Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?

[scandium]

Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?

"On March 16, Iraqi insurgents fired a mortar shell into the U.S. army base in Tikrit, landing near two members of the 101st Airborne Division, reportedly as they stood waiting for a bus. The explosion killed Sgt. Amanda Pinson of St. Louis, Mo., making her the 2,315th U.S. soldier killed in Iraq since the war began three years ago. She was 21.

A few hours later in Washington, the U.S. Senate voted 52-48 to increase the ceiling on the national debt, by $781 billion, to $9 trillion (all figures US$) -- or roughly $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the country -- thus avoiding the first-ever default on U.S. debt. The House of Representatives then approved another $92 billion in federal spending to support the war effort in the Middle East.

That night, Gallup wrapped up its latest opinion poll on Americans' attitudes toward the White House, showing just 37 per cent approve of the President's performance, versus 59 per cent who disapprove -- a drop of five percentage points in a month -- one of the worst scores of any president in the modern era.

Just another day in the life of the world's last superpower under the leadership of President George W. Bush."

Full article: http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20060417_125323_125323

[The Avon Lady]

Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
I don't know but I wouldn't conclude that soley based on the Bad News Bears report you just posted.

[scandium]

Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
I don't know but I wouldn't conclude that soley based on the Bad News Bears report you just posted.

I posted the link to the full article along with the first four paragraphs. Here's the next two and there is much more in the full article.

"With deficits and debt swelling to epic levels, an economy showing massive cracks, and support for America crumbling abroad, the Bush administration finds itself increasingly isolated. With mid-term elections looming in November, the President is now widely seen as a political liability. Republicans are actively distancing themselves from Bush, and joining Democrats in strident critiques of the White House. And things may be getting worse. Last week, court documents emerged showing Scooter Libby, former chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, testified that Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence to shore up support and discredit critics of the Iraq war, raising, for the first time, the possibility that the President may be personally implicated in a scandal.

These are more than just the normal travails of a second-term president fending off the slings and arrows of partisan attack. Bush's constant battles at home and abroad are taking on historic proportions, hardening perceptions that his administration is defined by failure on multiple fronts. Just over 16 months have passed since George W. Bush was elected for the second term that eluded his father, but already historians and pundits are beginning to debate whether he just might be the worst U.S. president in a century."

[Konovalov]

Probably best to wait till the conclusion of his eight years in office before passing judgement and even then you might want to wait ten to twenty years more before trying to determine what his legacy and impact was on the USA and the world.

[The Avon Lady]

It doesn't change my opinion. maybe if I were 120 years old, I could assess this correctly. Here's a list:

25 William McKinley
26 Theodore Roosevelt
27 William Taft
28 Woodrow Wilson
29 Warren Harding
30 Calvin Coolidge
31 Herbert Hoover
32 Franklin Roosevelt
33 Harry Truman
34 Dwight Eisenhower
35 John Kennedy
36 Lyndon Johnson
37 Richard Nixon
38 Gerald Ford
39 Jimmy Carter
40 Ronald Reagan
41 George H. W. Bush
42 Bill Clinton
43 George W. Bush

Go figure if he was the worst.

I'll agree that he's far far away from the best, that's for sure!

[TLAM Strike]

Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?

Naw what about Warren G. Harding? Calvin Coolidge? Herbert Hoover? Richard Nixon?

[The Avon Lady]

Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
Naw what about Warren G. Harding? Calvin Coolidge? Herbert Hoover? Richard Nixon?
Nixon was bad for his abuse of office and power. Would you say, however, that his foreign, domestic and economic policies were also bad?

[TLAM Strike]

Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
Naw what about Warren G. Harding? Calvin Coolidge? Herbert Hoover? Richard Nixon?
Nixon was bad for his abuse of office and power. Would you say, however, that his foreign, domestic and economic policies were also bad?Indeed his escalation of the Vietnam War in to Cambodia being probably the best example, but their also was the coups he helped along in South America.

Also his views on Africans and Jews were well quite 'out there'...

[scandium]

Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
Naw what about Warren G. Harding? Calvin Coolidge? Herbert Hoover? Richard Nixon?
Nixon was bad for his abuse of office and power. Would you say, however, that his foreign, domestic and economic policies were also bad?

This goes to the heart of the article. Nixon, among others, is mentioned but they point out that his presidency had some redeeming features (for instance his opening of dialogue between China and the US). In W's case though its a sea of bad: the blackening of America's image as a champion of human rights with the Abu Ghraib scandal and the ongoing controversy surrounding Gitmo; the domestic spying controversy; the failing war in Iraq; the massive government spending and record deficits at home; the isolation resulting from the clash and bickering between the US government and staunch allies France and Germany (among many others); and on and on.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

Americans usually get what they ask for... to blame everything entirely on Bush would be to take a very narrow view of the picture... in my opinion...

he wouldn't have been elected, or reelected, if there wasn't a sufficient number of people who chose to vote him into office... and support his stance on many issues mentioned above...

regardless of my opinion on the President, one thing is apparent... we all (Americans) share the 'blame', to one degree or another, if indeed there is any to be shared...

to ignore this fact, and to place the entirety of everything on Bush's shoulders, is obviously flawed and deluded 'thinking'...

--Mike

[scandium]

Americans usually get what they ask for... to blame everything entirely on Bush would be to take a very narrow view of the picture... in my opinion...

he wouldn't have been elected, or reelected, if there wasn't a sufficient number of people who chose to vote him into office... and support his stance on many issues mentioned above...

regardless of my opinion on the President, one thing is apparent... we all (Americans) share the 'blame', if indeed there is any to be shared...

to ignore this fact is obviously flawed and deluded 'thinking'...

--Mike

I don't see where the flawed logic is. Reagan famously asked the American people, when he ran against Carter, 'are you better off now than you were four years ago?', and the article simply asks the same questions while attempting to proffer some answers to them. Whether or not the American people are somehow to blame is a separate question and different debate; in fact, logically, before you could even raise this second question you have to ask and answer the first: Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

well... using your guidelines to come up with an answer, i would then have to disqualify myself... as i don't know the details of the administrations of the past 100 years...

now if the question was 'Is Bush The Worst President That You Can Remember?"... then i could give you a yes or no reply...

and to respond to you objection about the logic being flawed, all i can say is that the question itself is flawed... not only for the reason i just gave, but for the explanation that i gave above as to why any blame for a negative response, should be shared by the people who gave him the mandate for his actions...

one man doesn't rule America, therefore it would be illogical to expect one man to be responsible for what happens in America... as it would be illogical to judge that one man as being the worst or the best, based on this sorta reasoning...

it's just like asking if Captain Bligh was the worst ships Captain in history... a good response to this would be 'watch The Caine Mutiny'...

especially the last few minutes of it... Jose Ferrar's character gave what would be the definitive answer to a question like this...

a better response would be, that 'i don't know'... for the mere fact that i don't know the details of the commands of all of histories ships Captains...

the ship of state that is America draws some similar parallels... don't ya think...

--Mike

[Torpedo Fodder]

Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?

Naw what about Warren G. Harding? Calvin Coolidge? Herbert Hoover? Richard Nixon?

My vote goes to Woodrow Wilson. In fact, I think Wilson is the worst president EVER.

Consider:

*Wilson muzzled the press, made it illegal for the media to criticize the government during WWI. Violators were imprisioned.

*He lied to the voters, running for re-election in 1916 on the slogan "He kept us out of the war", and yet he did precisly the opposite a year later, and 320,000 Americans died for nothing in a war America had no stake in and where neither side had the moral high ground. What's worse is that wilso had already made a secret agreement before his re-election with Britain and France to enter the war on the side of the Allies. The outcome of the war caused by America's intervention set the stage for the rise of Nazism and Communism.
Some of Wilson's other foreign adventrues incluse sending American troops to fight against the Communists in the Russian Revolution.

*He was a racist scum, who re-segregate the government and civil service, and set back civil rights and race relations in the United States by 30 years. He also denied the Japanese request for a clause of racial equality in the League of Nations charter (Wilson hated Orientals too).

There's more where this came from: Read Wilson's War by Jim Powell.

[Skybird]

Is there a thing like "the" presdient? I think of him more as a set of aspects, a set of different views to look at him. voters almost never take the whole package into account, only a subjective and minor number of aspects, highly influenced by habits, parental traditions in their family, and brainwashing. I tend to think of Americans voting for Bush as people who have only a limited view on the man, and are only aware of aspects of him that they like, ignoring the many dark sides of him. They have a problem with their sense of reality that way. By mechanism the American voter functions much the same like the voter in other countries (that'S why the idiotic American way of campaigning more and more is copied in style in Eurpean campaigns as well, Germany no exception). It is, imo, one of the major arguments AGAINST democracy.

I think that Bush probably is one of the most incompetent and ridiculous figures who ever made it into that office, a living proof that you can make it to president even without brains - if you have enough dollars and your dynasty has enough relations to compensate for that physical handicap.

[JSLTIGER]

Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?

Naw what about Warren G. Harding? Calvin Coolidge? Herbert Hoover? Richard Nixon?

My vote goes to Woodrow Wilson. In fact, I think Wilson is the worst president EVER.

Consider:

*Wilson muzzled the press, made it illegal for the media to criticize the government during WWI. Violators were imprisioned.

*He lied to the voters, running for re-election in 1916 on the slogan "He kept us out of the war", and yet he did precisly the opposite a year later, and 320,000 Americans died for nothing in a war America had no stake in and where neither side had the moral high ground. What's worse is that wilso had already made a secret agreement before his re-election with Britain and France to enter the war on the side of the Allies. The outcome of the war caused by America's intervention set the stage for the rise of Nazism and Communism.
Some of Wilson's other foreign adventrues incluse sending American troops to fight against the Communists in the Russian Revolution.

*He was a racist scum, who re-segregate the government and civil service, and set back civil rights and race relations in the United States by 30 years. He also denied the Japanese request for a clause of racial equality in the League of Nations charter (Wilson hated Orientals too).

There's more where this came from: Read Wilson's War by Jim Powell.

You also forget that he stalled action on the 19th Amendment granting Women's Suffrage for as long as possible.

[Bort]

Bush is, almost certainly, the worst president of the last 100 years. Many other losers that have been mentioned, like Harding, Coolidge or Hoover as well as Nixon, did not lure the nation into an unnecessary war that has killed thousands and further endangered our national security. I'm able to laugh at the other's ineffectiveness at their jobs, but I can't laugh about Bush anymore. When I think of Bush all my emotions are rooted in anger, despair and sadness. Perhaps that's why he's at the top of my list. :(

[Slick]

I can’t see how you can say Bush is the worst given the state the country was left in when Jimmy Carter left office. Carter has my vote!

Inflation and the prime interest rates were in double digits, the Soviets were advancing in Angola and Afghanistan because they knew he was a pacifist, the military was in shambles and disrepair, energy was in crisis, and he allowed the over throw of the Shah of Iran which still haunts us to this day. What a legacy to leave behind. And, his status as a elder statesman has him rubbing elbows with Hamas and the socialist thug Chavez in Venezuela. If Clinton can take credit for the economic boom of the late 1990’s then Carter should take the fall for the disaster of the late 1970’s.

Bush’s biggest problem is that he is one of the worst communicators I’ve ever seen in a world leader. He’s completely inept at being able to get his message out to the American people in the way that Reagan and Clinton did.

Oh, and for anyone here who thinks Bush’s national security policies are horrible should seriously study what policies Lincoln ordered during the civil war! Bush can’t hold a candle to Lincoln, but Lincoln is revered as a martyr so its been swept under history’s carpet and forgotten about.

I just hope that when he does leave office in 2009 that the country can begin to heal this political rip that started to tear with the Clinton impeachment. The best line that I’ve heard was “it takes a left wing and a right wing to make the eagle fly.”

[micky1up]

short answer no not by a long chalk

[CCIP]

I can’t see how you can say Bush is the worst given the state the country was left in when Jimmy Carter left office. Carter has my vote!

Inflation and the prime interest rates were in double digits, the Soviets were advancing in Angola and Afghanistan because they knew he was a pacifist, the military was in shambles and disrepair, energy was in crisis, and he allowed the over throw of the Shah of Iran which still haunts us to this day. What a legacy to leave behind. And, his status as a elder statesman has him rubbing elbows with Hamas and the socialist thug Chavez in Venezuela. If Clinton can take credit for the economic boom of the late 1990’s then Carter should take the fall for the disaster of the late 1970’s.

