The republican talking point that began right away was that Putin would never had moved into the Ukraine under Bush. Considering Putin had no problem moving into and claiming part of Georgia, it sheds light on the motivations of said talking point. One could only imagine if it had been Obama that had gazed into Putin's eyes and saw his spiritual brother?
Last Sunday I watched Face the Nation host a whole slew of republicans with variations of the same talking point. It was surreal seeing Charlie Rose ask Cheney of all people about the President's credibility. Trying to generalize the media as carrying water for Obama is obviously and demonstratively untrue.
Putting aside for a moment whether or not the media is in the tank for Obama on this one, how would address WB's other, more relevant, point:
We are already beyond that in Ukraine. Bush flew back combat-tested Ukrainian soldiers to Georgia, and that is the point that Russia halted its advance. The U.S. took other supportive measures to back Georgia short of all-out war, as Cheney has said in interviews in recent weeks.
But as I said, Bush overall took a firm military/diplomatic stance in his 8 years, and it was only when he was leaving as president that Russia ventured into military action. Even so, Bush implemented policies that halted Russian advance, short of taking fuerther territory in Georgia.
If WB is accurate, that would seem to demonstrate that Bush handled a similar crisis with Russia better than Obama.
It is accurate. I watched Karl Rove repeat what several other pundits have said on Bush's actions during the August 2008 crisis in Georgia. The Russians were expanding beyond South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and after Bush air-transported Georgian battle-hardened troops back to their country and moved naval ships into the Black Sea, the Russians broke off their advance, and moved back into Ossetia and Abkhazia.
You can watch the panel discussion on Fox News Sunday from yesterday's episode (Sunday, March 16, 2014) and listen to Karl Rove on a panel with Chris Wallace, Judy Woodroffe (of PBS), and Juan Williams discussing it, in the latter half of the program.
There's still thousands of Russian troops in Georgia. Seems to me that both times Russia took the regions that so far wanted to be taken back.
If that is how you choose to spin and re-direct what I plainly said to the contrary.
The Russians in 2008 had advanced well beyond South Ossetia and Abkazia, and after Bush's quick re-deployment of battle-tested Georgia troops, Russia broke off its advance and retreated to the two Russia-friendly provinces. Fact.
In this case they just stayed in the friendly Crimea area though.
It seems to me that you spin two similar situations very differently. Both Bush and now Obama have limited options.
A little perspective from the past...
Quote:
Flashback, 2008: When A Russian Invasion Made Fox News Shrug Blog ››› March 4, 2014 11:55 AM EST ››› ERIC BOEHLERT 626 Print Email
Fox News commentators have been rushing in to blame President Obama for the Russian military's excursion into Ukraine. It's because of Obama's "weakness" that Vladamir Putin has seized the military initiative, announced Sarah Palin.
The crisis proves Obama's guilty of misunderstanding the Russians and not being "interested in American national security affairs," according to John Bolton. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Fox viewers Obama "left a vacuum that Putin is filling," and Steve Doocy complained the president hasn't done "much" to solve the situation.
Also, Obama needs to get a "backbone" and he's "lost moral authority." All this while Fox has marveled over Putin's prowess as a true "leader," and swooned his supposed physical superiority over Obama.
Please note that in August 2008, during President Bush's final months in office, a strikingly similar scenario played out when Russian forces invaded the former Soviet state of Georgia. At the time, the Bush White House sounded an awful lot like today's Obama White House. From Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, now a Fox host:
"The United States supports Georgia's territorial integrity. We call for an immediate ceasefire. We urge all parties Georgians, south Ossetians, Russians to deescalate the tensions and to avoid conflict. We are work on mediation efforts and to secure a ceasefire, and we are urging the parties to restart their dialogue."
Yet unlike today, the Putin-led excursion in 2008 completely failed to spark the panicked rhetoric that's become Fox News' trademark since Russian troops crossed over into Ukraine last week. Notably absent from the 2008 Georgia coverage was relentless finger pointing and blaming the White House for the extreme actions of a foreign leader thousands of miles away. There was also none of the Putin cheerleading that we hear on Fox News today.
In fact, some of the Fox commentators currently stoking the flames of "crisis" were rather non-judgmental when Russian tanks moved into Georgia. "I don't think the Russians are reckless," Charles Krauthammer announced on August 8, 2008, as Russian fleets advanced into the Black Sea and Russian jets launched raids targeting government buildings in Georgia. "What they are doing here is reasserting control of this province. And when it's done, which will probably happen in a couple days, the firing will crease."
Three days later, Krauthammer insisted there was nothing for the United States to do as the crisis escalated: "Well, obviously it's beyond our control. The Russians are advancing. There is nothing that will stop them. We are not going to go to war over Georgia." Krauthammer's Fox colleague Jeff Birnbaum, agreed: "Because Georgia is not part of NATO, there's really no danger the United States or Europe will get in involved in what is really a civil war almost between--within this small part of Georgia."
Fox News' message to America then? Just relax. There's nothing the U.S. can do about Russia invading its sovereign neighbor and it will all be over soon.
Bill O'Reilly agreed with the laissez-faire analysis. "Even if President Bush wanted to help Georgia we simply don't have the ground forces to do it," said O'Reilly on August 11. "And confronting the Russians in the air would lead to major hostilities that the USA cannot afford right now."
Even Fox's usually bellicose, right-wing think tank commentators demurred. "There's no easy answer; there's only tough choices," said the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes on August 12, 2008. "Russia is a tough nut to crack."
Indeed.
