Chicago Fanatics Message Board
http://chicagofanatics.com/

George W. Bush
http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=109088
Page 3 of 5

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

leashyourkids wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:
Obama never met a drone strike he didn't like.

That's true but he was just continuing the wars we we're already in. I dont think you can label him "Hawkish"

He escalated those wars and put us into new battlefields where we were not previously (Yemen, Libya, Syria) so yes he was a fucking warhawk. It kind of pisses me off that Obama is given a pass by the anti-war left as he deserves the same scorn that Dubya and Trump have earned in that department.

In that way the anti-war left is as bad as the deficit hawk right (who ignore deficits when a GOP POTUS is in office)


Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize his first year in office. Think about that. Even he made fun of it.

If he had intellectual honesty, he would've given that prize back as he sure as hell did nothing during his 8 years to actually earn it.

Author:  SuperMario [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

leashyourkids wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:
Obama never met a drone strike he didn't like.

That's true but he was just continuing the wars we we're already in. I dont think you can label him "Hawkish"

He escalated those wars and put us into new battlefields where we were not previously (Yemen, Libya, Syria) so yes he was a fucking warhawk. It kind of pisses me off that Obama is given a pass by the anti-war left as he deserves the same scorn that Dubya and Trump have earned in that department.

In that way the anti-war left is as bad as the deficit hawk right (who ignore deficits when a GOP POTUS is in office)


Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize his first year in office. Think about that. Even he made fun of it.


To be fair, the Nobel Peace Prize in itself is a complete joke. It's the only Nobel prize selected from Norway where all the others involving actual work are picked from the committee in Sweden.

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:
Obama never met a drone strike he didn't like.

That's true but he was just continuing the wars we we're already in. I dont think you can label him "Hawkish"

He escalated those wars and put us into new battlefields where we were not previously (Yemen, Libya, Syria) so yes he was a fucking warhawk. It kind of pisses me off that Obama is given a pass by the anti-war left as he deserves the same scorn that Dubya and Trump have earned in that department.

Fair enough, but he didn't start a new war in Iraq, so Im still putting Bush ahead of him on the Warhawk rankings.

And my statement started with "That's true" when Hank said he never met a drone strike he didn't like, so no pass being given here.

Author:  pittmike [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

SuperMario wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:
Obama never met a drone strike he didn't like.

That's true but he was just continuing the wars we we're already in. I dont think you can label him "Hawkish"

He escalated those wars and put us into new battlefields where we were not previously (Yemen, Libya, Syria) so yes he was a fucking warhawk. It kind of pisses me off that Obama is given a pass by the anti-war left as he deserves the same scorn that Dubya and Trump have earned in that department.

In that way the anti-war left is as bad as the deficit hawk right (who ignore deficits when a GOP POTUS is in office)


Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize his first year in office. Think about that. Even he made fun of it.


To be fair, the Nobel Peace Prize in itself is a complete joke. It's the only Nobel prize selected from Norway where all the others involving actual work are picked from the committee in Sweden.



The worst part of that prize as far as I was concerned was they gave it to him for what he CAN or MIGHT do. Not what he had done to that point. Which was nothing.

Author:  SuperMario [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

pittmike wrote:
SuperMario wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:
Obama never met a drone strike he didn't like.

That's true but he was just continuing the wars we we're already in. I dont think you can label him "Hawkish"

He escalated those wars and put us into new battlefields where we were not previously (Yemen, Libya, Syria) so yes he was a fucking warhawk. It kind of pisses me off that Obama is given a pass by the anti-war left as he deserves the same scorn that Dubya and Trump have earned in that department.

In that way the anti-war left is as bad as the deficit hawk right (who ignore deficits when a GOP POTUS is in office)


Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize his first year in office. Think about that. Even he made fun of it.


To be fair, the Nobel Peace Prize in itself is a complete joke. It's the only Nobel prize selected from Norway where all the others involving actual work are picked from the committee in Sweden.



The worst part of that prize as far as I was concerned was they gave it to him for what he CAN or MIGHT do. Not what he had done to that point. Which was nothing.


Yeah. It is the most politicized award. Kind of like how Al Gore got it for...reasons?

Author:  BigW72 [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
It kind of pisses me off that Obama is given a pass by the anti-war left as he deserves the same scorn that Dubya and Trump have earned in that department.


The DEMs always get a pass on war. MANY like to ignore the fact that Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, and all those phonies had the same intelligence as W. They had enough votes to stop it and JOINED in. Two years later when it was politically convenient to be contrarian, they claimed victim. That's right....the brilliant mastermind George W. Bush TRICKED them.