Bush’s biggest problem is that he is one of the worst communicators I’ve ever seen in a world leader. He’s completely inept at being able to get his message out to the American people in the way that Reagan and Clinton did.

Oh, and for anyone here who thinks Bush’s national security policies are horrible should seriously study what policies Lincoln ordered during the civil war! Bush can’t hold a candle to Lincoln, but Lincoln is revered as a martyr so its been swept under history’s carpet and forgotten about.

I just hope that when he does leave office in 2009 that the country can begin to heal this political rip that started to tear with the Clinton impeachment. The best line that I’ve heard was “it takes a left wing and a right wing to make the eagle fly.”

Agreed, I think that more or less sums up my view as well. As much as people like to pick on Bush, I honestly think that in the hindsight of history - it'll be seen a somewhat messy presidency, sure, but not a disaster. Many of the problems faced by the Bush administration are not inherently its products, and many of these are not quite ripe yet anyway - it'll be up to the next presidents to make a good or bad show out of them.

Unless something catastrophically bad really comes down in the next couple of years (e.g., massive economic collapse), I think Bush will go down in history as a so-so hawk presidency. Somewhere in the lower half for the 100 years, but nothing more than that. The aforementioned candidates, and Carter would be my own 1st choice, are far more deserving of those titles :hmm:

(and yes, for the record, I REALLY don't like Bush, but you gotta look at it in a sober and unbiased way)

[Torpedo Fodder]

* Bort]Bush is, almost certainly, the worst president of the last 100 years. Many other losers that have been mentioned, like Harding, Coolidge or Hoover as well as Nixon, did not lure the nation into an unnecessary war that has killed thousands and further endangered our national security. I'm able to laugh at the other's ineffectiveness at their jobs, but I can't laugh about Bush anymore. When I think of Bush all my emotions are rooted in anger, despair and sadness. Perhaps that's why he's at the top of my list. :(

I still stand by my choice of Wilson as the worst president of all time. He also dragged the United States into a completely unnesecary war, which killed over 100 times as many Americans as Georgie's adventures in Iraq did, and had much more drastic and far-reaching consequences than Iraq is remotely likely to. Bush can't touch Wilson's atrocious record on civil liberties. No president in recent memory, not Carter, Nixon, Johnson, or even Bush can hold a candle to the damage that Wilson inflicted. Add to that, Wilson was elected with even less of a mandate than Bush: he got only 42% of the popular vote 1912, and only won because Teddy Roosevelt split the Republican vote by forming his own party. He won with just under 50% in 1916, because he ran on the platform that he had kept America out of the Great War and would continue to do so, a promise which he had no intention of keeping.

[scandium]

I can’t see how you can say Bush is the worst given the state the country was left in when Jimmy Carter left office.

Actually, I didn't. I merely posted the article's headline and first paragraphs. I did read the article in its entirety, however, and this is what the author bases the title upon:

"In the final analysis, presidents are judged on a relatively narrow set of criteria -- fiscal management, economic stewardship, handling change or crisis at home, and the promotion of America's interests abroad. It all boils down to two questions: how did he deal with the challenges of his day? And were the American people better off at the end of his tenure than they were at the start? No president can claim an unambiguously positive record, but few have come up so short, on so many counts, as Bush has..."

[August]

I can’t see how you can say Bush is the worst given the state the country was left in when Jimmy Carter left office.

Actually, I didn't. I merely posted the article's headline and first paragraphs.

Actually i think he was replying to *[FOX]* Bort.

[bradclark1]

I'll say Bush is the most arrogant leader this country has ever had and because of it made America probably the most disliked nation in the world today. Because of that no matter what we do we are wrong anyway.

[Bort]

Jimmy Carter was by no means one of the best Presidents but I strongly disagree with the assertion that he was worse than Bush. The fact is, Carter never had a chance. His presidency was doomed from the start, with the nation in a total rut following the Nixon and Ford years. Many of the things that Carter is blamed for were events beyond his control, like the oil embargo, the Iranian revolution and subsequent hostage crisis, Three Mile Island, I could go on and on. However, in each of the many nightmares he was confronted with, Carter worked his butt off trying to fix the problem. Perhaps the hostages are the most telling example of this as he was in negotiations from day one and was still on the phone trying to get the hostages free on the morning of Reagan's inauguration. Alot of anything is luck, and Carter had none. Reagan, however, could fall into a pile of dung and come out smelling like roses. Carter however, stank all the way out of the White House, and unfortunately is still demonized for his misfortune. Bottom line, he was a good man, he tried his very best, and he failed. That is very different from Bush's presidency.

[Slick]

* Bort]Bottom line, he was a good man, he tried his very best, and he failed.

I agree with that statement 100%! I won't question the fact that Carter was a very moral president. He held up to his personal ethics under a very difficult term. That’s one of the reasons I think his presidency failed. Like the saying goes, “Nice guys finish dead last.” I can’t be more opposed to him in his political beliefs, but I do admire the man’s personal ethics.

Quite frankly, I think in the last few years the man has gone insane with some of his criticisms of Bush. I was really hoping he would be the voice of the middle-ground Democrats to help bring the party away from the lunatic fringe left. Instead, I think he’s helping to push the party further off the deep end.

[Ducimus]

Im going to withhold my personal opinion and state that regardless of what any of us think of the man, his presidency, unfortunatly is an important one. Because during this presidency, we've gone through a new threshold due to various unforseen events. How bush handles those events will set the stage for the future.

The next president and how he handles the... legacy of bush's decisions will also be crucial.

[bradclark1]

The legacy of Bush's decisions will be hell on the next president whomever he or she is and I only wish him/her, Republican or Democrat the best in dealing with it.

[Kapitan]

The iraq fiasco simple yes.

[Takeda Shingen]

The iraq fiasco simple yes.

The 'Iraq fiasco' is but a drop in the bucket compared to Vietnam. You are not looking at this in an objective fashion. Your hatred for Bush burns through in a transparently.

Ducimus, every presidency is an important one. Every leader has had to make tough decisions, whether domistic or foreign.

Is Bush the worst in the past 100 years? That is impossible to discern. Is Bush one of the best presidents ever? No.

[TLAM Strike]

...every presidency is an important one. Every leader has had to make tough decisions, whether domistic or foreign.What about William Henry Harrison? The only decision he needed to make was whether or not to wear a coat at his inauguration. To quote The Last Crusade "He chose poorly…"
:-j

[Sea Demon]

Jimmy Carter is the absolute worst domestic President in U.S. history. Boy I sure miss that high unemployment and high inflation. Misery index anyone??? Sarcasm aside, can anybody explain to me what the U.S. got by giving away the Panama Canal? How did that benefit us? Carter-Torrijos doesn't make that clear. :roll:

Bill Clinton was a good President......for Red China. :down: The commerce department changes made during the Clinton administration directly jeapardized National Security. Do you realize how much space related "dual-use" technologies were transferreed to Red China during the 90's? How about opening up access to American labs such as Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore to China and India. Clinton is a National embarrassment.

Bush may not be perfect, but he's a God-send compared to these two insects.

[Ducimus]

Ducimus, every presidency is an important one. Every leader has had to make tough decisions, whether domistic or foreign.


I disagree. Theres always problems and they're all important, , but theres problems and then theres BIG problems. The BIG problems are what they are remembered for.

I say this presidency is important (regardless who's in office) because of what has/is/ and will transpire in the world during this presidency. The most obvious and overused example is sept 11th. Then theres an occupation of a foreign country. Then theres a brewing nuke standoff with Iran, (id toss in korea but they've been playing brinksmanship for years). Al Queda (sp), homegrown islamic extremists, etc etc etc.

The sum of the whole, i beleive is that we've crossed into a new threshhold, the begining of a new phase in our relationship/standings/dealings with world that i can't quite put my finger on to put into words. Things are not the same anymore, and they are continuing to change, all during THIS presidency. Its marks a turning point for us in history, and that, is what makes it important. Unfortunatly this presidency happend to have Bush in the drivers seat. (I dont think he is quite what we needed during this time) If it wasnt for the world events that have transpired on his watch, his name wouldnt be uttered or spoken around the world nowhere near as much as it has been.

[kholemann]

Torpedo Fodder has many good points. In my book, the worst presidents are a toss up between Johnson and Kennedy. Talk about dragging people into a useless war in Vietnam! That had to be two of the worst! President Nixon was a great President and got us out of that fiasco. President Bush is doing a great job and went into Iraq not on falsehoods but based upon the truth that was known at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 and to say he made a bad decision is only based upon that, illuminates the intellectual dishonesty of those that are on the wrong side of history.

[Iceman]

Probably best to wait till the conclusion of his eight years in office before passing judgement and even then you might want to wait ten to twenty years more before trying to determine what his legacy and impact was on the USA and the world.

Wise Konovalov...

my opinion probably Clinton for bringing the most vile shame upon the position...getting a "BJ" in the white house....what an oscar myer winnie...what a shame to have to live with and his poor wife....I understand her fevor and the need to keep busy and stay away from him.

A BJ...man I still can't believe that stuff.

[SUBMAN1]

Jimmy Carter is the absolute worst domestic President in U.S. history. Boy I sure miss that high unemployment and high inflation. Misery index anyone??? Sarcasm aside, can anybody explain to me what the U.S. got by giving away the Panama Canal? How did that benefit us? Carter-Torrijos doesn't make that clear. :roll:

Bill Clinton was a good President......for Red China. :down: The commerce department changes made during the Clinton administration directly jeapardized National Security. Do you realize how much space related "dual-use" technologies were transferreed to Red China during the 90's? How about opening up access to American labs such as Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore to China and India. Clinton is a National embarrassment.

Bush may not be perfect, but he's a God-send compared to these two insects.

Best thing I have seen in a while.

Bush does things right most of the time, but the one thing I question is his recent ideas about the immigration problem. That one is messed up. He is not thinking clearly on that idea.

-S

[Takeda Shingen]

The sum of the whole, i beleive is that we've crossed into a new threshhold, the begining of a new phase in our relationship/standings/dealings with world that i can't quite put my finger on to put into words. Things are not the same anymore, and they are continuing to change, all during THIS presidency. Its marks a turning point for us in history, and that, is what makes it important. Unfortunatly this presidency happend to have Bush in the drivers seat. (I dont think he is quite what we needed during this time) If it wasnt for the world events that have transpired on his watch, his name wouldnt be uttered or spoken around the world nowhere near as much as it has been.

This line was not crossed in September of 2001. It was not crossed in January of 1998. Rather, this was the culmination of events over the past fifteen years. Had any of the numerous opportunities been taken to stem the tide, we would likely not have had a terrorist attack in New York or Washington.

Every presidency holds these opportunites. They are not as always to see as the ones we have in Iraq, but there are there. It is the great leaders that take action. In seeing that every act is a consequence of a prior action, this makes every decision, and every presidency, critical to the success of a nation.

[Sharkstooth]

Clinton got away with murder. I dun care if he has sex (or oral) with whoever he wants, but don't do it in the White House, and don't lie under oath about it.

Lyndon Johnson wasn't a gem either.

I agree is best to wait and see how history views Bush tho. It won't be the worse president in 100 years.

[August]

Clinton got away with murder. I dun care if he has sex (or oral) with whoever he wants, but don't do it in the White House, and don't lie under oath about it.

It's the perjury that tee'd me off. That and him wagging his finger at me (over the TV) with a straight face while lying through his teeth. Unacceptable.

[August]

USA today/Gallup poll of Presidential end of term approval ratings (If ya put any stock in polls):

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_historical_approval.htm

Forget the stuff about the GW Bush since its an old article. i only put it here for reference.

[Bort]

Sharkstooth wrote:
Clinton got away with murder. I dun care if he has sex (or oral) with whoever he wants, but don't do it in the White House, and don't lie under oath about it.


It's the perjury that tee'd me off. That and him wagging his finger at me (over the TV) with a straight face while lying through his teeth. Unacceptable.
I find it interesting-no, sad, that you think that Clinton lying to answer a question that never should have been asked, is more abhorrent than lying to draw the nation into a wholly unneccesarry war that has killed thousands of our fellow citizens, not to mention innocent Iraqis. Somebody must have put a huge magnet next to your moral compass.

[August]

* Bort]is more abhorrent than lying to draw the nation into a wholly unneccesarry war that has killed thousands of our fellow citizens, not to mention innocent Iraqis.

