Safire: Romney should make Petraeus his VP.
On NBC’s Meet the Press yesterday, former Nixon speechwriter and New York Times columnist William Safire provided his “office pool” predictions for who leading presidential candidates would choose as their running mate if they were to get the nomination. For former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), Safire suggested that he would pick Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Watch it:
Safire isn’t the first conservative to dream of Petraeus running for higher office.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
68 Responses to “Safire: Romney should make Petraeus his VP.”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Wargasms all ’round!!!!
October 29th, 2007 at 11:21 amRomney is a great candidate for President, probably the best amongst the entire field out there. Ideally, Cheney would have made a great VP for him, but that effort hasn’t gathered steam yet
October 29th, 2007 at 11:22 amYes, Romney should make Petraeus his VP. I want republicans to be associated with war in the Middle East as much as possible in the coming elections. The message is clear: If you want a permanent presence in Iraq, and/or to invade Iran, vote republican. If you do not want to attack Iran and/or you want America to withdraw fro Iraq, vote Democrat. We are a democracy, let the people decide.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:28 amIsn’t it true that Military people like BETRAYUS are not eligible for a certain amount of time before they can go into politics.
The Rapeublicans LOVE their TRAITORS…
Like Bush and Cheney.
And BETRAYUS…
October 29th, 2007 at 11:29 amUm….doesn’t Petraeus already HAVE a day job?
October 29th, 2007 at 11:29 amOk we already know it will be Giuliani - Barbour. You know Haley Barbour? Cheney’s evil corrupt twin brother from Mississippi.
So if Romney picks Petreus to beef up his Primary chances so be it.
Romney certainly won’t be Giuliani’s pick as all insiders say it’s Barbour. Bourbour is on everyone’s short list.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:32 amIsn’t it true that Military people like BETRAYUS are not eligible for a certain amount of time before they can go into politics.
#
No, as far as I know, there is no waiting time. For instance, see Representative Patrick Murphy the only OIF veteran serving in congress.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:32 amThe message is clear: If you want a permanent presence in Iraq, and/or to invade Iran, vote republican. If you do not want to attack Iran and/or you want America to withdraw fro Iraq, vote Democrat. We are a democracy, let the people decide.
Comment by Chris L — October 29, 2007 @ 11:28 am
You must have been seeing different debates than I, Chris. Hillary, who seems to have the nomination sewn up, has not made ANY commitments to leaving Iraq and signed off on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating Iran’s Republican Guard a terrorist organization. I’ll admit, the Repubs are more bellicose in general, but in Hillary you are getting a Hawk, too.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:32 amMy guess, he already has a day and night job, bull shit bush is his full time employer….
October 29th, 2007 at 11:33 amComment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 11:32 am
#
Agreed. I keep hoping that the nomination will go to anyone but Hillary. She has been having to defend her Lieberman-Kyl vote to all the other dems running. I have said from the beginning, if Hillary wins, we still have a republican in the White House.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:35 amBarbour as VP candidate? Can’t they pick someone a bit more corrupt …..like Stevens since I suppose Duke can’t serve being a felon and all.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:36 amromney pick patraeus - ’cause that’s the ONLY way he’d win…
“wargasms” … heh…
October 29th, 2007 at 11:36 am.
Romney is a great candidate for President, probably the best amongst the entire field out there. Ideally, Cheney would have made a great VP for him, but that effort hasn’t gathered steam yet
Comment by hits — October 29, 2007 @ 11:22 am
So your supporting this former abortion supporter?
have you finally come around and agreed that abortion is part of gods plan?
October 29th, 2007 at 11:37 amBarbour as VP candidate? Can’t they pick someone a bit more corrupt …..like Stevens since I suppose Duke can’t serve being a felon and all.
Comment by crick — October 29, 2007 @ 11:36 am
#
Rudy G./Ollie North ticket!
October 29th, 2007 at 11:37 amWho listens to Safire or if they do, who believes him to be accurate about anything.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:37 amRomney is perfect nominee for the Republicans - he changes his lines as the wind blows.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:38 amIdeally, Cheney would have made a great VP for him, but that effort hasn’t gathered steam yet
Comment by hits
Yep. And if the US is lucky, Cheney would sleep through the whole thing. He does his best work while unconscience - just ask his wife.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:39 amVice President BETRAYUS? too much irony for it to work.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:42 amLinda Lovelace(star of Deep Throat) for Prez. snark
October 29th, 2007 at 11:42 amThere are three known serial trolls lurking.