Total horseshit. they all got a pass. Barry gets a pass.

Obama is W but with an economically crippling healthcare bill on top.

In terms of W's failures. Let's not forget "No child Left Behind". Nothing says GOP like spending a shit-ton of Federal money on ramming education standards down to the states.

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

wdelaney72 wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
It kind of pisses me off that Obama is given a pass by the anti-war left as he deserves the same scorn that Dubya and Trump have earned in that department.


The DEMs always get a pass on war. MANY like to ignore the fact that Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, and all those phonies had the same intelligence as W. They had enough votes to stop it and JOINED in. Two years later when it was politically convenient to be contrarian, they claimed victim. That's right....the brilliant mastermind George W. Bush TRICKED them.

Total horseshit. they all got a pass. Barry gets a pass.

Obama is W but with an economically crippling healthcare bill on top.

In terms of W's failures. Let's not forget "No child Left Behind". Nothing says GOP like spending a shit-ton of Federal money on ramming education standards down to the states.

Is that economically crippling plan one that MANY people are dying to save now?

And sorry you dont get to put the fucking IRAQ war on Dems. You can criticize their votes and call them hypocrites but that was W's war through and through.

Oh and there's this


Chicago Defender, Oct. 3, 2002: Nearly 3,000 people attended an anti-Iraq war rally Wednesday where the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr. and Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D-13th) warned the Bush administration that a war against Iraq undermines U.N. protocol.

The text of Obama’s remarks was posted to his 2008 campaign website. He called the war “dumb,” “rash” and “based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.” Among his remarks:
Obama, Oct. 2, 2002: Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.




This is getting ridiculous now. Obama is certainly not a Dove but to act like him continuing wars is the same or equal to the monstrous fuck up that was the latest Iraq war is crazy.

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

He had 8 fucking years to end the wars. He not only failed to end them, but he expanded them into several new countries. Stop giving him a pass. He's a warmongering piece of shit, just like his predecessors and the one we have in office now. He was only anti-war on the campaign trail or when it could get him press. Any time he was in a position to take direct action, he was sending drones to go bomb weddings and Doctors Without Borders hospitals. Fuck him.

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
He had 8 fucking years to end the wars. He not only failed to end them, but he expanded them into several new countries. Stop giving him a pass. He's a warmongering piece of shit, just like his predecessors and the one we have in office now. He was only anti-war on the campaign trail or when it could get him press. Any time he was in a position to take direct action, he was sending drones to go bomb weddings and Doctors Without Borders hospitals. Fuck him.

He withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011.

You can hate him and curse his drone strikes all you want, to act like he is equal to W. in this sense is ridiculous.


You're giving W. a pass for his HISTORIC fuck up by acting like it was just normal to go into Iraq as a response for 9/11

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

rogers park bryan wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
He had 8 fucking years to end the wars. He not only failed to end them, but he expanded them into several new countries. Stop giving him a pass. He's a warmongering piece of shit, just like his predecessors and the one we have in office now. He was only anti-war on the campaign trail or when it could get him press. Any time he was in a position to take direct action, he was sending drones to go bomb weddings and Doctors Without Borders hospitals. Fuck him.

He withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011.

You can hate him and curse his drone strikes all you want, to act like he is equal to W. in this sense is ridiculous.


You're giving W. a pass for his HISTORIC fuck up by acting like it was just normal to go into Iraq as a response for 9/11

He put us into war in Libya, and yes that is a fuck-up equal to Iraq. Do you want to know why it's an equal fuck-up despite a lower body count? Because we got Libya to peacefully give up their WMD program only to then depose them when they had no WMD's. Anyone want to take a wild guess why a peaceful disarmament of North Korea via negotiations is 100% off the table according to the regime there? Our idiotic Libya policy (masterminded by Hillary and approved by Obama) put us in the current NK crisis. That has the potential to create worse after-effects than Bush's disastrous Iraq adventure.

Fuck him. He's a warmonger and if you want to pretend otherwise you're only lying to yourself.

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
He had 8 fucking years to end the wars. He not only failed to end them, but he expanded them into several new countries. Stop giving him a pass. He's a warmongering piece of shit, just like his predecessors and the one we have in office now. He was only anti-war on the campaign trail or when it could get him press. Any time he was in a position to take direct action, he was sending drones to go bomb weddings and Doctors Without Borders hospitals. Fuck him.

He withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011.

You can hate him and curse his drone strikes all you want, to act like he is equal to W. in this sense is ridiculous.


