George W. Bush's unelectable foreign policy

[rambone]

So you would have rather have had Al "I invented the Internet" Gore as President in 2000.

I didn't think the premise of this thread was that deep, but apparently it is.

I didn't bash George W. Bush -- I posted something positive about the platform that he ran on in 2000. Everyone just put your little partisan claws away.

He ran on a humble foreign policy. He didn't want to mess with the affairs of other countries. He didn't want to police the world. He wanted to bring the troops home.

Its a good policy! Its an electable foreign policy! Remember your party's roots. Don't be turned away by actual, traditional conservatism.

 

[Principal Skinr]

Unelectable? He was elected twice. The second time, we were deeply involved in Afghanistan AND Iraq. He won by a much wider margin than the first time.

Hard to make the argument that his foreign policy was unelectable. Besides, at the time both wars started, they were both supported by a majority of the American people. Funny how many people that supported either or both wars act like they didn't, later.

 

[rambone]

Unelectable?

Thread titles don't come in purple!

 

[KG1]

To the OP. I dig that clip you presented and in a perfect world that would be all fine and dandy but the point is that you presented the cilp and provided commentary as if nothing happened to affect the ideals proposed in between the time it was made and the here and now.

 

[88GT]

Unelectable? He was elected twice. The second time, we were deeply involved in Afghanistan AND Iraq. He won by a much wider margin than the first time.

Hard to make the argument that his foreign policy was unelectable. Besides, at the time both wars started, they were both supported by a majority of the American people. Funny how many people that supported either or both wars act like they didn't, later.

Ram correct me if I'm wrong, but....I think the take-home point is that Bush's positions on war, interventionism, etc in 2000 are as similar as it gets to Paul's position now. Bush was elected, ergo Paul is electable.

But in typical Ram style, the bigger picture is forgot or ignored. Paul is not Bush and 2011 is not 2000.

 

[Zoub]

George Bush thought he was going to be a President who ran an economy. Due to the previous 8 to 10 years of the country being asleep at the switch he found himself to be a war President instead.

So the message here is Paul is stuck in the year 2000 fish bowl, which anyone who was watching knew was was flawed then. How does it work now? In world that is much harsher then the one we had in 1999.

Do you really think this is some revelation in thought to the independents? You come off more like you are playing gotcha only we don't care and this is nothing new.

You posting a link to some supposedly lost to history and profound Bush concept will wake us up and vote for Paul? Maybe it works for the 18 year olds but that is not exactly Paul's demographic is it? Fail. Message does not fit the audience here. This tends to show how caught up in your own BullSh** you really are.

Here is a revelation for you to try to find.

If you want to study history study why the FBI had to go on a huge recruiting binge in the 1990's. You might also look into the importance of knowledge transfer inside a large organization like the FBI or any branch of the Military. This has been a problem for the last 35 years. One Paul is clueless on. It helped lead to 9/11 being such a success. It is also an issue because you are about to see history repeat itself on this subject. It happened under Carter. It happened under Clinton. It will happen under Obama. So lets compare history and futures in terms of defense.

Carter led to Reagan. That went good. He came into office with his eyes open.

Clinton led to Bush. Not so good, he was not ready.

Obama leads to Paul. You say Paul = Bush pre 9/11?! DO I want another Bush or another Reagan? Or anyone but another Bush. With Obama I already know what I have.

All you do here is pander to the Paul followers but you claim you are trying to persuade others. Starting one BS thread after another does not work but it does fall into another category, one of brand over exposure.

If I am Ron Paul, and I can't get INGO to cool your jets, I would consider paying you to stop.
A Case of Brand Overexposure? | DAAKE

 

[hornadylnl]

George Bush thought he was going to be a President who ran an economy. Due to the previous 8 to 10 years of the country being asleep at the switch he found himself to be a war President instead.

So the message here is Paul is stuck in the year 2000 fish bowl, which anyone who was watching knew was was flawed then. How does it work now? In world that is much harsher then the one we had in 1999.