TCDon
exley
hits
Please do not directly feed the trolls.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:44 ami had one of my 4am wake-ups this morning… got to see this…
usually don’t catch it on sunday… bothers my disposition…
anyway, THIS bothered me:
MR. RUSSERT: All right. Let me go through the rest of these questions. These are the predictions, again from Safire. If Obama wins the nomination, his VP choice: Biden, Dodd, Feinstein. Safire says Feinstein of California. If Giuliani wins the nomination…
MR. SAFIRE: Wait a minute, before you…
.
oh, surely not… where ever, however, did he come up with feinstein???
i’ll have to pay closer attention to that one…
but timmy should’ve let safire finish - he’d already said he had to hurry and was rattling this off without a breath… he could’ve let safire speak and given up the self-promotion at the end…
…
out to the garden pond with me… might get close to 70 today!
October 29th, 2007 at 11:45 amlater…
.
I, for one, think Petreaus would make an EXCELLENT choice for Romney’s VP. I can think of no better way to tie the Republican nominee directly to the glorius triumph that is the Iraq Quagmire.
I’m sure the American people would respond favorably, seeing as so many of them approve of the President’s handling of the war, and foreign policy in general.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:55 amRomney / Joseph Smith ‘08
∞
October 29th, 2007 at 12:00 pmI, for one, think Petreaus would make an EXCELLENT choice for Romney’s VP. I can think of no better way to tie the Republican nominee directly to the glorius triumph that is the Iraq Quagmire.
I’m sure the American people would respond favorably, seeing as so many of them approve of the President’s handling of the war, and foreign policy in general.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — October 29, 2007 @ 11:55 am
#
Exactly.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:08 pmHow are they so certain that Petraeus is a Republican?
October 29th, 2007 at 12:20 pmAwww, crap. The BananaRepublicans ought to just call themselves the Junta Party - and get it the fleck over with.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:22 pmHow are they so certain that Petraeus is a Republican?
Comment by VerbalKint — October 29, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Good point! Is Safire assuming this, or are Petraeus affiliations known?
October 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pmThis move wouldn’t surprise me either, because Romney is such a flip flopper and all the issues. He would try to pander to people who believe and support our military without question. While the Republicans said we shouldn’t play politics without General Petreaus, they intend to do just that. This guy looks great in a uniform, but unfortunately he can’t weat it to campaign in. When he takes it off to get involved in politics, he becomes fair game.
In other words don’t step in it, if you don’t want to get your shoes dirty. Also, I thought the right claimed that Petreaus wasn’t political. But magically somehow they know he’s a Republican. I wonder how? I’ll tell you how, because he was picked because of his party offiliation. It wasn’t because he was “The right man for the job” in Iraq after all. I’m a veteran so I’ve earned the right to attack Petreaus or any other soldier who puts his hat in the ring. Not that other Americans don’t have that right, but I don’t want some chicken hawk, saying “How dare you attack our soldiers”.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:25 pmIf Duke Cunningham would just come clean about which hookers, when and where, he’s probably get off with good behavior in time to be Rudy’s running mate. Though he’d lend a Huckabee/Cunningham ticket a certain air of “worldliness.”
October 29th, 2007 at 12:27 pmKeltoi: “Hillary, who seems to have the nomination sewn up, has not made ANY commitments to leaving Iraq…”
Well sure, other than the 52 times she has said, “if we are still in Iraq when I take office, I will begin withdrawing troops on my very first day” during speeches and interviews.
As far as William Safire is concerned, he’s just another tired old bitter Nixon guy who has proven to be wrong about, oh, everything! Please remember that he’s the guy who kept insisting that the Clintons had commited crimes with respect to “Whitewater.” He was a supporter of Bush and a supporter of invading Iraq. Now, since he has been spectacularly wrong about everything, he gets to come on television and pontificate.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:28 pmDid Romney win yet….? !
