There’s something wrong with primaries in general, of both parties, when election after election we are faced with two unpopular options in the general election.
Yes, indeed, thanks to James Clyburn. The contest between Hillary Clinton and Trump is a better example of two unpopular “winners”, although I think Clinton’s unpopularity was an invention of the media. Even the NYT was brutal on Hillary; I think it was their attempt at being unbiased. What a paradox.
It's only because we know them so well. The people not nominated were no better, but they don't get the scrutiny the people running for President get. There are no perfect candidates because there are no perfect people. Which is why we have a VP, Congress, Senate and 50 governors as well all the state politicians.
I agree - John McCain in 2000, if nominated would have beaten Al Gore in the General Election and John McCain would NOT have been fooled by the neocons that led this country into that Iraq War.
I don’t know if you are right about McCain and Gore, but it’s certainly a reasonable take. And I think that you are right that McCain would not have gotten us into Iraq. My only quibble with your comment is that the neocons “fooled” Bush into invading Iraq. That makes it almost seem that he was some hapless bystander. In my opinion, Bush didn’t need much “fooling”. From everything I have read, Bush (43) was obsessed with Iraq almost from day one and was just looking for some excuse to take Sadaam out. He wanted to be fooled.
I wonder if you aren't right about that. I remember reading some commentary in the Woodward books about Bush's (43) reelection and how the overriding sentiment when he won was that he had achieved something that his father hadn't.
I did not mean to let George W. off easily. I DO believe that between Gore, McCain and Bush, W. Bush was uniquely UNQUALIFIED to understand or appreciate the threat from Al Qaeda – he had NO FOREIGN policy experience and the “experts” he depended upon had experience that was out-of-date. Wolfowitz NOT knowing about the danger from Osama Bin Laden was very telling.
More directly to your point, I think that George W. Bush was NOT a very intellectually able man, and seemed to be consumed at times with an almost hyper-testosterone affect. Whatever it was, he seemed very uncurious about the drivel that Ahmad Chowdry, Dick Cheney, Don Rumseld and Paul Wolfowitz fed him in regards to the “hazards” of Saddam’s Iraq. He and his administration seemed totally unprepared and unaware that by invading Iraq, they were eliminating a powerful foe of Iran, and that they seemed to have been caught completely unaware by the looting of Iraqi government buildings and the likely results of their asinine decisions to disband the Iraqi Army and to ban any past member of the Baath Party from future Iraq governments. The colossal blunder to invade was compounded by the stupidity with which the initial occupation was handled and the region is less stable from those criminally stupid and foolish decisions made during 2002 and 2003.
Well said. I have thought long and hard about how it was that Bush (43) was such a complete disaster as President (and I challenge anyone to argue otherwise). And I finally decided it was because he was simply in over his head. That and his new-found religiosity made him think that as long as his motives were pure, somehow God would make everything turn out all right. Although there were many awful things that Bush (43) did, everything else pales in comparison to the Iraq War. And the counterarguments you mention were only some of the reasons it was so stupid. Besides "eliminating a powerful foe of Iran" (as you put it), there was also the idea that
"we would be greeted as liberators" as if once Sadaam was gone we could simply head home (and don't forget that "democracy would flourish). When I heard that, it sounded like they were comparing it to the Allies liberation of Paris. And, sure enough, Cheney was quoted as saying just that. The idea that they couldn't see the difference between liberating France (which had a functioning "home-grown" civil government for years before the Nazis) and "liberating" Iraq (which not only didn't have a functioning "home-grown" civil government then but had never had one at any time in the past) totally escaped me. P.S. I assume you are referring to Ahmad Chalabi, not Ahmand Chowdry
Good point - about that being greeted as liberators and being showered with flowers.... It made me think that Dick Cheney and others were smoking or snorting some sort of hallucinogenic substance. The repeated denials that there was an insurgency and that there was any need to bring in the type of equipment like MRAPs instead of HUMVEEs to protect our soldiers from the IEDs. Such criminally stubborn and stupid insistence that there was NO Insurgency because the big-shot civilians in the Pentagon said that there was NO Insurgency. All during the time when our soldiers were fighting an insurgency that was started at least in part by ex-Baathists and ex_Iraqi army members who were angry about being turned out of their jobs.
Yes, I did mean Ahmad Chalabi, who was supposed to be able to become the leader of the new "free" Iraq. That effort was another of the complete failures associated with the invasion of Iraq. - What a god awful mistake that was!
What's really annoying is I knew the Iraq war wasl senseless and stupid, but when I said that out loud, I was threatened with violence. Now it seems like everyone knew it was a fiasco. Where were you back then?
There’s something wrong with primaries in general, of both parties, when election after election we are faced with two unpopular options in the general election.
The only good thing about the last D primary is that Biden won.
