Bush is an Embarrassment

Published on November 30, 2004 By COL Gene In Politics

The reception President Bush received today in Canada is a true embarrassment to the United States of America. We have a president who was despised by our closest neighbor and by the people of most of the European nations.

I cannot remember a time when the world had so little regard for our nation. The story is the same no matter were you turn with very few exceptions -- the United States is not trusted and our president is looked upon as an arrogant go it alone leader. It is hard to see how the next four years will benefit the people of our country or mend the huge rifts that exist between the United States and much of the rest of the world.

Comments (Page 7)

mismos

on Dec 03, 2004

Then defenend yourself, don't ignore them!

But don't go on to tell me that the people all the way over in Iraq are trying to kill you. They are doing what I suggested you should/would do to the question above. Someone has come to their land to kill and take control of them and they MUST defend their own lives on their own land, they have no other choice. The only active decision in this war is on Bush side, everything else is a reaction.

drmiler

on Dec 03, 2004

Reply #95 By: mismos - 12/3/2004 1:12:23 PM

Then defenend yourself, don't ignore them!

But don't go on to tell me that the people all the way over in Iraq are trying to kill you. They are doing what I suggested you should/would do to the question above. Someone has come to their land to kill and take control of them and they MUST defend their own lives on their own land, they have no other choice. The only active decision in this war is on Bush side, everything else is a reaction.

Your opinion not mine.

mismos

on Dec 03, 2004

xr700: Maybe if Bush were a little better at communication he could, you know, get together and discuse, debate, create allies, apply pressure through neighboring countries, be a leader, which means being creative. There is no 'correct' option, but there IS a less violent one.

mismos

on Dec 03, 2004

And what is your opinion drmiler? This is a terrible way to ignore a truth.

Hitler: "This is just my opinion", Me: "Well I can't argue with you there, Hitler". (Not calling you Hitler, just showing you that you are deceving yourself with that arguement - which isn't actually an arguement.

drmiler

on Dec 03, 2004

Reply #98 By: mismos - 12/3/2004 1:25:56 PM

And what is your opinion drmiler? This is a terrible way to ignore a truth.

My opinion is as it always was. Right or wrong we're already there. We can't pull out now and leave the country as it is so we must finish what we started. And if our troops are fired on, well then blow the sh*t out of the other guys!

mismos

on Dec 03, 2004

Fair enough.

whoman69

on Dec 03, 2004

great response. he kept on saying during the debates that he knows these people, but looking at the reception he is getting, that is not the case. he is the worst diplomat in US history.

COL Gene

on Dec 03, 2004

Yes- we are there and must try and not leave Iraq as bad or worse than when we invaded. The real issue for me is how Bush will handle a similar issue in the future. It is clear Bush does not understand the nature of the danger facing us. I have been reading ," Imperial Hubris" and that clearly documents that the Muslim actions are far more than Terrorism. The Muslims believe they are fighting for their beliefs and their God. They look at bin Ladin like a hero. Our actions in Iraq have not made us safer but have created even more converts to the followers of bin Laden and al Qaeda. This movement, like it or not, includes millions of supporters in 20 plus countries and the number is growing.

drmiler

on Dec 03, 2004

Reply #102 By: COL Gene - 12/3/2004 2:17:47 PM
Yes- we are there and must try and not leave Iraq as bad or worse than when we invaded. The real issue for me is how Bush will handle a similar issue in the future. It is clear Bush does not understand the nature of the danger facing us. I have been reading ," Imperial Hubris" and that clearly documents that the Muslim actions are far more than Terrorism. The Muslims believe they are fighting for their beliefs and their God. They look at bin Ladin like a hero. Our actions in Iraq have not made us safer but have created even more converts to the followers of bin Laden and al Qaeda. This movement, like it or not, includes millions of supporters in 20 plus countries and the number is growing

We must find someway to disillusion them of their present course of action.

