George H. W Bush vs George W Bush

Slartibartfast wrote: The history books already show that GW didn't topple the Taliban, failed to get Bin Laden despite his dead or alive bluster, terrorized people for political advantage, squandered a surplus to put more money into the hands of the already wealthy....

But, one hundred years from now, the historians may paint a very different picture. Bush could be portrayed broadly as someone who took a firm lead in dealing with the threat of Islamic extremism. They do say the victors of war write the history books. If indeed, America is the victor.

He did depose Saddam Hussein. The fact that this was done on the back of a pack of lies, will not stop the historians recording that this was such a significantly positive step in achieving world peace, that the 'nuances' of the situation were justified by the ends.

The Taleban is broadly not in power in Afghanistan anymore. They only have regional strongholds. Osama Bin Laden was only ever a red herring (not to mention formally a CIA asset) at the best of times. Bush just needed a crook to display on his 'Wanted' posters. America needed someone specific to blame for 9/11. A faceless rag tag band of militants hiding in caves, simply wasn't good enough.

Governments learn from their mistakes, in terms of how to manage the information their electorate sees. There are some very basic principles of psychology and sociology which govern how people behave in packs and as societies in times of crisis, in their search for leadership through the dark. It is quite possible that the Bush years will actually be recounted with some degree of warmth; once everyone who was actually alive while he was in office has died of old age...

The history books already show that GW didn't topple the Taliban, failed to get Bin Laden despite his dead or alive bluster, terrorized people for political advantage, squandered a surplus to put more money into the hands of the already wealthy....

Henry Plainview wrote: Oxford thinks so.

I stand corrected but I've never heard it before (it must be American in origin?)

don't  look at me I have nothing to do with that   , you should se how much security Oslo were under then you could nat fart without getting a gun pointed at you.

Oxford thinks so. 

 

Tapfret wrote:   http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-sarah-palin-quotes.htm?PS=224%3A6

Sarah Palin is never going to be president. And, as much as I hate the woman, I am willing to defend her on a few of those. She obviously just misspoke when she was talking about our North Korean allies, she spent the whole sentence before talking about North Korea and she slipped, it's incredibly unimportant. While she bombed the Katie Couric interview, she was not "unable" to name any newspapers she read, she was pissed that Katie was asking what was (in her mind) an inane question.

Tapfret wrote: So, these benefits? Was one of them the ability to put food on your family?

Come to think of it, I do remember W coming around and single-handedly putting food on my family.  Then again maybe it was just one of my bizarre dreams.  Back to this:

Slartibartfast wrote: Tapfret wrote: And who doesn't love waterboarding? You have single handedly made me rethink my position.

Singlehandedly, Slart?

The T wrote: During one's presidency, I was younger and lived in a different country. But I fully enjoyed the benefits of the presidency of the other one. Also, for comedy purposes, nobody will ever beat the second one.  Ah, and the whole ""Bet one of your ancestors owned slaves." actually means don't hold people accountable for their ancestors faults"is one of the top 10 idiotic sentences ever written in PA.

Thanks T.

We commit that error in every war.

Calling it an error is a little strange though since it's at best intentionally done and at worst the reason for starting the war.