to conservatives -is Bush the worst ever?

[jem]

I was mad at the republicans. I have come to realize they are not the same type of people who were republicans when Reagan was around. these guys are basically opportunistic pols without any core conservative values. (in general)

By the way I am talking about the good kind of conservative - more libertarian - leave me alone an stop taxing me and I will leave you alone kind of people.

 

[SteveD]

jem,

You are avoiding the questions...why didn't California regulators indict somebody if all this illegal manipulation is going on and everyone knows it???


In a previous post you state you want to be left alone...libertarian type....but NOW you want the government involved because you want cheap energy......

As I understand the situation, the Calif regulators, basically"shorted" the energy market.....did not want to sign long term contracts at the prevailing price at the time, too high....betting they could purchase it on the "spot market" later at a much lower price....prices did not come down....

And, I really don't know why you call me names....I am just trying to have a basic discussion.....


SteveD

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from fhl:

Speak for yourself. "Yourself" hates Bush, that's what liberals do. They hate people that disagree with them. You said it, dude. Conservatives disagree with some of his policies, but we don't hate him.

Bullshit, I've voted Republican since before Reagan. I think Bush sucks and know many republicans here in west Texas (Bush country) who think the same. Only the blind can't see it. You may have reasons not to admit it but the great majority of conservatives, liberals, moderates, independents, anarchist, christians, muslims, athiest and gereral ner do wells know he is a failure. There are probably 5% to 10% true Bush supporters left, by the next election I predect maybe 2% or 3%. Yes worst president ever.

 

[Sparohok]

I don't see how Kerry or Gore have anything to do with this thread. I don't expect a true conservative to vote for either of those guys. I voted for Gore and Kerry, but I can't blame anyone for following their ideals and refusing to vote for someone they disagree with. Where I do blame conservatives is nominating George W. Bush over John McCain in the 2000 primaries.

McCain didn't have quite the conservative credentials that Bush did, but he has the character, wisdom, and judgment that it takes to be a decent President. He might not have pleased the core Republican base, but at least he wouldn't have been an embarrassment like Bush.

I voted for Gore but I might have voted for McCain if you guys had only nominated him.

Martin

 

[Sparohok]

Blaming modern Iran on Carter is absurd. The damage was done long before that, when the British and the Eisenhower administration conspired to oust the democratically elected, secular, and highly popular Prime Minister Mossadegh. That created the political and ideological vacuum in Iran that was eventually filled by Khomeini. Maybe Carter could have propped the Shah up for another year until his death in 1980. After that, there would have been nothing we could do to stop the Islamic revolution.

In the 1950s, the Soviet Union was the sole focus of US foreign policy, and Iran and Mossadegh were minor casualties of the Cold War. Perhaps the right call at the time, but we're still paying for it today. If you want to blame someone for losing Iran, blame Eisenhower.

Now that the Middle East is our strategic focus, I think it has become clear in retrospect that Carter was way ahead of his time. He had exactly the right strategy for dealing with Iran and the Middle East: energy independence. If Reagan hadn't reversed Carter's energy policies, we would have a much stronger hand in the Middle East today.

Martin

 

[Trader5287]

Quote from Thunderdog:

My guess is that it will take longer for the landscape to recover from the Bush fallout than from that of any president that preceded him. Virtually every decision he made had a basis in arrogance. Virtually every decision he made was the wrong one for the country. And he has made enough of them.

What if everything had gone perfectly in Iraq from 2003 on - sectarian harmony, oil flowing, cafes open, small US caretaker force suffering no casualties - would Bush be one of the greats?

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

...Carter... He is really the father of islamofascist terrorism.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read from someone trying to make an intelligent statement.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Trader5287:

What if everything had gone perfectly in Iraq from 2003 on - sectarian harmony, oil flowing, cafes open, small US caretaker force suffering no casualties - would Bush be one of the greats?

His arrogance and poor judgment are not limited to Iraq. And as for your "what if" musings, you will note that "if" is the middle word of "life." What if LTCM's last batch of reversion trades had worked out well? What if there were no voting glitches in Florida in 2000? What if?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Sparohok:

Blaming modern Iran on Carter is absurd. The damage was done long before that, when the British and the Eisenhower administration conspired to oust the democratically elected, secular, and highly popular Prime Minister Mossadegh. That created the political and ideological vacuum in Iran that was eventually filled by Khomeini. Maybe Carter could have propped the Shah up for another year until his death in 1980. After that, there would have been nothing we could do to stop the Islamic revolution.

In the 1950s, the Soviet Union was the sole focus of US foreign policy, and Iran and Mossadegh were minor casualties of the Cold War. Perhaps the right call at the time, but we're still paying for it today. If you want to blame someone for losing Iran, blame Eisenhower.

Now that the Middle East is our strategic focus, I think it has become clear in retrospect that Carter was way ahead of his time. He had exactly the right strategy for dealing with Iran and the Middle East: energy independence. If Reagan hadn't reversed Carter's energy policies, we would have a much stronger hand in the Middle East today.

Martin

Carter deserves 100% of the blame for turning Iran over to the islamofascists. While the Shah had become unpopular, it was not inevitable that he would be overthrown. If you back a dictator, you have to realize that sometimes he is going to have to repress people. Carter lacked the backbone for that and instead was babbling about human rights. That certainly turned out great for the people of Iran, didn't it? Get rid of a basically decent ruler and replace him with a bunch of thugs and killers right out of the middle ages.

It is such a cop out to say we are to blame because we put the Shah on the throne in the first place. How is that relevant? That was done in the '50's. It worked out well for a long time. Even if we made a mistake, Carter was the one who allowed a tiny group of islamist crazies to take over a powerful country. Khomeini didn't have anything near majority support. He was not a democrat and never intended to install a democratic government. Carter knew all this and still pressured the Iranian military not to oppose him. The unlucky generals who listened to him and stayed around were all executed. So much for human rights.

Carter created the current terrorist environment. He ignited the fire that is now out of control. As bad as Bush is, i can't see how he could possible do the long term damage to the our country and the world that Carter did.

 

[Sparohok]

AAA, do you know, or have you ever talked with, any actual Iranians?

I do, and I have. You are deeply underestimating the depth of Iranian resentment over our interference, yes even way back in the early 50s. Americans may have forgotten Mossadegh, but Iranians have not.

In your world where enough secret police and military force can maintain an unpopular monarch forever, what do you imagine would have happened when the Shah died in 1980?

Martin