tonkin scam.

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:43 am**

fell for???

whoops my bad, that's right only Republicans orchestrate the kind of things like 9/11, a Democrat would NEVER do such a thing

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:53 am**

Low level or not, without JFK getting the ball rolling, there might not of been a Gulf of Tonkin.

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:45 pm**

Come on! There is a huge difference between arming and training the forces of a nation and sending your troops into combat. The troops into combat was Johnson.
\"Fell for\" because the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in the form that Pres. Johnson felt forced him into war against North Vietnam never happened. The incident was blown out of all proportion by the CIA and others, the actual events were \"miss-reported\" (read he was lied to) to make it seem like there had been a major aggressive action against U.S. ships in international or South Vietnam waters.
Read about your history.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCH ... ONKIN.html
http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=cold ... ccured.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

n 2005, it was revealed in an official NSA declassified report[2] that the USS Maddox first fired warning shots on the August 2 incident and that there may not have been North Vietnamese boats at the August 4 incident. The report said

t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on 2 August.

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:51 pm**

Ford Prefect wrote:Come on! There is a huge difference between arming and training the forces of a nation and sending your troops into combat. The troops into combat was Johnson.
"Fell for" because the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in the form that Pres. Johnson felt forced him into war against North Vietnam never happened. The incident was blown out of all proportion by the CIA and others, the actual events were "miss-reported" (read he was lied to) to make it seem like there had been a major aggressive action against U.S. ships in international or South Vietnam waters.
Read about your history.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCH ... ONKIN.html
http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=cold ... ccured.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
n 2005, it was revealed in an official NSA declassified report[2] that the USS Maddox first fired warning shots on the August 2 incident and that there may not have been North Vietnamese boats at the August 4 incident. The report said

t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on 2 August.

And do you believe Johnson didnt know about this????

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:01 pm**

Well that's a good question. I have read in other papers and books that Johnson believed the reports he was given. At one point he said something like \"Our boys are swimming in the waters of the Gulf\" while listening to the reports \"live\". For sure he was so deeply troubled by the mounting war in Vietnam that it is widely quoted as the reason he would not stand for election as president. He never did seem to come to terms with the war, never could decide if it was right or not, never could decide if he should have condemned so many troops to die for their country so far from home.

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:33 pm**

Johnson was a Democrat also.

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:42 pm**

Johnson had a shameful term, not only did he escalate the war, but then bailed on his re-election because of the heat. (leaving the mess to the next prez) Please don’t say the same thing about bush, as I’m sure he would be happy to reside over the entire war on terror. (and take the heat like a man)

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:10 pm**

Ford Prefect wrote:....The incident was blown out of all proportion by the CIA and others, the actual events were "miss-reported" (read he was lied to) to make it seem like there had been a major aggressive action against U.S. ships in international or South Vietnam waters....

"Lied to" or given what he asked for?
It looks like Johnson wanted his intel to support his going to war:

The Hanyok article stated that intelligence information was presented to the Johnson administration "in such a manner as to preclude responsible decisionmakers in the Johnson administration from having the complete and objective narrative of events." Instead, "only information that supported the claim that the communists had attacked the two destroyers was given to Johnson administration officials." [20]

With regards to why this happened, Hanyok wrote:

As much as anything else, it was an awareness that President Johnson would brook no uncertainty that could undermine his position. Faced with this attitude, Ray Cline was quoted as saying "... we knew it was bum dope that we were getting from Seventh Fleet, but we were told only to give facts with no elaboration on the nature of the evidence. Everyone know how volatile LBJ was. He did not like to deal with uncertainties."

I'll bet no president has ever gone to war without a nudge, nudge, wink wink session where the understanding was made clear that the evidence shall support the decision....

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:36 pm**

\"Lied to\" or given what he asked for?
It looks like Johnson wanted his intel to support his going to war.

Yeah, you may be right. Just like W. and the phantom WMD. Politicians, like most people, tend to believe the most what they want most to hear.

Posted: **Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:57 pm**

Ford Prefect wrote:
"Lied to" or given what he asked for?
It looks like Johnson wanted his intel to support his going to war.
Yeah, you may be right. Just like W. and the phantom WMD. Politicians, like most people, tend to believe the most what they want most to hear.

Except Sodom admitted he had them and dared us to come get them. Turns out he bluffed. HA HA HA - boy did he make a bad move.

Posted: **Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:08 am**

Did this thread turn into a large Republican Party meeting or what!

Posted: **Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:24 am**

Dakatsu wrote:Did this thread turn into a large Republican Party meeting or what!

I thought it started out that way myself. Bush bashers vrs Obama bashers

Posted: **Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:12 am**

Ford Prefect wrote:
"Lied to" or given what he asked for?
It looks like Johnson wanted his intel to support his going to war.
Yeah, you may be right. Just like W. and the phantom WMD. Politicians, like most people, tend to believe the most what they want most to hear.

I think that's a fair comparison but I think Bush believed he would find more of a smoking gun than he did. Everyone knew Saddam had used WMD's and was trying to build/buy more of them. At the time it would have been foolish to say he didn't have anything.

In both instances the relevant question is, was military intervention worth it?
I believe in the case of Viet Nam it was definitely not worth it. Even if we had gone at it unhampered and just stormed the whole region wiping out the enemy the end result would have been...what?

In Iraq we definitely stopped Saddam from having WMD's but if that is the only thing we end up accomplishing it was just as stupid as war in VietNam!
The jury is still out on the total end result of the Iraq phase of the War on Terror.

Posted: **Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:31 am**

The jury is still out on the total end result of the Iraq phase of the War on Terror.

Yep. Very much so.

Tough for me to vote Republican or Democrat here in Canada. Oh wait we do have the New Democratic Party
http://www.ndp.ca/node/18
Oops no, those guys would be put in prison in the U.S. as communists.

Posted: **Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:26 pm**

Cuda68 wrote:
Dakatsu wrote:Did this thread turn into a large Republican Party meeting or what!
I thought it started out that way myself. Bush bashers vrs Obama bashers

Where does that leave the people who bash both of 'em? I'm not being pessimistic but I really don't care for either Bush or Obama. Of course, this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in '04.

DescentBB

So what does this say about Pres. Bush?

So what does this say about Pres. Bush?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: So what does this say about Pres. Bush?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: