54 replies · 1,156 views
It's obvious what now. Leave Starr and his boys to do their work, wait until Barak is discredited, scoop the nomination, win the election and run America into the recession.
Or am I missing something? Doesn't the first Democratic candidate always get booted out before the election?
Surely he's done SOMETHING that he should be ashamed of?
If not, he will. It's a long time to the election and he is a dumb bastard when he's not being boring.
And he called everyone in America thick for liking guns and religion. I bet that caused some squeaky bums.
You know he's spent 75 million dollars on his campaign?
That's more than three hundred quid!
At one point, he was going to pay all of Hillary's costs too.
Where the fuck did he get that sort of cash from?
various conglomerates.
Its not like a proper country, like us, where we get upset if someone donates a grand they shouldnt have done and consequently everyone starts demanding state funding of politcal parties.
Its a case of "We will donate x million dollars to yiur campaign if you do this/turn a blind eye to this etc"
You know, its nice to see that in an ever changing globalised world, the Democrats will still strive to find new ways to LOSE the election.
FAILURE.
Small online donors? That's a surprise.
I suppose a small percentage of Americans have to give a small amount and it adds up to a lot.
A million a day? Wow.
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
Biginoil wrote:
Where the fuck did he get that sort of cash from?
A real nice way to sweap contributions by organizations under the carpet; not really be counted and come out clean. Clever, but amazed it fools so many. The website isn't entirely correct though, as it has 0% at self-funding for him, and CNN was just talking about how he finaced a bit of himself.
I think the Dems really screwed the pooch once again. Obama, while he may seem nice, now is screwed when it comes to Clinton... isn't cut out for VP (with Bill in her pocket)... Obama would then seem like a puppet for them, and nothing but arm-wrestling matches.... but if he doesn't pick her, he's screwed as well, pissing off all the Clinton supporters...
If he were truely smart, he would have seen the opportunity of pulling out of the race months ago "to save the Party", would have been a hero. Would have devestated McCain with a Clinton/Obama ticket... and he would be VP for 8 years and President for another 8. Instead he vied for a possible 8 year career instead of a more-likely 16 year career....
I thank my lucky stars every night
EdelBrock wrote: I think the Dems really screwed the pooch once again....If he were truely smart, he would have seen the opportunity of pulling out of the race months ago "to save the Party", would have been a hero.
Yes, your "the front runner should have quit while he was ahead" theory makes all the sense in the world.
For crackheads. 
EdelBrock wrote: Would have devestated McCain with a Clinton/Obama ticket... and he would be VP for 8 years and President for another 8. Instead he vied for a possible 8 year career instead of a more-likely 16 year career....
No need to worry about Obama's career span. There's still life after the presidency.
EdelBrock wrote:
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
Biginoil wrote:
Where the fuck did he get that sort of cash from?
A real nice way to sweap contributions by organizations under the carpet; not really be counted and come out clean. Clever, but amazed it fools so many. The website isn't entirely correct though, as it has 0% at self-funding for him, and CNN was just talking about how he finaced a bit of himself.
You can look up the organizational contributions there if you poke around.
Now then, have the Republicans done a single good thing for this country in the last 8 years? I challenge you to name one valid point.
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
Biginoil wrote:
Where the fuck did he get that sort of cash from?
A real nice way to sweap contributions by organizations under the carpet; not really be counted and come out clean. Clever, but amazed it fools so many. The website isn't entirely correct though, as it has 0% at self-funding for him, and CNN was just talking about how he finaced a bit of himself.
You can look up the organizational contributions there if you poke around.
Now then, have the Republicans done a single good thing for this country in the last 8 years? I challenge you to name one valid point.
They gave me a $600 check...TWICE!!!
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
Biginoil wrote:
Where the fuck did he get that sort of cash from?
A real nice way to sweap contributions by organizations under the carpet; not really be counted and come out clean. Clever, but amazed it fools so many. The website isn't entirely correct though, as it has 0% at self-funding for him, and CNN was just talking about how he finaced a bit of himself.
You can look up the organizational contributions there if you poke around.
Now then, have the Republicans done a single good thing for this country in the last 8 years? I challenge you to name one valid point.
