Here
and
Now

opinions

George W Bush still supports troops

36 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

George W Bush still supports troops

He's never supported the troops. If he did he never would have sent them off to die or be physically and/or psychologically maimed in illegal wars that had nothing to do with U.S. security.

4 ( +8 / -3 )

He's always supported our troops. Comments otherwise are bitter Bush-haters. Get over it!

-4 ( +4 / -9 )

Bush is popular with the troops. This irks some people.

-2 ( +2 / -5 )

Without George and his poorly thought out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would not have to be supporting out troops. I guess is you start a mess, you damn well better be supportive of the people who have to go deal with it. So good on you GWB, at least you have the intelligence to support the people tasked with your idiotic wars.

But for the rest of us, we support the idea of getting them out of there and ending these wars ASAP.

1 ( +5 / -3 )

"What I’m concerned about is that Americans forget the sacrifice,” Bush said. “I don’t think they are right now, but one of my objectives is to make sure they never do."

From the get-go President Bush and his administration did their best to keep the wars off the front page of the news. No photos of the coffins were allowed and remember that anyone who emphasized the names of the war dead (such as printing them in the newspaper) were criticized. Opposing the war (especially Iraq) was unpatriotic and considered as "not supporting the troops."Just go about your daily lives" (and ignore the war) was their advise. Now President Bush says he "still" supports the troops. Ironic.

1 ( +5 / -3 )

“There’s nothing as courageous in my judgment as someone who had a leg blown off in combat overcoming the difficulties.”

...nothing as courageous as being in the national guard with a golden spoon shoved some place where the lights don't shine and then never show up to that duty. Daddy got him out of a war, and he broke the hearts of thousands of daddy's who lost their sons or had them maimed!

Stay in Texas twit.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Sorry but as much as I detest Bush and the like, if the idiots didn't sign up to go and fight in Amerca's wars of global conquest they wouldn't get hurt or killed, no sympathy for them, I save that for the millions of innocents killed during the last 50 years of American brutality.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Bush like every other President had his shortcomings, he was not perfect, but at least he cared about his country and the troops, regardless of what the loony left, Moore, Olbermann and Msnbc says! Personally, I admire Bush and compared to this admin. miss him that much more, but I will not get into baseless arguments like, "he finished what his father couldn't" there isn't anything to substantiate those facts, enough with the speculation. So tired of all these crazy conspiracy theories. For every fault Bush has, I can go over with a fine tooth comb and do the same to every other President, they are not God's for Christ's sake. You will always have those that will never acknowledge his achievements, but rather focus on his faults and missteps, just like the current admin. does on a daily basis. Funny, I never heard Bush on a daily basis whine about Clinton for 3 years NON-stop. The man is gone, retired, out to greener pastures enjoying the rest of his life with his family, let the man be and I think we should focus on the future, we have more complicated and depressing things to worry about then what Mr. Bush thinks.

-1 ( +4 / -4 )

bass4funk,

I believe we have discussed this before, but internal memoes from MSNBC were revealed that strongly discouraged reporters from writing or saying anythign negative about the Bush administration. There are also at least 2 former MSNBC reporters on record saying that their editors altered their pieces to be less critical of the Bush administration, and that they were told expressly not to criticize the war. Olberman's combativeness was a significant factor in his dismissal. Look it up. This bogus "left-wing media conspiracy" angle is played out.

And no, Bush does not, nor has he ever, supported our troops. He turned down bill after bill that would have provided better care for our veterans. He supported them until they came home with physical and mental injuries, and then he dumped them on the curb. Look that up too.

3 ( +4 / -2 )

manta60: "if the idiots didn't sign up to go and fight in America's wars of global conquest they wouldn't get hurt or killed, no sympathy for them"

Cripes, if the "idiots" hadn't gone to Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and put al-Qaida on the run, they and thousands of civilians might very well have died or been maimed in the next terrorist attack which would surely have come.