October 29th, 2007 at 12:41 pmSafire can see that Romeny is desperate for a political’ Surge’.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — October 29, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
That’s not a commitment. It’s like the b.s. question asked in the debate… can you guarantee you’ll have the troops out of Iraq by the end of your first term? It’s unanswerable. What if somehow Iraq gained nukes from Pakistan in 2012 and used them on Iran, or something like that? Would you not go in because you guaranteed that? How can you guarantee something like that? What you can say is that your goal is to start removing troops immediately upon taking office, which Hillary has said… repeatedly. But Republicans parse that and say that’s not a commitment. They’ll turn it around and say that GWB has the same goal but conditions have not been met to allow him to achieve that goal.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:49 pmbtw, I’m no big fan of Hillary. She would be much better then GWB but so would a post. Her vote on the Iran/terrorist issue was stupid. After the similar vote on Iraq that GWB used to go to war she should have known better. She’s been running from her vote on that war for awhile and now she adds this one. She’s either stupid, gets bad advice or honestly supports these wars. The evidence of the threat of Iran is even thinner then that of Iraq.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:51 pmNot that there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of it happening, but consider the situation if Romney were in the WH and Petraeus were his veep: you’d have an otherwise able-bodied President who didn’t serve when he had the opportunity, running a war-mongering foreign policy, backed up by a high-ranking militay man as vice-president.
In other words, you have the same thing you have now: an unqualified empty suit in charge, and a second-in-command making fun of him behind his back the whole time.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:53 pmAs far as William Safire is concerned, he’s just another tired old bitter Nixon guy who has proven to be wrong about, oh, everything! Please remember that he’s the guy who kept insisting that the Clintons had commited crimes with respect to “Whitewater.â€
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — October 29, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
And don’t forget that Safire spent the last several months of his stay at the Times insisting that WMDs had been found based on those pre-Desert Storm rusted out shells buried in the desert. He made a fool out of himself, then made a hasty retirement.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:54 pmDave: “She’s either stupid, gets bad advice or honestly supports these wars.”
Well, she’s not stupid. I think it’s pretty clear that she is a moderate and reflexively runs to the center. The good news is that the center of American public opinion is far more to the left than our corporate/fascist media would like us to believe. I believe she also voted or will vote on the Senate resolution which states that Bush has to get express permission for congress to attack Iran.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:56 pmFor the record, I dislike Clinton a lot, but will hold my nose and vote for her over any of those freaks running on the GOP side. The reason Clinton will win in a walkover is that a lot of businessman type Republicans are secretly planning to hold their own noses and vote for her, knowing full well what destruction another Republican buffoon might wreak on the country.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:57 pmDave; Hillary is not my 1st choice either, nor my 10th. But I would hold my nose and vote for her over ANY Republican.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:00 pmBut Republicans parse that and say that’s not a commitment. They’ll turn it around and say that GWB has the same goal but conditions have not been met to allow him to achieve that goal.
Comment by Dave C — October 29, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Honestly, I think she takes more heat from the left on this than she does from the right. If condtions don’t allow us to withdraw, she won’t do it. In that sense, her policy IS like Bushs.
Whoever wins, it will a a long damn time til the last American GI leaves Iraq. Will the Dems be more likely to draw down troops faster? Yes.
If my numbers are right, we have 20 Brigades in there now. According to Hillary and Joe Biden, it is logistically impossible to pull out more than 2 Brigades a month, assuming the command is even given, which it clearly isn’t going to be while Bush is in office, at least not any signifigant reduction.
It seems, SEEMS, like things are improving from a security standpoint at present. I predict that there will be around 100,000 US troops in Iraq in January of 2009. If the next President can get that number down to 20,000 by 2012 they’ll be in good shape for their re-elction campaign, much as Nixon was in ‘72.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:01 pmShe’s not my favorite candidate because she’s not the most liberal, but I will NOT be holding my nose if she is my Democratic choice. She’s extremely competent, she was right about trying to fix healthcare way 14 years ago, her tax policy should be similar to her husband’s which didn’t work out so bad and she will get out of Iraq if only because it is incompetent to be there. On top of that, it’s absolutely ridiculous that we’ve never had a woman president.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pmKeltoi’s post is a teaching moment for Democrats. Unable so far to convince Dems that she has no chance of winning because of her “negatives” (which they invented), they will resort to arguing that she’s not sufficiently ideologically pure for real Democrats or liberals.