We both know that if I listed any positives in the last eight years, it would only become a mudslinging contest. Too staunchly in your own partylines to actually admit anything good has happened.
On the campaign contibutions, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that contributors from organizations will be funneling money through 'individual people'. It does two things, one they contribute to Obama's campaign with animity (from the public) and they also bolster Obama's image in looking like individual citizens are giving him money hand over fist.
Its politics, so I applaud him on the idea, as it is very clever and effective. I'm suprised so many have bought into it, that's all.
EdelBrock wrote: Obama's image in looking like individual citizens are giving him money hand over fist.
I donated money to Obama's campaign-- twice.
First time I've ever donated money to a political campaign. And one of those donations was a match challenge, meaning my donation was matched by another Obama supporter in another state, so my donation was effectively doubled.
No doubt I'll donate again before Obama wins in November. 
EdelBrock wrote: I think the Dems really screwed the pooch once again. Obama, while he may seem nice, now is screwed when it comes to Clinton... isn't cut out for VP (with Bill in her pocket)... Obama would then seem like a puppet for them, and nothing but arm-wrestling matches.... but if he doesn't pick her, he's screwed as well, pissing off all the Clinton supporters...
If he were truely smart, he would have seen the opportunity of pulling out of the race months ago "to save the Party", would have been a hero. Would have devestated McCain with a Clinton/Obama ticket... and he would be VP for 8 years and President for another 8. Instead he vied for a possible 8 year career instead of a more-likely 16 year career....
I thank my lucky stars every night
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Obama's image in looking like individual citizens are giving him money hand over fist.
I donated money to Obama's campaign-- twice.
First time I've ever donated money to a political campaign. And one of those donations was a match challenge, meaning my donation was matched by another Obama supporter in another state, so my donation was effectively doubled.
No doubt I'll donate again before Obama wins in November.
Monkey see, monkey do
Biginoil wrote: It's obvious what now. Leave Starr and his boys to do their work, wait until Barak is discredited, scoop the nomination, win the election and run America into the recession.
Or am I missing something? Doesn't the first Democratic candidate always get booted out before the election?
Surely he's done SOMETHING that he should be ashamed of?
If not, he will. It's a long time to the election and he is a dumb bastard when he's not being boring.
Probably become vice president, if Obama wins the Presidential Elections, isnt this thing about a black candidate eerily reminiscent of the first ever 24 series? Not that I am suggesting anything here
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: I'm not voting for Obama...
SO THERE!
ok, millions times better than doing anything stupid
EdelBrock wrote:
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
Biginoil wrote:
Where the fuck did he get that sort of cash from?
A real nice way to sweap contributions by organizations under the carpet; not really be counted and come out clean. Clever, but amazed it fools so many. The website isn't entirely correct though, as it has 0% at self-funding for him, and CNN was just talking about how he finaced a bit of himself.
You can look up the organizational contributions there if you poke around.
Now then, have the Republicans done a single good thing for this country in the last 8 years? I challenge you to name one valid point.
We both know that if I listed any positives in the last eight years, it would only become a mudslinging contest. Too staunchly in your own partylines to actually admit anything good has happened.
On the campaign contibutions, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that contributors from organizations will be funneling money through 'individual people'. It does two things, one they contribute to Obama's campaign with animity (from the public) and they also bolster Obama's image in looking like individual citizens are giving him money hand over fist.
Its politics, so I applaud him on the idea, as it is very clever and effective. I'm suprised so many have bought into it, that's all.
I'm interested to know what positives have come about over the last eight years. I remember seeing a discussion Programme on BBC News 24 about a year ago where the legacy of Bush and no one could think of anything positive.
Unless.
Lowest approval ratings since Nixon AFTER Watergate Global economic crisis sparked by extra ordinarily bad economic management, including turning the largest federal budget surplus into the largest ever federal budget deficit in the space of three years Taliban not defeated in Afghanistan No realistic progress in Iraq First funding cut in the National Healthcare budget in thirty six years due to rising inflation The total mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people Losing control of both Houses of Congress And my, and everybody elses no doubt, personal favourite, the failure to read the document presented to him in late August 2001, and the failure to meet with any of his Counter Terrorism advisors during the first eight months of his Presidency, resulting in the deaths of nearly 3000 people on september 11th 2001
all count as positives?
