Hmmm…if Bush was to blame for the Katrina debacle, should we now thank him for how well the Gustav hurricane played out? Where are the lib attack dogs?
We also recently handed over Anbar to Iraqi security forces. The war is winding down and…we won. The surge worked. Where’s the praise from Obama, Pelosi, and George Soros’ minions?
You want to give Bush credit for a hurricane that calmed down as it reached the US?
I think Gustav calmed down because it feared Bush. So yes, it makes as much sense to give Bush credit as it did to pummel him for the effects of Katrina.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
I think Gustav calmed down because it feared Bush.[/quote]
I see. So all that talk about Obama being The Messiah was blasphemy.
All hail Bush!!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Hmmm…if Bush was to blame for the Katrina debacle, should we now thank him for how well the Gustav hurricane played out? Where are the lib attack dogs?
We also recently handed over Anbar to Iraqi security forces. The war is winding down and…we won. The surge worked. Where’s the praise from Obama, Pelosi, and George Soros’ minions?[/quote]
As a matter of fact, I think it is very admirable to note how relatively smoothly the evacuation of New Orleans went this time. Since the prez has the “The buck stops here!” sign on his desk, I will gladly extend to him the credit for execution. That being said, I would not equate that improvement to the monumental disaster that was the federal Katrina response.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Hmmm…if Bush was to blame for the Katrina debacle, should we now thank him for how well the Gustav hurricane played out? Where are the lib attack dogs?
We also recently handed over Anbar to Iraqi security forces. The war is winding down and…we won. The surge worked. Where’s the praise from Obama, Pelosi, and George Soros’ minions?[/quote]
A) Only morons blame Bush for the actual Hurricane. Smart people blame him for appointing an incompetent moron to the national agency that was supposed to be covering the states emergency forces ass.
B) If we won, we can leave and it won’t blow up in our face, right? If we leave within the next year and Iraq flourishes as a Democratic nation, and consequently denies Iran its position as the major Middle Eastern power player, I will publicly concede that the surge worked, the war was successful despite me still being against its initiation. Unless something major happens, however, most people are still going to agree that going into Iraq was a bad idea, if not because of the whole misleading aspect, then because it hurt our international PR so very, very much.
So… Vous avez plus des questions ou non?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
So… Vous avez plus des questions ou non?[/quote]
So close.
The evacuation went well. The aftermath seems to be going well. As far as I can tell, Gustav was handled aptly by all involved.
If Bush was involved, kudos to him. Helluva job, Bushy!
[quote]pookie wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
So… Vous avez plus des questions ou non?
So close.
[/quote]
Donc…est-ce que vous avez plus de questions?
Donc…avez-vous plus de questions?
Would those be better?
I believe you could also use “Aura-t-il plus des questions?”
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
If we leave within the next year and Iraq flourishes as a Democratic nation, and consequently denies Iran its position as the major Middle Eastern power player, [/quote]
Iran is “the major Middle Eastern power player”. Saddam was the one SOB to keep them in check. Now, unless we see a balkanization of Iraq, “a Democratic” Iraq can only bolster the Iranian position.
[quote]ajcook99 wrote:
pookie wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
So… Vous avez plus des questions ou non?
So close.
Donc…est-ce que vous avez plus de questions?
Donc…avez-vous plus de questions?
Would those be better? [/quote]
Those would be correct.
That’s gibberish.
[quote]lixy wrote:
You want to give Bush credit for a hurricane that calmed down as it reached the US?[/quote]
Geez you really are a pill.
Even if the damn thing magically went away, the point is the now organized functions of federal, state and local government working exactly as it should have in Katrina. That is the win. That is the fix. That is the point.
