So have I. What's your point? I frankly expect excellence from the commander in chief. Are you saying you're fine with mediocrity in the highest office in the nation?

Down from 89% of the voters on his side after 9/11. I call that a pretty damn big slide. What could possibly account for it other than voters (who matter) losing faith in him?





No, it's both. Do you think that had Bush Sr. been shot and Quayle had become president, that people would have taken him seriously? He made such a total fool of himself every time he opened his mouth in public that people went in to private sessions already looking down on him. Public appearances effect what happens in private.



And that wasn't the only complaint I had about him in this thread (or others) either. The troops (the smart ones anyway) are losing faith in him for many other reasons. Even the ones who supported the war cannot appreciate the fact that Bush did not send enough troops to support the invasion force. That attack the other day on the 20 truck fuel convoy that was being guarded by all of 3 humvees is a shining example. There simply aren't enough soldiers over there, and it's made the situation far more dangerous for the ones that are there as a result.

I'm saying that ONE area of mediocrity does not make the man mediocre.

Imagine that, the numbers fell in the years since a massive tragedy. Who'd have thunk it. No one expected it to remain that high and there is no possibility that it could have. We won't know how much faith they've lost until the election results are in.

It's what goes on behind closed doors that influence policy most. Obviously I didn't say it doesn't matter at all.

Please show me your evidence that the "smart" troops are losing faith in him. There's no question there were enough troops to support the invasion force, if there wasn't how could it have been successful? Citing one example of a successful attack as evidence of too few troops in the entire country is not exactly strong proof of your theory.

Um. It wasn't successful. Successful invasions do not have major battles going on every day for a year after "major hostilities have ended." Successful invasions do not wind up with more people killed after the war is supposedly over than were killed during the war.

Anyone who calls this little adventure we're having in Iraq anything close to successful is either misinformed or deluding themselves.

Umm, Yeah they do.

There were Japanese and German guerilla fighters after WW2 even though we won (I am guessing you won't dispute that). The Germans successfully invaded France and there was still a resistance.

major battles... everyday? and yet the news media refuses to report a single one. i wish they'd quit talking about these car bombs. rogue clerics, and hostage situations and tell us a bit about these major battles.

I would state that the "Invasion" was a success in that the ruling faction was removed, and there were more than sufficient troops for that purpose. There seem to be major problems with the plan for Iraq after the removal of government. Perhaps the body count would be lower every day if we had decided to put a post invasion plan into place, instead of wingin' it.
I can only hope that what we are currently experiencing was not planned, as that would be worse than no plan at all.

I have to wonder about the plan going in,...or were they so arrogantly 'winged' in such instances that nothing but ultimate success was a guarantee.

A few years ago I would have doubted that, now there is very little benefit of that doubt.

I had really hoped a little bit more thought would have been allotted pre and post invasion after it was deemed necessary to invade.

Eh hate to nitpick but successful invasion and successful occupation are two different things honestly

You can succeed in taking your objectives of invasion - say removing a regime, a city, etc.

But what happens after durign the occupation can be successful/unsuccessful in itself

But anyways one year later the line is still "just a bit longer, its not that fast"

Historically, America stood for white, anglo-saxon, protestant, slave owning males age 25-60 having a majority of the power/wealth/influence/ect and everyone else being SOL.

I guess I hate America too...

You can not see why Bush is truely evil unless you watch the news and read the paper. Bush is evil because he is taking away the rights of American citizens and claiming it is to protect us. He has ruined enviromental laws that have taken years to put in affect, and I dont care about this so called economic improvment. Our country is still in debt. We are in debt because of these seemingly good incentives like no child left behind, but they are all underfunded. Kerry is not the best person to become President, but he is certainly better than Bush. So if you want to vote Bush go ahead, im moving to Canada to escape Americas Stupidity.

Well, let's see...

I seem to recall all the predictions just before we invaded. Hundreds of thousands dead, oil fields burning, environmental disasters, bloody battle after bloody battle for every meter of ground gained, American and coalition troops suffering tens of thousands deaths, surrounding countries taking the oppotunity to seize border lands in the confusion, etc, etc, etc.

The invasion ended up taking days rather than months and years, Baghdad was taken with minimal casualties, there was relatively little infrastructure damage, and in about a year, there is a hell of a lot of progress.

Occupation is always a PITA. Major battles are almost non existent with the vast majority being hit and run attacks. Yeah I'd have to say overall it has been an outstanding invasion and it will appear in military texts for years to come as an amazingly well coordinated attack which took advantage of significant opportunities as they arose.

Bush isn't as disarming as say, Reagan. Reagan would have made a good proctologist; although he's sticking an anal probe up your ass, he makes you feel trusting and happy. Forget about that cold rod of steel spikes he sticking in you hoo-hoo. He's just such a nice guy.