Bottom line: she’s got more talent and brains than all the republican crackpots put together.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pmKeltoi’s post is a teaching moment for Democrats. Unable so far to convince Dems that she has no chance of winning because of her “negatives†(which they invented), they will resort to arguing that she’s not sufficiently ideologically pure for real Democrats or liberals.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — October 29, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Thanks, I think….
Look, I am stunned that the Left has seen fit to attack her. It is a strange world where Hillary Clinton isn’t liberal enough for you!
I think she can win, but it will not a walkover like Verbalkint suggests. She DOES have some major negatives and she IS pure anathema to many, not just uber-conservatives. If the Repubs had any decent candidates it would be different….it is hard to be very enthusiastic about any of the choices from either party, truth to tell.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pmKeltoi: “It is a strange world where Hillary Clinton isn’t liberal enough for you!”
She’s a moderate. Most of us understand that. Today’s conservative movement is so far to the right and so filled with crackpot philosophies that, to members of this movement, she may appear to be liberal, but in reality, she represents the vast middle of opinion in current America. Today’s Democratic party is a party of the middle. Today’s republican party is the party of the far right. That’s part of the reason why Democrats are going to roll next year.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:42 pmToday’s Democratic party is a party of the middle. Today’s republican party is the party of the far right. That’s part of the reason why Democrats are going to roll next year.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — October 29, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Well, I guess it all depends on where your own personal frame of reference is located. There are certainly extemist elements in both parties. It seems sometimes like nothing ever gets done, whoever is in power. Like Social Security. When O when are our “leaders” going to face that one? Ever?
October 29th, 2007 at 1:53 pmLook, I am stunned that the Left has seen fit to attack her. It is a strange world where Hillary Clinton isn’t liberal enough for you!
Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
As the good Retired Colonel says, Hillary is a moderate and a corporatist. Most liberals recognize that. She’s hardly the “socialist” that so many knee-jerk right-wingers like to shout about.
And as for Hillary being “an anathema to… uber-conservatives”, name a single politician with a “D” next to their name who wouldn’t be? And I don’t think Hillary is much of an anathema to many who aren’t conservative.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:55 pmI really wish Safire would stick to writing about the English language. We’d all be better off…
October 29th, 2007 at 1:59 pmKeltoi: “Like Social Security. When O when are our “leaders†going to face that one? Ever?”
There is no Social Security “crisis.” This is a phony problem. The reason our corporate/fascist media keeps allowing people to lie about this is that the solution to any future problem with Social Security involves raising taxes on the wealthy. This is perfectly fair, since most of the SS fund created by doubling SS taxes in 1983 ended up in the pockets of our most wealthy citizens after Bush’s tax cuts.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:06 pmThere is no Social Security “crisis.†This is a phony problem.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — October 29, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Wow. Seriously? I keep hearing about how the system will crash in its current form as the Baby Boomers retire. Is that really not true? The system can continue in its current form and still be okay? If true, that is one hell of a cover up. Are you saying the debate in Congress in 2005 was completely a sham?
October 29th, 2007 at 2:16 pmThere are three known serial trolls lurking.
TCDon
exley
hits
Please do not directly feed the trolls.
Comment by troll buster — October 29, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Again, NOT “trolls”. Government/DoD/Pentagon-paid PSYOPS.
http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
October 29th, 2007 at 2:18 pmWow. Seriously? I keep hearing about how the system will crash in its current form as the Baby Boomers retire. Is that really not true? Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
In 40 years, the system won’t ‘crash’, it just would either have to spend through debt (like the 2 TRILLION we’re spending on Iraq), or benefits would have to be trimmed, or somewhere between now and the next 40 years minor adjustments would need to be made.
The system can continue in its current form and still be okay? Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Compared to our current HEALTHCARE CRISIS - YES!
If true, that is one hell of a cover up. Are you saying the debate in Congress in 2005 was completely a sham? Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Yes, it was completely a sham. If the cap on the wages of the wealthy were removed, that ALONE would have made the fund perpetually debt free!
You wingnuts are 100% dishonest, and in fact your politics ARE THE POLITICS OF SHAM!
