You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
I had read that about Gore and was disappointed, although who knows if it's true or not. What was the name of the book?
I dunno, the whole book sounds like some TMZ gossip rag. A bunch of people paid to dish out dirt. Maybe Al knew the agent, and was joking with him as well. Plus I'm sure those Secret Service agents get paid pretty well, it's not like he said it to some minimum wage worker. I'm not trying to just stick up for Al Gore or anything, but 2 people can write a book. One with excepts of statements made where someone comes off like an asshole & jerk, and one with them seeming genuine & a likable guy. Don't believe all that you read in life. Heck, let's take Katrina for example, I'm sure Bush was on the phone with people while it was raining, and immediately after it stopped, I'm sure he asked "What should we do?" and I'm sure he asked somebody "How many casualties & homeless do you think there are?"
SO: Contrary to popular believe, Bush acted with the utmost sincerity and showed strong leadership during Katrina. Records show not only after the storm, but even during it Bush made dozens of phone calls to the highest government officials totaling over a few hundred minutes in his attempt to assist and aide the catastrophe. He immediately stated :What can we do?" to gain feedback of what options the government could take to assist in resuing survivors, and in a moment of genuine humanity, he asked his top advisor "How many casualties do you think there are?" The entire room fell silent, as he waited with a look of pain on his face, as he awaited the unfortunate response. When told, he glanced out the window, a moment of vulnerability rushed thru his face.
Or: Bush sat around until Friday before finally flying down there after a media storm & public opinion became outraged over him doing nothing about it.
And it's not just Bush. I could write something similar over Clinton or anyone.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
I don't know about that Gore book, but I did see a documentary about Gore years ago when he was running for president in 2000. It documented his life up to that point, his attempt to become president in the past, and his reluctance at accepting Clinton's offer of the VP-nom in '92.
I would swear it was an ABC News, 20/20-type doc. I don't know if it was the cameras on or what, but Gore was a very cold, distant, and short man with people behind the scenes. Not at all like Clinton or even Bush for that matter.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
He was a virtual puppet for Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. This isn't conspiracy crap. Go read the manifesto 'Project for a New American Century' written in the 90s. Those psychos followed that like it was the Bible, and we're actually lucky they even left after two terms.
In addition to the guys you mentioned, wasn't Richard Perle a big part of that New American Century thing? I seem to remember reading that he was a huge influence on Wolfowitz, who in turn was obviously a big influence on GWB's foreign policy. Perle is the kind of d-bag that has tons of power and is always in the shadows. Never held accountable for any of the policies he came up with.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
And Carter was the one who got the Hostages out of Iran and Reagan gets credit for it.
PLEASE. You need a refresher course on the Carter/Iran fiasco before making such a statement. Reagan's extremely bold statements on Iran are the reason those hostages were released, and released while he was being sworn in. Iran knew he wasn't gonna fuck around, and they found this out the hard way when Reagan ordered a military operation against Iran's Navy in 88, which is a military confrontation very few remember due to everything else going on at the time. In fact, its not even considered one of Reagan's few uses of U.S. military, which I've never understood.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … mantis.htm
Compare that to Carter's incompetence in the half assed attempt at rescuing the hostages, and anyone who gives Carter credit in the hostage crisis has no leg to stand on. Technically the release of those hostages occurred on Carter's watch as Reagan wasn't sworn in yet, but it was ALL Reagan.
Very few people have ever disputed this fact, because there's nothing to dispute.
Tejas....
Yeah Perle was a major player. What I have always found odd about the rise of the neo-cons is how they all(Rumsfeld the exception) were in Reagan's administration, yet none of their desires for world domination were allowed to occur on his watch. One thing it proves is that Reagan was very much in control(Reagan haters want you to think he was senile and not running the country). Had Reagan's advisers had carte blanche on his watch, his administration would have an entirely different legacy.
The ONLY occurrence on his watch that could show the neo cons rising and wanting to alter the direction of 80s foreign policy is the Iran Contra scandal, which pretty much had Bush written all over it.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
Or Reagan giving Jerry Falwell the keys to the war room.
Reagan heavily tied evangelical Christian beliefs into his administration, and those evangelists backed him up, because they were getting invited to White House dinners almost regularly.
A vote for Reagan was a vote for God.
No country ever known to God and man, that has tied religion directly into it's politics, was ever ran any more modern than the dark ages, and virtually no rights.
The New American Century people were rising... hiding behind a cross.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
Technically the release of those hostages occurred on Carter's watch as Reagan wasn't sworn in yet, but it was ALL Reagan.
I actually remember watching the hostage release on TV. I aslo remember my Mom cursing the Iranians for not releasing the hostages until Carter was out. But it made sense, since they hated him for condoning the Shah (who we installed in Iran after we yanked out their democratically elected leader.)