Recall that early in his presidency Bush famously announced he had peered into Putin's soul and spotted goodness in the Russian leader. The Georgia invasion belayed Bush's gut instincts, but few Fox commentators mocked the president's for his misreading of Putin. (Nor was there discussion that Bush's failed war with Iraq had created an opportunity for Russia's military expansion.)
"I don't think that Putin spit in the eye of the president," insisted Karl Rove in 2008. And John Bolton, who this week accused Obama of not "paying attention" to Ukraine? Back in 2008, he gave Bush a pass when Russian troops poured into Georgia. "I think a lot of people missed it, not just the administration." Bolton said on Fox.
Whereas the current Ukraine conflict is all about Obama on Fox News (i.e. Putin: leader; Obama: weak), Bush was portrayed as a minor figure when Russia waged war in Georgia six years ago.
We are already beyond that in Ukraine. Bush flew back combat-tested Ukrainian soldiers to Georgia, and that is the point that Russia halted its advance. The U.S. took other supportive measures to back Georgia short of all-out war, as Cheney has said in interviews in recent weeks.
But as I said, Bush overall took a firm military/diplomatic stance in his 8 years, and it was only when he was leaving as president that Russia ventured into military action. Even so, Bush implemented policies that halted Russian advance, short of taking fuerther territory in Georgia.
Fuck Georgia! Gone with the Wind was shit and they can't drive in snow. Let Russo have them
Although I'm not sure I 100% got the joke. I think the "can't drive in the snow" part is a reference to the recent snowstorm that immobilized Georgia in the U.S., and people who had to spend the night in their cars.
Luckily, Florida still had temperatures in the 70's.
In this case they just stayed in the friendly Crimea area though.
It seems to me that you spin two similar situations very differently. Both Bush and now Obama have limited options.
A little perspective from the past...
Quote:
Flashback, 2008: When A Russian Invasion Made Fox News Shrug Blog ››› March 4, 2014 11:55 AM EST ››› ERIC BOEHLERT 626 Print Email
Fox News commentators have been rushing in to blame President Obama for the Russian military's excursion into Ukraine. It's because of Obama's "weakness" that Vladamir Putin has seized the military initiative, announced Sarah Palin.
The crisis proves Obama's guilty of misunderstanding the Russians and not being "interested in American national security affairs," according to John Bolton. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Fox viewers Obama "left a vacuum that Putin is filling," and Steve Doocy complained the president hasn't done "much" to solve the situation.
Also, Obama needs to get a "backbone" and he's "lost moral authority." All this while Fox has marveled over Putin's prowess as a true "leader," and swooned his supposed physical superiority over Obama.
Please note that in August 2008, during President Bush's final months in office, a strikingly similar scenario played out when Russian forces invaded the former Soviet state of Georgia. At the time, the Bush White House sounded an awful lot like today's Obama White House. From Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, now a Fox host:
"The United States supports Georgia's territorial integrity. We call for an immediate ceasefire. We urge all parties Georgians, south Ossetians, Russians to deescalate the tensions and to avoid conflict. We are work on mediation efforts and to secure a ceasefire, and we are urging the parties to restart their dialogue."
Yet unlike today, the Putin-led excursion in 2008 completely failed to spark the panicked rhetoric that's become Fox News' trademark since Russian troops crossed over into Ukraine last week. Notably absent from the 2008 Georgia coverage was relentless finger pointing and blaming the White House for the extreme actions of a foreign leader thousands of miles away. There was also none of the Putin cheerleading that we hear on Fox News today.
In fact, some of the Fox commentators currently stoking the flames of "crisis" were rather non-judgmental when Russian tanks moved into Georgia. "I don't think the Russians are reckless," Charles Krauthammer announced on August 8, 2008, as Russian fleets advanced into the Black Sea and Russian jets launched raids targeting government buildings in Georgia. "What they are doing here is reasserting control of this province. And when it's done, which will probably happen in a couple days, the firing will crease."
Three days later, Krauthammer insisted there was nothing for the United States to do as the crisis escalated: "Well, obviously it's beyond our control. The Russians are advancing. There is nothing that will stop them. We are not going to go to war over Georgia." Krauthammer's Fox colleague Jeff Birnbaum, agreed: "Because Georgia is not part of NATO, there's really no danger the United States or Europe will get in involved in what is really a civil war almost between--within this small part of Georgia."
Fox News' message to America then? Just relax. There's nothing the U.S. can do about Russia invading its sovereign neighbor and it will all be over soon.
Bill O'Reilly agreed with the laissez-faire analysis. "Even if President Bush wanted to help Georgia we simply don't have the ground forces to do it," said O'Reilly on August 11. "And confronting the Russians in the air would lead to major hostilities that the USA cannot afford right now."
Even Fox's usually bellicose, right-wing think tank commentators demurred. "There's no easy answer; there's only tough choices," said the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes on August 12, 2008. "Russia is a tough nut to crack."
Indeed.
Recall that early in his presidency Bush famously announced he had peered into Putin's soul and spotted goodness in the Russian leader. The Georgia invasion belayed Bush's gut instincts, but few Fox commentators mocked the president's for his misreading of Putin. (Nor was there discussion that Bush's failed war with Iraq had created an opportunity for Russia's military expansion.)
"I don't think that Putin spit in the eye of the president," insisted Karl Rove in 2008. And John Bolton, who this week accused Obama of not "paying attention" to Ukraine? Back in 2008, he gave Bush a pass when Russian troops poured into Georgia. "I think a lot of people missed it, not just the administration." Bolton said on Fox.
Whereas the current Ukraine conflict is all about Obama on Fox News (i.e. Putin: leader; Obama: weak), Bush was portrayed as a minor figure when Russia waged war in Georgia six years ago.
