Hello:

I don't know. You righty's thought the dufus in chief would be a wonderful president too, didn't you? I don't think there's too many of you who still think that. Well, maybe Galviston does.

He's losing in Afghanistan. He lost Pakistan. He's losing in Iraq. He lost Georgia and the other states within the sphere of influence of the Ruskies. He thinks making peace with Hamas is great, and he spent two trillion dollars. There's more, of course. These are just the highlights.

So, why should we believe you about McSame?

excon

It must be nice to be able to "print money".

I don't know ex, why should we believe that "third Bush term" DNC talking point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I don't know ex, why should we believe that "third Bush term" DNC talking point?

---

Hello Steve:

Uhhhh, cause they're not tooooo much different. McSames views on war and tax cuts are the same. Nothing much else matters...

Don't you think McSame will borrow us blind too?? Russia and China hold most of our debt. I don't think that's a real good foreign policy. As a matter of fact, it's national suicide.

excon

No doubt, the next president will try hard to distance himself from President Bush . But whatever change a President McCain or a President Obama brings, much of his policies will still follow Bush's lead.

President Bush is the Harry Truman of his time... Not perfect and had his share of set-backs (recall US troops almost getting pushed off the Korean Peninsula and the incredible advance of Russian expansion after WWII) . But his doctrine was the template for the execution of the COld War. He is better thought of today than when he left office.

Sorry Ex we will not be electing anyone better no matter which one wins .

Hello again, tom:

I should have included YOU with Galviston. Your Harry Truman comparison is ludicrous - unbelievably ludicrous - even to the point of being offensive!

I knew Harry Truman. Harry Truman was a great president. Bush is NO Harry Truman.

excon

Yeah I know, they're just alike. Next thing you know we'll be hearing McCain saying God told him to invade Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yeah I know, they're just alike. Next thing you know we'll be hearing McCain saying God told him to invade Iran.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Anybody who believes there's a fellow sitting in the clouds running the show is certainly subject to mention a conversation he had with him...

McCain believes there is such a fellow. Yeah, Obama too.

excon

Domestic policy mediocrity will prevent President Bush from being considered one of the truly greats .

Harry Truman was willing to make the hard choices against determined opposition .Bush is the same and all the name calling will not change that.

Jihadism as a political philosophy will forever have a boot print of President Bush's shoe embedded in it's butt. It has been discredited as an evil philosophy not only in the Western world but in most of the ummah.Happily, we will not know what jihadistan would have accomplished had he not reacted so vigorously and with such courage.

Today on CNBC:
"QUICK: When you take a look at the United States and its stock market compared to what you see overseas right now, where--what makes you most excited when...

BUFFETT: Well, I see values in all arenas. I mean, we try to look for the best ones, but there's no magic to any given market and things are cheaper than they were a year ago in markets here and in markets around the world. So everything is more attractive, generally speaking, both here and in Germany and the UK and Korea and you name it. And I just try to look for the things I understand the best and that also are selling for less than I think they're worth." Said Buffett: " Mr. Buffett, the world’s richest person according to Forbes magazine, added: “It has not paid to sell America short since 1776, and the time to start is not in 2008.”

And I love what he said about John Edwards! Let the ambulance chaser defend himself against a class-action suit!

Quote:

---

Your Harry Truman comparison is ludicrous

---

Truman was considered a folksy, unassuming president
Truman enlisted in the Missouri National Guard in 1905
He believed in the spread of democracy globally, and using American military and political influence
to see to that spread
At one point in his second term, near the end of the Korean War, Truman's public opinion ratings reached the lowest of any United States president, ever
Truman became known for a long series of prominently inopportune off-the-cuff statements to members of the national press corps
Truman was able to win bipartisan support for the Truman Doctrine, which formalized a policy of containment
Facing low popularity (36%), Truman faced one of the more difficult re-election campaigns in modern history. His re-election was narrow and unexpected, and was widely attributed to his whistlestop tour, connecting him with the average voter
In the end, Truman held the midwestern base, won most of the Southern states, and squeaked through with narrow victories in a few critical "battleground" states
Truman's second term was grueling, in large measure because of foreign policy challenges connected directly or indirectly to his policy of containment
In the early stages of the Korean conflict, the American infantry forces hastily deployed to Korea proved too few and were under-equipped. Responding to criticism, Truman fired his Secretary of Defense
Truman's approval ratings plummeted to such a degree that he faced calls for his impeachment
Fierce criticism from virtually all quarters accused Truman of refusing to shoulder the blame for a war
The war remained a frustrating stalemate for two years, with over 30,000 Americans killed
When he left office in 1953, Truman was one of the most unpopular chief executives in history. His job approval rating was 22 percent
http://www.politicalcapital.info/the...-truman-redux/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Harry Truman was willing to make the hard choices against determined opposition .Bush is the same and all the name calling will not change that. .....Happily, we will not know what jihadistan would have accomplished had he not reacted so vigorously and with such courage.

