PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Salon Mag asks what did Bush and Cheney do wrong?


MarcBulger
02-03-2010, 03:21 PM
Salon a left wing news organization asks the ? If Bush and CHeney were doing things so bad on the Defense of this Nation why are Dems wanting to return to their policies...Read it and weep lefties....


http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/02/02/bush

patteeu
02-03-2010, 05:06 PM
Seriously: if you were a Bush follower, wouldn't you feel as though you were owed a major apology for all the accusations and the fuss that came from Democrats and media figures, accusing you of supporting radical and Constitution-shredding policies when, it turns out, they actually crave those policies in order to feel safe? Doesn't all of this bolster the Republican claim that those attacks on the Bush administration for civil liberties abuses were not due to genuine conviction, but rather for partisan gain....

Yep.

whatsmynameagain
02-03-2010, 06:31 PM
Yep.

the iraq war was bullshit, they forced false evidence using alqaeda and wmds as the culprits to get their boys PAID!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

patteeu
02-03-2010, 06:39 PM
the iraq war was bullshit, they forced false evidence using alqaeda and wmds as the culprits to get their boys PAID!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

I disagree with you, but that's not the subject of the article being discussed.

Bwana
02-03-2010, 06:40 PM
the iraq war was bullshit, they forced false evidence using alqaeda and wmds as the culprits to get their boys PAID!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

Yes, and now we have Barry. How's that Hope and Change thing working for you?

Norman Einstein
02-03-2010, 06:41 PM
the iraq war was bullshit, they forced false evidence using alqaeda and wmds as the culprits to get their boys PAID!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

You are aware that a very large portion of the intelligence that was used for the war in Iraq was gathered under the Clinton administration, aren't you?

Evidence of AQ training camps in Iraq was not false, the rest of your allegations are unfounded.

Direckshun
02-03-2010, 06:43 PM
Yeah, keep sticking to the idea that Glenn Greenwald is sticking up for the Bush administration (http://www.amazon.com/Tragic-Legacy-Mentality-Destroyed-Presidency/dp/0307354288/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265244164&sr=8-2).

I'll be weeping entire rivers.

Norman Einstein
02-03-2010, 06:43 PM
I disagree with you, but that's not the subject of the article being discussed.

It's strikingly obvious he did not read the link. He is a loose pea shooter with a computer. (we all know he isn't wise enough to be a loose cannon.)

Norman Einstein
02-03-2010, 06:44 PM
Yes, and now we have Barry. How's that Hope and Change thing working for you?

We can all see that he doesn't know what's going on from other threads, he probably doesn't even suspect anything is going on!

Saul Good
02-03-2010, 07:17 PM
This is the biggest political story that hardly anyone is covering. It's not just what Obama's doing wrong that's hurting Democrats. What he's doing right is hurting them just as bad because 1. it pisses off his base and 2. he railed against it when Bush and Cheney did it.

He's completely painted himself into a corner. If he does what he promised, it's a disaster. If he does what's right, he's a hypocrite and a liar. Pick your poison, Barack. Here's hoping he goes the hypocritical route.

BucEyedPea
02-03-2010, 07:20 PM
Seriously: if you were a Bush follower, wouldn't you feel as though you were owed a major apology for all the accusations and the fuss that came from Democrats and media figures, accusing you of supporting radical and Constitution-shredding policies when, it turns out, they actually crave those policies in order to feel safe? Doesn't all of this bolster the Republican claim that those attacks on the Bush administration for civil liberties abuses were not due to genuine conviction, but rather for partisan gain....
Well they weren't due to conviction that's true. But the criticism were still valid. So no apology should be necessary. This is just more evidence that the two parties aren't really that different. The differences exist only at the grassroots levels.

patteeu
02-03-2010, 09:00 PM
Yeah, keep sticking to the idea that Glenn Greenwald is sticking up for the Bush administration (http://www.amazon.com/Tragic-Legacy-Mentality-Destroyed-Presidency/dp/0307354288/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265244164&sr=8-2).

