a) Provide an example of George Bush asking his core constituency to make any kind of serious sacrifice. Just one example.

b) Explain that asking your constituents to make sacrifices doesn’t show character in a politician, and explain why Churchill’s famous blood, toil, tears and sweat did not truly show character.

c) Explain why the stakes in this conflict don’t warrant a sacrifice.

By the way, you can look up a very large number of posts by me, and you will find few if any instances of name-calling or profanity. And I regularly deal with people who make you look like an amateur at the business of annoying behaviour. So don’t worry; I won’t singe your delicate eyes with anything worse than facts and logic.

It’s safe to say at this point that you don’t know what you’re talking about and that you’ve proven it rather well here in your comments. I won’t bother to go into detail at this point.

And yes, your personal comments,your claims about the way I or anyone else supposedly feel about President Bush, amount to nothing more than drivel.

Is that all you have? The phony up-armored press generated humvee faux-scandal. Press planted questions?
Here’s some actual information from back then
armored Humvee

Failed to secure Iraq? Do you read the news? It’slooking so secure even the NYT has to admit it. You see, in war, things aren’t secured in a day and we’re talking a whole country here.

Did they make mistakes? Sure. There are mistakes in every war. Kasserine Pass, Bull Run, McArthur’s over extension towards tha Yalu in ’50 come to mind off the top of my head.
Yes, we were initially unprepared for the insurgency, but they adapted and overcame. Recall a little thing called the ‘surge’? You know, what the democrats said was a lost cause.

Besides, those same democrats who decried the supposed lack of armor were the same hypocrites who voted against funding for additional armor. Can’t have it both ways no matter how much you want to.

In your first post, you decried Bush for offering VISA Mastercard instead of leadership. The main point you were trying to make being his lack of character. I refuted that in my reply to you and now you move the goal posts by saying how the US economy has been fundamentally unsound for the last 30 years. You keep trying to wriggle away from your own words.

Unfortunately, any facts that don’t conform to your view seem to be ad hominem drivel. If it’s drivel you want, look no further than your own posts.

You still have no facts, just blind hatred of this president.

1) The Bush Administration failed to provide equipment such as armoured humvees to US Army personnel in Iraq in a timely manner.
2) The Bush Administration fialed to secure Iraq, leaving the field open for chaos, looting, and the growth of an insurgency. And before you ask, yes, if you undertake to conquer another nation and build a democracy in place of a dictatorship, you do undertake to provide security and to plan for, and deal with, an insurgency. You also promise to provide effective reconstruction services. The Bush Administration made those promises, implicitly and explicitly, and instead delivered four years of misery and chaos. That Iraq might make it anyway does not change this fact.

The world did experience a momentary downturn, an then the economy recovered. It bears noting, however, that the US economy remains, in strictly conservative terms, fundamentally unsound in that you have consumed more than you have produced for over thirty years, and the Bush Administration policies, if anything, merely made things worse.

I’ll give you the other accomplishments. I certainly don’t claim that Bush has managed to spend four years in office without ever doing anything right. I simply claim that when you balance his accomplishments against his failures, history will record him as, at best, a mediocre president.

C’mon, you weren’t trying to be ironic and that wasn’t a historical allusion. You were trying to be glib & disparaging and mimic Churchill’s line.
You got caught in your own bullshit.

So tell us, what priorities did bush fail to set?
Overthrowing the Taliban government of Afghanistan?
Liberating Iraq?
Having Libya give up on WMD?
Seriously damaging Al Qaida?
Preventing another attack on US soil?
Preventing a major US & worldwide economic meltdown in the immediate aftermath of 9/11?
C’mon, name those priorities for us.

What promises did he break?
You make a lot of broad statements with absolutely nothing to back them up.

Then you say in your reply to me that ,”Opponents of President Bush (and for that matter Senator Obama) deserve to have their points scrutinized on the merits.”
Is that what you did in your original post?

As for Bush derangement syndrome, it does exist. You exemplify it well.

Since you seem to recognise neither irony nor historical allusion, I’ll try to make it more explicit:

1) I alluded to Churchill’s famous line: I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. Bush, by contrast, offered Visa, Mastercard, Discovery, and American Express.

2) If President Bush intended to wage war, surely it makes sense to set priorities, and in war, ensuring you keep your promises to your troops, allies, and the citizens of the countries you occupy has to come before tax cuts. President Bush did none of these (witness Secretary Rumsfeld’s infamous “army you have” remark). Instead, President Bush put the whole issue of paying for his wars off onto future generations, borrowing the necessary money, much of it from foreigners.

3) Attempting to refer to political disagreement in medical terms does a serious mischief to democratic discourse. No such things as “bush derangement syndrome” exists. Opponents of President Bush (and for that matter Senator Obama) deserve to have their points scrutinized on the merits. In the case of President Bush, he has presided over a considerable increase in the United States debt, a significant decline in the value of your currency, and two military and political campaigns, in which, despite the enormous advantages enjoyed by the United States, the outcome remains in serious doubt. On the evidence to date, I suggest that history will judge President Bush as, at best, a mediocre and uninspired president.

Fascinating take, but I’m thinking you might just be right. Obama may well self-destruct. I saw an article today on National Review comparing him to Tom Dewey (1944 and ‘48). Dewey was also egocentric who couldn’t take criticism and had no sense of humor – just like Obama.

The previous comment by Kathy is a case in point. McCain might know that alone he’ll have trouble firing up conservatives (to put it mildly), but if they/we hear enough Obama that’ll do it on its own.

Count me as definitely being enthusiastic to defeat Obama!