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: I'm not voting for Obama...
SO THERE!
am not either, so there! :p
and no, not because he's black.
Uncle Liam wrote:
I'm interested to know what positives have come about over the last eight years. I remember seeing a discussion Programme on BBC News 24 about a year ago where the legacy of Bush and no one could think of anything positive.
and that is called one-sided news...
I am by no means glorifying Bush as president, he does have low standings in the population for a reason, but to say NOTHING good has happened over the last 8 years is complete bollucks and comes from bandwagon politics....
EdelBrock wrote:
Uncle Liam wrote:
I'm interested to know what positives have come about over the last eight years. I remember seeing a discussion Programme on BBC News 24 about a year ago where the legacy of Bush and no one could think of anything positive.
and that is called one-sided news...
I am by no means glorifying Bush as president, he does have low standings in the population for a reason, but to say NOTHING good has happened over the last 8 years is complete bollucks and comes from bandwagon politics....
Oh of course, because you got $600 Dollars, that makes him all right.
One sided broadcasting? You know, you must be a really bad President when the likes of Michael Portillo and Peter Hitchens are unable to say anything positive about the bush presidency. So why dont you mention some positive aspects. And we can all see if you get beyond "i got $600!"
the $600 is just from next years tax refund, its not like its free money... of course the gov't is in massive debt anyway.
Republicans were in total charge of every branch of gov't and all they do is blame these "horrible" lame Democrats. The Democrats and these evil "liberals" have been the weakest most spineless in the last century during the past two decades and all Republican pundunts do is warn how these Democrats have been totally fucking up the country and the world more than ever. Plus they blame the Mexicans even though they fueled the economic boom of the 1990s with their near slave labour. Where is George Orwell when you need him?
No cheap labour from Mexico, no cheap products from China, no cheap energy anymore, no cheap food to make us fat... American lifestyle is gonna change one way or another.
0_o wrote: the $600 is just from next years tax refund, its not like its free money... of course the gov't is in massive debt anyway.
Republicans were in total charge of every branch of gov't and all they do is blame these "horrible" lame Democrats. The Democrats and these evil "liberals" have been the weakest most spineless in the last century during the past two decades and all Republican pundunts do is warn how these Democrats have been totally fucking up the country and the world more than ever. Plus they blame the Mexicans even though they fueled the economic boom of the 1990s with their near slave labour. Where is George Orwell when you need him?
No cheap labour from Mexico, no cheap products from China, no cheap energy anymore, no cheap food to make us fat... American lifestyle is gonna change one way or another.
I completely agree with your final statement... something HAS to break... something has to give...
However, everyone is so entrenched in thier party lines pointing fingers not realizing its on both sides of the fence. The idea that conservatives or liberals are going to destroy the government/country as a whole is the main problem with politics. There really are only two types of politicians, one that is truely there to be a public servant and the other that is there for power/greed... and unfortunately many that start off with the best intentions end up in the latter group (which probably is the largest group in Washington).
In the end, politicians are bullshitters... that's how they get voted in... and their bullshitters on both sides of the fence... however, people want to point out how the one side bullshits and act like thier's are wearing silver armour... and that is simply one-sided thinking. Both sides have chinks in thier armour.
Uncle Liam wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Uncle Liam wrote:
I'm interested to know what positives have come about over the last eight years. I remember seeing a discussion Programme on BBC News 24 about a year ago where the legacy of Bush and no one could think of anything positive.
and that is called one-sided news...
I am by no means glorifying Bush as president, he does have low standings in the population for a reason, but to say NOTHING good has happened over the last 8 years is complete bollucks and comes from bandwagon politics....
Oh of course, because you got $600 Dollars, that makes him all right.
One sided broadcasting? You know, you must be a really bad President when the likes of Michael Portillo and Peter Hitchens are unable to say anything positive about the bush presidency. So why dont you mention some positive aspects. And we can all see if you get beyond "i got $600!"