The release of the hostages was actually expedited by the Algerians who brokered a deal between our country and Iran. Once both countries agreed to the terms and signed then the hostages were let go. The crux of that agreement was that America (rightfully so) would keep their nose out of Iran's business. Reagan didn't have anything to do with that, he was just the next president who didn't happen to be Jimmy Carter.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
James Lofton wrote:Technically the release of those hostages occurred on Carter's watch as Reagan wasn't sworn in yet, but it was ALL Reagan.
I actually remember watching the hostage release on TV. I aslo remember my Mom cursing the Iranians for not releasing the hostages until Carter was out. But it made sense, since they hated him for condoning the Shah (who we installed in Iran after we yanked out their democratically elected leader.)
The release of the hostages was actually expedited by the Algerians who brokered a deal between our country and Iran. Once both countries agreed to the terms and signed then the hostages were let go. The crux of that agreement was that America (rightfully so) would keep their nose out of Iran's business. Reagan didn't have anything to do with that, he was just the next president who didn't happen to be Jimmy Carter.
Iran was NEVER going to release those hostages. Like many hostages in the region, they would have likely been murdered after being there several years. Iran was only ready to play ball when Reagan and his advisers said they were gonna go in there and get them(and not leave until they were brought home) if it was still a crisis when he became president. THAT is what started the last round of negotiations to bring them home.
You're right. The Iranians hated Carter, but dealing with him at the last minute was better than Reagan dropping bombs all over their country while special ops went in to rescue them. They also knew Carter was incompetent. When he attempted a rescue mission, by the time the helicopters got into Iranian airspace(the point of no return), they realized they didn't even have enough helicopters to rescue the hostages!!! They only had enough room to fly out of there with their own tails between their legs, no offense to the brave soldiers who went in there with both hands tied behind their backs.
They refused to even consider releasing them until Reagan started in on his saber rattling. Then they realized they had screwed the pooch and they had to be released before Jan. 21st, 1981. Hostages were on their way home immediately after Reagan was sworn in.
I hate to burst Carter bubbles, but that's NOT a coincidence.
Had Reagan not been elected, those hostages would have died of old age in Iran or been murdered.
We need Reagan again for a similar crisis. There are currently three U.S. citizens being held in Iran for almost a year, but Mr. Hope and Change doesn't even have the balls to deal with it.
Reaganomics" works so well that every time its implemented... Its sends us into a recession!
Except in the 80s when it created the largest peace time economic boom in world history.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Accords
There was no saber rattling, they had already made a deal BEFORE Reagan was president.
Re: Bush reputation starting to rebound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Accords
There was no saber rattling, they had already made a deal BEFORE Reagan was president.
I know about the negotiations, which took place TWO DAYS before Reagan was sworn in.
No saber rattling?? Of course there was saber rattling. It was a backbone of Reagan's ascent into the presidency. The Iranians knew he wasn't gonna twiddle his thumbs for two years like Carter did, and rumors swirled that Reagan already had a plan to invade Iran on his desk, which is why Iran wanted a no military strike provision in the agreement and wanted it done before Reagan was in the position to decide what to do. The Iranians had already proved they had no interest in dealing with Carter. He was an incompetent, one term lame duck. They only became interested in a peaceful resolution to the crisis when Reagan ran for president and let them know how things were gonna be after he won and was sworn into the presidency. Carter fans like to think the time line to this crisis is a coincidence. Well, it's not. Thumb twiddling went on by both sides until Reagan decided to run his mouth, then it was time for action or face a war with the United States. Reagan was willing to risk World War III to bring those hostages home. Carter wasn't. A deal was signed before that could happen. Connect the dots, and when you do, its not a picture of Carter that you see.
1980-81 is the only time in our country's history where a powerless man running for president wielded more power in a crisis than the actual president.
Reagan's hawkish stance pre-presidency on the Iran crisis actually set the tone for his entire presidency, probably unfairly I might add. The invasion of Grenada in 83 can be traced back to his feelings on Iran in 1980. While the invasion was justifiable as several nations asked for our intervention, the sticking point was the fact U.S. citizens were there and he knew he wasn't gonna allow a Jimmy Carter II to rear its ugly head, so he approved the invasion even though all our close allies were against it and actually condemned the action. The Grenada invasion did almost irreversible damage to our relationship with the UK at a time in history the West needed a united front, but he put the safety of U.S. citizens above strategic partnerships.
Invasion wound up being a cake walk(no offense to our troops that did die during the operation), and could have sparked a war with Cuba. The immediate success of the invasion led to our allies easing up and we went back to business as usual.