You're giving W. a pass for his HISTORIC fuck up by acting like it was just normal to go into Iraq as a response for 9/11

He put us into war in Libya, and yes that is a fuck-up equal to Iraq. Do you want to know why it's an equal fuck-up despite a lower body count? Because we got Libya to peacefully give up their WMD program only to then depose them when they had no WMD's. Anyone want to take a wild guess why a peaceful disarmament of North Korea via negotiations is 100% off the table according to the regime there? Our idiotic Libya policy (masterminded by Hillary and approved by Obama) put us in the current NK crisis. That has the potential to create worse after-effects than Bush's disastrous Iraq adventure.

Fuck him. He's a warmonger and if you want to pretend otherwise you're only lying to yourself.

Oh, ok, potential deaths.

Well, when those after effects actually occur we'll revisit this.

Author:  BigW72 [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

rogers park bryan wrote:
And sorry you dont get to put the fucking IRAQ war on Dems.

Oh yes i do. I get to put it on W, the GOP, and the DEMS. They all did it together. They all own it.

Ogie is 100% correct. Barry continued the same bullshit wars as W.

Author:  Curious Hair [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

Best part of Libya was Hillary's lieutenant Neera Tanden putting it in writing that we should take all their oil for free as payment for bombing them, which was the same idea behind Iraq.

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

wdelaney72 wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
And sorry you dont get to put the fucking IRAQ war on Dems.

Oh yes i do. I get to put it on W, the GOP, and the DEMS. They all did it together. They all own it.

Ogie is 100% correct. Barry continued the same bullshit wars as W.

Right. Continuing the war for 3 years before effectively ending it is the EXACT same thing as starting it in the first place.

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

So basically, W. was better than Obama because they had the same hawkish tendencies and W. didnt push through disastrous national healthcare?

Just making sure I have all this correct.

Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

I wondered when Hank would finally have a take worse than "Michael irvin was overrated and not great." I think "Bush wasn't that bad" finally surpasses it.

Author:  leashyourkids [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

FavreFan wrote:
I wondered when Hank would finally have a take worse than "Michael irvin was overrated and not great." I think "Bush wasn't that bad" finally surpasses it.


It's unfortunate.

Author:  SuperMario [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

While Bush entering Iraq is worse if you're looking at things right now, I think it can be argued that years from now, the ramifications of what Obama helped precipitate will be worse in the long run. Between pulling out of Iraq, which helped lead to the creation of ISIS as well as Libya, the Arab Spring and Muslim Brotherhood - those will have lasting impacts for many, many years. Plus the Iranian nuclear deal, which will just increase the Shia/Sunni, Saudi/Iranian conflict for years to come.

Author:  Regular Reader [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

It's hard to describe the way a reasonable person would appreciate the bizarre revisionism taking over this thread. I'm not the biggest Obama fan, but the assaults going on over his legacy are wildly misplaced

Author:  long time guy [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

Curious Hair wrote:
Best part of Libya was Hillary's lieutenant Neera Tanden putting it in writing that we should take all their oil for free as payment for bombing them, which was the same idea behind Iraq.


I have it on pretty good authority that we were not in Iraq because of the oil.

Author:  long time guy [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
He had 8 fucking years to end the wars. He not only failed to end them, but he expanded them into several new countries. Stop giving him a pass. He's a warmongering piece of shit, just like his predecessors and the one we have in office now. He was only anti-war on the campaign trail or when it could get him press. Any time he was in a position to take direct action, he was sending drones to go bomb weddings and Doctors Without Borders hospitals. Fuck him.

He withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011.

You can hate him and curse his drone strikes all you want, to act like he is equal to W. in this sense is ridiculous.


You're giving W. a pass for his HISTORIC fuck up by acting like it was just normal to go into Iraq as a response for 9/11

He put us into war in Libya, and yes that is a fuck-up equal to Iraq. Do you want to know why it's an equal fuck-up despite a lower body count? Because we got Libya to peacefully give up their WMD program only to then depose them when they had no WMD's. Anyone want to take a wild guess why a peaceful disarmament of North Korea via negotiations is 100% off the table according to the regime there? Our idiotic Libya policy (masterminded by Hillary and approved by Obama) put us in the current NK crisis. That has the potential to create worse after-effects than Bush's disastrous Iraq adventure.

Fuck him. He's a warmonger and if you want to pretend otherwise you're only lying to yourself.



Libya is nowhere near equal to Iraq.

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

long time guy wrote:


Libya is nowhere near equal to Iraq.

When the policy in Libya has ensured that no future rogue nation will peacefully surrender a WMD program, yes it is.

Don't take my word for that. Take North Korea's word as they have cited that very example.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... fence.html

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

I will summarize my point here.