So is this a legitimate question -or- a baiting tactic?
And, no I don't consider the $600 check good or bad, it simply part of the economic shell game...
What are positives to have comes from the seven and a half years of the Bush administration?
He helped pave the way for international banks to 'talk' to each other and keep better track of international money trades. This substantially cut funding/tranfering of money of terrorist organizations that used legitimate banks.
He equalized military pay with current economy. Clinton had essentially gave mlitary members paycuts by not equlaizing pay to the economy over his tenure.
He funded needed upgrading of military gear. Most of the military's gear was made and aging from the 80's, and was designed during either the Korean or Vietnam War. Almost ever piece of gear was upgraded and sent to units in a very timely manner (by government standards).
He has OPPOSED mainstream Republicans by actually supporting legal civil unions (not marriages) of gay couples. First Republican President to appoint openly gay person in administration, Scott Hertz.
Bush signed the Adam Walsh child protection Act, which requires sex offenders to re-confirm physical addresses and employment info in a national database on a MONTHLY, instead of yearly, basis...also helped implement the national Amber Alert child abduction system.
He created the largest marine protected area ever, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument.
There has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.
Some of the positives are new ideas that needed to be implemented quickly and have lots of 'bugs' in them... so many times these are listed as negatives, but give them time to work out the problems and history books will probably call them positives...
Though the bill and it's implementation are severely flawed, the No Child Left Behind act established a bi-partisan precedent for addressing poor school performance (a traditionally state function) on a national level.
He established a whole new organization of homeland security and in its implementation, has the different levels of security (city, county, state and federal) more open to discuss cases, issues and problems with each other.
Don't get me wrong, Bush has many issues and problems, and is far from being a great president... however, Washington has been doing a good job of attaching all of its dirty laundry to Bush. When the common citizen hates a certian politician, then all of a sudden everything gets pinned on thhat invidual.... Washington has been cleaning house....
EdelBrock wrote: There has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11
Well, then, if he prevented terrorist attacks...
And here was me thinking that 9/11 occurred on W's watch. 
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: There has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11
Well, then, if he prevented terrorist attacks...
And here was me thinking that 9/11 occurred on W's watch.
Come now, even you should know that any policy or event that happens under the first year of presidency is resonating from the past president... not like any president can have full awareness/impact of surroundings before then... as stated by all news reports right after 9/11.
What a laughably ridiculous post.
EdelBrock wrote:
He helped pave the way for international banks to 'talk' to each other and keep better track of international money trades. This substantially cut funding/tranfering of money of terrorist organizations that used legitimate banks.
He equalized military pay with current economy. Clinton had essentially gave mlitary members paycuts by not equlaizing pay to the economy over his tenure.
He funded needed upgrading of military gear. Most of the military's gear was made and aging from the 80's, and was designed during either the Korean or Vietnam War. Almost ever piece of gear was upgraded and sent to units in a very timely manner (by government standards).
He has OPPOSED mainstream Republicans by actually supporting legal civil unions (not marriages) of gay couples. First Republican President to appoint openly gay person in administration, Scott Hertz.
Bush signed the Adam Walsh child protection Act, which requires sex offenders to re-confirm physical addresses and employment info in a national database on a MONTHLY, instead of yearly, basis...also helped implement the national Amber Alert child abduction system.
He created the largest marine protected area ever, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument.
There has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.
Some of the positives are new ideas that needed to be implemented quickly and have lots of 'bugs' in them... so many times these are listed as negatives, but give them time to work out the problems and history books will probably call them positives...
Though the bill and it's implementation are severely flawed, the No Child Left Behind act established a bi-partisan precedent for addressing poor school performance (a traditionally state function) on a national level.
He established a whole new organization of homeland security and in its implementation, has the different levels of security (city, county, state and federal) more open to discuss cases, issues and problems with each other.
I think my favourite part of it is where it is suggested taht leigislation is passed quickly and have lots of 'bugs' in them. Thats whats called "Bad Law" and shows a woeful ineptitude amongst the people initiaiting the legislation, which I imagine in federal law comes from the President and his team. And woeful inadequacy on those they to scruity it, which is cross party. A law comes in, it needs to be effective the second it is passed (or on the specified date), its a Law, its not going to change. I fail to see how giving anybody time to work out the problems AFTER THE LAW HAS BEEN PASSED is going to help anything.