"Print e-mail" ? Was this e-mailed to you as part of the Left's pathetic attempt to spin this in their favor, and disseminate it through mail-list subscribers like you?
Contrary to the idiocy of the propaganda you are trying to front, the Russians in 2008 had advanced far outside to the two pro-Russian provinces of Georgia, and then retreated into keeping only those two provinces. At the Point that W. Bush air-returned seasoned peacekeeping Georgian soldiers back to Georgia. Along with U.S. warships deployed to the black Sea that could give them logistical support.
Under W. Bush, there was an 8-year history of strong military action in similar crises. Bush was regarded as strong. Whereas Obama has a 5-plus year history of weak negotiation, apology for past U.S. strength, and surrender.
It's possible that Russia would do what it will regardless of U.S. strength in its near abroad, as it did under Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and virtually every president since. But there can be absolutely no question that even our allies are disturbed by Obama's military weakness and untrustworthiness as an ally. An Israeli official said as much in just the last few days publicly. And behind closed doors, officials of Saudi Arabia and Jordan have said the same: that they cannot trust the U.S. (under Obama's presidency) to defend them if they are attacked.
Likewise Poland, Czech Republic and many others.
And if even our allies see Obama as weak, it's without question that our enemies do as well. Strength doesn't guarantee non-aggression by our enemies, but weakness invites and increases the likelihood of aggression.
You are in denial, M E M, but that's just an absolute fact.
BRUSSELS (AP) - Two signatures Friday on opposite sides of Europe deepened the divide between East and West, as the European Union pulled Ukraine closer into its orbit and Russia formally annexed Crimea.
In this "new post-Cold War order," as the Ukrainian prime minister called it, besieged Ukrainian troops on the Crimean Peninsula grappled with an existential choice: leave, join the Russian military or demobilize. Ukraine was working on evacuating its outnumbered troops in Crimea, but some said they were still awaiting orders.
The chief of the U.N. came to Kiev and urged all sides to keep their tempers down.
Many eyes were on Russian President Vladimir Putin's next move, as they have been ever since pro-Western protests drove out Ukraine's president a month ago, angering Russia and plunging Europe into its worst crisis in a generation.
Putin sounded a conciliatory note Friday, almost joking about U.S. and EU sanctions squeezing his inner circle and saying he saw no reason to retaliate - but his government maintained warnings of further action.
Russia's troubled economic outlook may drive its decisions as much as any outside military threat. Stocks sank further Friday and a possible new downgrade loomed. Visa and MasterCard stopped serving two Russian banks and Russia conceded it may scrap plans to tap international markets for money this year.
Despite those clouds, Putin framed Friday's events in victorious colors, ordering fireworks in Moscow and Crimea reminiscent of the fireworks displays when Soviet troops drove the Nazis from occupied cities in World War II.
At the Kremlin, Putin hailed the incorporation of the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea into Russia as a "remarkable event," then finalized it by signing parliament bills into law.
At nearly the same time in a ceremony in Brussels, EU leaders sought to pull the rest of cash-strapped Ukraine westward by signing a political association agreement with the new Ukrainian prime minister.
This is a highly symbolic piece of paper - part of the very same EU deal that touched off Ukraine's political crisis when President Viktor Yanukovych rejected it in November, choosing a bailout from Russia instead. That ignited months of protests that eventually drove him from power.
Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, a leader of the protest movement, eagerly pushed for the EU agreement.
"This deal meets the aspirations of millions of Ukrainians that want to be a part of the European Union," Yatsenyuk said in Brussels.
The agreement includes security and defense cooperation, he said, though it is far from full EU membership and doesn't include an important free-trade element yet.
But the EU decided to grant Ukraine financial advantages such as reduced tariffs to boost its ailing economy until the full deal can be signed. Those trade advantages are a blow to Russia, which had hoped to pull Ukraine into a Moscow-focused customs union instead.
In exchange for the EU pact, Ukraine's government promises economic reforms.
"In the long term, the biggest challenge will be to build a strong Ukrainian economy, rooted in strong institutions that respect the rule of law," British Prime Minister David Cameron said at the EU summit.
Russia's foreign minister dismissed the EU pact, saying the current Ukrainian leadership lacks popular support and should have held elections before making such a decision.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, visiting Ukraine's capital, urged talks between Kiev and Moscow.
"At times like this, it is vital that all parties refrain from any provocative actions that could exacerbate an already very tense and very volatile situation," he said.
The EU hit 12 more people with sanctions Friday for Russia's annexation of Crimea, bringing its list of those facing visa bans and asset freezes to 33. They include one of Russia's deputy prime ministers, a Putin adviser and the speaker of Russia's upper house of parliament, according to a document obtained by The Associated Press.
Still, the EU names fell short of the high-powered U.S. list, in an apparent reflection of European wariness of going as far as Washington to punish Russia - Europe's neighbor, energy supplier and trade partner.
President Barack Obama on Thursday ordered a second round of sanctions against 20 members of Putin's inner circle and a major bank supporting them.
Moscow retaliated by banning nine U.S. officials and lawmakers from entering Russia.
The latest U.S. sanctions, which targeted Putin's chief of staff along with other senior Kremlin aides and four businessmen considered to be his lifelong friends, dealt a painful blow to Russia. Obama also warned that more sweeping penalties against Russia's economy could follow.
Annexing Crimea "is a flagrant breach of international law and something we will not recognize. This behavior belongs to the Europe of the last century not this one," Cameron said.
EU leaders decided to prepare economic sanctions in case the situation in eastern Ukraine deteriorates further, and decided to speed up agreements with former Soviet republics Georgia and Moldova.
