No Foresight, No Hindsight

[barfle]

The President never used the forged documents as evidence, despite the lies of Joseph Wilson and of Hans Blix.

I don't recall accusations of forged documents, just accusations of picking and choosing those documents that agreed with him, no matter how out of date they were.

The President said there was evidence that Iraq tried to obtain Uranium from Niger, a statement that was consistent with Joseph Wilson's report, which stated that Iraq had made trade overtures to Niger.

There's a big difference between wanting to have WsMD and having them.

And I still don't see how Republicans can ever forgive him for making the GOP the shambles that it is today.

[Shapley]

I don't recall accusations of forged documents, just accusations of picking and choosing those documents that agreed with him, no matter how out of date they were.

I was referring to this quote, from your link obtained from my link.....

Comparing the two countries to medieval witch-hunters, Blix said the British and U.S. governments convinced themselves Iraq posed a threat based on evidence that was later discredited -- including forged documents about alleged attempts to buy uranium for nuclear weapons.

There's a big difference between wanting to have WsMD and having them.

The President's argument was that we couldn't wait until he had them, because once he had them he would use them. Still a valid argument, given his past actions.

And I still don't see how Republicans can ever forgive him for making the GOP the shambles that it is today.

President Bush did not create the 'shambles' alone, and I hope the rest of my Republicans are smart enough to realize that. Whatever the President did or did not, the war, the spending, all required Congressional action. If the President was doing something the Republicans opposed, they had a duty to stand against it. Some did, not enough (and that includes the Democrats in Congress). There is very little that the President can do without Congress' stamp of approval. The Republicans, my Republicans, have no one to blame but themselves. President Bush is no bully, no dictator, he presented his plans, the Congress voted.

If the Republicans were unhappy with the President's actions, it was their responsibility to sit down with him and map out a strategy. It was their spinelessness, not his spinefulness, that cost them the Congress. They ran on one set of principles and legislated under another. That is their failing, not his.

[Haggis@wk]

If the Republicans were unhappy with the President's actions, it was their responsibility to sit down with him and map out a strategy.

Actually, you could say the same thing about the Democrats, they pretty much went along with the same program since they thought it was a winning strategy for Hillary, supporting what Pres. Clinton had articulated....two years after he left office, but still...

[barfle]

They have not led. We will.

[Shapley]

They have not led. We will.

And President Bush did lead. General Lee led well, but he failed. King Leonidas Led well, but he failed. General Rommel Led well, but he failed. Leadership alone does not ensure success. Bob Woodward tried to make the case that President Bush did not lead, but his book actually points out that he did exhibit leadership.

I don't lay so much blame on President Bush because he did what he said he would do, with the exception of reforming Social Security, which he tried but was thwarted. He led. His followers (Republican and Democrat), however, followed poorly. They had responsibilities, which they failed to fulfil. If the Republicans try to blame President Bush for their shortcomings, then they are hiding from the real source of the problem - they strayed from their principles, and have paid the price.

[jamiebk]

He led. His followers (Republican and Democrat), however, followed poorly.

Shap that's about the funniest thing I've ever heard you say.

Let's see... he's a leader that no one wanted to follow...Is that really a leader?

[Shapley]

He led. His followers (Republican and Democrat), however, followed poorly.

Shap that's about the funniest thing I've ever heard you say.

Let's see... he's a leader that no one wanted to follow...Is that really a leader?

No.... You misquote me. They followed, blindly, poorly, sans responsibility. I did not say they didn't follow, or that they didn't want to follow.

The Democrats, for example, took power in 2006 under a vague promise of ending the war in Iraq. Instead, the President employed the 'surge', over their objections (and their predictions of failure), they followed. They demanded timetables for withdrawal of the troops as a condition of funding, and then backed down. The President led the charge and, in that case, appears to have won the day. Though, like President Nixon, he runs the risk that the Congress will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Republicans followed poorly because they abdicated all responsibility in their actions. Their intent, I suppose, was that they could hide the President would take the fall for any failures on their part. They were wrong.

[barfle]

One thing I couldn't help but notice in his acceptance speech is that he did not tell us where he would be leading. That scared me then, and my fears were justified.

Not that I'm feeling any safer about the next administraiton.

[Shapley]

I think the title of this thread: "No Foresight, No Hindsight" more appropriately describes the actions of this Congress, which seems to find the need to rush legisltation onto the president's desk, and then needs to rush legislation to fix the legislation they rushed earlier. The 'bailout bonus' fiasco was the most prominent sign of that, now we have this:

The Rush Is On To Fund "Cash For Clunkers" Program.

No foresight, no hindsight. Yep. That describes Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama much better than it did President George Bush.

[jamiebk]

With a $1,000,000,000 pool for rebates, and rebates of $4500, that would suggest that some 222,222 cars have been sold under this program. Looks like the auto industry sells about 4-5 million cars per year (I am surprised its that high). http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2 ... sales.html

Clearly, there needs to be more than $1B to fund this program, if it is to provide the boost it is expected to. Actually, I think its a good idea. CA had a program like this but it was administered a little differently

[Shapley]

With a $1,000,000,000 pool for rebates, and rebates of $4500, that would suggest that some 222,222 cars have been sold under this program.

Have they been? I doubt it. If the auto industry sold that many cars in the couple of weeks since the program's inception, they would not still be in recession. I wonder if car dealers aren't taking advantage of the lax oversight of the program to cash in on unsellable clunkers already on their lots.

Nontheless, you make my point. If the program does what it is supposed to, it needed more money from the outset. No foresight. If it's not doing what it's supposed to do, then the additional $2 billion will be 'good money after bad'. No hindsight.