COL Gene COL Gene

Should We Expect President Bush To Solve All our Problems?

▼

Should We Expect President Bush To Solve All our Problems?

from JoeUser Forums
Should We Expect President Bush to Solve ALL Our Problems?


NO!

Should we expect the president to have made progress on some of the more important issues?

YES!

When I ask Bush supporters to DOCUMENT the improvement of major issues that confronted him upon taking office there is DEAD SILENCE. When I ask his supporters about issues that today are MAJOR problems that his policies created, such Iraq and the return of the Annual Budget Deficit, there is DEAD SILENCE.

The truth is that Bush has not helped resolve a single issue that faced him in January 2001 and has made most of them worse while adding new problems that future presidents will be forced to solve.

When GWB became President I did not have any great expectations as to what he would accomplish for America. That is because when I looked at his achievements prior to running for the White House all I saw was failure or at best mediocre performance. The ONLY thing GWB seemed to be good at was Politics!

Everything Bush and his policies have done CONFIRM my initial expectations!
politics
13,561 views 59 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
Saddam supporting terrorist groups and his being a threat to this country are two different things. If we were to invade all the Moslem countries that support terrorism we would have invaded almost every country in the area.

The issue which you refuse to accept is that there was NO DANGER to our country that justified invading Iraq and Iraq was not the greatest danger. Bush was WRONG to invade Iraq just like Powell told him and just like his father knew. Now our troops are in the middle of a civil war between the factions in IRAQ.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
IF not one person tied Saddam to 9/11, WHY did we invade Iraq?


His stupidity is beyond belief. The fact that Saddam attacked our planes in that zone (forgot the name) and that he allowed terrorist to train in Iraq seems to elude his little mind. It seems that even in his minor military jobs where Col gene avoided major conflicts still left him brain dead.

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about documenting the things that Bush has accomplished. STAY ON SUBJET just like you tell me.


And just for the "record", here's what I originally wrote:


(Citizen)drmiler
August 30, 2006 14:24:55 Reply #5
How many of our troops were killed in war during the Clinton Administration?


About 7500 troops were killed during the 8 years Slick Willie held office. 4302 were killed during his first 4 years and an addtional 3198 were killed during his last 4 years. You can refute this if you wish col, but these figures came from a report compiled by the Department of Defense's Manpower Data Center.


I "WAS" staying on topic! YOU are the one that went that way, I was responding to "YOUR" post!


Citizen)COL Gene
August 30, 2006 14:09:10 Reply #3
How many of our troops were killed in war during the Clinton Administration? How much did Clinton add to the National Debt?
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
Saddam supporting terrorist groups and his being a threat to this country are two different things. If we were to invade all the Moslem countries that support terrorism we would have invaded almost every country in the area.


Sorry, but that dog won't hunt! I guess you missed "this" part:

How many times must you be told that Iraq was, indeed, a supporter, with both funding and supplies, of terrorist organizations? Maybe al-Qaeda, maybe not al-Qaeda, who really knows? But Saddam did allow terrorists to train on Iraqi soil.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)drmiler Reply #54


Ever ask yourself "why do I continue to try and change people when we know that they will not change?". I do it all the time. Even though I know that the only way people will change is if they actually wanted to I still try to change them. Why? Not sure, maybe is if somehow the person does change one can claim to be responsible for it, maybe it's because we can claim that no one can say we didn't try, cause though many may believe that people can't be changed they will still say you did not try.

Col is a lost cause. Our attemps are not to change him but to make him understand us. In the end it becomes a failure over and over. His mind is set to hate Bush. even if anything good was said about Bush he would find a way to shred it.

Still, keep up with it. It's still entertaining to see his ouw arguments turned against him. I just love it when he can't even stick to his own arguments or mind set. He'll jump from topic to topic just to justify his hatred towards Bush.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ever ask yourself "why do I continue to try and change people when we know that they will not change?". I do it all the time. Even though I know that the only way people will change is if they actually wanted to I still try to change them. Why? Not sure, maybe is if somehow the person does change one can claim to be responsible for it, maybe it's because we can claim that no one can say we didn't try, cause though many may believe that people can't be changed they will still say you did not try.

Col is a lost cause. Our attemps are not to change him but to make him understand us. In the end it becomes a failure over and over. His mind is set to hate Bush. even if anything good was said about Bush he would find a way to shred it.

Still, keep up with it. It's still entertaining to see his ouw arguments turned against him. I just love it when he can't even stick to his own arguments or mind set. He'll jump from topic to topic just to justify his hatred towards Bush.


I know Charles....but sometimes I just can't help myself. Notice how when I use a source that "he" uses all the time, he says he don't believe me? His reply follwed by my first post on this thread:

drmiler


How many were because of WAR? To the best of my knowledge we were not at war during the Clinton years and I do not believe your data. There are some accidents but not 7,500 deaths. As usual you are full of BS.

How about documenting the things that Bush has accomplished. STAY ON SUBJET just like you tell me.




How many of our troops were killed in war during the Clinton Administration?


About 7500 troops were killed during the 8 years Slick Willie held office. 4302 were killed during his first 4 years and an addtional 3198 were killed during his last 4 years. You can refute this if you wish col, but these figures came from a report compiled by the Department of Defense's Manpower Data Center.


Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

Every Moslem country provides support to the terrorist groups including those we claim as our friends. The extent of any Al Qaeda training in Iraq prior to our invasion was not worth mentioning. The real problems were in Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan. There was no reason to invade Iraq. There was a lot more danger from the other countries then from Iraq. There was NO JUSTIFICATION to invade Iraq and now what is taking place is a Civil War between the factions within Iraq not from groups likes Al Qaeda. The Bush Policy has allowed a civil war to erupt but what even foreign terrorist groups that may be operating in Iraq Today is the result of our invasion.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

By the way DOD did NOT confirm your claim of 7,500 military killed in action during the Clinton Administration. I do not know what that number is but it is NOT American Military deaths from military operations during the Clinton Administration!
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

By the way DOD did NOT confirm your claim of 7,500 military killed in action during the Clinton Administration. I do not know what that number is but it is NOT American Military deaths from military operations during the Clinton Administration!


Let me ask you a question. Did they deny it? Not confirming it tells me that they just have not gotten around to answering you yet.