And by the way, just which countries has the U.S. conquered in the last 50 years?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Serrano

Cripes, if the "idiots" hadn't gone to Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and put al-Qaida on the run, they and thousands of civilians might very well have died or been maimed in the next terrorist attack which would surely have come.

and how many people are now insurgents that otherwise wouldnt have been. How many now have a deep hatred of the west because the US military killed or wounded their friends and family?

And by the way, just which countries has the U.S. conquered in the last 50 years?

Laos, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Grenada, Honduras, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti,

All these included invading or stationing of large amounts of US troops on these countries soil. Also over throwing governments.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Olberman's combativeness was a significant factor in his dismissal. Look it up. This bogus "left-wing media conspiracy" angle is played out.

Olbermann was fired for a different reason and sorry, I know for a fact that Msnbc openly and yes, Olbermann in particular constantly demonized Bush to the point, my head was ringing. Funny, how liberals get all bent out of shape when you make one comment against the current President.

And no, Bush does not, nor has he ever, supported our troops.

Again, you are totally mistaken, stay away from the far-left blogs for a minute. So then tell me, how is this President doing supporting the troops, how is he better? Amazing how you can find so called articles painting Bush in a bad light, but as I stated before, how about giving him credit on some of his accomplishments? But you will see whatever you want to see. I am not here to banter that.

-1 ( +3 / -3 )

@Pig24

Laos, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Grenada, Honduras, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti,

Did the US win any of them? Nope. Push out a dictator of too, but then went home. And got their butts kicked in pretty good in Vietnam. So they have not conquered anything since WWII. Korea is still technically at was with the North...so that is more unfinished business.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

JapanGal

Did the US win any of them? Nope. Push out a dictator of too, but then went home. And got their butts kicked in pretty good in Vietnam. So they have not conquered anything since WWII. Korea is still technically at was with the North...so that is more unfinished business.

You are correct but it still didnt stop them trying and it seems after all these little escapades they havent learnt much unfortunately. But it seems the pro US mob around here dont like to remember or think of their precious country going around invading they rather view themselves as the worlds saviours

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I know SPida. I wish they would let people fend for themselves. You don't preach democracy and then invade. That is just as bad as religious fanatics ramming things down your throat.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Sorry spidapig and Japangirl...somebody has to do something. Last time America took a neutral stance to this messed up world, you all went to war and America had to come in and bail you all out. Chalk them up to eras, Laos, Cambodia, Domican Republic, Vietnam were all Cold War fights. There were 2 superpowers then and if teh US was not there fighting those battles (usually with at the very least Brit or French support) and we just left all in all alone, we would all be slaves under USSR nuclear weapons. Sorry, we won. Lebanon? Yeah we occupied it in 1982, along with some of your friends, the French, the Italians, and the Brits. Remember the mid-east is a mess because Israel was created in 1948 and the West told the mid-east where their borders were. This was led by the British, granted American supports Israel...because we said we would. Haiti? What in 1915? Wanna look at who else had colonies around then? Or because we made sure we had security at food at aid areas? Somalia was for humanitarian reasons, but that went awry. They seem like they are doing well on their own though...and Iraq and Afghanistan? Dont point the finger just at the US, the British tend to be right there with them.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I know SPida. I wish they would let people fend for themselves. You don't preach democracy and then invade. That is just as bad as religious fanatics ramming things down your throat.

last tiem the US did that, we had WW2...which is a starter for most of the conflict in the middle east with the creation of israel in 1948...so careful what you ask for. WW3 doesnt sound like fun.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

genji17

Last time America took a neutral stance to this messed up world, you all went to war and America had to come in and bail you all out.

Yeah sure, you came in to bail us out. Not because you where attacked and your territories invaded hey?

Chalk them up to eras, Laos, Cambodia, Domican Republic, Vietnam were all Cold War fights. There were 2 superpowers then and if teh US was not there fighting those battles (usually with at the very least Brit or French support) and we just left all in all alone, we would all be slaves under USSR nuclear weapons.