Putin tried to play down the sanctions' toll on Russia at Friday's televised session of the presidential Security Council.
"We should keep our distance from those people who compromise us," he said, a jocular reference to the officials on the sanctions list, some of whom attended the meeting.
Putin added sardonically that he would open an account to keep his salary in the targeted Bank Rossiya, a private bank that is owned by Yuri Kovalchuk, considered to be Putin's longtime friend and banker. With about $10 billion in assets, Rossiya ranks as the 17th-largest bank in Russia and maintains numerous ties to banks in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.
At the same time, Putin said he sees no immediate need for further Russian retaliation to the U.S. sanctions, adding that Russia will keep funding a program jointly with NATO to service Afghan helicopters and train their crews.
However, just a few hours later, the Russian Foreign Ministry said Moscow will "harshly" respond to the latest round of U.S. sanctions and Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that Russia would retaliate.
The contradictory messages were highly unusual, and seemed to convey a Kremlin warning to the West to back off.
Russia has brought tens of thousands of troops to the regions along Ukraine's borders, nominally for exercises.
The Ukrainian side of the border is being guarded sternly, and guards have been turning away 400 to 500 Russians daily and arresting those "not with very good intentions," the head of the border guards service, Mykola Lytvyn, told reporters Friday.
Russia rushed the annexation of Crimea after residents there voted in a hastily called referendum Sunday to leave Ukraine and join Russia. Ukraine and the West have rejected the vote, saying it was held at gunpoint since Russian troops had seized control of Crimea two weeks earlier.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu told Putin on Friday that 72 Ukrainian military units in Crimea have decided to join the Russian military. His claim couldn't be independently confirmed.
At the Ukrainian military air base in Belbek, outside the Crimean port of Sevastopol, Col. Yuly Mamchur told reporters Friday he was still waiting for orders from his commanders on whether to vacate.
Amid its political crisis, Ukraine is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, struggling to pay off billions of dollars in debts in the coming months. The U.S. and the European Union have pledged to quickly offer a bailout.
Meanwhile, at least 20,000 Russian troops are massed on the borders of the rest of Ukraine.
And even within Crimea, Russian troops have probed the northernmost edge of the peninsula, threatening to push their invasion further North into the rest of Ukraine.
You are in denial, M E M, but that's just an absolute fact.
If you look at what the conservatives that are attacking Obama now said than when it was Bush it's really clear there's some ugly partisanship going on. When they get pinned down as to what Obama should be doing now it's pretty much a case of they recognize Obama is doing what he should be doing. The only real difference is they're willing to undermine this President during a crisis.
Actually Obama could arguably be imposing (or advocating for) more serious sanctions. While Russia is a military superpower their economy is a basket case. Properly applied sanctions could have an effect in this case.
Yes some sanctions have been applied but they seem to be minor and ineffective
I just find it unsettling that Obama seems to devote the majority of his energy to watching sports and picking the teams he favors to win, rather than addressing his responsibilities as president and world leader.
Actually Obama could arguably be imposing (or advocating for) more serious sanctions. While Russia is a military superpower their economy is a basket case. Properly applied sanctions could have an effect in this case.
Yes some sanctions have been applied but they seem to be minor and ineffective
I would agree about the sanctions being minor and ineffective but the same thing could be said about Bush's actions back when Russia invaded Georgia and never left. Doesn't this involve the whole thing about Europe being much more connected economically to Russia than we are?
Thar would be credible if you had similar concerns when Bush was taking all his vacations.
W. Bush was working from his ranch in Texas, not travelling all over the world on the taxpayers' tab.
Bush wasn't appearing on late night talk shows, hanging out with Jay Z and Beyoncé, making unfunny fake talk shows like "Between Two Shrubs", and appearing with a completely subservient Ellen DeGeneres, in addition to spending apparently large amounts of time watching sports, and publicly announcing his favored teams to win.
He was working just like Obama does on his vacations. There were plenty of times Bush played golf and goofed off. It didn't bother you because he was republican.
Countries are increasingly disconnecting from the world economy, and that's going to boost the United States, says Brad McMillan, chief investment officer for brokerage Commonwealth Financial.
"Russia is the new poster child for a de-globalizing world, which will result in less economic efficiency and a lower standard of living in many countries," he writes. "Fortunately, the U.S. will be positioned to benefit from this."
Russia's intervention in Ukraine has disconnected Russia from the world economy, McMillan says.
With the world now more globalized and interconnected than in the past, a correction was overdue," he writes. "Russia is one example of this. Another is China, which is attempting to shift from export-driven growth to growth supported by domestic demand."
The United States too is pulling back from globalization, with the explosion of our energy industry and the return of manufacturing here, McMillan says.
The United States should thrive because the advantages of trade flow most strongly to the nations that gain employment through trade, and that has been emerging markets in the past few decades, he says.
While the United States may benefit from de-globalization, Russia's economy is at risk of a downturn from the sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe in reaction to Russia's action in Ukraine, economists say.
Russian banks including state-run VTB Capital predict the world’s ninth-largest economy will suffer a recession, Bloomberg reports.
I find that a bit overly optimistic, but it does underscore that every global situation is a zero sum game that results in the flow of capital, in which some gain and some lose. Whether or not the U.S will benefit from this situation.
Whether action or inaction, both risk a war escalation by Russia and other players, that likely neither side really wants, but due to something stupid, might obligate an escalation in response.
He was working just like Obama does on his vacations. There were plenty of times Bush played golf and goofed off. It didn't bother you because he was republican.
This has all been covered before in at least one previous topic:
I'd like to see an article comparing what Bush spent on vacations, as compared to what Obama has spent.