Do you really think this is some revelation in thought to the independents? You come off more like you are playing gotcha only we don't care and this is nothing new.

You posting a link to some supposedly lost to history and profound Bush concept will wake us up and vote for Paul? Maybe it works for the 18 year olds but that is not exactly Paul's demographic is it? Fail. Message does not fit the audience here. This tends to show how caught up in your own BullSh** you really are.

Here is a revelation for you to try to find.

If you want to study history study why the FBI had to go on a huge recruiting binge in the 1990's. You might also look into the importance of knowledge transfer inside a large organization like the FBI or any branch of the Military. This has been a problem for the last 35 years. One Paul is clueless on. It helped lead to 9/11 being such a success. It is also an issue because you are about to see history repeat itself on this subject. It happened under Carter. It happened under Clinton. It will happen under Obama. So lets compare history and futures in terms of defense.

Carter led to Reagan. That went good. He came into office with his eyes open.

Clinton led to Bush. Not so good, he was not ready.

Obama leads to Paul. You say Paul = Bush pre 9/11?! DO I want another Bush or another Reagan? Or anyone but another Bush. With Obama I already know what I have.

All you do here is pander to the Paul followers but you claim you are trying to persuade others. Starting one BS thread after another does not work but it does fall into another category, one of brand over exposure.

If I am Ron Paul, and I can't get INGO to cool your jets, I would consider paying you to stop.
A Case of Brand Overexposure? | DAAKE

There is this thing called the ignore feature...

 

[jeremy]

Flashback to 1999-2000. Election season.

After 8 years of Bill Clinton's undeclared wars and military interventionism, Governor George W. Bush ran a campaign that promoted a humble foreign policy, bringing the troops home, staying out of other countries business, ending nation-building, no more policing the world, and closing unnecessary military bases.

Its a foreign policy that Republicans historically embraced. Nixon also ran on a platform of bringing the troops home from Vietnam. How did interventionism become a "conservative" plank?

Look how far you've drifted! Now you're a pariah if you aren't on running on a platform of war with Iran, let alone bringing the soldiers home.

Watch this video. "The George Bush You Forgot." Man, was he unelectable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

WTF?!

The answer I get most often is that he would have stood on the sidelines waiting for Congress to declare war first.

You mean just like G.W. Bush did...

 

[Zoub]

There is this thing called the ignore feature...

You mean the sucumb to evil feature? No, I can ignore Rambone and I am back to doing that. I did for a long time when I first noticed he dominates this forum, boith wiht his threads and bombarding threads of others.

But I thought I would come and see for myself how F'd it might really be. See if there was actually any real substance. In particular on the subject of Paul.

 

[jbombelli]

You mean the sucumb to evil feature? No, I can ignore Rambone and I am back to doing that. I did for a long time when I first noticed he dominates this forum, boith wiht his threads and bombarding threads of others.

But I thought I would come and see for myself how F'd it might really be. See if there was actually any real substance. In particular on the subject of Paul.

Personally, I never ignore anybody. If I ignore people, how will I know when to be arrogant and condescending?

 

[rambone]

Ram correct me if I'm wrong, but....I think the take-home point is that Bush's positions on war, interventionism, etc in 2000 are as similar as it gets to Paul's position now. Bush was elected, ergo Paul is electable.

Sure, one can say that. It is a traditional conservative's approach to foreign policy. The neo-conservative approach is to try to act as the World Police. The party needs to realize how far its traveled from its roots. Bush's platform wasn't isolationism then, and it isn't isolationism now.

But in typical Ram style, the bigger picture is forgot or ignored. Paul is not Bush and 2011 is not 2000.

Not forgotten or ignored. I think our current foreign policy weakens our national security. It makes us less safe to do the things that we continue to do.

 

[dross]

Personally, I never ignore anybody. If I ignore people, how will I know when to be arrogant and condescending?