And passing legilsation that is, in your own words "seriously flawed" is a positive. Hey, the idea to invade Iraq to free all those people from Saddam so everyone could be free was a nice idea, but seriosuly flawed, so is that a positive as well? No Child Left behind isnt even implemented in some states because the funding provision si so bad!
Anyway, a brief history of Terrorism in the United States of America since 1945. I can think of the 93 Bombings on the WTC. The 95 Oklahoma bomb (and calling that terrorism is pushing it). I seemt o remember someone trying, and failing, to blow up the New York Subway in 97, and the September 11th attacks. So, having the biggest terrorist attack on your watch is hardly something Bush is going to shout about, regardless if there hasnt been one for seven years. When you have three or four happenning in your nations history, to have one happen under your presidency, especailly the biggest one in history, is a failure.
Adam Walsh Child protection act. So a Peadophile has to sign in every month. Wow. Thats going to make a difference. Its one of those Laws which is going to make absolsutely zero difference to anything except placate some voters.
So Bush created the largest protected Marine environment ever. Again. Wow. After refusing to sign up to the Kyoto treaty on Climate Change. Bush has done next to nothing to protect the environment, and is accused by some of actively misleading the American Public on his policies.
Upgrading funding of military gear. Dont make me laugh. I presume that all those start of the art military aircraft used in Iraq are relics from the 1980's. And all those state of the art guns are needed against local iraqi militia using Soviet relics from the 1960's, that dont work and they arent trained to use.
Military Pay. Well, he's going to need to keep them well paid because ooner or later people arent going to want to sign up. Its nice to see that as the Economy goes down the toilet, funidng is cut from the health budget, but hey, we can still pay our soldiers.
And he appointed a Gay person to the Administratin. You know, this inst a positive or a negative. Its just a person. In near enough every civilized country, this would barely be mentioned.
And in any case, any of your points pale in comparison to the points of total failure that Bush has presided over. Rising unemploymeny, slower economic growth, disastorous foreign policy, and al those things i listed earlier in the thread. And thats merely the tip of the iceberg.
So, in conclusion, the bush presidency, a FAILURE. Much like your attempts to defend him.
Jeez. There's so many negatives that outweigh any positives.
Total disregard for the Human Rights Act/Geneva Convention is one; total disregard for the UN is another. Failure to sign Kyoto, the use of cluster bombs treaty etc etc... list is endless...
Burt Reynolds wrote: Jeez. There's so many negatives that outweigh any positives.
Total disregard for the Human Rights Act/Geneva Convention is one; total disregard for the UN is another. Failure to sign Kyoto, the use of cluster bombs treaty etc etc... list is endless...
Yeah, but all Edel Brocks mates in the Army got new guns to play with and a pay rise to boot... whats not to like>?
Uncle Liam wrote:
Yeah, but all Edel Brocks mates in the Army got new guns to play with and a pay rise to boot... whats not to like>?
And he invented an enemy or two for them to play with too.
Uncle Liam wrote: I wish i had someone like that to make playmates for me.
Hey, Bush invited you guys to join in, didn't he?
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: There has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11
Well, then, if he prevented terrorist attacks...
And here was me thinking that 9/11 occurred on W's watch.
Come now, even you should know that any policy or event that happens under the first year of presidency is resonating from the past president... not like any president can have full awareness/impact of surroundings before then... as stated by all news reports right after 9/11.
Are you saying he's had "full awareness of surroundings" since then?
Well, since you're bringing up old new reports, do you recall the news reports about how W was repeatedly advised by the former administration, in the months leading up to 9/11, that bin Laden posed an imminent threat? Do you recall the news reports that W ignored those reports, preferring to spend the month of August on vacation in Texas rather than develop any sense of "awareness of surroundings"?
"There haven't been any terrorist attacks on American soil since the last one* that occurred on my watch.!"
* The only terrorist attack on American soil; occurred on W's watch, and yet he claims that one of his successes has been in "preventing terrorist attacks."
