I think it's a must rewatch. He talks about how he was willing to take up legislation on Obama's behalf if he asked him to. He talks about (about 10 minutes in) his concerns regarding (fear) how the Republican Party will look inward rather than being broad minded after the defeat. He talks about the mistakes he's made. About Katrina, Iraq. He's a brave guy, he'll take on anybody's question.

[youtu.be]

the 2008 transition:

The part when he mocks 45 without knowing it.

[youtu.be]

Quote
hal
the 2008 transition:

Both sets of parents raised good kids.

Quote
vision63
The part when he mocks 45 without knowing it.

[youtu.be]

I was watching for 90 secs or so and wondered when this moment would come, but you'll know when you see it. hahahahaha!

He's still a war criminal.

Quote
RgrF
He's still a war criminal.

They're "all" war criminals. Are they not? For one reason or another. But. He's not in jail, nor is he on trial.

I think RgrF’s referring to the magnitude of Bush’s ‘crime’. Respectfully speaking, we shouldn’t diminish what Bush did by comparing his actions to suppositions of what other presidents did.

Bush sidetracked from the war in Afghanistan, to invade Iraq, who at the time was behaving relatively well, and more importantly had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD’s. Whatever you might want to believe of our intelligence services, they do not get a decision of this magnitude wrong.

This was all pushed by Bush, and for that we lost more Americans than 9/11, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, maimed even more Americans (and several hundred thousand Iraqis). On top of that, it cost us a couple trillion dollars to our national debt (that’s 20-30% of our debt at the time). And for all this we have NOTHING to show for it in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is a shame considering the blood and tears shed by so many in vain.

He took advantage of the vulnerable post 9/11 emotional state of the American people and their politicians. And because these politicians gave their support, they will never prosecute Bush or members of his administration for this crime, which was unprecedented in its scale, in modern American politics. That is just a fact that we will have to live with.

Quote
Carnos Jax
I think RgrF’s referring to the magnitude of Bush’s ‘crime’. Respectfully speaking, we shouldn’t diminish what Bush did by comparing his actions to suppositions of what other presidents did.

Bush sidetracked from the war in Afghanistan, to invade Iraq, who at the time was behaving relatively well, and more importantly had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD’s. Whatever you might want to believe of our intelligence services, they do not get a decision of this magnitude wrong.

This was all pushed by Bush, and for that we lost more Americans than 9/11, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, maimed even more Americans (and several hundred thousand Iraqis). On top of that, it cost us a couple trillion dollars to our national debt (that’s 20-30% of our debt at the time). And for all this we have NOTHING to show for it in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is a shame considering the blood and tears shed by so many in vain.

He took advantage of the vulnerable post 9/11 emotional state of the American people and their politicians. And because these politicians gave their support, they will never prosecute Bush or members of his administration for this crime, which was unprecedented in its scale, in modern American politics. That is just a fact that we will have to live with.

I disagree with this as perpetuated by George W. Bush. I agree that all of that happened. There is "no way" he invaded Iraq with the knowledge that there were no weapons of mass destruction. He trusted his intelligence (which is his fault), but had he known for sure there were no WMDs, he would not have invaded.

Judge him on that.

Quote
vision63

Quote
Carnos Jax
I think RgrF’s referring to the magnitude of Bush’s ‘crime’. Respectfully speaking, we shouldn’t diminish what Bush did by comparing his actions to suppositions of what other presidents did.

Bush sidetracked from the war in Afghanistan, to invade Iraq, who at the time was behaving relatively well, and more importantly had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD’s. Whatever you might want to believe of our intelligence services, they do not get a decision of this magnitude wrong.

This was all pushed by Bush, and for that we lost more Americans than 9/11, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, maimed even more Americans (and several hundred thousand Iraqis). On top of that, it cost us a couple trillion dollars to our national debt (that’s 20-30% of our debt at the time). And for all this we have NOTHING to show for it in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is a shame considering the blood and tears shed by so many in vain.

He took advantage of the vulnerable post 9/11 emotional state of the American people and their politicians. And because these politicians gave their support, they will never prosecute Bush or members of his administration for this crime, which was unprecedented in its scale, in modern American politics. That is just a fact that we will have to live with.

I disagree with this as perpetuated by George W. Bush. I agree that all of that happened. There is "no way" he invaded Iraq with the knowledge that there were no weapons of mass destruction. He trusted his intelligence (which is his fault), but had he known for sure there were no WMDs, he would not have invaded.