Except no lie has been proven, now has it. There's been lots of blatant exaggerations, complete fabrications, selective memories and general hostile acrimony from the political opposition, heck ever since he first ran for office, but certainly nothing proven or he'd have been impeached already and you know it.

I firmly believe that this is why the Democrats continue to loose elections. You can make mountains out of mole hills only so often before people stop believing you all together.

[Sea Demon]

* Bort]is more abhorrent than lying to draw the nation into a wholly unneccesarry war that has killed thousands of our fellow citizens, not to mention innocent Iraqis.

Except no lie has been proven, now has it. There's been lots of blatant exaggerations, complete fabrications, selective memories and general hostile acrimony from the political opposition, heck ever since he first ran for office, but certainly nothing proven or he'd have been impeached already and you know it.

I firmly believe that this is why the Democrats continue to loose elections. You can make mountains out of mole hills only so often before people stop believing you all together.

August, you are on fire, bud. I couldn't of said it better myself. It's amazing that some people are still pushing this fantasy that "Bush lied/people died" nonsense. It's been proven that the intel may have been faulty, but intellectually honest people couldn't reasonably believe Bush forced all these domestic and international agencies to lie for him. And isn't it amazing how John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc. are all on record supporting Iraq's invasion?

The facts are, the Democrats have been pushing the same bullcrap for so long, only the true believers will buy it. And you're right. That's why they probably won't see electoral victory anytime soon.

[Sea Demon]

Here's the Democrats in their own words regarding Iraq:


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

:up:

[Sharkstooth]

* Bort]Sharkstooth wrote:
Clinton got away with murder. I dun care if he has sex (or oral) with whoever he wants, but don't do it in the White House, and don't lie under oath about it.


It's the perjury that tee'd me off. That and him wagging his finger at me (over the TV) with a straight face while lying through his teeth. Unacceptable.
I find it interesting-no, sad, that you think that Clinton lying to answer a question that never should have been asked, is more abhorrent than lying to draw the nation into a wholly unneccesarry war that has killed thousands of our fellow citizens, not to mention innocent Iraqis. Somebody must have put a huge magnet next to your moral compass.

Well, you can think its as sad as you want, but when we have a President in office that thinks is ok to defile the peoples house, and then lie under oath -- to any question, its reprehensible.
A fine example that sets.

------and then you moan about the wrong question being asked? Just what does that say about YOUR moral compass?

[Bort]

*[FOX]* Bort wrote:
Quote:
Sharkstooth wrote:
Clinton got away with murder. I dun care if he has sex (or oral) with whoever he wants, but don't do it in the White House, and don't lie under oath about it.


It's the perjury that tee'd me off. That and him wagging his finger at me (over the TV) with a straight face while lying through his teeth. Unacceptable.

I find it interesting-no, sad, that you think that Clinton lying to answer a question that never should have been asked, is more abhorrent than lying to draw the nation into a wholly unneccesarry war that has killed thousands of our fellow citizens, not to mention innocent Iraqis. Somebody must have put a huge magnet next to your moral compass.


Well, you can think its as sad as you want, but when we have a President in office that thinks is ok to defile the peoples house, and then lie under oath -- to any question, its reprehensible.
A fine example that sets.

------and then you moan about the wrong question being asked? Just what does that say about YOUR moral compass?
_________________
I guess it says I care about my friend, who at present is on his way to a third tour in Iraq with the Marines, and has likely suffered irreversable emotional harm, more than the President's pants.

[Sea Demon]

* Bort]
I guess it says I care about my friend, who at present is on his way to a third tour in Iraq with the Marines, and has likely suffered irreversable emotional harm, more than the President's pants.

Well, as I outline above, it looks like your Democrat Party agreed with the invasion. What do you think? John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, Bob Graham, etc. Liars?? Crooks?

[Bort]

*[FOX]* Bort wrote:

I guess it says I care about my friend, who at present is on his way to a third tour in Iraq with the Marines, and has likely suffered irreversable emotional harm, more than the President's pants.


Well, as I outline above, it looks like your Democrat Party agreed with the invasion. What do you think? John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, Bob Graham, etc. Liars?? Crooks?
Cowed by the power of a near dictatorial president following 9/11. And the pre 9/11 stuff, thats just words with no intent to invade. Bush could have rallied congress to invade China and would have gotten approval during 2002.

[Sea Demon]

* Bort]
Cowed by the power of a near dictatorial president following 9/11. And the pre 9/11 stuff, thats just words with no intent to invade. Bush could have rallied congress to invade China and would have gotten approval during 2002.

I rest my case. Statements like the one above show why the Democrats are toast. That's all they got left.

[The Avon Lady]

* Bort]*[FOX]* Bort wrote:

I guess it says I care about my friend, who at present is on his way to a third tour in Iraq with the Marines, and has likely suffered irreversable emotional harm, more than the President's pants.


Well, as I outline above, it looks like your Democrat Party agreed with the invasion. What do you think? John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, Bob Graham, etc. Liars?? Crooks?
Cowed by the power of a near dictatorial president following 9/11.
This itself is simply a lie because if you'll dig up many of those quotes by the biggest-wiggest Dems, they go back to dates before 9/11 and before Bush was in office.

What's implied by coming up with such pathetic, desparate excuses? A little bit of intellectual honesty would be in order here.

To repeat where I'm coming from, I am not a big fan of Bush. Everyone in my family voted for him with the concept that he is simply the lesser of 2 evils.

BTW, I vote for Jimmah Cahtah as the worst president that I can recall from the last century. :down:

[Sharkstooth]

* Bort]*[FOX]* Bort wrote:
Quote:
Sharkstooth wrote:
Clinton got away with murder. I dun care if he has sex (or oral) with whoever he wants, but don't do it in the White House, and don't lie under oath about it.


It's the perjury that tee'd me off. That and him wagging his finger at me (over the TV) with a straight face while lying through his teeth. Unacceptable.

I find it interesting-no, sad, that you think that Clinton lying to answer a question that never should have been asked, is more abhorrent than lying to draw the nation into a wholly unneccesarry war that has killed thousands of our fellow citizens, not to mention innocent Iraqis. Somebody must have put a huge magnet next to your moral compass.