We already know that the media made a huge deal about Bush spending $40 million on his re-inauguration in Jan 2005, but had no criticism of Obama spending an incredible $160 million on his Jan 2009 inauguration.
Or criticism of Bush's golf time in 8 years, as compared to Obama's golf time that exceeded Bush's in just Obama's first year.
Or the media's orgy of criticism over Ann Romney's expensive clothes, despite that Michelle Obama's designer clothing far exceeded Mrs. Romney's, but received no criticism.
Would that the media were capable of holding a Democrat president to the same standard.
Your just confirming your hypocrisy. I will acknowledge that Bush had a huge ranch that he could vacation on and that it may have saved some money that way. Than again he started a war with faulty intelligence that made any of that savings sadly laughable especially considering all the troops that died under his failed leadership.
Your just confirming your hypocrisy. I will acknowledge that Bush had a huge ranch that he could vacation on and that it may have saved some money that way. Than again he started a war with faulty intelligence that made any of that savings sadly laughable especially considering all the troops that died under his failed leadership.
That's a clusterfuck of lies you just posted, M E M.
Bush "started a war" after following Constitutional procedure and getting authorization from the Senate, that virtually every Democrat signed off on, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. The only reason Obama didn't authorize the war was because he wasn't a Senator until 2 years later.
And you make my point for me, that Bush didn't go on expensive vacations on the taxpayers' tab, he governed frequently from his ranch in Texas, where he was more comfortable than the White House.
As I pointed out also previously, Bush didn't use "faulty intelligence", he went to war WITH DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE'S APPROVAL with the best available intelligence at the time. EVERY nation that was doing intelligence on Saddam's Iraq thought he had nuclear weapons. SADDAM'S OWN GENERALS thought Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, and just believed the WMD's were entrusted to another general than themselves. And as I established with weapons inspector David Kay's testimony before Congress, while Iraq did not have WMD's on the field ready to launch, they DID have a WMD program developed, and ready to go into production if the U.S. had not invaded and prevented it.
You follow the Moscow Central Committee's tactic of repeating the lie over and over, with such repetition that a lie becomes "fact" just by virtue of the prevalence of how often it is repeated. But it is a lie, just the same.
Quote:
Members and front organizations must continually embarass, discredit and degrade out critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic... The association will, after enough repetition, become "fact in the public mind. --Moscow Central Committee, 1943
And Obama's negligence is what is needlessly getting people killed, in Iraq, In Afghanistan, and in Benghazi, in Obama's unprecedented weakness that invites enemy attack with no retribution, and his announcement of premature withdrawal. Even at his lowest in approval, Bush remained committed to our troops, and to the success of their mission. Absolutely not the same with Obama.
If Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy had done the same in post-1945 Europe, as Obama has done in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Russians would have over-run the European continent! It is a joke that we are withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, but still have troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Bosnia and Kosovo, just to name a few.
Spin away all you can and clutch to your "I hate Obama" propaganda all you want WB. Starting a thread titled WMD's found and trying to prop it up convinced nobody that wasn't already bought and paid for.
Bush spent more time on vacation btw. Karl Rove began calling them "working vacations" after Bush started catching flack for breaking some records in how much he was on vacation.
Bush MIGHT have spent more time at his ranch, that's not the same thing as being "on vacation".
As I've cited repeatedly and you are apparently immune to, Bush was perfectly capable of working from his ranch, without racking up huge vacations at the taxpayer's expense (so unlike Obama). And when Obama is vacationing with his family at resort locations in France or Brazil or Colorado or Martha's Vineyard, gladhanding with elites and seeing the sites, Obama wouldn't have the time to focus on affairs of state the way George W. Bush would in the solitude of his own ranch.
As far as "propaganda" even liberals at former Obama-fellating sites like the Washington Post and New York Times have been increasingly refusing to carry Obama's water. "Propaganda" more accurately describes Obama's saying: "If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it" that Factcheck selected as The Lie of the Year.
"Propaganda" describes the manipulated numbers of 7.1 million Obamacare subscribers, that Obama wanted to allege in a press conference on March 31, but the networks refused to break into regularly scheduled programming and air. Likewise the Obama-propaganda talking points of a Youtube video causing the Benghazi attack, a blatant lie that was fronted because Obama didn't want to admit that his weakness in Benghazi and elsewhere resulted in an Al Qaida attack on Benghazi.
The article I posted about WMD's found in Iraq is from WorldNetDaily, but is reprinted from Foreign Policy magazine. Not a source I would describe as a propaganda site.
Obama’s vacations and golfing by the numbers Olivier Knox, Yahoo News By Olivier Knox, Yahoo News August 13, 2013 12:52 PM Yahoo News
How many days has President Barack Obama been on vacation since assuming office in January 2009? How much has he golfed? CBS News Correspondent Mark Knoller has the answers.
Since 1996, Knoller has kept tabs on all kinds of presidential data — How many summits? With whom? How many press conferences? — including how often the occupant of the Oval Office at the time leaves the stifling (literally and figuratively) climate of Washington to go on vacation. Successive White Houses have generally found that when their numbers are at odds with the bearded and booming-voiced reporter's figures, the official tallies are the ones that need correcting.
Knoller — who always notes that presidents are never truly on vacation, given the demands of the job and the era of 24/7 communications — graciously shared his latest data with Yahoo News. So here it is:
As of Aug. 13, 2013, Obama is on his 15th vacation trip, covering all or part of 96 days total. He's spending this vacation in Martha's Vineyard with his family.
At the same point in his presidency — Aug. 13, 2005 — George W. Bush had made 51 visits to his ranch in tiny Crawford, Texas, totaling all or part of 335 days. (Note: Bush sometimes used the property to host world leaders.)