Oh, I think it's pretty clear you don't need to know.

 

[dross]

Globalist agendas? 9/11 deserved retalitation but a large drawn out full blown war? I think afew highly trained men could've done better less time and money. And kept a better reputation. As it seems conservatives don't conserve economically or socially.

Dang it!! One of our foremost military experts and they didn't ask you before they did it?!

I'll bet they're banging their heads against the wall now.

"Why, why, why? For all that is holy, why didn't we ask BillyT how to respond to 911 before we went off and did it all wrong?"

 

[rambone]

You mean the sucumb to evil feature? No, I can ignore Rambone and I am back to doing that. I did for a long time when I first noticed he dominates this forum, boith wiht his threads and bombarding threads of others.

But I thought I would come and see for myself how F'd it might really be. See if there was actually any real substance. In particular on the subject of Paul.

You're waiting for a train, a train that will take you far away.

You know where you hope this train will take you, but you don't know for sure.

But it doesn't matter.

How can it not matter to you where that train will take you?

Tell me WHY in 1 sentence or less!

 

[dross]

I think that invading Iraq was something that absolutely had to be done after 911. I can't see a single scenario where we leave Sadam in power after that happened.

Also, we didn't start that war. The war ten years before never ended. We agreed to halt our attack on certain conditions. Iraq agreed to those conditions, then proceeded to violate them for many years. All we did was increase the intensity of the existing war, based on Iraq's continuing to fight that war.

 

[steveh_131]

This thread delivers.

More riddles plz. Come on Zoub, I know you can squeeze in one more Disney analogy.

 

[jeremy]

Globalist agendas? 9/11 deserved retalitation but a large drawn out full blown war? I think afew highly trained men could've done better less time and money. And kept a better reputation. As it seems conservatives don't conserve economically or socially.

Ohhhh....

You mean exactly like was tried in Afghanistan by both the Russians and then more recently by the USA....

So do you work for the The Corp Sector or the Politicos that think they are Soldiers in DC?!

 

[turnandshoot4]

I think that invading Iraq was something that absolutely had to be done after 911. I can't see a single scenario where we leave Sadam in power after that happened.

Why? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Sadam was no worse than Ghadafi. IMHO Obama did a better job with Lybia than G.W.B. did with Iraq.

 

[BillyT]

I thought the Russians invested everything in afganistan. Good to see they
Won that war and it didn't destroy them.
Did really need to go to Iraq? What threats did saddam say? Why didn't
We invade Saudi Arabia or other nations? I still think a smaller military could've done better but then the question is what are the motives? War on terrorism? Global control? Spreading "liberty and democracy". I don't know.
These are my oinons and questions. Sometimes I really question the interest these politicians have.
War on terror that should've started at home in our cities. Look at how dangerous they are. On our border. But then again I never went to
A war college so maybe one terrorist is worth more or is it Americans are worth less. Don't know.

 

[dross]

Why? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Sadam was no worse than Ghadafi. IMHO Obama did a better job with Lybia than G.W.B. did with Iraq.

After 911, security came to the forefront. You had a dictator in power who had taken active steps to aid terrorists around the world. He had an infrastructure that could provide very valuable aid to any terrorist organization. As far as we could tell, he had some pretty dangerous technology, including possibly biological weapons and a nuclear program which we had so far been unable to determine just how advanced it was, mainly because he had been actively attempting to deceive the inspection program he agreed to in order for us to halt the invasion of Iraq.

No way we could have responsibly left him in power. It's not about punishment for 911, it's about doing what you can to prevent a future 911 or worse.

BTW, I think the invasion of Iraq is the single largest reason we haven't had another major attack.

What everyone forgets about Gaddafi is that after the invasion of Iraq he opened communications with the U.S. and voluntarily ended his own nuclear program.

Personally, I am convinced that without the invasion of Iraq, we would have already had more major attacks on our soil instead of just the several individual attacks we've had.

That's why.