Russia's Uncontested Arrival

[pondwater]

pondwater, I have a question:  Since Bush's actions were clearly wrong (as you say), why did conservatives not say so at the time?

Because this seems like more of the standard "we don't like whatever Obama does, even if it's the same thing we praised our guy for doing" (see: Obamneycare).

Bush made his share of mistakes, just like all they all do. So I guess it depends on which you are referring to. However, contrary to what the liberals or democrats say. A previous president making a mistake doesn't justify a current or future president from the same mistake. It's actually worse in that case, no matter how you want to spin it.

[Spider-Dan]

Bush made his share of mistakes, just like all they all do. So I guess it depends on which you are referring to.

I am referring to his actions during Russia's "uncontested arrival" in Georgia.

However, contrary to what the liberals or democrats say. A previous president making a mistake doesn't justify a current or future president from the same mistake. It's actually worse in that case, no matter how you want to spin it.

That's not even what we're saying.  What we are saying is that when Bush was doing it, conservatives insisted that it was a GOOD decision.  This is a very common theme with Obama.

To expound upon my other example, conservatives presented a private-insurance-based healthcare-for-all system (with mandatory individual participation) back in the '90s as the alternative to Hillarycare, and cheered wildly when Romney passed it in Massachusetts, but the moment Obama proposed it, it was The Death Of Liberty In America.

When you oppose your own ideas just because Obama supports them, it makes it hard to take your criticism seriously.  This is why the conservative response to Russia's invasion of Georgia matters; if they were fine with Bush's response (when it happened) but denounce Obama's response, they're basically just saying "We hate whatever Obama does" and should rightly be ignored.

[CF DolFan]

I would be willing to bet what is said behind the scenes and what is said publiclly directly correlates which party did it. I find it hard to believe that either party is thrilled when "their" guy does the same things as the "other" guy who they were publicly bashing.

The main thing I am aware of is how Obama makes threats and doesn't follow up. I don't remember anyone else doing that  ... not that it would matter if they did. You can't expected to be taken seriously when you lay out a red line that someone can't cross (Syria) and do nothing about it.  How is Putin to know he is serious this time ... by his tone or the fact he is counting to three?

[Spider-Dan]

I would be willing to bet what is said behind the scenes and what is said publiclly directly correlates which party did it. I find it hard to believe that either party is thrilled when "their" guy does the same things as the "other" guy who they were publicly bashing.

So are you saying that conservatives were not happy to see Romneycare passed, but just acted like they were?  In that case, you're basically saying that cross-party criticism should be ignored, because privately they may actually be happy with it.

The main thing I am aware of is how Obama makes threats and doesn't follow up.

Bin Laden disagrees.

I don't remember anyone else doing that  ... not that it would matter if they did.

North Korea tested their first nuclear weapon in 2006 and confirmed that they had nuclear weapons in 2007.  That seems like another "red line" to me.

[CF DolFan]

Cross party criticisms many times should be ignored and especially if its something they were against 4 years earlier.  Individuals should look at each situation through objective eyes and not just adhere to playing the role of a lemming who has already made up  their mind... or argues just to argue.

The Bin Laden reference is stupid. No one ever gave up looking for him.

Did George Bush tell or insinuate to N Korea if they did this it would be crossing the "red line" and then later try to redefine who's red line it was? I missed that so maybe you can show me but in either case it doesn't change where we are today. I'm concerned for tomorrow not where we were last week.

[Spider-Dan]

Cross party criticisms many times should be ignored and especially if its something they were against 4 years earlier.  Individuals should look at each situation through objective eyes and not just adhere to playing the role of a lemming who has already made up  their mind... or argues just to argue.

Where would the creation of this thread fall on that scale?

The Bin Laden reference is stupid. No one ever gave up looking for him.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Emphasis added:

Q    Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden.  Why is that?  Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive?  Final part  --  deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of  --

THE PRESIDENT:  Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all.  Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time.  And the idea of focusing on one person is --  really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person.  And he's just  --  he's a person who's now been marginalized.  His network, his host government has been destroyed.  He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.  He is  --  as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide  --  if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is.  You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.  I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan.  There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly.  We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy.  We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q    But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him.  And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure.  And, again, I don't know where he is.  I  --  I'll repeat what I said.  I truly am not that concerned about him.  I know he is on the run.  I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country.  I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

---

Not sure what else you want.  GWB abandoned Bin Laden to set his sights on Iraq.

Did George Bush tell or insinuate to N Korea if they did this it would be crossing the "red line" and then later try to redefine who's red line it was?

Does the answer to that question even matter?  Well...

I missed that so maybe you can show me but in either case it doesn't change where we are today.

...obviously not, so why even ask?