Judge him on that.

Cheney was pulling the strings, Shrub was the puppet.

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

Did he apologize for leaving the American economy in ruins and pain for the Democrats to restore?

(ps- Bush's financial calamity also sucked the entire world down with it)

Quote
vision63

I disagree with this as perpetuated by George W. Bush. I agree that all of that happened. There is "no way" he invaded Iraq with the knowledge that there were no weapons of mass destruction. He trusted his intelligence (which is his fault), but had he known for sure there were no WMDs, he would not have invaded.

Judge him on that.

Vision, you are dead wrong about this. The primary intelligence agencies (CIA, etc) were vehemently opposed to the invasion, due to the lack of credible evidence of WMDs. He cherry picked unconventional intelligence sources and muted the traditional ones. You SHOULD read about this. Like I said, the vast intelligence assets of the United States don’t get information of this magnitude wrong. And remember, before 9/11, going all the way back to the beginning of his campaign, Bush had publicly pushed for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam (and it wasn’t for WMD’s either). All this is well known and in the public record. However, during his first year of office, he had to wind down his Iraq ambitions because there was no public or political support. HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THIS? That alone should convince you he had aims on Iraq before 9/11 and WMD’s because a boogie word.

Then of course 9/11 happened, giving him his opportunity.

Your sentiment that there’s no way he would have invaded Iraq without sufficient evidence, is precisely why people like me and RgrF think the perpetuation of the invasion of Iraq was such a treasonous crime. It boggles the mind his administration could have done something like that. Yet the facts are laid bare. It is the inescapable conclusion.

Quote
Carnos Jax

Quote
vision63

I disagree with this as perpetuated by George W. Bush. I agree that all of that happened. There is "no way" he invaded Iraq with the knowledge that there were no weapons of mass destruction. He trusted his intelligence (which is his fault), but had he known for sure there were no WMDs, he would not have invaded.

Judge him on that.

Vision, you are dead wrong about this. The primary intelligence agencies (CIA, etc) were vehemently opposed to the invasion, due to the lack of credible evidence of WMDs. He cherry picked unconventional intelligence sources and muted the traditional ones. You SHOULD read about this. Like I said, the vast intelligence assets of the United States don’t get information of this magnitude wrong. And remember, before 9/11, going all the way back to the beginning of his campaign, Bush had publicly pushed for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam (and it wasn’t for WMD’s either). All this is well known and in the public record. However, during his first year of office, he had to wind down his Iraq ambitions because there was no public or political support. HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THIS? That alone should convince you he had aims on Iraq before 9/11 and WMD’s because a boogie word.

Then of course 9/11 happened, giving him his opportunity.

Your sentiment that there’s no way he would have invaded Iraq without sufficient evidence, is precisely why people like me and RgrF think the perpetuation of the invasion of Iraq was such a treasonous crime. It boggles the mind his administration could have done something like that. Yet the facts are laid bare. It is the inescapable conclusion.

I've read about it and I'm willing to read "more" about it, especially about the cherry-picking but fundamentally, as of this moment, I still disagree.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2020 12:21PM by vision63.

Quote
Steve G.
Did he apologize for leaving the American economy in ruins and pain for the Democrats to restore?

(ps- Bush's financial calamity also sucked the entire world down with it)

Remember this. Because this is the most important thing and also, remember all the energy you put in to help get Joe Biden elected. To stop a tyrant dead in his tracks. The success of that.

George W. Bush had opponents. Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. The people complaining about W (present company excepted cuz they're my bros), giving as much grief to Gore (especially as a former member of the Clinton administration) and Kerry as they gave to Bush.

Nobody fought harder to keep W out of the White House than me. Everybody that complains about him, their efforts pale in comparison to mine. I fought the fight alongside a lot of people fighting the fight. I've never voted for a Republican in my life and I never will.

In this world, you win some and you lose some. I don't put it all on Republicans that Bush won twice. So when I see them complaining, how do you think I feel.

I spent 2 years flailing my arms and screaming to get everyone to stop Trump in 2016. I "knew" what he was and what the damage could be. Trump winning was not an option to me. But it was an option to too many on my side. The fact that it took 4 years of his terror, many, many thousands needlessly dying, climate change suffering tremendous setbacks and so much more, in order for people to realize that "hey, we gotta stop this guy" is maddening.