EdelBrock wrote: He funded needed upgrading of military gear. Most of the military's gear was made and aging from the 80's, and was designed during either the Korean or Vietnam War. Almost ever piece of gear was upgraded and sent to units in a very timely manner (by government standards).
Remind me again: How long did it take the Bush administration to get military vehicles in Iraq equipped with armor?
And how many soldiers died of wounds sustained from roadside bombs while the military was waiting for armor plating?
I'll respond to two I know about first hand.
Military pay was dismal during the Clinton administration. Many that had families were considered officially in poverty... they even collected welfare checks. The pay system was seriously flawed, it has since been corrected.
Large ticket items, like airplanes, were up-to-date, however its the day to day gear that the average Marine/soldier had that was designed during the Korean/Vietnam war. Cold weather gear, for example, has made lightyears advancement since the 50's, but we were seriously behind the times. Plus, when something breaks, it doesn't get replaced, it gets pieced together to run. Generators, for instance, were very unreliable and were mostly built in the 70s, so had alot of hhours on them. The flood of new gear will keep the military going for the next 30 years....
I didn't expect people to have a completely subjective eye, once people have an emotion of hate, they pretty much stick to it no matter what.
So your logic appears to be, because you and your friends in the military got some nice shiny guns to play with, that makes Bush a good President?
Seems quite logical to me, that he's improved armed forces pay, cos, they actually have a war to fight. Wouldn't be easy to recruit people without a decent wage structure. Hell some of these people are actually dying out there.
And yes UK was invited to join in, and our premier accepted. Curiously, we subsequently have the highest oil prices in Europe.
Uncle Liam wrote: So your logic appears to be, because you and your friends in the military got some nice shiny guns to play with, that makes Bush a good President?
I never stated Bush was a 'good' president, I have stated that he has done some good while in the presidency... big difference.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: He funded needed upgrading of military gear. Most of the military's gear was made and aging from the 80's, and was designed during either the Korean or Vietnam War. Almost ever piece of gear was upgraded and sent to units in a very timely manner (by government standards).
Remind me again: How long did it take the Bush administration to get military vehicles in Iraq equipped with armor?
And how many soldiers died of wounds sustained from roadside bombs while the military was waiting for armor plating?
But that wasn't a Bush problem, that was a manufacturing issue and a realization of need for armour later in the game. Bush put in the money, Generals were screaming for it, but it couldn't be made, shipped, and put on fast enough to the units effectively.... remember, there isn't a FedEx or UPS on every corner when yer out in a war enviroment... shipping is a real logistics nightmare. The problem with armour last around a year after the occupation, but was reported by the press for alot longer than that.
0_o wrote: the $600 is just from next years tax refund, its not like its free money... of course the gov't is in massive debt anyway.
Republicans were in total charge of every branch of gov't and all they do is blame these "horrible" lame Democrats. The Democrats and these evil "liberals" have been the weakest most spineless in the last century during the past two decades and all Republican pundunts do is warn how these Democrats have been totally fucking up the country and the world more than ever. Plus they blame the Mexicans even though they fueled the economic boom of the 1990s with their near slave labour. Where is George Orwell when you need him?
Obama just stated he'd send out checks similar to Bush's in todays speech
And the mortgage failure is being pinned on HUD... a policy Clinton signed into law and has been seen to be dismally flawed http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25053787
How long can people pile every bit of shit on the Bush presidency? Granted he's not the best president, he's got plenty of flaws, but the shitpiling is getting a bit old....
Yeah, just imagine what people will say once the administration's internal records become declassified in 30 years.
I don't doubt that any presidential file opened 30 years after tenure would be shocking and horrifying... and granted Bush's is probably worse than most, but still there is a shitpiling that just is getting old...
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: He funded needed upgrading of military gear. Most of the military's gear was made and aging from the 80's, and was designed during either the Korean or Vietnam War. Almost ever piece of gear was upgraded and sent to units in a very timely manner (by government standards).
Remind me again: How long did it take the Bush administration to get military vehicles in Iraq equipped with armor?