[CF DolFan]

I honestly don't get that Bush quit searching for him from what you have provided. Maybe if I was looking to trap him I could but no way am I swayed by that any more than I think Obama turned up the heat to find him. I applaud Obama for giving the go ahead but he was just lucky to have been president when "our military" got the break in finding him.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm not sure how much clearer it can get than "I don't know where he is...  I truly am not that concerned about him."  If you don't know where someone is and you aren't concerned with finding him, how else can it be described but you quit searching?

I can't say I'm surprised that you think Obama was "lucky" that the military made it a priority to get Bin Laden under his watch, as if his personal order was not directly responsible for it.

Bush has 7 years to find Bin Laden and 6 months in, declares that he is not a concern.  Bin Laden remains at large for Bush's entire presidency.
Obama declares Bin Laden a priority in the 2008 presidential debates, and two years after taking office, Bin Laden is taken out.
This is not "luck."  It is prioritization.

[CF DolFan]

I'm not sure how much clearer it can get than "I don't know where he is...  I truly am not that concerned about him."  If you don't know where someone is and you aren't concerned with finding him, how else can it be described but you quit searching?

I can't say I'm surprised that you think Obama was "lucky" that the military made it a priority to get Bin Laden under his watch, as if his personal order was not directly responsible for it.

Bush has 7 years to find Bin Laden and 6 months in, declares that he is not a concern.  Bin Laden remains at large for Bush's entire presidency.
Obama declares Bin Laden a priority in the 2008 presidential debates, and two years after taking office, Bin Laden is taken out.
This is not "luck."  It is prioritization.

I hate to break it to you but neither Bush nor Obama did one thing in finding him. Bush didn't do once single thing to help our military and neither did Obama. Regardless of whatever was going on they were in nice comfy beds somewhere.

Bush could come across as a bumbling idiot but I'm pretty sure it was him trying to divert attention off he fact we hadn't caught him. Now Like I said before about talking out both sides of the mouths ... the same democrats who claim they caught him were trying to bash the fact we were even still fighting under Bush. A lot of BS on both sides

[Spider-Dan]

So if the commander-in-chief isn't actually responsible for the actions of the military, what is the point of this thread, again?  If Obama is not responsible for the actions of the military under his command, then how is he responsible for any actions that Congress does or does not take?  Whatever it takes to deny credit to Obama, I suppose.

I would love to see you cite any instance of elected federal Democrats opposing the war in Afghanistan prior to Bin Laden's elimination.

[bsmooth]

First of all, if you want to call each other names, we can do that. Although I don't think that Dave would appreciate me putting you in your place. So act accordingly like an adult or kindly STFU.

Now that that's out of the way. No one has ignored your silly comparison. The fact of the matter is that Bush didn't handle the situation correctly and was also just as weak with Russia, maybe even weaker. However, you seem to think shit that happened 5-6 years ago has damn thing to do with what is happening NOW. It doesn't. A lot of things Bush did were fucked up. Does that mean that it's OK for Obama to so that same things? Fuck no it doesn't. If Joe robs a bank, is it OK for me to rob a bank? Fuck no. Since Andy killed his wife, is it OK for you to kill your wife? Of course not. See, that's what's wrong with you people. You're so caught up with justifying EVERYTHING the idiot does. When Obama fails, fucks up, or makes a mistake. All you have is to say it's Bush's fault. Or, Bush did it, so why can't Obama do it? We're supposed to be making progress. Or don't you remember those bullshit campaign slogans - hope, change, and forward. If you can't realize that Bush and Obama are two fucktards that are more suited to managing an Office Depot than running this country, then you sir are a blind homer of the highest order.

So no, no one is ignoring your irrelevant posts about Bush. The fact is that Bush is an idiot and has NOTHING to do with this discussion. He makes no decisions and hasn't for 5 years. Too bad that just because the current POTUS is a black, he can do no wrong and doesn't have to answer for anything because it would be racist. Yeah right, GTFOH with that shit, give me a fucking break.

Oh you finally stopped ignoring it. Yes what Bush and the West failed to do in 2008 has repercussions down the road. Putin was not punished for his transgressions against Georgia. So five+ years later he does it again. Yet somehow it is worse under Obama than Bush?
So the actions, or lack of actions, by the previous administration(s) can come back to haunt down the road. No one has stood up to Putin prior to the Crimean escapade, and it has come back to bite us in the ass. The fact your failure to realize that actions undertaken, or failed to be undertaken by countries and their leaders can have effects years down the road speaks volumes to your lack of history, politics, and foreign relations.
Bush's and Europe's failure to shut Putin down in 2008 over Georgia is a direct causation to his decision to go into Crimea without fear of a western reprisal...especially with the lack of any casualties.