Dick Cheney: Obama Has Learned That Bush Policies Were Right

[Upgrade Dave]

This started with me saying history will be kind to Bush if his policies bring democracy to the Middle East. You said history has already judged him as a failure. The next day revolts broke out in Egypt and since then you have been putting your spin on the facts and events. The question is has Obama learned anything from Bush's Middle East policies. If he has there could be democracy throughout the Middle East, if he hasn't Mubarak and the other dictators will remain in power.

That's how the thread started not this particular line of dialogue. When I tried to point out why Bush is already viewed as a failure, you didn't want to talk about it anymore.

Relate how history will see/sees Bush to the Egyptian revolt? He was an ally of Mubarek's too. Bush pushed for free elections in Egypt even less than Obama. If anything, it looks like he's willing to learn from Bush's mistakes and at least makes gestures toward seeking reform in Egypt.
Mubarek might not make it but it won't have anything to do with the Obama Administration.

There is no way you could be sure of this unless you are part of Obama's inner circle.

Or you could just go by what's been done, not just said, so far. The message isn't even that clear because Sec. Clinton backed away from saying they were pulling aid to Egypt.

 

[nittie]

That's how the thread started not this particular line of dialogue. When I tried to point out why Bush is already viewed as a failure, you didn't want to talk about it anymore.

Relate how history will see/sees Bush to the Egyptian revolt? He was an ally of Mubarek's too. Bush pushed for free elections in Egypt even less than Obama. If anything, it looks like he's willing to learn from Bush's mistakes and at least makes gestures toward seeking reform in Egypt.
Mubarek might not make it but it won't have anything to do with the Obama Administration.

I don't see how you say I didn't want to talk about it anymore. I posted a poll showing Bush polls were higher than Obama's. I didn't want to get into speculation on Bush and his policies I tried to keep it about the facts which are his popularity is increasing in part because of his Middle East policies and Obama is benefiting from it.

If democracy spreads thru the region it will effect every dictatorship. The people we allied with will be affected there is no getting around that. No president has taken a direct stand against our allies in the Middle East the policies have been low key with the understanding that the U.S. wanted democracy for the region. Bush is the only president to go to war with the stated purpose of bringing freedom to the region. If it happens he will be remembered as one of the great presidents.

 

[Lamarr]

Bush is the only president to go to war with the stated purpose of bringing freedom to the region.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I don't see how you say I didn't want to talk about it anymore. I posted a poll showing Bush polls were higher than Obama's. I didn't want to get into speculation on Bush and his policies I tried to keep it about the facts which are his popularity is increasing in part because of his Middle East policies and Obama is benefiting from it.

The poll results you posted didn't say that at all.
You seem to want to avoid "hypotheticals" but you don't have a problem drawing incredible conclusions based on nothing.
Every president's approval ratings go up after they leave office, every one. While every president's approval ratings drop while in office especially during particularly during very contentious political battles. I keep saying this because it's true.

If democracy spreads thru the region it will effect every dictatorship. The people we allied with will be affected there is no getting around that. No president has taken a direct stand against our allies in the Middle East the policies have been low key with the understanding that the U.S. wanted democracy for the region. Bush is the only president to go to war with the stated purpose of bringing freedom to the region. If it happens he will be remembered as one of the great presidents.

That is a truly astounding statement.
Bush had many reasons for going to war in Iraq and "spreading democracy" was one of the last ones when all the others turned out to be lies.
Where's the historical evidence of this happening in that region? Israel's been there for decades. They've been having elections in the Palestinian Territories for quite a few years now.
The whole time we've been invading Afghanistan (which was not to spread democracy) and Iraq (same), we've been in bed with the Saudis and Egypt and other Middle Eastern dictatorships so how are we "spreading democracy"? If anything, the Bush Administraton abandoned that whole idea in it's later years because even they couldn't keep saying it with a straight face.

Bush has been the best thing that's happened to Iran since Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

[nittie]

The poll results you posted didn't say that at all.
You seem to want to avoid "hypotheticals" but you don't have a problem drawing incredible conclusions based on nothing.
Every president's approval ratings go up after they leave office, every one. While every president's approval ratings drop while in office especially during particularly during very contentious political battles. I keep saying this because it's true.

December 7, 2010 1:00 PM
Obama's Approval Rating Dips Below George W. Bush's

President Barack Obama, pictured on the South Lawn of the White House on Monday, has recently seen his approval rating drop below his predecessor's current standing. President Barack Obama's approval rating has fallen below George W. Bush's, according to recent Gallup polls.