Yep the US sure saved Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos from the communists for sure. Actually wasnt the US booted out of SE Asia by the communists? And did they go on to take over the world?

Lebanon? Yeah we occupied it in 1982, along with some of your friends, the French, the Italians, and the Brits. Remember the mid-east is a mess because Israel was created in 1948 and the West told the mid-east where their borders were. This was led by the British, granted American supports Israel...because we said we would.

Oh so again the US is not at fault, the fact that you support Israel with weapons, training and resupply when at war. Its everyone else isnt it?

Haiti? What in 1915?

You may want to brush up on your history there buddy, in 1959 the US helped overthrow the government and instal a dictator that went on to kill 100,000 people. Only to go back in 1994 with 20,000 troops to fix the mess you created.

Somalia was for humanitarian reasons, but that went awry.

Yeah why did it go awry, thats right you transformed it from a humanitarian mission to a combat mission without thinking it through or equipping your troops for the mission or notifying your allies.

They seem like they are doing well on their own though...

What do you expect you go in killing and destroying then up and leave what do you expect flowers and hugs?

and Iraq and Afghanistan? Dont point the finger just at the US, the British tend to be right there with them.

Yeah based on US lies and false information. At least the brits woke up to themselves and got out and arnt still there.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Spidapig

the communists went on to take over the world? REALLY? North Korea, China, Nam, Laos and Cuba are the world? Somebody had to stand up for democratic rights, and you are right, we did lose. Along with our allies like South Vietnam, Australia, South Korea, the Phillipines, New Zealand, the Khmer Republic, Thailand and the Kingdom of Laos. Why? Because they didnt want Communism. Somebody has to help them.

Oh so again the US is not at fault, the fact that you support Israel with weapons, training and resupply when at war. Its everyone else isnt it?

Oh, the US is at fault. Just like every single other western nation who supported the British mandate of Palestine until 1948 and then the war for Israeli independence. You want the US to not support them? You think there is no peace now?

You may want to brush up on your history there buddy, in 1959 the US helped overthrow the government and instal a dictator that went on to kill 100,000 people. Only to go back in 1994 with 20,000 troops to fix the mess you created.

I will admit I did not know of this. What free from never making a foreign mistake country are you from?

Yeah why did it go awry, thats right you transformed it from a humanitarian mission to a combat mission without thinking it through or equipping your troops for the mission or notifying your allies.

Really? The US forces that were there in response to humanitarian crisis and to provide a UN Security Council Resolution? The only mistakes the US made was not providing take support and early withdrawal. And for your killing and destroying and up and leaving? I think it was more because Aidid was left alive..along with the numerous warloards running the country. But youre right we should leave them alone and let them stone 13 year old women to death.

Yeah based on US lies and false information. At least the brits woke up to themselves and got out and arnt still there.

Really? You guys sure got out of there in a hurry!!! (though your 20th batallion just assumed command of the forces in Afghanistan October 10, 2011) Seems they may still be there..

1 ( +1 / -0 )

20th Armoured Brigade (not batallion)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

genji17

Really? You guys sure got out of there in a hurry!!! (though your 20th batallion just assumed command of the forces in Afghanistan October 10, 2011) Seems they may still be there..

Sorry buddy but my country doesnt have a 20th brigade and sure as hell isnt still in Iraq

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Spidapig if you are a brit you have a 20th Armoured Brigade and they run your boys in Afghanistan and you were in Iraq until May 23 of this year (though if you really think you dont have any special forces boys over there still you are kidding yourself). If youre an Aussie which I am assuming you are from your whale love posts, you have 47 forces in Iraq. and over 1500 in Afghanistan and lots of shiny toys too.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

genji17

Spidapig if you are a brit you have a 20th Armoured Brigade and they run your boys in Afghanistan and you were in Iraq until May 23 of this year (though if you really think you dont have any special forces boys over there still you are kidding yourself). If youre an Aussie which I am assuming you are from your whale love posts, you have 47 forces in Iraq. and over 1500 in Afghanistan and lots of shiny toys too.