Bush also traveled seven times to his family’s oceanside compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, covering all or part of 26 days — bringing his total number of vacation days at this point in his presidency to 349 days. (335+26 doesn’t = 349, but remember the “all or part of” caveat.)
What about former President Bill Clinton? At this point in his second term, he had taken 11 vacations covering all or part of 84 days.
“The trips were mostly to Martha’s Vineyard or Jackson Hole, WY. Though he also spent a few days in Hilton Head for New Year’s and then to the Virgin Islands for a few days,” Knoller said in an email.
And former President Ronald Reagan? At this point in his second term he had made 29 trips to his ranch in California, spanning all or part of 180 days. ...
You pulled a Whomod, M E M. (I.e., posting a link that doesn't support what you are alleging.)
You allege that Bush knew before invading Iraq that the Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD's.
Your article says that two years after the invasion, in 2005, that Bush saw a report reviewing intelligence (not just for Iraq, but intelligence for multiple other nations) and that in retrospect it was an intelligence failure. Not because "Bush lied", but because 15 different intelligence agencies don't share information. And not because Bush knew in advance. Bush invaded Iraq with the best intelligence available at the time, with what every other nation doing espionage on Iraq believed, with what Iraq's own military leadership believed, and only after Iraq's weapons records and inventory had been seized could it be known that Saddam Hussein was cooking the books and exaggerating his own WMD capability with forged records.
You really ought to work on your reading comprehension. Or maybe you just want to believe your own propaganda so badly that you just can't process the true facts, even from an article that YOU LINKED !
As myself, G-man, and others here have posted exhaustively over the last 10 years, Saddam Hussein may not have had the numbers of WMD's that were expected on invasion, but there most certainly was a WMD program ready to go into production. For example (from the WND/Foreign Policy article) plants for chemical weapons, where Saddam would have a paint company and a pesticide company two miles apart from each other, with chemicals that when combined formed Sarin nerve gas. Or Iraq scientists with deadly germ-warfare bacteria in their home freezers.
As much as you try to evade the truth and smear Bush, these are undeniable facts. As weapons inspector David Kay affirmed in his testimony before Congress.
You pulled a Whomod, M E M. (I.e., posting a link that doesn't support what you are alleging.)
You allege that Bush knew before invading Iraq that the Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD's.
...
reality of what I actually said...
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
...Than again he started a war with faulty intelligence that made any of that savings sadly laughable especially considering all the troops that died under his failed leadership. ...
Note I don't allege what you say I did.
Since you brought it up though here's somebody talking about why he thought we went to war with Iraq...
Quote:
Rand Paul: Dick Cheney used 9/11 as excuse to invade Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton By Tom Boggioni Monday, April 7, 2014 7:53 EDT
In a videotaped 2009 speech before student Republicans at Western Kentucky University, Rand Paul — who was just beginning his run for the Senate seat he eventually won — explained that former Vice President Dick Cheney, who counseled against war in Iraq in 1995, pushed for war following 9/11 to benefit his former employers at military contractor Halliburton.
In the video, discovered by David Corn at Mother Jones, Paul can be seen standing at a lectern describing Cheney’s opinion in 1995, when he said that invading Iraq would be, “a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it’d be civil war, we would have no exit strategy.”
Paul said:
There’s a great YouTube of Dick Cheney in 1995 defending [President] Bush Number One [and the decision not to invade Baghdad in the first Gulf war], and he goes on for about five minutes. He’s being interviewed, I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it’d be civil war, we would have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes. Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea. And that’s why the first Bush didn’t go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he’s back in government and it’s a good idea to go into Iraq.
Paul then goes on to describe events following the 9/11 terrorist attack when, then CIA director, George Tenet is told by George W. Bush adviser Richard Perle that the attack had given them reason to invade Iraq, despite the fact that the intelligence had yet to show a connection:
The day after 9/11, [CIA chief] George Tenet is going in the [White] House and [Pentagon adviser] Richard Perle is coming out of the White House. And George Tenet should know more about intelligence than anybody in the world, and the first thing Richard Perle says to him on the way out is, ‘We’ve got it, now we can go into Iraq.’ And George Tenet, who supposedly knows as much intelligence as anybody in the White House says, ‘Well, don’t we need to know that they have some connection to 9/11?’ And, he [Perle] says, ‘It doesn’t matter.’ It became an excuse. 9/11 became an excuse for a war they already wanted in Iraq.
Corn points out that the speech Paul was giving was not a one time event, describing Cheney’s desire for war.
In a videotaped 2008 Montana speech, also uncovered by Corn, Paul directly linked Cheney ‘s Halliburton “millions” to the 2001 Iraq war:
It’s Dick Cheney in 1995 being interviewed on why they didn’t go into Baghdad the first time under the first [President] George Bush. And his arguments are exactly mirroring my dad’s arguments for why we shouldn’t have gone in this time. It would be chaos. There’d be a civil war. There’d be no exit strategy. And cost a blue bloody fortune in both lives and treasure. And this is Dick Cheney saying this. But, you know, a couple hundred million dollars later Dick Cheney earns from Halliburton, he comes back into government. Now Halliburton’s got a billion-dollar no-bid contract in Iraq. You know, you hate to be so cynical that you think some of these corporations are able to influence policy, but I think sometimes they are. Most of the people on these [congressional] committees have a million dollars in their bank account all from different military industrial contractors. We don’t want our defense to be defined by people who make money off of the weapons.
As Corn points out, there have long been suspicions that Dick Cheney used the post-9/11 war on Iraq as a way to thank Halliburton for making him a very wealthy man after stepping down as Secretary of Defense under former President George H.W. Bush.