October 29th, 2007 at 2:31 pmWell, I guess it all depends on where your own personal frame of reference is located. There are certainly extemist elements in both parties. Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
There are, but most of the far left folks left the Democrats for the Greens years ago, whereas the MAJORITY of the GOP is FAR RIGHT (24% of the population and 2/3 of the GOP to be exact).
It seems sometimes like nothing ever gets done, whoever is in power. Like Social Security. When O when are our “leaders†going to face that one? Ever?
Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
What, that FAKE CRISIS??? Please! You wingnuts won’t deal with the DOZENS of current Crisis, like declining wages, the wealth gap, the healthcare crisis, the education crisis, the obesity crisis, the 2 TRILLION dollar war of stupidity - etc., etc., and all you can do is whine about a potential crisis from 40 years from now?
You’re a patently dishonest fool!
October 29th, 2007 at 2:34 pmKeltoi - honestly, you seem like a reasonably intelligent guy (?) - I’d like to know if you truly believe the homophobic, xenophobic, warmongering policies of the Bush gang…?
Because I just can’t wrap my head around the hate-filled stuff I hear from these people daily, i.e., that all Muslims want to kill us, that we need to shove homosexuals back into the closet (or kill them - depending on who you listen to), that if we nuke Iran they’ll welcome us with open arms…etc. etc. — ad nauseum.
And, given the proposed TRILLIONS of our tax dollars spent on this war, the term “fiscal conservative” absolutely does NOT apply to any Republican alive these days.
Do you really buy into what they tell you?
October 29th, 2007 at 2:38 pmAnd a newsflash for you, Keltoi: Hillary is NOT a liberal.
She’s much closer to being a “Lieberman Democrat” than she is to being a real liberal.
KUCINICH is the real liberal in the bunch.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:41 pm#48 - “The system (Social Security) can continue in its current form and still be okay? If true, that is one hell of a cover up. Are you saying the debate in Congress in 2005 was completely a sham?” Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Basically, yes, it’s a sham.
For the past 30 years (or more) the US Federal Government has been talking the surplus that Social Security has generated, and applying it to the current budgets. Of course, there’s an IOU that the Federal Government has submitted for all this borrowed money.
The thing is, this IOU bill is not in the trillions of dollars! (The exact number differs based on the bias of the organizations following this info.) If, and I repeat IF, the Federal Government accept personal responsibility for their actions and these IOU’s, then there will be NO Social Security “crisis”.
The whole idea of a “lock box” for Social Security? THAT is a sham! And a mockery. A “sham-ockery” if you will. ;-)
October 29th, 2007 at 2:44 pmSoldier, I may be wrong, but I think the process of using SS money for federal spending started under Reagan. His is the administration, after all, which pushed for the largest tax increase in American history, the doubling of the Social Security tax. Boomers went along with this taking the extraordinary position that it would be a moral thing to do to pay for their own retirements since there were so many of them. But, then, in the biggest “bait and switch” in history, they took this working class money, used it for government spending and capped it all off with Bush giving hundreds of billions of it to the most wealthy. This was a glaring redistribution of wealth, but conservatives aren’t concerned because it’s redistributing working class money to the wealthy.
October 29th, 2007 at 3:01 pm#55 - “His is the administration, after all, which pushed for the largest tax increase in American history, the doubling of the Social Security tax.”
I agree! The idea was to “keep SS working”, but he started the whole “IUO’s for money” scheme that is causing problems today.
“But, then, in the biggest “bait and switch†in history, they took this working class money, used it for government spending and capped it all off with Bush giving hundreds of billions of it to the most wealthy. ” Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — October 29, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Well, to be fair to Pres. Reagan, in 1982 when Pres. Reagan realized how much debt the US was getting themselves into, he pushed to reduce his “tax cuts”, in essence re-raising the taxes he originally cut. He was operating under the assumption that the economic benefits from his tax-cuts would generate the revenue to pay back the defecit and stop the Federal Govt. from consistently raiding the Social Security excess funding.
It’s too bad that the myth of the “fiscally conservative Republican” was to last until now, when it’s more than obvious that this particular “animal” is and was about a “real” as the Easter Bunny!
“OUR tax dollars” stopped being “OUR tax dollars” when the National Credit Card was run up past the first 4-6 trillion in the Reagan/Bush Years!
I wonder when China is going to call that debt “due” and bankrupt the US?