Released Monday, one poll shows Mr. Bush's approval rating rose to 47 percent in recent weeks, which is one point higher than Mr. Obama's rating in a poll also taken this week.

Prior to his "Decision Points" memoir release in November, Bush received a 44 percent approval rating (and 53 percent unfavorable). The most recent data marks the highest rating for him since 2005, prior to Hurricane Katrina.

What do you mean it didn't say that at all. The poll taken last month said Bush polled higher than Obama. Maybe every president does get a bounce after leaving office but Bush had the lowest in history and last month less than 2yrs after leaving office they were higher than the sitting president. I don't see how you can pass that off as business as usual.

That is a truly astounding statement.
Bush had many reasons for going to war in Iraq and "spreading democracy" was one of the last ones when all the others turned out to be lies.
Where's the historical evidence of this happening in that region? Israel's been there for decades. They've been having elections in the Palestinian Territories for quite a few years now.
The whole time we've been invading Afghanistan (which was not to spread democracy) and Iraq (same), we've been in bed with the Saudis and Egypt and other Middle Eastern dictatorships so how are we "spreading democracy"? If anything, the Bush Administraton abandoned that whole idea in it's later years because even they couldn't keep saying it with a straight face.

Bush has been the best thing that's happened to Iran since Ayatollah Khomeini.

Democratic regime change

In a series of speeches in late 2001 and 2002, Bush expanded on his view of American foreign policy and global intervention, declaring that the United States should actively support democratic governments around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the threat of terrorism, and that the United States had the right to act unilaterally in its own security interests, without the approval of international bodies such as the United Nations. This represented a departure from the Cold War policies of deterrence and containment under the Truman Doctrine and post-Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush declared "Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. ”


After his second inauguration, in a January 2004 speech at National Defense University, Bush said: "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom."

Neoconservatives and the Bush Doctrine held that the hatred for the West and United States in particular does not exist because of actions perpetrated by the United States, but rather because the countries from which terrorists emerge are in social disarray and do not experience the freedom that is an intrinsic part of democracy.[14][19] The Bush Doctrine holds that enemies of United States are using terrorism as a war of ideology against the United States. The responsibility of the United States is to protect itself and its friends by promoting democracy where the terrorists are located so as to undermine the basis for terrorist activities.[14][19]

Bush's doctrine made advancing freedom a priority. Those revolts in the Middle East and Africa today have to be linked to Iraq and Afghanistan don't see how you can deny that.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

What do you mean it didn't say that at all. The poll taken last month said Bush polled higher than Obama. Maybe every president does get a bounce after leaving office but Bush had the lowest in history and last month less than 2yrs after leaving office they were higher than the sitting president. I don't see how you can pass that off as business as usual.

Where does this article say Bush's Middle East policy plays any part in his ratings bounce? You keep making that conclusion but not posting any evidence to support it.
It is business as usual. Check for yourself. Obama's approval ratings are almost identical to Reagan's and Clinton's after two years while ex-prez's always make a comeback. The two things aren't related.

Bush's doctrine made advancing freedom a priority. Those revolts in the Middle East and Africa today have to be linked to Iraq and Afghanistan don't see how you can deny that.

Because it's not true. These current revolts are against American backed dictators. Plus it's not like revolution is unusual in that area of the world.
In none of those speeches does Bush speak of promoting democracy at gunpoint nor does he use them to explain invading Iraq. If anything, these wars were more about Bush's "War on Terror" than any type of democracy efforts. How are we spreading democracy backing the Saudis and Mubarek, among many, many others. Stop pushing those talking points and look at the actions.

 

[nittie]

Where does this article say Bush's Middle East policy plays any part in his ratings bounce? You keep making that conclusion but not posting any evidence to support it.
It is business as usual. Check for yourself. Obama's approval ratings are almost identical to Reagan's and Clinton's after two years while ex-prez's always make a comeback. The two things aren't related.

