George W. Bush = Harry S. Truman?

punked · January 13, 2009

BTW, Truman killed far more innocent Japanese women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki than Bush Jnr ever did in Iraq.

The count is getting a lot closer.

Smallc · January 13, 2009

Never mind Harry S. Truman, yesterday, Bush compared himself to Abrahan Lincoln.

bush_cheney2004 · January 13, 2009

Never mind Harry S. Truman, yesterday, Bush compared himself to Abrahan Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln was also a war president....eventually, his critics assassinated him. The comparison was made about critics.

punked · January 13, 2009

Would Truman do this?

"I said, 'Get Bush on the phone.' They tried, and told me he was in the middle of a lecture in Philadelphia. I said, 'I need to speak to him now.' He got down from the podium, went out and took the phone call. I told him that the US cannot possibly vote in favor of this resolution. He immediately called [Rice] and told her not to vote for it."-Israel PM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

I don't think so. Bush he legacy might be worse then you think.

ft.niagara · January 15, 2009

Would Truman do this?
"I said, 'Get Bush on the phone.' They tried, and told me he was in the middle of a lecture in Philadelphia. I said, 'I need to speak to him now.' He got down from the podium, went out and took the phone call. I told him that the US cannot possibly vote in favor of this resolution. He immediately called [Rice] and told her not to vote for it."-Israel PM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

I don't think so. Bush he legacy might be worse then you think.

The US did not vote for it, nor did it not vote against it. It abstained. It is the same thing as Obama saying 'present' when asked to vote.

As far as supporting Israel, someone has to do it.

Edited January 15, 2009 by ft.niagara

punked · January 15, 2009

The US did not vote for it, nor did it not vote against it. It abstained. It is the same thing as Obama saying 'present' when asked to vote.
As far as supporting Israel, someone has to do it.

Rice wrote the damned thing.

Canadian Blue · January 21, 2009

This discussion is useless, now that Obama is becoming President the world is perfect. All the children of the world will join hands and sing Kumbaya in unison, we will all love one another and practice free love. The age of Bush is over, and we will now bow down to the second coming of the Messiah. Even celebrities are now stating that they will no longer let their children lick electrical sockets since Obama became President.

or....

We will wake up six months from now and realize how stupid we were to think that a charismatic politician can solve all of our problems and be proof of inspiration.

August1991 · January 21, 2009

I just noticed this.

Would Truman do this?
"I said, 'Get Bush on the phone.' They tried, and told me he was in the middle of a lecture in Philadelphia. I said, 'I need to speak to him now.' He got down from the podium, went out and took the phone call. I told him that the US cannot possibly vote in favor of this resolution. He immediately called [Rice] and told her not to vote for it."-Israel PM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

I don't think so. Bush he legacy might be worse then you think.

We only have Olmert's word on this story and strong denials from everyone else. Olmert has obvious reasons to exaggerate his own importance.

But Punked, it seems lost on you that Truman's actions lead to the creation of the State of Israel.

WIP · January 21, 2009

George W. Bush = Herbert Hoover.

If one quarter of the U.S. population wasn't mindless, fundamentalist drones who get their daily dose of propaganda from right wing radio, Bush would be in the single digits in popularity. Hell, here in Canada, Mulroney was in the single digits, and there's no way anyone can argue that Mulroney did the equivalent amount of damage as this clusterf@@k has done to America! The biggest part of Bush's legacy will depend on how much fat Barack Obama can pull out of the fire, otherwise Bush's historical legacy will be the president who destroyed the American Empire.

punked · January 21, 2009

I just noticed this.
We only have Olmert's word on this story and strong denials from everyone else. Olmert has obvious reasons to exaggerate his own importance.

But Punked, it seems lost on you that Truman's actions lead to the creation of the State of Israel.

Never said I was against pre 1967 Israel. We do have the outside facts Olmert did call Bush, Bush did drop what he was doing to talk, and Bush did call Rice and talk to her delaying the UN meeting. We also know rice came back and voted the way she did after she wrote the whole resolution. Seems like most of Olmerts facts match what he says while Rice and Bush offer no explanation only denials.

Canadian Blue · January 21, 2009

George W. Bush = Herbert Hoover.

True, George W Bush has put the United States on the road of the New New Deal. All we need is for Obama to rip up NAFTA and put in place tariff walls.

Moonlight Graham · January 21, 2009

George W. Bush = what my dog coughs up.

But at least what my dog coughs up is legal, so maybe i'm being too kind.

Score 1 ad hominem for Moonie!!

Black Dog · January 22, 2009

August91

When we judge Truman (and Bush Jnr) in broader terms, it's obvious that they did right for America, and individual freedom in the world. Both put strong cards into future presidents' hands.

What broader terms are those?

August1991 · January 24, 2009

What broader terms are those?

Truman, Bush Jnr (and Bush Snr) showed that the US is not a paper tiger.

By dropping the atomic bomb not once but twice, Truman showed that an American president is not shy of taking extreme measures. Bush Jnr invaded a country and toppled a dictator on the basis of a suspicion of WMD.