October 29th, 2007 at 3:27 pmPetraeus as SiCKO DiCKO’s replacement and Col. Steven Boylan replacing Libby.
Dream team!
October 29th, 2007 at 3:49 pm>>Keltoi - honestly, you seem like a reasonably intelligent guy (?) - I’d like to know if you truly believe the homophobic, xenophobic, warmongering policies of the Bush gang…?
Guy, yes. Republicans Hates Facts assures me I am an idiot in just about every post he makes, so I’ll leave it to you to judge my intelligence.
>>Do you really buy into what they tell you?
Comment by Leftside Annie — October 29, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Of course not, they are politicians, I don’t believe what any elected official has to say merely on principle.
As to the Bush record, it is a bit hard to address the totality of the admin here. I am not a homophobe, I am not a Christian, I am not a xenophobe, so to the extent he/they are I do not agree with them. I do not believe that it was Israel or the US government that attacked us on 9-11. I believe that a forceful response was necessary to that event. There are lots of Muslims who hate us and would kill us just because we are non-Muslims. That is a fact. It is also a sad fact that raw power is the coin of the realm in the Middle East and has been since Sargon formed in worlds first Empire 5,000 years ago. I thought removing Saddam was a good thing. I think the invasion went well, the post planning was obviously a disaster. Bush spending is a disaster. Non border enforcement, disaster. General PR slickness, total disaster. Ethical government a mixed bag.
Basically, I see Bush as a mixed bag, some good, some bad. I am not a major ideologue, I can see some good things in both liberal and conservative government.
But I am ready for a new Presdent, definitely. The problem is, the people who are likely to win do not impress….
October 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pmKeltoi: “As to the Bush record, it is a bit hard to address the totality of the admin here.”
I’m afraid you’re a little late on that one. You may have missed it. The verdict’s already in. Historic tampering with the constitution. Historically bad jobs creation performance. Historically low value to the U.S. dollar. Declining purchasing power and quality of life for the working classes, historic debt and deficit, historic trade imbalance, historic gaps between the rich and poor - all brought to us, as usual, by the kind of unregulated corporate capitalism this president has championed throughout his career. He’s “Hoover,” only much worse. He lied to the American people to start a shooting war. You can obfuscate this all you want, but history will be clear on this. These are some of the reasons why he will be remembered as one of, if not the, worst presidents in history.
October 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pmYou can obfuscate this all you want, but history will be clear on this. These are some of the reasons why he will be remembered as one of, if not the, worst presidents in history.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — October 29, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
I try to avoid fortune telling, Colonel, I have read too much history to predict it in advance. He also has another 15 months to go. But I don’t expect anyone here to not loathe Bush, and I have little interest in defending him, I was just answering a direct question from Annie.
October 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pmBut I don’t expect anyone here to not loathe Bush, and I have little interest in defending him, I was just answering a direct question from Annie.
I don’t “loathe Bush”, nor ANYONE, so don’t project onto anyone that they “hate” or “loathe” Bush.
We HAVE seen the damage that he and his WAR CRIMINAL pals have done in the last 7 years, including attacking a country that had
NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
You state that we needed to respond forcefully, and I agree.
But Osama is STILL out there, Al Queda is STRONGER than ever, Saddam is DEAD, and we are STILL in Iraq to the tune of 2.4 Bil..
And the Bush family has TIES to the Bin Ladens and the Saudis that are FINANCING Al Queda.
70 YEARS of TREASON by the Bushes, starting with granddaddy Prescott laundering Nazi money, and followed by Poppy Bush
pardoning the Iran/Contra TRAITORS like Oliver North and calling them “patriots”, to protect his and TRAITOR Ronnie Reagan’s azz…
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
October 29th, 2007 at 5:28 pmGuy, yes. Republicans Hates Facts assures me I am an idiot in just about every post he makes, so I’ll leave it to you to judge my intelligence. Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Stop making stupid comments, and I won’t have to say so. You might have the capacity to make intelligent commentary, but you always trip yourself up and say something totally stupid!
Of course not, they are politicians, I don’t believe what any elected official has to say merely on principle. Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
That’s really sad.