Ranking Former Presidents: JFK Still on Top, Clinton Rises While Carter Falls
1 month ago

The public perceptions of former presidents in the modern political era have sometimes changed for the better or worse, compared to how they were seen while in office, but the one constant in Gallup's polling of views of nine chief executives who served during the last 50 years is that John F. Kennedy still comes out on top.
Eighty-five percent of those surveyed by Gallup Nov. 19-21 said they approved of how Kennedy performed in office, about the same percentage as in 2006. Gallup says Kennedy has consistently ranked first since it started asking the question in 1990.
Ronald Reagan comes in second at 74 percent, showing that the rough times he weathered in both his terms -- with his job approval dropping to the 40 percent neighborhood during the 1982 recession and then falling again during the Iran-Contra scandal that overshadowed 1986-87 -- were the kind of time-limited travails that fade when other qualities loom larger in the public memory.
Richard Nixon, driven from office because of his role in the Watergate, may have rehabilitated his image somewhat in later years, as kind of an elder statesman still credited for his grasp of foreign affairs, but he never recovered from his scandal as Reagan did from Iran-Contra. He ranks at the bottom of Gallup's survey, with 29 percent approving of the job he did.
The most noticeable change in this year's survey is the rise of Bill Clinton and fall of Jimmy Carter.

This is why I didn't want opinions to be a part of this. It is not a given that a president ratings go up after leaving office. Nixon and Carter are two examples. There are several others but that would be too much to post. Point is it is not a given. The poll on Bush's upswing did not attribute it to his Middle East policies but the thread is about his policies and the poll was meant to show that he is being viewed more favorably now and his policies have not been a failure.

Because it's not true. These current revolts are against American backed dictators. Plus it's not like revolution is unusual in that area of the world.
In none of those speeches does Bush speak of promoting democracy at gunpoint nor does he use them to explain invading Iraq. If anything, these wars were more about Bush's "War on Terror" than any type of democracy efforts. How are we spreading democracy backing the Saudis and Mubarek, among many, many others. Stop pushing those talking points and look at the actions.

lol thats all I can say to this. This is pure speculation. I mean we invade 2 countries and you talk about not promoting democracy at gunpoint. You are right these wars are part of Bush's war on terror. And backing Mubarak doesn't disavow the U.S. stance on freedom we backed Saddam and Osama at one time see where that got them.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

This is why I didn't want opinions to be a part of this. It is not a given that a president ratings go up after leaving office. Nixon and Carter are two examples. There are several others but that would be too much to post. Point is it is not a given. The poll on Bush's upswing did not attribute it to his Middle East policies but the thread is about his policies and the poll was meant to show that he is being viewed more favorably now and his policies have not been a failure.

His policies have absolutely been a failure. Not all of them, no strikes out all the time but where the Middle East is concerned, they are.
Nixon left due to scandal and didn't try to rehabilitate his image until near his death. His name is synonomous with Presidential scandal and tapes are still being released that show him in a negative light. That dude is not a good barometer at all.
Carter's ratings did go up when he was seen as the guy who built houses for the poor but they've taken some hard hits lately because of his recent outspokenness on several controversial issues.
In this same article, it talks about how Reagan and Clinton managed to rebound and we've already talked about W.'s rise. So where is my opinion being countered? Four of the last 5 presidents were named and all but one have seen their ratings rise.

lol thats all I can say to this. This is pure speculation. I mean we invade 2 countries and you talk about not promoting democracy at gunpoint. You are right these wars are part of Bush's war on terror. And backing Mubarak doesn't disavow the U.S. stance on freedom we backed Saddam and Osama at one time see where that got them.

No, it makes it hollow.
Where's the speculation at?
We didn't invade either of those countries because we wanted to spread democracy. The 9/11 culprits were in Afghanistan and they wouldn't turn them over and the neocons had their sights set on Iraq before 9/11 and used that and mythical WMDs as an excuse to attack.

 

[QueEx]

Bush's doctrine made advancing freedom a priority. Those revolts in the Middle East and Africa today have to be linked to Iraq and Afghanistan don't see how you can deny that.

Democratic regime change

In a series of speeches in late 2001 and 2002, Bush expanded on his view of American foreign policy and global intervention, declaring that the United States should actively support democratic governments around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the threat of terrorism, and that the United States had the right to act unilaterally in its own security interests, without the approval of international bodies such as the United Nations. This represented a departure from the Cold War policies of deterrence and containment under the Truman Doctrine and post-Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush declared "Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. ”


After his second inauguration, in a January 2004 speech at National Defense University, Bush said: "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom."