In 2012, Corn writing for Mother Jones uncovered video of Mitt Romney telling wealthy donors that 47 percent of people would vote for Barack Obama because they were “dependent upon government.” The video was widely believed to be damaging to the Romney campaign.
M E M, first of all, RAW is not a media source, it's a liberal-progressive partisan spin site. It exists (like Media Matters and DailyKos) ONLY to slander Republicans and all conservative media, without the slightest pretense of neutrality. When will you realize that posting it as a source will never be taken seriously, by anyone here?
Beyond that, my point is already made, that Bush can't be demonized for the war in Iraq, because
1) Bush called for and went to war on a long list of reasons, including: (A) Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with the 1991 Gulf War peace treaty, (B) aggression against his neighbors, (C) genocide on his own people, (D) and ejecting U.N. weapons inspectors. Added to that, (E) Iraq's threat with WMD's, is only ONE of many reasons to justifiably invade, and all the others remain true and correct. Further, David Kay reported that Iraq had WMD's in development to go into production as soon as U.N. sanctions would have been lifted (as I already stated above) so the WMD's issue is at most only half wrong. So on that list of reasons to invade, President George W. Bush gets at least a 90% on his reasons for war in Iraq.
2) As I also said, Every other nation doing intelligence on Iraq thought Saddam had WMD's already, and even Saddam's own generals believed this. So you can't really blame Bush, or say he "lied" when the most informed people in every nation believed the same thing Bush did. As I said before, David Kay testified before congress that Iraq's economy was on the verge of collapse, and Saddam's WMD scientists with WMD material would have in desperate economic times to come, become a "nuclear arms bazaar, on sale to the highest bidder". U.S. invasion prevented that.
As far as "considering all the troops that died under his failed leadership", I again refer you to the poll of our military soldiers, that express >>>>>>INFINITELY<<<<<<<<< more confidence in George W. Bush as commander in chief, rather than Barack Hussein Obama. Not even close. And they would know, wouldn't they?
M E M, first of all, RAW is not a media source, it's a liberal-progressive partisan spin site. It exists (like Media Matters and DailyKos) ONLY to slander Republicans and all conservative media, without the slightest pretense of neutrality. When will you realize that posting it as a source will never be taken seriously, by anyone here?
....
One problem with that is the Raw Story article basically describes a video that does exist. You can find the same story on conservative sites like Newsmax.
One problem with that is the Raw Story article basically describes a video that does exist. You can find the same story on conservative sites like Newsmax.
Rand Paul gives an opinion about a videotaped speech. So what? That isn't proof of anything.
I recall Whomod way back in the day arguing Cheney flipped on first opposing invading Iraq, then post 9-11, advocated invading Iraq. And now you're leaping on that same canard, adding slanders of "greed" and "Halliburton". Cheney answered that back then in another videotaped interview, that the stalemate with a no-fly zone over Iraq was used in Al Qaeda's 1998 "Declaration of war against Jews and Crusaders" as a rationalization for attacks on the United States, and that post-9/11, this needed to be resolved, despite the risks of invading Iraq that Cheney had criticized earlier.
I dislike the kind of Republican-on-Republican fratricide that has become common in the Republican primaries the last two elections. And despite it being factless, it can be guaranteed that Democrats will resurrect these attacks in 2016, to attack Rand Paul or whoever gets the nomination instead of him. (Conversely, the "Birther" issue of Obama not being born in the U.S. was created by the Hillary Clinton campaign during the 2008 Democrat primaries, and used against Obama by the Democrats. )
You could just as easily say that because I was pro-abortion until around age 35, and then after informing myself of the facts changed my point of view, that rather than seriously being persuaded by the facts I was reversed by cynicism or "greed", or because of that being the prevalent opinion at my employer or whatever. But that would all just be slander of my motives and personal character. Just as it is about Cheney.
To underscore that there were valid reasons to invade Iraq over WMD, and that Cheney's getting on board with that decision wasn't about "greed" or "Halliburton":
Kay told the SASC during his oral report the following, though: "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion — although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
Kay's team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce chemical and biological weaponry if international economic sanctions were lifted, a policy change which was actively being sought by a number of United Nations member states. Kay also believed some components of the former Iraqi regime's WMD program had been moved to Syria shortly before the 2003 invasion,([3]) though the Duelfer Report Addenda (see below) later reported there was no evidence of this.
Kay explained the situation in Iraq before the war further in a 1 February 2004 interview on Fox News Sunday: "I think Iraq was a dangerous place and becoming more dangerous, because, in fact, what we observe is that the regime itself was coming apart. It was descending into worse the part of moral depravity and corruption. Saddam was isolated in a fantasy land capable of wreaking tremendous harm and terror on his individual citizens, but corruption, money gain was the root cause. At the same time that we know there were terrorist groups in state still seeking WMD capability. Iraq , although I found no weapons, had tremendous capabilities in this area. A marketplace phenomena was about to occur, if it did not occur; sellers meeting buyers. And I think that would have been very dangerous if the war had not intervened." [sic] [9]
Kay acknowledges there were other possible opinions, but I quoted the above to emphasize that David Kay, the most qualified to assess Iraq's WMD threat, while pointing out all possibilities, held this professional assessment of Iraq's WMD program, Iraq's existing weapons and Iraq's potential threat going forward, that would have increased as a threat if not for U.S. invasion.
To underscore that there were valid reasons to invade Iraq over WMD, and that Cheney's getting on board with that decision wasn't about "greed" or "Halliburton":
....
The rest is sort of scraped together reasons though. Bush & company chose the war in Iraq. And their still lying about what they did...