Well, you can think its as sad as you want, but when we have a President in office that thinks is ok to defile the peoples house, and then lie under oath -- to any question, its reprehensible.
A fine example that sets.

------and then you moan about the wrong question being asked? Just what does that say about YOUR moral compass?
_________________
I guess it says I care about my friend, who at present is on his way to a third tour in Iraq with the Marines, and has likely suffered irreversable emotional harm, more than the President's pants.

I guess that is the chance every person takes when joining the armed services. Sometimes you get out with a college education and wonderful job training. Other times you are needed to fight in a war and possibly pay the ultimate price. I don't believe that is hidden from you when you sign up.

[kholemann]

* Bort]is more abhorrent than lying to draw the nation into a wholly unneccesarry war that has killed thousands of our fellow citizens, not to mention innocent Iraqis.

Except no lie has been proven, now has it. There's been lots of blatant exaggerations, complete fabrications, selective memories and general hostile acrimony from the political opposition, heck ever since he first ran for office, but certainly nothing proven or he'd have been impeached already and you know it.

I firmly believe that this is why the Democrats continue to loose elections. You can make mountains out of mole hills only so often before people stop believing you all together.

Quite true!

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

"Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying

Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address."

[Beery]

Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?

Surely it's longer than that. I'd say he's got to be the prime candidate for the title of 'Worst President Ever'. I mean this administration would be the embodiment of the term 'comedy of errors' if the mistakes it was making weren't so tragic.

By the way, I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat - never voted for any of those wankers, and proud of it.

[Beery]

...every presidency is an important one. Every leader has had to make tough decisions, whether domistic or foreign.What about William Henry Harrison? The only decision he needed to make was whether or not to wear a coat at his inauguration. To quote The Last Crusade "He chose poorly…"
:-j

Yeah, but at least his poor decision only cost the nation one life. In my book that places him somewhere close to the top in terms of presidents who have done the least harm.

[Beery]

my opinion probably Clinton for bringing the most vile shame upon the position...getting a "BJ" in the white house.....

Oh yeah, right. That's WAAAY worse than getting hundreds (or thousands) of soldiers killed in a needless war as G.W. Bush (and LBJ) did.

Some people have some seriously wacked priorities. Heck, I'm willing to bet most presidents have received blow jobs in the White House. It's not like it's a crime. The difference is that Clinton did it with an intern, whereas most of the others (though probably not all) did it with their wives.

Let's get some perspective, folks.

By the way, the difference between Vietnam and Gulf War II is that a reasonable man could have been persuaded that the Communists posed a significant threat to the US in the 1960s. I don't think that's the case with Saddam Hussein in the lead up to the last Gulf War, even if he HAD had nuclear weapons.

[The Avon Lady]

Let's get some perspective, folks.

By the way, the difference between Vietnam and Gulf War II is that a reasonable man could have been persuaded that the Communists posed a significant threat to the US in the 1960s. I don't think that's the case with Saddam Hussein in the lead up to the last Gulf War, even if he HAD had nuclear weapons.
Yes, perspective:

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent — and I emphasize "imminent" — threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.
- Senator John Kerry, October 2002, U.S. Senate debat on Joint Resolution 46, authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq

[Sharkstooth]

First time I heard Kerry say anything I've agreed with. Ty for that AvonLady.

Some people have some seriously wacked priorities. Heck, I'm willing to bet most presidents have received blow jobs in the White House. It's not like it's a crime. The difference is that Clinton did it with an intern, whereas most of the others (though probably not all) did it with their wives.

As I said, I really don't care bout the sexual aspect of it. FACT is he perjured himself, and if we cannot trust a president not to lie under oath, then when can we trust him?

Yes, I agree.... perspective.

[The Avon Lady]

First time I heard Kerry say anything I've agreed with. Ty for that AvonLady.
One of the medias and the Dem's best kept secrets. Source: Snopes - Words of Mass Destruction (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp).

[The Avon Lady]

FACT is he perjured himself, and if we cannot trust a president not to lie under oath, then when can we trust him?
In the words of Ann Coulter, whom I'm NOT fond of quoting:

"....every Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton feels the need to defend duplicity, adultery, lying about adultery, sexual harassment, rape, perjury, obstruction of justice, kicking the can of global Islamo-fascism down the road for eight years, and so on."

[mapuc]

My favorite is Ronald Reagan

I have been thinking what he would have done, if he wa sitting in the whitehouse. From 2000 until now

Markus

[Beery]

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region.

If he had had weapons of mass destruction John Kerry's argument to support the president would be persuasive, but he didn't, and those of us who didn't have the fear of God placed in us by the Bush administration knew that full well, even before Bush & Co. decided on their Iraqi adventure. Everyone in the know was telling the administration that Iraq had no significant stocks of weapons, but Bush & Co. had their agenda, and mere facts could not be allowed to get in the way of their doctrine. John Kerry should have seen through this attempt to gain support, but he was caught up in the hysteria that was being drummed up by the Bush administration and its supporters. The political right are absolutely correct in saying that Kerry supported the war, because in effect that's exactly what he did. To claim that he didn't know that his support was going to be used as an excuse to invade Iraq is disingenuous. Deep down he knew, but he took the coward's way out because he saw that as the only way to run for the White House without being labelled a loony leftie. Ironically, his support for the president alienated his base and still didn't prevent him from being labelled a loony leftie and even a coward by the 'Swift Boat Veterans'. A true leader would have taken a stand based on his conscience, and if someone as high-profile as Kerry had balked at supporting Bush's unfortunate little war, the Democratic party might today be regarded as having some backbone, instead of being seen as a laughing-stock and about as contemptible as is the 'Keystone Kops' Bush administration.

[bradclark1]

As I said, I really don't care bout the sexual aspect of it. FACT is he perjured himself, and if we cannot trust a president not to lie under oath, then when can we trust him?

Look at the question. I consider myself to be an honest kind of fellow but I will be damned if I'm going to stand up in front of this nation and say "Yes she gave me a blow job". It was nobodies business but the Clintons and Monica's.
And you can't tell me that all politicians don't tell lies. Not being under oath is not an excuse to lie. Put into perspective about what the lie is about.