Neoconservatives and the Bush Doctrine held that the hatred for the West and United States in particular does not exist because of actions perpetrated by the United States, but rather because the countries from which terrorists emerge are in social disarray and do not experience the freedom that is an intrinsic part of democracy.[14][19] The Bush Doctrine holds that enemies of United States are using terrorism as a war of ideology against the United States. The responsibility of the United States is to protect itself and its friends by promoting democracy where the terrorists are located so as to undermine the basis for terrorist activities.[14][19]

<font size="3">Is this what you were looking for (because you're giving me a headache with all the circular reasoning):</font size>

Bush Pledges to Spread Freedom
Global Focus On Rights Would Be a Shift in Policy

By Peter Baker and Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A01

George Walker Bush took the oath of office for a second term yesterday and laid out one of the most expansive manifestos ever offered from an inaugural podium as he dedicated his presidency to spreading democracy and freedom "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

From now on, Bush said, relations with "every ruler and every nation" will be predicated on how they treat their own people, a profound break from traditional U.S. policy and from the Bush administration's practices in his first term, when it worked with repressive governments in the war against terrorism. In his doctrine for the next four years, Bush presented the United States as a beacon for the subjugated around the world and promised to confront the despots who enchain them.

"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors," Bush told tens of thousands of onlookers from the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in a 21-minute address in which he used the words "free," "freedom" or "liberty" 49 times. "When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

FULL ARTICLE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23519-2005Jan20.html

<font size="3">
If so, this comment in today's Herald-Scotland seems tellingly appropriate:</font size>

Almost exactly six years ago, George W Bush delivered his second inaugural address as President of the United States, and declared: “There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.”

As President Bush continued: “We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Unfortunately, his administration did little to make good on this stirring sentiment.</span> President Obama has the opportunity to rectify that error. The Egyptian protestors make a compelling case for abandoning the policy of shoring up undemocratic regimes to protect our own strategic positions.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comme...l-real-in-egypt-s-quest-for-freedom-1.1082665
​

 

[Upgrade Dave]

As I said: hollow.

Still waiting to see where I was speculating in that post.

 

[nittie]

<font size="3">Is this what you were looking for (because you're giving me a headache with all the circular reasoning):</font size>

​

<font size="3">
If so, this comment in today's Herald-Scotland seems tellingly appropriate:</font size>

Almost exactly six years ago, George W Bush delivered his second inaugural address as President of the United States, and declared: “There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.”

As President Bush continued: “We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Unfortunately, his administration did little to make good on this stirring sentiment.</span> President Obama has the opportunity to rectify that error. The Egyptian protestors make a compelling case for abandoning the policy of shoring up undemocratic regimes to protect our own strategic positions.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comme...l-real-in-egypt-s-quest-for-freedom-1.1082665
​

Ironically this quote sums up your post and the logic behind it.

A man must be both stupid and uncharitable who believes there is no virtue or truth but on his own side.-Joseph Addison

I said from the first post in this thread that Bush's admin will be remembered for it's incompentency.

 

[QueEx]

Ironically this quote sums up your post and the logic behind it.



I said from the first post in this thread that Bush's admin will be remembered for it's incompentency.

You should take the quote to heart. The comment had absolutely nothing to do with Bush's incompetency -- but everything to do with has abject failure to pursue the goal he professed. Competency and failure to act are not one and the same.

QueEx

 

[nittie]

You should take the quote to heart. The comment had absolutely nothing to do with Bush's incompetency -- but everything to do with has abject failure to pursue the goal he professed. Competency and failure to act are not one and the same.

QueEx

Do me and several of the people who come here a favor. Re-read what you said and just think about it. Try to see the correlation between failure and incompetency. This might be asking too much but then try to comprehend what I have been saying all along before Dave turned this into a personal opinion exhibition.

 

[QueEx]

Do me and several of the people who come here a favor. Re-read what you said and just think about it. Try to see the correlation between failure and incompetency. This might be asking too much but then try to comprehend what I have been saying all along before Dave turned this into a personal opinion exhibition.

No time for that. This thread has gone on too long with parties having to guess at the meaning. Just explain/tell me exactly what you're saying.

QueEx

 

[nittie]

No time for that. This thread has gone on too long with parties having to guess at the meaning. Just explain/tell me exactly what you're saying.

QueEx

I agree with you this is no time for speculation. We had better be sure about where we are on the issues. There's a lot going on in the world and it could hit home soon. The thing about the revolts in Egypt is there is no one leading it. The media is trying to put someone in charge but has not so far. Then theres the shooting of the congresswoman a few weeks ago. The terror attacks in Russia, 11 police officers killed in one day here. These could be random events or they all could be part of a larger plan, a new way of carrying out terrorists attacks.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I agree with you this is no time for speculation. We had better be sure about where we are on the issues. There's a lot going on in the world and it could hit home soon. The thing about the revolts in Egypt is there is no one leading it. The media is trying to put someone in charge but has not so far. Then theres the shooting of the congresswoman a few weeks ago. The terror attacks in Russia, 11 police officers killed in one day here. These could be random events or they all could be part of a larger plan, a new way of carrying out terrorists attacks.

