Bush compared to Hitler

[ufojoe]

I've seen girls wearing t-shirts that say, "The only Bush I trust is my own."

By the way bucboy, besides Hagel's current opposition to the war in Iraq, what else has he
done to show that he is not a conservative Republican? Not that being against the war
means anything with regard to that. He was in support of it when it started. Seems like
he's an independent thinker.

Maybe I'm just ignorant and don't know enough about him?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=aWwSN1OtsBh8

Dark Horse

With no Secretariat in the stable, there's room for a dark horse. Galloping in is Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel. I went to a small dinner with Hagel last week to see how he's faring, which is well, despite bags the size of steamer trunks under his eyes. They make him look sad when he isn't.

As Bush-Cheney Enemy No. 1, he's the go-to anti-surge Republican who, although he voted for the war, warned President George W. Bush from Day One about the peril of governing Iraq.

If party activists could see past his sharp criticism of Bush's foreign policy, they would like his life story. Hagel's father died when he was a teenager, and young Chuck helped look after the other children and worked as a carhop at a hamburger joint. He and his younger brother joined the infantry and nearly died in Vietnam. He worked several jobs before starting a hugely successful cell-phone company. It made him a millionaire.

No Economic Populist

Although he's often referred to as McCain without the attitude, Hagel is hardly an economic populist. He is an ardent tax cutter and fiscal conservative who votes with Bush, as he reminds me, more than 90 percent of the time.

He's not an evangelical (he's Episcopalian), but they could hardly fault his voting record, which garners a pro-family score of 100 from the Christian Coalition. In a field of candidates with multiple marriages, he looks abstemious with only one. His voice is as flat as the plains, a man more at home at the Rotary Club than a Georgetown dinner party.

But is that enough to counter his current fame as a sharp critic of Bush's conduct of the two disastrous wars? Hagel has hounded Bush to pay more attention to Afghanistan and warned him that Iraq could end in chaos even as he gave him authority to go there.

When Bush announced his plans to send more troops to Iraq, Hagel called it the "biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.'' With Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, he co-authored a resolution against the troop increase, which eventually became the Warner-Levin resolution. Although seven Republicans crossed the aisle to vote for it, it didn't get a filibuster-proof majority. Hagel says he will keep trying.

[Morgan]

       Thats an unfair comparison.  Hitler was a miltary genius, Bush is a bumbling retard. Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews, while Bush wants to opress gays, the poor, muslims,civil liberties, etc.    They are both evil but in different ways.  Because Bush isnt directly killing a specific race, people are reluctant to lable him as the evil scumbag he is.

I'm thankful that he's taken on the Taliban and Al Queda. Anyone else?

[spartan]

Yeah, and I guess there were no conservative Republicans ready to impeach Nixon either.

At some point, a politicians' performance is so bad that he has to struggle to find supporters.
Doesn't matter if they are liberal or conservative or in between. Will Bush get to that point?

To be honest Joe it really doesn't matter unless Congress vote to withhold funds. He is the President of the United States.

Without getting into the rights and wrongs of the politics, if you honestly believe that what you are doing is the right it shouldn't matter if people like you for doing it or not.  If you don't agree with his policies you call him arrogant, pigheaded, stupid so on and so forth, but if you agree with what he is doing he is principled and doing what is right regardless of the personal cost to himself. In the end only history will be able to judge the correctness of his policies.

[ufojoe]

I didn't say anything about the additional troops being sent over. THAT is related to withholding
funds. I'm talking about impeachment and how it's just not the Dems. who are unhappy with
GW's peformance.

[JavaBuc]

How did this turn so political?   I just wanted to complain about people improperly insulting our country's leader.

[Morgan]

Yeah, its  a shame how the world treats President Bush - our leader - he's dedicated his presidency to eliminating terrorism and protecting the rest of the world from these savages.


I think the board has a rule against Political threads, if I'm not mistaken.  This one might be lost.

[bucboy 64]

Without getting into the rights and wrongs of the politics, if you honestly believe that what you are doing is the right it shouldn't matter if people like you for doing it or not.

I believe thats called leadership

Doesn't surprise me since the whole world hates George Bush...............and they should.

Re : Hitler = military genius

Umm actually if he listens to Rommell he probably takes over even more of Europe, but he went on his own campaigns and that ulitmately cost him.