[The Avon Lady]

My favorite is Ronald Reagan

I have been thinking what he would have done, if he wa sitting in the whitehouse. From 2000 until now
Decaying. :oops:

[The Avon Lady]

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region.
If he had had weapons of mass destruction John Kerry's argument to support the president would be persuasive, but he didn't, and those of us who didn't have the fear of God placed in us by the Bush administration knew that full well, even before Bush & Co. decided on their Iraqi adventure.
Who are these mystical people "in-the-know" that you talk about?
Everyone in the know
There they are again! The people "in-the-know"!
was telling the administration that Iraq had no significant stocks of weapons, but Bush & Co. had their agenda, and mere facts could not be allowed to get in the way of their doctrine.
I'm sure you can document these facts.
John Kerry should have seen through this attempt to gain support, but he was caught up in the hysteria that was being drummed up by the Bush administration and its supporters.
Enough revisionism! Read and digest (http://www.gulfinvestigations.net/document499.html).
The political right are absolutely correct in saying that Kerry supported the war, because in effect that's exactly what he did. To claim that he didn't know that his support was going to be used as an excuse to invade Iraq is disingenuous.
Can someone else explain the doubletalk to me?
Deep down he knew, but he took the coward's way out
Thank you.

62 million insane Americans did not vote for this coward.

Mind you, I never would have accused Kerry here of cowardice but I appreciate your candidness in denigrating him.
because he saw that as the only way to run for the White House without being labelled a loony leftie.
Tripping hand over foot.
Ironically, his support for the president alienated his base and still didn't prevent him from being labelled a loony leftie and even a coward by the 'Swift Boat Veterans'.
Calling a spade a spade.

[August]

Look at the question. I consider myself to be an honest kind of fellow but I will be damned if I'm going to stand up in front of this nation and say "Yes she gave me a blow job". It was nobodies business but the Clintons and Monica's.
And you can't tell me that all politicians don't tell lies. Not being under oath is not an excuse to lie. Put into perspective about what the lie is about.

That's not what he did. He went on TV wagging his finger in the entire nations face like a disappointed school headmaster righteously lecturing a recalcitrant student and lied through his teeth.

If he had come clean and said "Yes she gave me a blow job, what are you going to do about it". People like myself would have respected him for his honesty, but that's not what he did.

It smacks of Nixons "I am not a crook" speech.

But even that might have been forgiven had he not continued to perpetuate the lie under oath in a court of law.

He could have just remained silent and let the controversy run its course but no, he put himself before the job and for me, that's completely unacceptable. Even Nixon had the moral fiber to resign to save the country from messy impeachment hearings...

[Iceman]

What a topic...the bottom line is when you elect a president,congressmen,senators, or hire policemen,cia peeps,firemen even...you put a certain amount of trust into these people....sometimes they get it right...sometimes not..but you have to look at the whole...Clinton,Bush, Abe Lincoln were all men...just men.If you are dissapointed with they way something was handled..change it.But don't be surprised when a man faulters...that is the one thing you can count on.I am glad at least Americas power base is split the way it is in that no "one" man is totally responsible for everything.It is a democracy.I thank God every day for being born right where I am.I hold no ill twords a man elected by the people who was and is faced with very difficult choices.I watch the news every day and see the body count from actions in Iraq and Afgan...It makes me wonder how many people in Arizona,California, and Nevada died that day from murder and evil deeds.Probably similar....death is death is it not? To have toppled 2 regimes like the Taliban and Saddam in so short a time with really so few killed...I think is really pretty damn good.Anything worth a crap you have to fight for or it's probably not worth anything anyways.

Law was made to show sin in it's true light.But men love darkness rather than light.Man killed the light that came into the world once, why so surprised now at the way things are?We sowed it, now we reap it.

[August]

What a topic...the bottom line is when you elect a president,congressmen,senators, or hire policemen,cia peeps,firemen even...you put a certain amount of trust into these people....sometimes they get it right...sometimes not..but you have to look at the whole...Clinton,Bush, Abe Lincoln were all men...just men.If you are dissapointed with they way something was handled..change it.But don't be surprised when a man faulters...that is the one thing you can count on.I am glad at least Americas power base is split the way it is in that no "one" man is totally responsible for everything.It is a democracy.I thank God every day for being born right where I am.I hold no ill twords a man elected by the people who was and is faced with very difficult choices.I watch the news every day and see the body count from actions in Iraq and Afgan...It makes me wonder how many people in Arizona,California, and Nevada died that day from murder and evil deeds.Probably similar....death is death is it not? To have toppled 2 regimes like the Taliban and Saddam in so short a time with really so few killed...I think is really pretty damn good.Anything worth a crap you have to fight for or it's probably not worth anything anyways.

Law was made to show sin in it's true light.But men love darkness rather than light.Man killed the light that came into the world once, why so surprised now at the way things are?We sowed it, now we reap it.

That's deep Iceman...

[Beery]

Who are these mystical people "in-the-know" that you talk about?...

The CIA. You know - those folks who advise presidents and congress about foreign affairs.

[Beery]

62 million insane Americans did not vote for this coward....

No, they voted for the moron over the coward, which is forgivable, BUT they also voted for the moron over ALL THE REST OF THE PEOPLE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, including write-ins. Meaning that they voted for a moron backed by a bunch of wacko right wing nutcases rather than ANYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY. That is the insanity, and the unforgivable bit. People in this country are fooled every four years into placing a vote for a Democrat or a Republican, as if those were the only choices, but this is a democracy, not a two-party state, and given the choice between a moron and a coward, the smart choice is ANYONE ELSE.

[Ducimus]

You may have noticed that there's one thing I don't complain about: Politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says, "They suck". But where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. No, they come from, American Parent's, American homes, American families, American schools, American churches, American businesses, American Universities, and they're elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do, folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out.

If you have selfish igorant citizens, your going to get selfish ignorant leaders; and Term limits aren't going to do you any good, cause you'll just get a new bunch of selfish ignorant americans. So maybe, maybe, something else around here sucks.

Like, the public. Yeah, the public, sucks, **** hope! Because If everything is really the fault of these politicians, where are the bright people of concience? Where are all the bright, honest, intelligent Americans who are ready to step in, save the nation, and lead the way? We don't have people like that in this country. Everyone's at the mall, scratching his ass, picking his nose, taking his credit card out of his fanny pack and buying a pair of sneakers with lights in them.