And how many soldiers died of wounds sustained from roadside bombs while the military was waiting for armor plating?
But that wasn't a Bush problem, that was a manufacturing issue and a realization of need for armour later in the game. Bush put in the money, Generals were screaming for it, but it couldn't be made, shipped, and put on fast enough to the units effectively.... remember, there isn't a FedEx or UPS on every corner when yer out in a war enviroment... shipping is a real logistics nightmare. The problem with armour last around a year after the occupation, but was reported by the press for alot longer than that.
Well, granted, this source is a blog, and not a news outlet, but this blog reports that the armor was still not in place as of February 2007-- four years after the war began-- and would not be in place until summer of 2007. A bit longer than your "one year" estimate, wouldn't you say?
Bush rushed the nation into war on the basis of a pack of lies-- not a single one of his so-called "reasons" for the war has proven true-- rushed the troops into war without proper equipment or troop levels (a "plan" pushed by Wolfy and Rummy-- who I'm sure did a "heckuva job"-- and that was vehemently opposed by General Eric Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, who was ridiculed by said Wolfy and Rummy for offering his expert opinion-- an expert opinion that has been proven to be correct) and you think this isn't a "Bush problem"?
If this is not a "Bush problem" what, exactly, would constitute something he could take credit for?
Besides, you know, "Mission Accomplished." 
EdelBrock wrote: Don't get me wrong, Bush has many issues and problems, and is far from being a great president...
43rd from the best, by most accounts.
The Worst President in History?
The most unpopular President in modern American history
Helen Thomas: GWB is worst President in American History
Donald Trump: Bush is worst President in history
Lincoln Chafee: Bush worst President in history
Etc. etc.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Well, granted, this source is a blog, and not a news outlet, but this blog reports that the armor was still not in place as of February 2007-- four years after the war began-- and would not be in place until summer of 2007. A bit longer than your "one year" estimate, wouldn't you say?
Bush rushed the nation into war on the basis of a pack of lies-- not a single one of his so-called "reasons" for the war has proven true-- rushed the troops into war without proper equipment or troop levels (a "plan" pushed by Wolfy and Rummy-- who I'm sure did a "heckuva job"-- and that was vehemently opposed by General Eric Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, who was ridiculed by said Wolfy and Rummy for offering his expert opinion-- an expert opinion that has been proven to be correct) and you think this isn't a "Bush problem"?
If this is not a "Bush problem" what, exactly, would constitute something he could take credit for?
Besides, you know, "Mission Accomplished."
Well the blog is not ENTIRELY correct. Yes the kits that where mentioned hadn't reached everywhere in Iraq until after I left, but that doesn't mean the HWMMVs weren't armoured. The kits being mentioned are an upgrade to the original armour produced and bolted on at the begining of the occupation. The original armour was made of high grade steel and was extremely heavy and the HWMMV wasn't designed to take on all that additional weight and was destroying the suspension. The kits being mentioned above are a lighter version to keep wear and tear to a minimum. Another thing to remember is that not EVERY HWMMV needed to to armoured up to its gills in Iraq... not all of them are driving around with risks of being hit by an IED, so really, the HWMMVs that needed armour were armoured up probably close to 9 months, while the remaining ones took another 3.
As for the design of the HWMMV, that really wasn't a flaw on anyone's part. Iraq ushered in a new kind of warfare, with the use of IEDs. War is all about finding your enemies gap (weakness) and exploiting it and the insurgents did a good job of that with the IED. We had to improvise and cover that gap quickly....
and since we are on the topic of design, one that NEVER gets any press is one of the main reasons we went from Kuwait to Baghdad virtually unopposed.... a redesigning of the air filter for the M1 Abrams (a design figured out a couple weeks before the attack by an enlisted Army personnel). The original design of the air filter got clogged quickly and easily and during the Gulf War, the tanks had to stop periodically, the drivers had to jump out and clean them. The redesign allowed for almost double the distance before having to do so (the redesign was a real jimmy-rig too with duct tape and sheet metal ). Saddam had ordered his army not to attack until the M1 stopped to change filters, however it was not when they planned, and attacks happened too late..... Where was the news on that little tidbit?