100

Evorg

on Dec 03, 2004

They look at bin Ladin like a hero. Our actions in Iraq have not made us safer but have created even more converts to the followers of bin Laden and al Qaeda. This movement, like it or not, includes millions of supporters in 20 plus countries and the number is growing.

Not necessarily true

Reply By: zieinobiaPosted: Sunday, October 31, 2004
yes that what I mean of less religious and threatening,may be he is trying to get the support of other people who believe in Freedom , don't like the Acts of U.S Administration and are against globalisation
he mentioned that if he hated freedom and democracy as Bush said , he would have planned to bomb Sweden
,but one thing I know for sure ,Bin laden what ever he is now tries to make people pay attention to him again , he tries to be in the spot light again especailly I guess in the arab world ,there were no news about el-Quida for a while except for ElZarkoy group in Iraq
and also the what so called popularity of Osama Bin Laden in the Arab World is decreasing (at least from my opinion and the opinion of the people I know) after the Iraq War now as the arabs say alright you hate the americans now they are in Iraq ,a muslim country and many civilians got killed ,where are you?, all what he does just speeching ,same thing for the Palestine issue

one thing to notice in Iraq now the Zarakoy terrorist group ,assumed to be part of El-Quida ,has done nothing in Iraq except kiddnapping innocent people and killing them just like what so called the islamic army of Iraq ,a way that makes the world support the existence of the american army in Iraq, giving a bad pubilicity to the Iraqi issue.
if you notice the resistence and fights in Fallujah or Nagaf has nothing to do with Zarakoy
he is just trying to come back in to the spot light saying don't forget me I am here
anyway yesterday all arab political analysts agreed on one thing this gives a push to Bush in the Elections

The above quote was taken from the folowing blog: http://zeinobia21.joeuser.com/articleComments.asp?AID=33131

101

COL Gene

on Dec 03, 2004

I am not an expert about that part of the world. However, the CIA agent ( Mr. Scheur) who is the author of "Imperial Hubris" is. When you look at how extensive the attacks are not only in Iraq but all over the world, I tend to agree with Michael Scheuer, we are not safer from our policy in Iraq or in the Middle- east. We had better hold the elections in Iraq in january 2005, since the security situation later could be even worse. Even if we are able to hold the elections as planned, we may find the new government may not be able to deal with the situation. This will be especially true if some major factions do not take part in the process or the elected leaders can not pull the country together.

102

Evorg

on Dec 03, 2004

Just think that people should look at the views of an Egyptian Muslim who is more of an expert in that part of the world than Mr. Scheur. Just a different perspective.

But if you would have said this to me two years ago I would have agreed with you

The election in Iraq...well I guess we can only just wait and see. If it goes reasonably well, more Muslims will be even more disillusioned with bin Laden.

It was a good decision by the combat commanders to ask for more troops for the elections. I think that will help.

103

COL Gene

on Dec 03, 2004

If we had gone into Iraq with the 300,000-400,000 troops that Gen Franks and the Fomer Army CoS said were required, we might have been able to establish and maintain order in Iraq. Bush knew more then the Generals and went to war with lass than half the force required. We had 500,000 in the first Gulf War.

Mr. Scheur spant 22 years in the CIA working on that part of the world. He was the official in charge of the bin Laden section at the CIA.

104

Daiwa

on Dec 03, 2004

Guess not.

Cheers,
Daiwa

105

Lee1776

on Dec 04, 2004

If we had gone into Iraq with the 300,000-400,000 troops that Gen Franks and the Fomer Army CoS said were required

Please provide me with the link to when Gen. Franks wanted 300,000-400,000 troops. I got his book and it says the oppsite.

Mr. Scheur spant 22 years in the CIA working on that part of the world. He was the official in charge of the bin Laden section at the CIA.

Spent how long? If he had so good of an understanding, why don't we have Bin Laden? Personnely I think, everybody in that department needed to get fired (like this guy did).

That's My Two Cents

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!