I'll be weeping entire rivers.

Who's thinking that? Greenwald is wrong, but the hypocrites that he's criticizing are right, now that they've stopped opposing Bush policies for purposes of political self-advancement.

Taco John
02-03-2010, 09:51 PM
Who's thinking that? Greenwald is wrong, but the hypocrites that he's criticizing are right, now that they've stopped opposing Bush policies for purposes of political self-advancement.

I've said it for a long time that Obama has effectively neutralized the anti-war left. And he even won a peace prize for his trouble.

MarcBulger
02-03-2010, 10:08 PM
Who's thinking that? Greenwald is wrong, but the hypocrites that he's criticizing are right, now that they've stopped opposing Bush policies for purposes of political self-advancement.

Stop the clown can't see the hypocrits.....

fan4ever
02-03-2010, 10:26 PM
I've said it for a long time that Obama has effectively neutralized the anti-war left. And he even won a peace prize for his trouble.

Do you think it's because they're really not so "anti-war" as they are "anti-war in a Republican administration"?

KILLER_CLOWN
02-04-2010, 12:36 AM
It should be What did Bush/Cheney do right? and for that matter how is Barry Soetoro any different? They should all be tried for treason to this country.

Direckshun
02-04-2010, 04:05 AM
Who's thinking that? Greenwald is wrong, but the hypocrites that he's criticizing are right, now that they've stopped opposing Bush policies for purposes of political self-advancement.

I can't speak for them, but I've been vocally critical and consistent in my opposition to Bush/Cheney interrogation and detention policies that have been continued and unpunished under the Obama administration.

So has Greenwald, who's only been on the front lines this entire time. Which makes MarcBulger's assertion that Greenwald is somehow coming to the defense of Bush/Cheney as limp-wristed as an actual pass made by the actual Marc Bulger.

blaise
02-04-2010, 05:36 AM
I can't speak for them, but I've been vocally critical and consistent in my opposition to Bush/Cheney interrogation and detention policies that have been continued and unpunished under the Obama administration.

So has Greenwald, who's only been on the front lines this entire time. Which makes MarcBulger's assertion that Greenwald is somehow coming to the defense of Bush/Cheney as limp-wristed as an actual pass made by the actual Marc Bulger.


I didn't read it that he's saying Greenwald is defending Bush. The article is more of an attack on those that attacked Bush, but are now either embracing some of Bush's policies, or turning a blind eye to the fact that they're still in place. I didn't see much of an assertion that Greenwald is now defending Bush.

The Mad Crapper
02-04-2010, 07:03 AM
Do you think it's because they're really not so "anti-war" as they are "anti-war in a Republican administration"?

Leftists love violence.

Chief Faithful
02-04-2010, 09:15 AM
This is the biggest political story that hardly anyone is covering. It's not just what Obama's doing wrong that's hurting Democrats. What he's doing right is hurting them just as bad because 1. it pisses off his base and 2. he railed against it when Bush and Cheney did it.

He's completely painted himself into a corner. If he does what he promised, it's a disaster. If he does what's right, he's a hypocrite and a liar. Pick your poison, Barack. Here's hoping he goes the hypocritical route.

Utimately, whatever he does, he will blame it on others.

Taco John
02-04-2010, 11:44 AM
Do you think it's because they're really not so "anti-war" as they are "anti-war in a Republican administration"?

No, I think there are plenty of people who are genuinely anti-war. But under an Obama administration, I don't think that the government lapdogs known as "the media" are as keen to give these folks a voice. Not that they're totally covering for Obama - but look at the coverage of the anti-war stuff then and now. It's not like it completely fizzled out. Sheehan is still travelling around the world to protest the war. Code Pink is still as active as ever. But a democrat is in office right now, and the mood of the editorial community seems to be "anything to the left of Barack Obama on the war issue isn't worth giving attention to." They sure aren't making Barack accountable in the same way that they tried to make Bush accountable.