I’m going out on a limb here, but I suspect your obsession with Bush is pretty unhealthy. You should figure out a way to be better than this as an objective student of our politics if you are truly obsessed with the US. Don’t you have some paper to write about American Atrocities in school?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
If we leave within the next year and Iraq flourishes as a Democratic nation, and consequently denies Iran its position as the major Middle Eastern power player,
Iran is “the major Middle Eastern power player”. Saddam was the one SOB to keep them in check. Now, unless we see a balkanization of Iraq, “a Democratic” Iraq can only bolster the Iranian position.
[/quote]
Are you serious? A democratic Iraq is bad???
A democratic Iraq means a at least a semi-pro American government. This means a permanent base in Iraq just like South Korea, Germany, and Japan.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
If we leave within the next year and Iraq flourishes as a Democratic nation, and consequently denies Iran its position as the major Middle Eastern power player,
Iran is “the major Middle Eastern power player”. Saddam was the one SOB to keep them in check. Now, unless we see a balkanization of Iraq, “a Democratic” Iraq can only bolster the Iranian position.
Are you serious? A democratic Iraq is bad???
A democratic Iraq means a at least a semi-pro American government. This means a permanent base in Iraq just like South Korea, Germany, and Japan.
[/quote]
Oh…you didn’t! You Elitist scum…lixy??? LOL!!
You don’t realize that is an American interest, therefore very, very BAD!!!
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
A) Only morons blame Bush for the actual Hurricane. Smart people blame him for appointing an incompetent moron to the national agency that was supposed to be covering the states emergency forces ass.
[/quote]
The Katrina mess was primarily Nagin and Blanco’s fault…Bush had little to do with it…The feds just can’t crash into an independent state and start running the show. And the idiots in New Orleans who apparently crave incompetant leadership reelect Nagin…They deserve what they get. Nagin is a MORON, a big one too.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
lixy wrote:
You want to give Bush credit for a hurricane that calmed down as it reached the US?
Geez you really are a pill.
Even if the damn thing magically went away, the point is the now organized functions of federal, state and local government working exactly as it should have in Katrina. That is the win. That is the fix. That is the point.
I’m going out on a limb here, but I suspect your obsession with Bush is pretty unhealthy. You should figure out a way to be better than this as an objective student of our politics if you are truly obsessed with the US. Don’t you have some paper to write about American Atrocities in school?
[/quote]
He spanks his monkey to Bush’s effigy.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
If we leave within the next year and Iraq flourishes as a Democratic nation, and consequently denies Iran its position as the major Middle Eastern power player,
Iran is “the major Middle Eastern power player”. Saddam was the one SOB to keep them in check. Now, unless we see a balkanization of Iraq, “a Democratic” Iraq can only bolster the Iranian position.
Are you serious? A democratic Iraq is bad???
A democratic Iraq means a at least a semi-pro American government. This means a permanent base in Iraq just like South Korea, Germany, and Japan.
[/quote]
I do…They need a U.S. friendly dictator. You give them freedom and they start killing each other like animals.
[quote]pat wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
If we leave within the next year and Iraq flourishes as a Democratic nation, and consequently denies Iran its position as the major Middle Eastern power player,
Iran is “the major Middle Eastern power player”. Saddam was the one SOB to keep them in check. Now, unless we see a balkanization of Iraq, “a Democratic” Iraq can only bolster the Iranian position.
Are you serious? A democratic Iraq is bad???
A democratic Iraq means a at least a semi-pro American government. This means a permanent base in Iraq just like South Korea, Germany, and Japan.
I do…They need a U.S. friendly dictator. You give them freedom and they start killing each other like animals.[/quote]
Not if we have a base there. And you can’t always count on a US friendly dictator.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Are you serious? A democratic Iraq is bad??? [/quote]
Whoever said it “is bad”?
I sincerely doubt it. Every single predominantly Arab country that held fair and transparent elections saw staunch anti-Americans get to power.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
I do…They need a U.S. friendly dictator. You give them freedom and they start killing each other like animals.
Not if we have a base there. And you can’t always count on a US friendly dictator.[/quote]
yeah…we don’t need another “Saddam Hussein.”