Quote:
WATCH: Donald Rumsfeld caught lying about conflating Saddam Hussein and 9/11 attacks By David Ferguson Wednesday, April 2, 2014 10:38 EDT
In the video below, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed by documentary filmmaker Errol Morris, who confronted the Iraq War architect with his statements regarding former Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein and his putative connection to the 9/11 terror attacks.
The Daily Beast reported that Morris’ documentary, “The Unknown Known,” tells the story of the bill of goods that Rumsfeld and his cohorts in the Bush administration sold to the U.S. public in order to gin up support for the invasion of Iraq.
In the interview below, Morris asked Rumsfeld whether the Bush administration had worked particularly hard to forge an erroneous connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks.
“Oh, I don’t think so,” Rumsfeld said. “It was very clear that the direct planning for 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laden’s people, al Qaeda, and in Afghanistan. I don’t think the American people were confused about that.”
“In 2003, in a Washington Post poll,” said Morris, “Sixty-nine percent say that they believe that it is likely that the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda.”
Rumsfeld contended that to his memory, no administration official “said anything like that. Nor do I recall anyone believing that.”
Morris rolled a video clip from Feb. 4, 2003, in which then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked by a reporter to respond to Hussein’s contention that he had no weapons of mass destruction nor any relationship with Al-Qaeda.
“And Abraham Lincoln was short,” quipped Rumsfeld in 2003. “How does one respond to that? It’s just a continuous pattern. It’s a case of the local liar coming up again and people repeating what he said and people forgetting to say that he never, almost never, rarely tells the truth.”
You pulled a Whomod, M E M. (I.e., posting a link that doesn't support what you are alleging.)
You allege that Bush knew before invading Iraq that the Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD's.
Your article says that two years after the invasion, in 2005, that Bush saw a report reviewing intelligence (not just for Iraq, but intelligence for multiple other nations) and that in retrospect it was an intelligence failure. Not because "Bush lied", but because 15 different intelligence agencies don't share information. And not because Bush knew in advance. Bush invaded Iraq with the best intelligence available at the time, with what every other nation doing espionage on Iraq believed, with what Iraq's own military leadership believed, and only after Iraq's weapons records and inventory had been seized could it be known that Saddam Hussein was cooking the books and exaggerating his own WMD capability with forged records.
You really ought to work on your reading comprehension. Or maybe you just want to believe your own propaganda so badly that you just can't process the true facts, even from an article that YOU LINKED !
As myself, G-man, and others here have posted exhaustively over the last 10 years, Saddam Hussein may not have had the numbers of WMD's that were expected on invasion, but there most certainly was a WMD program ready to go into production. For example (from the WND/Foreign Policy article) plants for chemical weapons, where Saddam would have a paint company and a pesticide company two miles apart from each other, with chemicals that when combined formed Sarin nerve gas. Or Iraq scientists with deadly germ-warfare bacteria in their home freezers.
As much as you try to evade the truth and smear Bush, these are undeniable facts. As weapons inspector David Kay affirmed in his testimony before Congress.
All your RAW far-Left partisan liberal blog offers is wild partisan speculation. No facts whatsoever to back what you allege.
One other thing: I posted an article from the New York Times 11 years ago here (NOT conservative media, and definitely not pro-Bush or pro-war), that reported on Saddam Hussein using Al Qaida mercenaries to fight against the Kurds in Northern Iraq. There was also a grounded jet in Iraq similar to the hijacked planes on 9-11, that Iraqis reported after the March 2003 Iraq invasion they had witnessed used for terrorist training exercises. Also reported on 60 minutes and elsewhere (again: NOT conservative media), shortly after the Iraq invasion was completed.
There may not have been Saddam Hussein ties to the Al Qaida attacks on 9-11-2001. But there is some circumstantial evidence for that case. And there was certainly a degree of communication and collaboration between Saddam and Al Qaida. Possibly up to and including 9-11.
M E M, first of all, RAW is not a media source, it's a liberal-progressive partisan spin site. It exists (like Media Matters and DailyKos) ONLY to slander Republicans and all conservative media, without the slightest pretense of neutrality. When will you realize that posting it as a source will never be taken seriously, by anyone here?
Beyond that, my point is already made, that Bush can't be demonized for the war in Iraq, because
1) Bush called for and went to war on a long list of reasons, including: (A) Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with the 1991 Gulf War peace treaty, (B) aggression against his neighbors, (C) genocide on his own people, (D) and ejecting U.N. weapons inspectors. Added to that, (E) Iraq's threat with WMD's, is only ONE of many reasons to justifiably invade, and all the others remain true and correct. Further, David Kay reported that Iraq had WMD's in development to go into production as soon as U.N. sanctions would have been lifted (as I already stated above) so the WMD's issue is at most only half wrong. So on that list of reasons to invade, President George W. Bush gets at least a 90% on his reasons for war in Iraq.
2) As I also said, Every other nation doing intelligence on Iraq thought Saddam had WMD's already, and even Saddam's own generals believed this. So you can't really blame Bush, or say he "lied" when the most informed people in every nation believed the same thing Bush did. As I said before, David Kay testified before congress that Iraq's economy was on the verge of collapse, and Saddam's WMD scientists with WMD material would have in desperate economic times to come, become a "nuclear arms bazaar, on sale to the highest bidder". U.S. invasion prevented that.
As far as "considering all the troops that died under his failed leadership", I again refer you to the poll of our military soldiers, that express >>>>>>INFINITELY<<<<<<<<< more confidence in George W. Bush as commander in chief, rather than Barack Hussein Obama. Not even close. And they would know, wouldn't they?