Laughing my ass off! Laughing my ass off! Good one Jizz-Fritter. Right on the money.

Do you have any source for german guerillia fighters? I know Hitler dreamt about a resistance, but as far as i know it was close to non existant and nowhere comparable to the resistance now in iraq.

There's a thread about this from way back, but what we figured out was there were around 40 US military deaths in Germany post WWII, and 0 US military deaths in Japan.

Man, back then countries knew how to surrender... *said in crotchety old man voice

i certainly wouldn't want to limit the media's free reign over iraq but...

a distinct difference between post WWII and now-a-days is the constant round-the-clock hunt for a shred of news to plaster over every front page.

if a couple village idiots end up picking up some poor contractor over there and holding him hostage... it is broadcasted worldwide. late night talk shows and internet boards :p talk and talk about the implications of their actions.

back then, there would be nowhere near this exposure... eleminating much of the motivation for the terrorist's actions.

i mean seriously, if it came down to it... anyone of us could pull a civilian off the street and parade him around. there is nothing especially groundbreaking about that. All you have to do now is find a journalist wandering the country looking for a story and give him a 10 second interview from the back of your nissan.

we give these jokers an international platform by our insatiability for context-free news. this is something the post WWII forces never had to face.

Can't quite let this one go by...

This means to me that you can only argue or refute one point. The rest must be true.

And...

The truth is that no one else had a chance to. GWB was the guy in the hot seat at the time, and he did an OK job (some would say great, not me.) But who's to say that someone else wouldn't have done better? I mean Rudy Guiliani did a pretty good job, what would things have been like if he had been president at the time? What if (gasp!) GWB made a few mistakes? He couldn't have done better? To me that statment sounds like slaveish unquestioning devotion to our president.

Just because someone believes it's unlikely that someone else could have done better, it isn't slavish unquestioning devotion. Further, Giuliani has been quite complimentary in Bush's handling of the situation, so, given that he knows a thing or two about managing the after-effects of a terrorist strike, do you think, that maybe, just maybe Bush did do an outstanding job?

Just because Guiliani has been complimentary doesn't mean I have to be too. It's his job to be complimentary (and he probably thinks that GWB did a good job, which is fine, but I don't have to agree.) So, no, I do not think he did an outstanding job. GWB is not a great public speaker. His use of the english language is deplorable. Listening to him say 'evil do-ers' made me cringe and think that while the whole world's attention was focused on us, we should have had something better than a semi-functional illiterate to speak for us. Among others, I think Guiliani would have done a better job. Hell, what about that Blair chap? Why should we restrict ourselves to Americans? Nobody better? I think he was talking about nobody-better-who-was-President-of-the-United-States-at-the-time. Lame.

I avoided this thread the first time around, because it seemed like a wonderful nesting ground for Trolls. However, with its recent resurgence, I began to try to determine when, exactly my displeasure with President Bush began.

When I think back, it was actually when I read a magazine article that my mother had cut out(I forget the magazine) about then Governor Bush. The article was complimentary and hinted that the Governor was mulling over the idea of running for president. My mother, a staunch conservative, was intrigued by him and liked the tone he set during his interview. I, on the other hand, immediately disliked his tone and demeanor and the subtle arrogance that pervaded his comments. My mother was so surprised that I felt that way, she just didn't see it. She continually asked me how I could feel that way and how could I not see his virtues.

Time and experience has only strengthen my dislike of the man. Obviously, I have political and philosophical differences with him, but that is not the issue, there are many who I disagree with, but for whom I have a great deal of respect and even revernce. There is something, on a very basic, gut-instinct, emotional level that disturbs me about President Bush. I am not sure why this is, but it seems to me that he has that effect on a great number of people and if you add in philosophical differences it can really raise the level of dislike or hatred. For those who do not experience this discomfort, it must seem infuriatingly irrational, but I cannot deny its existence.

I also uphold the people's right to criticize their elected officials. Do I think that "Bush is a fucking moron!" is an effective critique of this administration's weaknesses and blunders - no, but you have the right to say it.

Nuff said - thanks for readin'.

Nowhere did I say you had to agree. I just asked if there was a possibility that he did do an outstanding job since someone that faced a similar situation and who you seem to respect holds the exact opposite view from your own. Your rant on Bush's speaking skill seems to indicate a predisposition to allow factors that don't pertain to the handling of 9/11 to influence your opinion.

As far as your theory that Giuliani would have done better or that Blair could have, perhaps you're right but just as you are entitled to your opinion, so is Ustwo. Why can't he believe and communicate that Bush was the best person for the job in his opinion?