I thought you were against speculation?

As I said, unless we're talking about distant history, every thread is speculation until the situation plays out to it's end.

 

[nittie]

I thought you were against speculation?

As I said, unless we're talking about distant history, every thread is speculation until the situation plays out to it's end.

I think the conversation has reached a point where it's time to speculate. Like I said the revolt in Egypt and Tunisia have no visible leaders thats unusual for Muslims groups they usually break their necks trying to take credit for no one to step forward on something this big is strange. Evidently someone, somewhere can mobilize millions of Muslims worldwide could it be Bin Laden.

 

[QueEx]

But, I thought you were going to tell me exactly what your point was; and support it, hopefully,with credible facts or well reasoned logic.


QueEx

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I think the conversation has reached a point where it's time to speculate. Like I said the revolt in Egypt and Tunisia have no visible leaders thats unusual for Muslims groups they usually break their necks trying to take credit for no one to step forward on something this big is strange. Evidently someone, somewhere can mobilize millions of Muslims worldwide could it be Bin Laden.

There just isn't an emoticon for the look on my face when I read that.
Hell, it could be Khomeini rising from the dead.

But, I thought you were going to tell me exactly what your point was; and support it, hopefully,with credible facts or well reasoned logic.


QueEx

Why would he start now?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I think the conversation has reached a point where it's time to speculate. Like I said the revolt in Egypt and Tunisia have no visible leaders thats unusual for Muslims groups they usually break their necks trying to take credit for no one to step forward on something this big is strange. Evidently someone, somewhere can mobilize millions of Muslims worldwide could it be Bin Laden.

Two posts later? Okay.

 

[nittie]

There just isn't an emoticon for the look on my face when I read that.
Hell, it could be Khomeini rising from the dead.



Why would he start now?

Why doesn't this surprise me. Can it be because you are in way over your head. Meanwhile in the real world Governments, intelligent observers and big thinkers are looking at Egypt and the Middle East thinking who's behind this and what's next.

Why a nervous China aims to shield citizens from Egypt news
By Peter Ford Peter Ford – Tue Feb 1, 6:25 am ET
Beijing – Like governments around the world, China’s rulers are watching the unrest in Egypt with bated breath – nervous about the outcome, but powerless to affect it.

“China is worried about chaos, because that is bad for Egypt and for other countries,” says Yin Gang, a Middle East expert at the China Academy of Social Sciences. “China’s concern is the same as America’s … but China has very little influence in the Middle East.”

Beijing has been studiously neutral in the face of mass demonstrations in Cairo and other Egyptian cities calling for President Hosni Mubarak’s resignation.


Asked on Tuesday for China’s views on the new Egyptian government that has promised economic and political reforms, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei would say only that “we hope that Egypt will return to stability and normal order as soon as possible.”

The Chinese authorities are even more concerned about preserving stability and normal order at home. Apparently fearing that Chinese citizens be inspired by Egyptian protesters, the government has issued strict orders limiting press coverage of the unrest.

“All media nationwide must use Xinhua’s reporting on the Egyptian riots,” read a directive issued last Friday, referring to the state run Xinhua news agency. “It is strictly forbidden to translate foreign media coverage,” the order said, warning that websites that did not censor comments about Egypt would be “shut down by force.”

Think you know the Middle East? Take our geography quiz.

“One major reason for the censorship is that Chinese officials do not know the direction of the protests,” says Russell Leigh Moses, a political analyst in Beijing. “Reporting depends almost entirely on direction from the leadership and uncertainty never produces consensus in Beijing.”

 

[nittie]

Two posts later? Okay.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Why doesn't this surprise me. Can it be because you are in way over your head. Meanwhile in the real world Governments, intelligent observers and big thinkers are looking at Egypt and the Middle East thinking who's behind this and what's next.

No. That's definitely not it.

What? It became time for speculation two posts after you seemed against it. Apparently it wasn't just time for speculation but wild speculation.

It may be possible that unlike the Tea Party foolishness going on here, this is an organic movement spread through word of mouth and social networking.