"have never seen the cluelessness of the electorate exploited the way it was by the Obama campaign.
Imagine, these gullible fools were convinced to vote for a guy whose sum total of experience amounts to 100+ days in the Senate"
And how exactly are these gullibles different from the ones who elected Bush with his "compassionate conservative" and "uniter" slogan and again in 2004 with his "cant change the leader in the middle of a war (nervermind, a war based on distortions)" and scare tactics with repeated colorful alerts?
You refuse to admit, Bush presidency was a disaster. Obama's win has almost nothing to do with Obama campaign. Obama wasn't even running in 2006 election and You guys lost badly. Around 2005, most of the country realised how terrible Bush is for the country. Once you start acknowledging that, the elections results will start making sense to you.
"But there is no indication he ever had a problem with communicating with the people working for him."
You are kidding! He's the president of the most powerful country. His consumer is not the 10-20 people in his immediate staff. He needs to explain to the world leaders, congress/senate member who authorize the war the exact reason for the war and you and me, who elected him. Otherwise there are consequences in a democracy.
"He did do a poor job of explaining why it was essential that we invade Iraq."
This implies he had reason other than the one he communicated. There was no logic to invade iraq at that time, other than "immediate threat" to US security from WMD and their link to AQ. Every other logic (like 'the world is better off without Saddam" and "bring freedom to middle east is good for US security) was after failing to prove the WMD existed and Saddams link with AQ. While there may be some good rationale to bringing democracy, he was not authorized to go to war to do that by the senate and the congresss. And that should be separate discussion and authorization to do that.
"Yes, success in Libya. NK and Iran are pretty much like he found them, except that Iran now has a next-door neighbor that is an ally of the US rather than a bitter enemy. That's a pretty big deal."
Another typical neocon logic. This is NOT what you were authorized to do.
Even if you were authorized to do that, that success is very questionable. How are you convinced that a unfriendly saddam-led sunni givernment is a beter counter balance than a 'currently' friendly largely-shiite led government against a shiite led Iranian government. Your faith in democracy far outweighs the age-old friendship and animosity of that part of the world.
'But, dont go around being arrogant about it.
I believe he acknowledged publicly, time and again, that he made mistakes in this respect.
Again look at the timeline. He starts apologizing a lot more when his ratings go down and after the counrty realises he is an arrogant ass, not willing to admit any mistakes. Remember, the only mistake he ever acknowledged before 2005, was some (Powells) appointment in his cabinet.
I expect you and other neos to keep repeating his 'success' over and over again, expecting people to forget the timeline, to improve Bush's and conservative brand name. Unfortunately, you will succeed as most people have short memory and might forget how terrible his presidency has been. |