---

Hello again, tom:

The difference IS, Harry Truman made the RIGHT choices. The dufus didn't - ergo the term dufus. It's not a name. It's an adjective.

You and I don't disagree on Jihadistan either. I think they've made significant headway under the dufus, and it don't make me HAPPY at all. In fact, the dufusious choices he made put us in MORE danger.

Damned if I know what YOU'RE so happy about.

excon

Happy is not really the word . I would vote for him again given the chance against the field currently running. I think he has been misunderestimated .

At a time when we suffered a brutal and stunning surprise attack, when everyone expected more of the same , he took the fight to the enemy and, largely through his policies , prevented any other major attack on US soil .Absolutely no one predicted that on 9/12/2001.

Yes ;if you asked me about his immigration ,and his MIA veto pen through-out most of his term then I would not be as kind. But he was right on the central issue of our time. Perhaps in the next decade we will face different threats . But he took on the challenges he was given and has done well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:
The difference IS, Harry Truman made the RIGHT choices.
excon

---

Really? 58,219 dead; and $50 Billion between 1950-53, and how much since?

A footnote: In his second term George suffered much the same opposition and criticizim that Truman did. Oh yeah, that was George Washington.

Hello again,

He isn't a dufus because he's been criticized. He's a dufus because of what he did.

You and tom are both right about one thing, though. The future may be kinder to him than the present...

But, I don't think so. I cannot now, nor can I ever conceive of the unwarranted preemptive war against Iraq to be anything other than an unmitigated disaster of monumental proportions.

However, we have not YET seen how it's going to play out on the world scene. I desperately HOPE I'm wrong. But, I don't think so.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

Really? 58,219 dead; and $50 Billion between 1950-53, and how much since?

---

Hello George:

Are you saying that we should have let the commies take South Korea? Kind of strange coming from a neocon like you.

excon

Neocon?
"Q: Is this a neoconservative war in Iraq?

"Rich Lowry: No. We've editorialized about this a couple issues ago. It was a war of national interest, and it was broadly supported on the right for that reason. You had someone like (Rep.) Tom DeLay, who is as conservative as you can get -- he's an unhyphenated conservative through and through -- strongly supporting this. You had all factions of conservatism supporting it, except for a fringe represented by Pat Buchanan, and that's because it was a war of national interest.

"Paul Weyrich: I don't think that you could make that case. Certainly, neoconservatives were pushing for this war. But Vice President Cheney was the principal proponent of the war. He is certainly not a neoconservative. The president himself made the decisions. He's not a neoconservative. There are any number of people in the administration -- Condoleezza Rice, for example -- who were very much in favor of the war but who are not neoconservatives.

"On the other hand, neoconservatives were very involved in the planning and execution of the war -- Paul Wolfowitz being very prominent among them. Conspiratorialists could make the case, I suppose, that it was a neoconservative war. But I think it's much more complex.

"Paul Gigot: No. It's an American war in Iraq. I don't think the Marines who are putting their lives on the line in Fallujah think of themselves as neoconservatives.

"George Will: It had a neoconservative overlay, to the extent that it was a war -- however mistakenly -- based on the confident belief that there was a growing arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; that was not a distinctly neoconservative rationale.

"Neoconservatives supported the war for that reason, among others. It's the other reasons where it acquired its neoconservative patina. The neoconservative patina is that Iraq should become a secular, pluralist, multiparty, market-oriented democracy with the power of its example to transform the greater Middle East. That's the neoconservative edition."
See:So, what is a 'neocon'? - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Don't know about this 'neocon' stuff; but I'm American by birth, Southern by the grace of God.

Hello again, George:

Yeah, I never did understand that "neo" stuff. It's OK with me that you and the dufus are just ordinary wacko rightwingers.

excon