Yes, indeed, thanks to James Clyburn. The contest between Hillary Clinton and Trump is a better example of two unpopular “winners”, although I think Clinton’s unpopularity was an invention of the media. Even the NYT was brutal on Hillary; I think it was their attempt at being unbiased. What a paradox.
It's only because we know them so well. The people not nominated were no better, but they don't get the scrutiny the people running for President get. There are no perfect candidates because there are no perfect people. Which is why we have a VP, Congress, Senate and 50 governors as well all the state politicians.
Hmm, interesting. I do think Gore was beatable. Like John Kerry in '04 and HRC in '16, who were also beaten, Gore was not a great candidate.
I liked him. He was smart. Bush younger was a moron.
I agree - John McCain in 2000, if nominated would have beaten Al Gore in the General Election and John McCain would NOT have been fooled by the neocons that led this country into that Iraq War.
I don’t know if you are right about McCain and Gore, but it’s certainly a reasonable take. And I think that you are right that McCain would not have gotten us into Iraq. My only quibble with your comment is that the neocons “fooled” Bush into invading Iraq. That makes it almost seem that he was some hapless bystander. In my opinion, Bush didn’t need much “fooling”. From everything I have read, Bush (43) was obsessed with Iraq almost from day one and was just looking for some excuse to take Sadaam out. He wanted to be fooled.
Dick...I think Bush (43) was trying to one up his Daddy's good sense to not take out Sadamm. He always felt inferior to Bush (41).
I wonder if you aren't right about that. I remember reading some commentary in the Woodward books about Bush's (43) reelection and how the overriding sentiment when he won was that he had achieved something that his father hadn't.
I did not mean to let George W. off easily. I DO believe that between Gore, McCain and Bush, W. Bush was uniquely UNQUALIFIED to understand or appreciate the threat from Al Qaeda – he had NO FOREIGN policy experience and the “experts” he depended upon had experience that was out-of-date. Wolfowitz NOT knowing about the danger from Osama Bin Laden was very telling.
More directly to your point, I think that George W. Bush was NOT a very intellectually able man, and seemed to be consumed at times with an almost hyper-testosterone affect. Whatever it was, he seemed very uncurious about the drivel that Ahmad Chowdry, Dick Cheney, Don Rumseld and Paul Wolfowitz fed him in regards to the “hazards” of Saddam’s Iraq. He and his administration seemed totally unprepared and unaware that by invading Iraq, they were eliminating a powerful foe of Iran, and that they seemed to have been caught completely unaware by the looting of Iraqi government buildings and the likely results of their asinine decisions to disband the Iraqi Army and to ban any past member of the Baath Party from future Iraq governments. The colossal blunder to invade was compounded by the stupidity with which the initial occupation was handled and the region is less stable from those criminally stupid and foolish decisions made during 2002 and 2003.
Well said. I have thought long and hard about how it was that Bush (43) was such a complete disaster as President (and I challenge anyone to argue otherwise). And I finally decided it was because he was simply in over his head. That and his new-found religiosity made him think that as long as his motives were pure, somehow God would make everything turn out all right. Although there were many awful things that Bush (43) did, everything else pales in comparison to the Iraq War. And the counterarguments you mention were only some of the reasons it was so stupid. Besides "eliminating a powerful foe of Iran" (as you put it), there was also the idea that
"we would be greeted as liberators" as if once Sadaam was gone we could simply head home (and don't forget that "democracy would flourish). When I heard that, it sounded like they were comparing it to the Allies liberation of Paris. And, sure enough, Cheney was quoted as saying just that. The idea that they couldn't see the difference between liberating France (which had a functioning "home-grown" civil government for years before the Nazis) and "liberating" Iraq (which not only didn't have a functioning "home-grown" civil government then but had never had one at any time in the past) totally escaped me. P.S. I assume you are referring to Ahmad Chalabi, not Ahmand Chowdry
Good point - about that being greeted as liberators and being showered with flowers.... It made me think that Dick Cheney and others were smoking or snorting some sort of hallucinogenic substance. The repeated denials that there was an insurgency and that there was any need to bring in the type of equipment like MRAPs instead of HUMVEEs to protect our soldiers from the IEDs. Such criminally stubborn and stupid insistence that there was NO Insurgency because the big-shot civilians in the Pentagon said that there was NO Insurgency. All during the time when our soldiers were fighting an insurgency that was started at least in part by ex-Baathists and ex_Iraqi army members who were angry about being turned out of their jobs.
Yes, I did mean Ahmad Chalabi, who was supposed to be able to become the leader of the new "free" Iraq. That effort was another of the complete failures associated with the invasion of Iraq. - What a god awful mistake that was!
What's really annoying is I knew the Iraq war wasl senseless and stupid, but when I said that out loud, I was threatened with violence. Now it seems like everyone knew it was a fiasco. Where were you back then?
Around, but probably not loud enough.