[ufojoe]

Still waiting for bucboy to show how Hagel isn't a conservative. I have to hear more from the guy
but he may be one of my choices if he runs.

If Bush feels what he is doing is right, he should what he believes in if it's within the law.

If Congress and/or the Senate believe that he needs to be ousted, he should be impeached
and removed, along with Cheney. But I don't think Cheney will finish his term anyway.
I made that prediction when he shot his friend in the face. Wonder if he'll step down
due to his "health" problems.

By the way, I've talked to friends in Europe and they don't hate Bush. They hate the policies
and think he isn't fit for the job.  And they're just baffled as to how Americans elected him the
2nd time and how so many of us still support him.

Quote from: nybuccaneerguy
...he barelly pursued the terrorists who bombed us...

When I barely pursue someone, I run them out of the yard and then stop. Bush took over a country. I'm not sure I'd phrase that as "barely pursued." Or, did you want him to take over the country that they fled to as well?

[ufojoe]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Q    Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden.  Why is that?  Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive?  Final part  --  deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of  --

THE PRESIDENT:  Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all.  Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time.  And the idea of focusing on one person is --  really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person.  And he's just  --  he's a person who's now been marginalized.  His network, his host government has been destroyed.  He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.  He is  --  as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide  --  if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is.  You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.  I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

* * * * *

But at least Al Qaeda has been destroyed.

Oh wait...

Feb. 21st, 2007

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=134045&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26

Senior US officials insist that Osama bin Laden’s organisation, which is blamed for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the US, has reconstituted itself and is running international operations from Pakistan’s remote tribal belt.

[nybuccguy]

   Yes Illuminator, if that is what it takes. Why do you feel it is unreasonable to pursue Bin Laden, but it is not unreasonable to take over a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda?  If Bush did everything he could, why did we not have troops in Afghanistan untill 2 weeks after 9/11?   Why did we send 10 times more troops to Iraq than Afghanistan?  Why does Bush admit that he is no longer concerned with Osama?  Why are we not pursuing Al Qaeda all over the globe?

   George Bush used Americas fear of terrorism to justify his corrupt war, while he let Al Qaeda slip through the cracks.  It is shamefull and disgusting.

[JavaBuc]

Let's face it, Bush is pathetic.    However, the main shameful and disgusting thing is that most Americans were actually FOR the war on Iraq before it ever happened.   I never understood the reasoning there.    It's amazing how easily people can be swayed by the media.    I would think that any reasonably thinking individual could have seen before the war ever started that it was not the brightest move.    The attack on Afghanistan was a good move, but going after Iraq is taking things a bit too far.

That being said, I'm not going to sit here and cry like a little girl over spilled milk.   Something needs to be done about Iraq.   It's a big clusterF now with no clear resolution anywhere in sight.   I have my thoughts on how to handle things, but international opinion would preclude that course of action so I wont even mention it.   But someone needs to make some strong decisions.   Pulling out the troops completely would be quite unethical.  It would be in our short term best interest if we are selfish enough to do that at this point.   But in the long run it would bite us in the ass.

I'm not so concerned about Bin Laden either at this point.   You never even hear from the guy, so he's relatively close to a non-factor.   The fact that he's hiding in Pakistan doesn't surprise me.   Our BS alliance with that terrorist country has always been a shame.   There is no more terrorist country in the world than Pakistan itself.   If you think we are going to easily be able to go into Pakistan and pull Bin Laden out of there, you don't know what you are dealing with.   The leadership in Pakistan would be overthrown by islamic militants in a day if they were to allow us to do that.    We've always been a country who sides with evil when it suits our interests.   I don't blame Bush for that, that has ALWAYS been our policy.   Yes, the current leader of Pakistan is fairly similar to Saddam in that he's a dictator.   However, It's hard to blame Bush for supporting the current administration in Pakistan given the alternative of islamic fundamentalists being in charge.   My prediction is that eventually the islamic fundamentalists will gain power in Pakistan regardless of how we handle that country.   I predict Pakistan will be the next country to set off nuclear bombs.   

[bucboy 64]

Sorry for the delay Joe. Even though Hagel voted for the war he has been an outspoken critic since day one. Hes been against the NSA wiretapping and the Patriot act. I would say Hagel is more a libertarian than a conservative republican.