But I'm grateful they did. I'm also not a guy that's going to hold grudges. The people empowered Bush to do whatever he did. Then, did it again my a greater margin. To the winner goes the spoils.

As Carnos mentioned, his behavior was treasonous. Shouldn't that extend to the people that put him in office, when they had a clear choice to choose to stop him.

hmm? hmm?

@vision63

Gore and Kerry lost because they lousy campaigns.

Quote
Steve G.
@vision63

Gore and Kerry lost because they lousy campaigns.

Gore certainly did (we'll pretend that the woke didn't vote for Nader). But you simply weren't paying attention to your own side.

Plus, if people really cared about the ravages of Bush, not a single person would have voted for Nader.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2020 01:35PM by vision63.

Quote
vision63

I spent 2 years flailing my arms and screaming to get everyone to stop Trump in 2016. I "knew" what he was and what the damage could be. Trump winning was not an option to me. But it was an option to too many on my side.

I distinctly remember back in 2016, a couple of weeks or maybe it was months, before the election, that you had warned us and oppose hear that while the polls looked good, if we got complacent and @#$%& around, we could still lose it. Sure enough some in our party (not the official party but Democrats in general) started showing a lack of critical thinking and began to be influenced by all the anti-Hillary propaganda out there. We @#$%& around and we lost that one.

Quote
Spock

Quote
vision63

Quote
Carnos Jax
I think RgrF’s referring to the magnitude of Bush’s ‘crime’. Respectfully speaking, we shouldn’t diminish what Bush did by comparing his actions to suppositions of what other presidents did.

Bush sidetracked from the war in Afghanistan, to invade Iraq, who at the time was behaving relatively well, and more importantly had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD’s. Whatever you might want to believe of our intelligence services, they do not get a decision of this magnitude wrong.

This was all pushed by Bush, and for that we lost more Americans than 9/11, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, maimed even more Americans (and several hundred thousand Iraqis). On top of that, it cost us a couple trillion dollars to our national debt (that’s 20-30% of our debt at the time). And for all this we have NOTHING to show for it in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is a shame considering the blood and tears shed by so many in vain.

He took advantage of the vulnerable post 9/11 emotional state of the American people and their politicians. And because these politicians gave their support, they will never prosecute Bush or members of his administration for this crime, which was unprecedented in its scale, in modern American politics. That is just a fact that we will have to live with.

I disagree with this as perpetuated by George W. Bush. I agree that all of that happened. There is "no way" he invaded Iraq with the knowledge that there were no weapons of mass destruction. He trusted his intelligence (which is his fault), but had he known for sure there were no WMDs, he would not have invaded.

Judge him on that.

Cheney was pulling the strings, Shrub was the puppet.

This is the usual excuse for W, but while not the sharpest he is not a dummy. W was pushing to go against Iraq well before 9-11, Cheny may have helped get a cherry picked intel report out. We may not know the full extent of W's involvement for decades until historians finally get access to material still behind security curtains now.

Bush is no dummy but he lacks sufficient curiosity. Now, Al Franken…

[www.youtube.com]

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2020 02:46PM by Speedy.

Quote
Carnos Jax

Quote
vision63

I spent 2 years flailing my arms and screaming to get everyone to stop Trump in 2016. I "knew" what he was and what the damage could be. Trump winning was not an option to me. But it was an option to too many on my side.

I distinctly remember back in 2016, a couple of weeks or maybe it was months, before the election, that you had warned us and oppose hear that while the polls looked good, if we got complacent and @#$%& around, we could still lose it. Sure enough some in our party (not the official party but Democrats in general) started showing a lack of critical thinking and began to be influenced by all the anti-Hillary propaganda out there. We @#$%& around and we lost that one.

If you don't win. The other guy does.

Quote
vision63

Quote
Carnos Jax

Quote
vision63

I spent 2 years flailing my arms and screaming to get everyone to stop Trump in 2016. I "knew" what he was and what the damage could be. Trump winning was not an option to me. But it was an option to too many on my side.

I distinctly remember back in 2016, a couple of weeks or maybe it was months, before the election, that you had warned us and oppose hear that while the polls looked good, if we got complacent and @#$%& around, we could still lose it. Sure enough some in our party (not the official party but Democrats in general) started showing a lack of critical thinking and began to be influenced by all the anti-Hillary propaganda out there. We @#$%& around and we lost that one.

If you don't win. The other guy does.

That's my man.