Comments on: Obama Sets New Tone: Says Bush Is A “Good Guy”

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 06:42:13 +0000

"By any measure, it is a success."

No, it's not. Not by any measure, that is. The war was easily won if you just look at overthrowing Saddam. But he had nothing to do with 9/11 and there are many tyrants that the United States has not overthrown. And frankly, there is absolutely no excuse for the horrendous failure to plan for a post-war Iraq. According to globalsecurity.com there have been 4,155 American troops killed and 30,182 wounded. A relatively conservative estimate from Iraq Body Count puts the deaths of Iraqi civilians at somewhere between 90,000 and 98,000. And all of this is in pursuit of a goal that has yet to be realized and could see what progress there has been fall apart at any time. The price has been too high given that most of it was avoidable.

By: TeaFizz

TeaFizz — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 04:08:23 +0000

Actually, I take that back.
What I meant to say is that I doubt anyone will get prosecuted over it (whether they have their legal bases covered or not).

By: Manchester2

Manchester2 — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 03:51:56 +0000

Not sure why Iraq is in the “failure” category. By any measure, it is a success. Historians will give to Bush what partisan cartoonists will not.

By: TeaFizz

TeaFizz — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:08:44 +0000

it's always good to introduce the public to new despicable political leaders.

I completely missed that. Sorry.

And Chris, I won't argue about it's ethics, but I'm pretty sure the outgoing administration has it's legal bases covered.

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:56:09 +0000

TeaFizz,
Joe's argument is about harsh rhetoric tied to political differences. Bush did not merely subscribe to detestable politics, but more importantly, he perpetrated crimes like torture and illegal surveillance. He is also directly responsible for causalities numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:37:53 +0000

Don, why not Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao? I mean, if you're going to damn by implication, why aim low?

I did not want to break Godwin's law, besides which it's always good to introduce the public to new despicable political leaders.

By the way, I think personally you are a good man who loves his family and loves his country.

And I am sure you are too...

By: TeaFizz

TeaFizz — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:20:59 +0000

Don, why not Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao? I mean, if you're going to damn by implication, why aim low?

I respect the fact that you were trying to make a point, even if the way in which you did so played exactly into Joe's argument.

By the way, I think personally you are a good man who loves his family and loves his country.

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:45:41 +0000

“I mean, I think personally he is a good man who loves his family and loves his country,”

Same thing could have been said about Franco, Salazar or Pinochet. It did not stop them from killing thousands of civilians.