the first time involved our current relationship with Israel. The second time involved our decision to inadvertently back the Shias in regards to Iraq.
Now both decisions will be judged, long after we are gone; but by taking up a side in that regional conflict, we will constantly be judged until…
by the way, I have lil or no issue with this country backing Israel (up to a point). However the Iraq decisions (aside from Saddam being cast as a twenty first century Faust) still needs to be explained to me.
Because of one event on 9/11. Something that might have been prevented if given the attention it deserved. Stop using that as a yardstick when there are so many other deaths that are the result of murders far too often.
Biggest blunder in US history. Lots of factors as you likely know. Sanctions were being lifted, Saddam was not going to give us contracts, etc. But also real high was that Saddam wanted to trade oil in Euros instead of USD’s. Oil trades in USD’s keep us very strong. As you would probably agree, taking Saddam out was a good idea. But the right move was what the Clinton Admin wanted to do. Take him out with an internal coup, no US troops except some covert ops. Keep the Sunni in power so as not to create Middle East instability. A much better move than an invasion and occupation. That blunder led to ISIS. And all the military tried to tell the “office boys” that, but they would not listen.
Back in the late 90s, a coworker asked me what I thought of the Texas Governor George W. Bush. She was a moderate, socially-progressive Republican. She knew I paid a lot of attention to politics and was inquiring what I knew, if anything. At the time, I knew very little – but what I did know led me to believe he was a rather likeable person who was fairly middle-of-the-road. I didn’t know many specifics because I didn’t really follow Texas all that much. I told her as much. Boy, was I wrong. I think many people were, at that time. I did not vote for him because by that time, he’d shown himself to be an opportunistic asshole. He made it clear he supported sodomy laws, was against any kind of recognition of gay relationships and didn’t support “any special rights for them.” Well, I’m gay and I don’t support “any special rights” for us, too – but it just went to show how different we were in how we defined “special” and what a “right” is. She and I parted ways shortly thereafter, so I never did get to get her take on his “leadership.”
I was living in Texas when shrub was governor (after running the nastiest campaign I had ever seen) and remember very little about his tenure. He seemed to be low profile but what I do remember was the occasion he issued an official proclamation for Jesus Day in Texas (I also remember his refusal to halt the execution of Karla Faye Tucker).
Yes, all the other stuff is problematic too. And I am not saying not to address that. But the reality is that most Muslim terrorists would LOVE to set off a nuke in a US city. Even Tim McVeigh was only interested in one building that to him represented the “gubbermint”. Even that asshole had no desire to nuke an entire city.
Since 9/11 there have been 48 killed by domestic “anti government” terrorists. That is squat compared to general murders with guns. But that does not mean domestic terror does not need to be addressed.
Oh, gross!! (Not to demean most Christians) True Christians do not want special government favors. I did not know that – makes me think even less of him … and that’s no small feat.
Easy to remember little about a Texas governor. The Lt. Governor has all the power. Bob Bullock was Gov. Lite, and was a larger than life figure, easily overshadowing Oedipus Tex. Then for Oedipus Tex’s second term, the Gov. Lite was pRick Perry. He out-dumbed Oedipus and got all the press.
Well except the right wing nut jobs were screaming about how President Obama hadn’t addressed the nation. So there was that. Of course when he does speak about it, it’s either toooooo soooonnnn to talk about it or he’s politisizing it.