IOW, Truman and Bush Jnr gave good cards to the poker hands of future presidents (eg. Obama). Call this the good-cop, bad-cop approach to foreign relations.

----

What are the broader terms? I don't like the analogy of policing but I'll use it here. I see a difference between the RCMP and the Hell's Angels. And I know that while the RCMP must have a search warrant before raiding a Hell's Angels clubhouse, the RCMP doesn't phone in advance and tell the Hell's about the raid.

I prefer a world in which the RCMP have power - as opposed to a world in which the Hells decide things.

LesterDC · January 24, 2009

What are the broader terms? I don't like the analogy of policing but I'll use it here. I see a difference between the RCMP and the Hell's Angels. And I know that while the RCMP must have a search warrant before raiding a Hell's Angels clubhouse, the RCMP doesn't phone in advance and tell the Hell's about the raid.
I prefer a world in which the RCMP have power - as opposed to a world in which the Hells decide things.

However, according to your analogy, Bush didn't get a "search warrant".. The U.N. did not approve of the invasion

bush_cheney2004 · January 24, 2009

However, according to your analogy, Bush didn't get a "search warrant".. The U.N. did not approve of the invasion

He didn't need one.....just like Clinton.....both were American presidents.

LesterDC · January 25, 2009

He didn't need one.....just like Clinton.....both were American presidents.

Then the analogy doesn't work...

August1991 · January 25, 2009

However, according to your analogy, Bush didn't get a "search warrant".. The U.N. did not approve of the invasion

Many argue that Bush had the authority under UN resolutions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan but I agree that it's quite obvious now that the UN has made itself irrelevant.

To invade Iraq, Bush got the approval of the US Congress and a large coalition of like-minded countries. In the case of Afghanistan, Bush also obtained the approval of NATO.

If the US president wants to do something, and the US Congress approves it, then what the UN thinks won't matter. So, the US Constitution now provides de facto the world's check on the power of the president.

bush_cheney2004 · January 25, 2009

Then the analogy doesn't work...

Yes it does....see Operation Allied Force (Kosovo 1999)....completed without UN "approval". As were various bombing campaigns in Iraq.......by President Clinton and PM Blair.

LesterDC · January 25, 2009

Many argue that Bush had the authority under UN resolutions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan but I agree that it's quite obvious now that the UN has made itself irrelevant.
To invade Iraq, Bush got the approval of the US Congress and a large coalition of like-minded countries. In the case of Afghanistan, Bush also obtained the approval of NATO.

If the US president wants to do something, and the US Congress approves it, then what the UN thinks won't matter. So, the US Constitution now provides de facto the world's check on the power of the president.

coalition like-minded country support is equivalent to mob support - it isn't following any kind of doctrine or charter. Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same war.. and I'd hope that the congress is not the power check or the "search warrant", American politicians will look out for America..

punked · January 26, 2009

Yes it does....see Operation Allied Force (Kosovo 1999)....completed without UN "approval". As were various bombing campaigns in Iraq.......by President Clinton and PM Blair.

Weren't Republicans against that Operation? Didn't that one win a war with out Adding a trillion dollars to the debt and losing any lives?

bush_cheney2004 · January 26, 2009

Weren't Republicans against that Operation? Didn't that one win a war with out Adding a trillion dollars to the debt and losing any lives?

So it's OK to attack sovereign states, spend lots of money, and kill other people without UNSC approval as long as we "win" the war?

Great! I like how you think.

punked · January 26, 2009

So it's OK to attack sovereign states, spend lots of money, and kill other people without UNSC approval as long as we "win" the war?
Great! I like how you think.

If you think 700 million dollars is a lot of money. OK how about we agree you can only spend 10 times the amount of Kosovo to win a war, how about 100? Bush's war way too much.

bush_cheney2004 · January 27, 2009

If you think 700 million dollars is a lot of money. OK how about we agree you can only spend 10 times the amount of Kosovo to win a war, how about 100? Bush's war way too much.

Sounds good to me....the BBC estimated the war in Kosovo to have total costs of about $30 billion pounds. And that was from only 78 days of bombing...no ground invasion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/476134.stm

$700 million is chump change, and obviously wrong.

punked · January 27, 2009

Sounds good to me....the BBC estimated the war in Kosovo to have total costs of about $30 billion pounds. And that was from only 78 days of bombing...no ground invasion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/476134.stm

$700 million is chump change, and obviously wrong.

See in this war the US had help I know Bush forgot about that part. I know you wouldn't read that far in the article. The US spent 1.2 billion pounds or like 2 billion dollars so you are obviously wrong. If 700 million is chump change then double must be too. Again Iraq COST TOO MUCH. It cost 1000 Kosovo's so far and wayyyyyyyyyy more men. Welcome to reality.

To Hammer home reality for you they lost about 20 times as much Kosovo cost they don't know where it went or who spent it.

Edited January 27, 2009 by punked