The afterbirth of our Iraq policy has been ISIS. A very bad outcome that has led to tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths. However, not an existential threat to us.

The afterbirth of our Libya policy has been a North Korea which is determined to build and unwilling to give up a nuclear ICBM program. This has the very real potential to result in hundreds of millions of deaths and is very much an existential threat to us.

Author:  BigW72 [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

Regular Reader wrote:
It's hard to describe the way a reasonable person would appreciate the bizarre revisionism taking over this thread. I'm not the biggest Obama fan, but the assaults going on over his legacy are wildly misplaced


Not revisionist history. The W Presidency has been shit-on by MANY for years. he sucked....it's not up for debate.

The point here is Obama was not the pacifist MANY claim him to be. Libya is one. Oh, then there's the fact that he dumped a shit-ton of troops back into Afghanistan.

Author:  BigW72 [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

rogers park bryan wrote:
Right. Continuing the war for 3 years before effectively ending it is the EXACT same thing as starting it in the first place.


The POTUS can ask to go to war but congress has to give him/her the money to do it. The DEMs had every opportunity to say no. They didn't. Both parties supported and started the war. This isn't complicated.

Author:  long time guy [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Libya is nowhere near equal to Iraq.

When the policy in Libya has ensured that no future rogue nation will peacefully surrender a WMD program, yes it is.

Don't take my word for that. Take North Korea's word as they have cited that very example.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... fence.html



That could be propaganda. My point is that the circumstances were completely different. Libya was engaged in a civil war prior to U.S. intervention. Iraq wasn't. US created unrest in Iraq. They didn't create it in Libya.

Author:  long time guy [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
I will summarize my point here.

The afterbirth of our Iraq policy has been ISIS. A very bad outcome that has led to tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths. However, not an existential threat to us.

The afterbirth of our Libya policy has been a North Korea which is determined to build and unwilling to give up a nuclear ICBM program. This has the very real potential to result in hundreds of millions of deaths and is very much an existential threat to us.



North Korea was determined to build nukes well before Libya came along.

They are after all an inherently evil communist nation and as such are hell bent on worldwide destruction.

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

long time guy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Libya is nowhere near equal to Iraq.

When the policy in Libya has ensured that no future rogue nation will peacefully surrender a WMD program, yes it is.

Don't take my word for that. Take North Korea's word as they have cited that very example.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... fence.html



That could be propaganda. My point is that the circumstances were completely different. Libya was engaged in a civil war prior to U.S. intervention. Iraq wasn't. US created unrest in Iraq. They didn't create it in Libya.

it's hardly propaganda when US intelligence experts have expressed the same opinion. We deposed Gaddafi and now we're seeing the aftereffects of that policy when other rouge actors will not peacefully surrender WMD's as he did. They see WMD's as the insurance policy against regime change actions.

Hillary, Trump, Bush, Obama, and Cheney can all be dropped off of a cliff with no parachute for all I care. The current state of affairs in the world is their making.

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

long time guy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
I will summarize my point here.

The afterbirth of our Iraq policy has been ISIS. A very bad outcome that has led to tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths. However, not an existential threat to us.

The afterbirth of our Libya policy has been a North Korea which is determined to build and unwilling to give up a nuclear ICBM program. This has the very real potential to result in hundreds of millions of deaths and is very much an existential threat to us.



North Korea was determined to build nukes well before Libya came along.

Prior to Libya they had also expressed a willingness to come to the negotiating table for the right price. Post-Libya, they have made it clear that this is no longer an option.

Author:  long time guy [ Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: George W. Bush

Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Libya is nowhere near equal to Iraq.

When the policy in Libya has ensured that no future rogue nation will peacefully surrender a WMD program, yes it is.

Don't take my word for that. Take North Korea's word as they have cited that very example.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... fence.html



That could be propaganda. My point is that the circumstances were completely different. Libya was engaged in a civil war prior to U.S. intervention. Iraq wasn't. US created unrest in Iraq. They didn't create it in Libya.

it's hardly propaganda when US intelligence experts have expressed the same opinion. We deposed Gaddafi and now we're seeing the aftereffects of that policy when other rouge actors will not peacefully surrender WMD's as he did. They see WMD's as the insurance policy against regime change actions.

Hillary, Trump, Bush, Obama, and Cheney can all be dropped off of a cliff with no parachute for all I care. The current state of affairs in the world is their making.



There are also intelligence experts that have expressed opinions to the contrary. I don't believe for one second that North Korea would give up their nukes program.

I'm not defending Obama but I don't think that Iraq and Libya are similar. They arent.

Page 3 of 5 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/