LMAO, l can assure you l am not a pom. And yes Australia does have a massive 47 troops in Iraq mainly involved in embassy and diplomat protection. And yes there are 1500 troops in Afghanistan who while l support completely should be withdrawn in the near future rather than wasting more of their lives on an unwinnable war.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

sure as hell isnt still in Iraq

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am using mountain biking and golf to stay connected with the military, people who served during my presidency.

I'd say hypocrisy, but that would require a level of intelligence that this man does not possess. He actually THINKS he supports the troops: That is the shocking thing. Well, the American taxpayers will be still supporting the troops long after Bush is gone and the trumped-up reasons for the wars have been forgotten. That is quite some legacy.

It's notable that his English has not improved during retirement either. Perhaps the only thing I miss about his presidency were the Bushisms.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Bush and Cheney are war criminals and they should be treated as such.

Thanks to these two, thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of non-Americans, including non-combatant women and children were killed, injured and traumatized in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's time these two were brought to justice.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Laguna - the Bushisms were light relief, admittedly.

This is a must see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnxNnJYziMY

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If Bush really supports the troops he should volunteer for front line duty in Afghanistan. When Teddy Roosevelt started that unnecessary war with Spain, he went to fight in Cuba, leaving a cushy job as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. He was no hypocrite like Bush, whatever else he was. Bush's sentimentality over the war wounded is like a rich opera goer crying the death of Mimi while while all the people he fired starve in the streets. Instead of playing golf with the people ruined in their youth because of his stupid wars, Bush at the least should grove in the dirty begging their forgiveness.

I too support the troops. I say bring them home. Give them the best social assistance that money can by. If that is impossible, see to that they get their old jobs back.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Bush and Cheney are war criminals and they should be treated as such.

Thanks to these two, thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of non-Americans, including non-combatant women and children were killed, injured and traumatized in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's time these two were brought to justice.

What always gets me is how liberals are always quick to judge Bush and Cheney and are more obsessed with so called bring them to justice...(whatever that means) and them war mongers etc. and yet, this Afghanistan war that we are in right now is a just war for liberals all of a sudden? No one likes war or I personally don't know any soldier that is jumping at the seams to dive into one, but why is it that so many people that don't have any experience on the field want to make snide comments about something they know nothing about? When you are in a war, people get hurt, injured and killed, men, women and children, there is no escaping that. But the left needs to stop with this Bush/Cheney lynch mob talk, they will never be prosecuted, never, get over it and move on, they did, so should the people that try too hard to idiotically bring them to so called justice.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Troops wouldn't be troops if they don't fight wars unless they don't want to do their job.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush and Cheney told the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and were about to use them on the U.S.A. This was a lie.

Iraq was invaded by troops with the latest equipment, helicopters, night-vision goggles, protective armor, state of the art armaments and so on. Iraq is not and has never been US territory and no act of aggression had been instigated by Iraq against the U.S.A.

Yet they were invaded and hundreds of thousands killed, injured and traumatized in a "War against Terror," i.e. a "war" with no clearly defined enemy or goal at the orders of the previous President of the U.S.A., George Bush Junior. Thousands of US troops were also killed, many more injured and many, many more traumatized by his order, so I don't see how anyone can use the words "support our troops" and "Bush" in the same sentence, unless it's negative or interrogative.

And I don't know how I can be branded "liberal" for this view. I would have thought a person who advises us to ignore it, get over it and move on is the liberal.

Bush and his crew caused immense damage.

And I think they should be held responsible for their actions.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Bass4funk,

Apologies, I'm a bit late to the party.