As to the Bush record, it is a bit hard to address the totality of the admin here. I am not a homophobe, I am not a Christian, I am not a xenophobe, so to the extent he/they are I do not agree with them. Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
You sound like another AIPAC NeoCon - we get lots of you here. You hate the truth, so you come spreading the lies. You aren’t a homophobe? So you believe in equal rights, including marriage, adoption, etc., for gay people? Equal protection under the law? Anti-hate crimes? Or does your non-homophobia just extend to lip service and bathroom encounters?
I do not believe that it was Israel or the US government that attacked us on 9-11. Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Yet an American CIA Agent named (Ali Mohamed) set up the training camps in Afghanistan, and was behind the first WTC bombing, the African Embassy bombings and was shielded by Mukasey himself from prosecution, and has never been tried for his crimes - nor do most Republicans even know who he was. How do you reconcile that inconvenient truth?
I believe that a forceful response was necessary to that event. There are lots of Muslims who hate us and would kill us just because we are non-Muslims. That is a fact. Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Why do you believe a forceful response was necessary, since according to both the Pentagon and CIA assessments they’ve made the world and the US less safe? See what I mean about stupid comments?
It is also a sad fact that raw power is the coin of the realm in the Middle East and has been since Sargon formed in worlds first Empire 5,000 years ago. Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
If that were true, there would be peace in Iraq and Israel! The sad fact, is you wingnuts don’t know crap about what you’re talking about!
I thought removing Saddam was a good thing. I think the invasion went well, the post planning was obviously a disaster. Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Those to are intertwined, so this creates another stupid statement and contradiction in your post.
Bush spending is a disaster. Non border enforcement, disaster. General PR slickness, total disaster. Ethical government a mixed bag. Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Funny on the spending, because we had a balanced budget with Clinton, and now 3/4 of our national debt is from 3 Republican presidents! You people are completely fiscally irresponsible - and you always have been! The economy, wages, jobs all perform horribly under GOP presidents, no matter which party is in Congress!
Ethical Government mixed bag? This administration has been the least ethical in history, perhaps only challenged by Ronnie RayGun, the sellout to Tehran and Nicaragua!
Basically, I see Bush as a mixed bag, some good, some bad. I am not a major ideologue, I can see some good things in both liberal and conservative government. Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Good things? He hasn’t done a single good thing for this country. While one could argue saving the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban seemed like a good idea, even that is collapsing under the weight of Conservative mismanagement!
But I am ready for a new Presdent, definitely. The problem is, the people who are likely to win do not impress….
Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Well, you should consider the possibility that you’re impressed by stupid things!
October 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pmComment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm: “I believe that a forceful response was necessary to that event. There are lots of Muslims who hate us and would kill us just because we are non-Muslims. That is a fact.”
If 15 Cubans and 4 Venezuelans had carried out the 9-11 attack, would you have agreed with an invasion of Mexico. You know, there are people in Mexico who hate us.
October 29th, 2007 at 6:19 pmIf 15 Libyans and 4 Egyptians attacked us, would we have responded by attacking Libya? If 15 North Koreans attacked us, would we have bombed North Korea? If a follower of right-wing kook Richard Butler blows up the federal building in Ok City killing 163 men, women and children, do we round up all the right-wing kooks?
October 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pmIt is amazing and sad that 9/11 is still being used as an excuse to justify Iraq.
Are people that stupid or do they really think that somehow Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? I guess the propganda catapultion was successful. If that’s even a word.
I appreciate your logic RCJR.
October 29th, 2007 at 7:27 pmnanlichi: “Are people that stupid or do they really think that somehow Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?”
I think we’re seeing the effects of what Rupert Murdoch agreed would be Fox News channel’s relentless support of the Bush agenda. They’ll basically say anything to support Bush. I’m sure there are many Americans who would find it hard to believe that a news organization would lie in their faces or mislead them so thoroughly, but the numbers don’t lie. About 30% of the people seem to believe that secular dictator Saddam Hussein would cooperate and work with a fundamentalist religious group calling for his ouster that he had pledged to wipe out in Iraq. We live in very interesting times.
October 29th, 2007 at 7:42 pmAnd, thanks, nanlichi!
October 29th, 2007 at 7:43 pmSafire is a pathetic figure. His pompous dialogues on the English language have grown extremely dreary.
He’s a Zionist shill and it’s no surprise he’s on the NYT staff..
October 30th, 2007 at 1:21 am