Chief Henry
02-04-2010, 11:50 AM
Utimately, whatever he does, he will blame it on others.

yup, thats all he's done in the first year so far

patteeu
02-04-2010, 12:53 PM
No, I think there are plenty of people who are genuinely anti-war. But under an Obama administration, I don't think that the government lapdogs known as "the media" are as keen to give these folks a voice. Not that they're totally covering for Obama - but look at the coverage of the anti-war stuff then and now. It's not like it completely fizzled out. Sheehan is still travelling around the world to protest the war. Code Pink is still as active as ever. But a democrat is in office right now, and the mood of the editorial community seems to be "anything to the left of Barack Obama on the war issue isn't worth giving attention to." They sure aren't making Barack accountable in the same way that they tried to make Bush accountable.

I think you guys are talking about different groups of "they". There's no doubt that the Cindy Sheehans and the Code Pinkers are anti-war true believers, but the people who are brought into question here are establishment democrats and their supportive media machine.

You're talking about the true anti-war left (which is much smaller than some might have believed when Bush was President) while I suspect that fan4ever was talking about the Bush protesting democrats that Greenwald was criticizing who have gone silent and even started actively endorsing policies pioneered by the previous administration.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-04-2010, 01:06 PM
No, I think there are plenty of people who are genuinely anti-war. But under an Obama administration, I don't think that the government lapdogs known as "the media" are as keen to give these folks a voice. Not that they're totally covering for Obama - but look at the coverage of the anti-war stuff then and now. It's not like it completely fizzled out. Sheehan is still travelling around the world to protest the war. Code Pink is still as active as ever. But a democrat is in office right now, and the mood of the editorial community seems to be "anything to the left of Barack Obama on the war issue isn't worth giving attention to." They sure aren't making Barack accountable in the same way that they tried to make Bush accountable.

Correct the quickest way to expose Obama is from his left, there isn't much difference between big government/neocon agenda Bush/Obama.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-04-2010, 01:07 PM
I think you guys are talking about different groups of "they". There's no doubt that the Cindy Sheehans and the Code Pinkers are anti-war true believers, but the people who are brought into question here are establishment democrats and their supportive media machine.

You're talking about the true anti-war left (which is much smaller than some might have believed when Bush was President) while I suspect that fan4ever was talking about the Bush protesting democrats that Greenwald was criticizing who have gone silent and even started actively endorsing policies pioneered by the previous administration.

Actually Code Pink has been exposed as the Soros funded scumbags they really are. Sheehan is for real and now a Ron Paul supporter.

Amnorix
02-04-2010, 03:37 PM
The entire article is sort of a non sequitur. It points to random people on the left criticizing various disparate policies of the current administration (that are largely different from Bush/Cheney) to try and establish that the left in fact supports the prior administration's policies. That doesn't make any sense where the policy WAS changed by Obama. Nor does it work in the sense that you can't just point to one guy and say that HE represents the left (outside of, possibly, Obama himself).

There has been serious and dramatic change by the current administration in the conduct of the war on terror. That alone is proof enough that the Bush/Cheney approach has been rejected in a number of key areas.

Amnorix
02-04-2010, 03:38 PM
Utimately, whatever he does, he will blame it on others.

Ultimately, whatever happens that is bad, you and others on the right will blame Obama whether he had anything to do with it or not.

Norman Einstein
02-05-2010, 07:31 AM
Ultimately, whatever happens that is bad, you and others on the right will blame Obama whether he had anything to do with it or not.

Did not Obama say recently the old quote from a prominent democrat?

"The buck stops here"?

There is only so much time that can go by that he can continue to blame the past for his present and future. At least Bill Clinton had some class, he took responsibility for his actions and, that I remember, never continued to blame Bush I for the situation of the country. Nor did Bush II have a continuing campaign to blame Clinton for the state of the union. My personal feelings are that Clinton setup some situations that hurt the country, but I'd wager that every president does something that would be considered bad going into the followon administration.

Answer one simple question: When will the Obama buck stop? IOW, When will he stop blaming now on then?

patteeu
02-05-2010, 11:53 AM
Good question, CTTCS_WLR