There's a fundamental flaw in your thinking. Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. are pundits, not reporters. They run opinion shows, not news shows. Now, if you want to talk about pundits, let's remember that Cenk Uygur, by far the most liberal person MSNBC has ever employed, stepped down from his position despite stellar ratings because he was told specifically by his bosses at MSNBC to stop being combative with conservative guests and to stop asking "hardball" questions of guests both conservative and liberal. And also remember that MSNBCs airtime is dominated by Morning Joe, which is hosted by Joe Scarborough - a former Republican politician who unapologetically leans right. He gets 3 hours of airtime every morning. Can you name even a single Fox News show hosted by a liberal? Let alone one that runs for 3 hours?

Now if you want to talk about news, which is what I was referring to in my first post, much like with Fox News, memos at MSNBC often told reporters to tone down criticism of the White House (during the Bush era) - these memos were later leaked. And then you have the reporters on record with first person accounts, as I said earlier.

Now, me saying "Bush never supported our troops" is not tantamount to "Obama does". I never said that. Neither one supports our troops. They support our commanders. They support defense contractors. They do not support the men on the ground. But, if you want to get into details, remember that it was Republican demands for budget cuts that are right now, at this very moment, leading to intense spending cuts for veteran care. And before you say it, I did not read that in a "far-left blog". I read the news. Specifically, it was USA Today that broke that story. I know better than to get my information from bloggers and pundits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Human

I work in the news business. I know the difference. I don't want to bore you or myself. But to make it simple. Chunk was about to lose his job on msnbc for being overly obnoxious. Not everyone is conservative on FOX. Greta, Shepard, Geraldo, are not conservatives by a long shot. Judge Napolitano is a libertarian and there are more, so you are off there a bit.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Exactly what part of the news business do you work in? Because so did I for quite some time, and your comments are the first of that kind I have ever heard from anyone in the industry.

If you really did work in the news business, you would know that anyone with credentials gives due respect to any news organization with the exception of Fox News because it is so outwardly and unashamedly biased that it's ridiculous to even include it in the definition of "news organization".

And Cenk Uygur (I don't know why you call him "Chunk". Is that a joke, or is your interest in the industry you apparently work in really that shallow?) stepped down voluntarily because he disagreed with the decrees his bosses laid out to him. He got stellar ratings and made a considerable amount of money for MSNBC in his short tenure (he did, after all, have the backing of the 30 million strong fanbase of The Young Turks), which is exactly the same reason MSNBC allows Rachel Maddow to keep her job - if she wasn't as established as she is, and if she didn't pull the ratings, trust me, they'd give her the boot in a hurry. There is no evidence whatsoever that he "lost" his job for being "obnoxious", and in fact, all the official statements about his departure contradict that assertion.

And instead of groping for arguments, just be realistic and honest with yourself. You know as well as I do that "libertarian" in the modern sense is just thinly veiled code for "super conservative" (or, if you prefer, "constitutional fundamentalist" which is itself misleading), so that rules out Napolitano right there. Shepard Smith is, granted, by far the most trustworthy anchor on Fox News but he also takes the same internal memos as everyone else as Fox, he never actually got his journalism degree, and calling him "left leaning" would be a stretch.

And just look at Rivera's long list of reporting bungles for a look at his credibility, including his lying about being at the scene of a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan, when in fact he was a considerable distance away.

You know as well as I do who the power hitters at Fox News are anyway, and they are none of the people you listed. On the other hand, Joe Scarborough's show is quite literally the longest shows on MSNBC's lineup. It literally dominates their airtime. How does that play into your "left-wing media conspiracy" narrative?

If you really do work in news, for the love of God, start talking some sense, or consider a career change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush is popular with the troops.

Which ones? The ones that made it back from Iraq/Afghanistan or the ones who were killed while thinking there were weapons which never existed?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does bush support the 5000 or so troops that are in graveyards now because of his fake wars. And then his party, the republicans, are trying to cut veteran benefits because the costs for healthcare for the recent vets is skyrocketing. Bush knows he screwed the troops and is letting them play sports so he can pretend to care.

Obama killed the mastermind behind 9-11 and not a single US soldier was lost.

So who support the troops, bush who sends them into failed wars to die or Obama who tries to save US soldiers? Pretty simple really to figure out.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites