the key point is we won. we had a goal, and we won. so it doesn't matter. secondly, we were baited into ww2, we were attacked, bush chose to march into iraq. analogy fail
point is Obama was against the surge, and Biden wanted to partition iraq, a plan that would have proved disastrous. i'm happy they've stayed the course (and like cheney, happy they've belatedly chosen the right course in Afghanistan. but if iraq is a success today, it's due to one man, and that man was george w. bush, earlier ****ups notwithstanding.
the surge is not the victory. just like normandy isn't the victory. its a battle, then there's a war. bush started a war, he screwed it up until one battle, he doesn't get credit for anything. again, what have we accomplished. ending the screwup (the entire war) is an accomplishment itself. btw, you don't know what would have proved distarious, this entire episode n american history is distarious, and you supported its start for nothing. so you do not to get to tell us what would have happened.
There's a lot here, but a lot of what you say in this post sounds like partisan talking points with no balance at all. Are you aware that's what this comes across as? First, I want to reiterate the obvious point that you can't expect anybody to admit something you think is a mistake if they actually disagree with you that it is a mistake. If you think it was a mistake but they would argue it is not, then that is not an appropriate example of somebody who is unable to admit when they're wrong. Many of your examples fall into this category. Also, please note that Obama has admitted mistakes on several issues. You mentioned his appointing of tax cheats. If you google "obama i made a mistake" you get plenty of hits referring to Obama admitting a mistake when nominating Tom Daschle. He has also taken responsibility for security mistakes regarding the underwear bomber, as well as the mistake of claiming that health care negotiations would be televised on C-Span. There might be more, I don't really keep track of them. I'd imagine Bush has admitted mistakes as well. I think the whole "politicians never admit when they are wrong" idea is way overblown and just something that is easy to assume if you don't pay close enough attention. Finally, I'd like to point out a few things you mention in your post that I believe are factually inaccurate or at least very biased in their presentation: "his economic policies which will bankrupt this nation... His massive deficits and reckless spending programs..." - His proposed budgets pay for all spending implemented under his administration. The majority of current deficits can be traced to policies implemented under George Bush and to the loss in revenue that resulted from the current recession. Can you defend your quote in light of that information? "He has appointed tax cheat after tax cheat." - Several of his appointments had some issues with taxes, but do you really believe that his record of appointments differs greatly from previous Presidents? "He has associated himself with extreme radicals like ... Ayers." - Are you just listening to talking points, or do you assume that Ayers and Obama are lying about the lack of any significant relationship they have had? "Let's not forget about Anita Dunn who claims Mao ... is her favorite political philosopher." - Are you aware of the context of this quote? Do you believe that the given the point Ms. Dunn was making that she is a radical? Does reciting Mao quotes automatically make one a radical? "He has never once owned up to any of these associations or appointments and apologized for his mistake... He only did that when backed into a corner and had little choice to do so." - Just wondering why in one sentence you say he has never owned up to these, and in another say he has? "he continues to surround himself with far left radicals" - Do you have any examples? "... to the terror trials in New York. I think even Obama realized that was a mistake and has since changed his mind." - The evidence I've seen suggests that he doesn't think it was a mistake at all, and is still trying to do that. He is merely considering other options if he cannot get the necessary cooperation on holding the trials in New York. How can you expect to have a real conversation when you either cannot get your facts correct or you appear to have less concern for reality than you do for reciting all of the anti-Obama talking points from the last two years?
not true, but then, if it's your contention i supported it for nothing, then i guess we have nothing to discuss.
basso, I really don't care, its quite sad to see you here arguing for bush's legacy over a war that just about everybody admits accomplished nothing. if that's your last grasp for bush, have it, it really doesn't matter to me.
or maybe your problem is trying to not give obama credit for anything, at least your mission is up to date i guess
If the surge and subsequent strategy started during the Bush administration is what leads to "victory" in Iraq, then Bush should get the bulk of the credit regardless of whether the war itself was a bad idea or poorly run in the beginning (he should be able to also receive criticism for that). If Obama did something noteworthy towards a change in strategy, as he has done in Afghanistan, then he should get the bulk of the credit. I'm not sure how you can argue with that?
i gave him credit for a couple of things earlier in this "discussion." i think your problem is an utter refusal to give Bush credit for anything.
basso, credit for what, what is victory in Iraq? basso giving credit to obama, declaring him a "won" term president haha, get it "won"
basso giving credit to obama on afghanistan "as far as war fighting strategy, its pathetic" obama appreciates the support
Really not wanting to jump into the middle here, but I believe we really won't know the answer to this for years to come. Time will tell.
basso was originally referring to Biden's comment, (and I don't see anywhere that basso used the term "victory"). basso is assuming that the "great achievement" Biden refers to is "winning in iraq". He is then claiming that "winning in iraq" is primarily due to strategy put in place during the Bush administration. He is then making the point that the Obama administration doesn't deserve any more credit for overseeing the implementation of the final stages of that strategy than they do for overseeing the recession caused by actions during the Bush administration. That's a perfectly logical argument. You might disagree that Biden was referring to "winning in iraq" when he referred to a "great achievement". Or you might disagree that "winning in iraq" will occur because of strategies begun under Bush. If either of those are what you're objecting to, then that would be logical as well. But to claim, as it appears you're doing, that credit for winning in iraq cannot be given to Bush since he ****ed it up so badly in the first place, is not logical in my opinion. The credit and blame for those two different results can both be applied.