-- George Carlin

[Ducimus]

People in this country are fooled every four years into placing a vote for a Democrat or a Republican, as if those were the only choices, but this is a democracy, not a two-party state, and given the choice between a moron and a coward, the smart choice is ANYONE ELSE.

I have always thought that the Donkey needs to go back the the farm, and Dumbo needs to go back to the circus. I am throughly disgusted with both parties, which is why i simply no longer have faith in either one, nor in anyone who gets elected to the presidency.

[bradclark1]

I have always thought that the Donkey needs to go back the the farm, and Dumbo needs to go back to the circus. I am throughly disgusted with both parties, which is why i simply no longer have faith in either one, nor in anyone who gets elected to the presidency.

Amen to that.

[August]

I belong to the Cool Moose party of Rhode Island. Our last candidate for Lt. Governor ran on the platform that, if elected, his first act would be to abolish the position of Lt Governor. A power apparently legal under RI state law.

[Onkel Neal]

You may have noticed that there's one thing I don't complain about: Politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says, "They suck". But where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. No, they come from, American Parent's, American homes, American families, American schools, American churches, American businesses, American Universities, and they're elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do, folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out.

If you have selfish igorant citizens, your going to get selfish ignorant leaders; and Term limits aren't going to do you any good, cause you'll just get a new bunch of selfish ignorant americans. So maybe, maybe, something else around here sucks.

Like, the public. Yeah, the public, sucks, frick hope! Because If everything is really the fault of these politicians, where are the bright people of concience? Where are all the bright, honest, intelligent Americans who are ready to step in, save the nation, and lead the way? We don't have people like that in this country. Everyone's at the mall, scratching his ass, picking his nose, taking his credit card out of his fanny pack and buying a pair of sneakers with lights in them.

-- George Carlin


Lol, or gettin stoned and making a living telling dirty jokes. George Carlin: funny guy, yes. Moral conscience, hardly :)

[Beery]

George Carlin: funny guy, yes. Moral conscience, hardly :)

Hehe, I'd much rather have him as the nation's moral conscience than Pat Robertson and Gerry Falwell.

[The Avon Lady]

Who are these mystical people "in-the-know" that you talk about?...
The CIA. You know - those folks who advise presidents and congress about foreign affairs.
Ah, yes, the CIA. Headed at the time by George Tennet, a Clinton era appointee. Must've been a Republican plant all those years before when the CIA was raising alarms about Saddam. Again, search for the Clinton administration quotes.

But we do partially agree. The CIA was a big part of the problem. You imagine that Bush made them problematic. I think that they were problematic way before Bush was in the White House.

That's not to blame Clinton or any other president. The CIA was terrible at what they were supposed to do.

I won't even go into the theory that anti-Bush higher ups in the CIA intentionally misled the Bush Administration, as it's no more a theory than your mystical people-in-the-know claim.

Bottom line: US intel stinks. Still does, BTW.

[Iceman]

You may have noticed that there's one thing I don't complain about: Politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says, "They suck". But where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. No, they come from, American Parent's, American homes, American families, American schools, American churches, American businesses, American Universities, and they're elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do, folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out.

If you have selfish igorant citizens, your going to get selfish ignorant leaders; and Term limits aren't going to do you any good, cause you'll just get a new bunch of selfish ignorant americans. So maybe, maybe, something else around here sucks.

Like, the public. Yeah, the public, sucks, frick hope! Because If everything is really the fault of these politicians, where are the bright people of concience? Where are all the bright, honest, intelligent Americans who are ready to step in, save the nation, and lead the way? We don't have people like that in this country. Everyone's at the mall, scratching his ass, picking his nose, taking his credit card out of his fanny pack and buying a pair of sneakers with lights in them.

-- George Carlin


LMAO.. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: I love George....tells it like it is..thank you for this quote.Made my day. :)

[August]

Just for the record i do not own a fanny pack nor have i ever owned a fanny pack (or lighted sneakers either).

[The Avon Lady]

Bottom line: US intel stinks. Still does, BTW.
Is it safe (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060423-104145-6304r.htm)?

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/366/dentist6ag.jpg

[Ducimus]

Love him or hate him, this is funny.

http://www.jibjab.com/JokeBox/JokeBox_JJOrig.aspx?movieid=123

[Wildcat]

I have to say that while I supported Bush in both elections, and I still support him, I feel he's doing a poor job. However I do think he's doing a better job than any of the alternatives would have done, especially given the very real threats out there (Al Qaeda, extremist muslims en masse, etc etc). Action was needed. Action was taken. I cannot expect that Al Gore or John Kerry would have done a good job in this time and situation.

The war in Iraq has been handled absolutely terribly since 2004.

I don't have a clue how the country will do after Bush is gone. I think Bush was thrust into a very strange scenario and the world will of course be forever different because of the things that happened in 2001.

He's really between a rock and a hard place.

[Ducimus]

However I do think he's doing a better job than any of the alternatives would have done

I'm not a john kerry supporter, but my unbiased opinion (cause im sick of both parties), is that, we will never really know for sure if any of the alternatives would have done any worse. (or done any better, depending on your point of view. ) And yes, orginally i voted for bush in the first election. Bush Sr had my respect, Bush Jr seemed to be a no brainer. How wrong i was.

Anyway my point is, we can guess all we want, but we'll never really know for sure how any of the alternatives would have done. The bush election wasnt a an election of picking the best man for the job, but picking the one who would screw things up the least given our choices of candidates.

[JBClark]

62 million insane Americans did not vote for this coward....

No, they voted for the moron over the coward, which is forgivable, BUT they also voted for the moron over ALL THE REST OF THE PEOPLE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, including write-ins. Meaning that they voted for a moron backed by a bunch of wacko right wing nutcases rather than ANYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY. That is the insanity, and the unforgivable bit. People in this country are fooled every four years into placing a vote for a Democrat or a Republican, as if those were the only choices, but this is a democracy, not a two-party state, and given the choice between a moron and a coward, the smart choice is ANYONE ELSE.

Holy cow, what a minefield: this thread.

So far, what Beery just said is the only thing I can totally agree with (not the first part, I don't think Bush is a moron and I don't think Kerry is a coward, but everything after that.) Speaking only of presidential races now, the last time I voted for a major party candidate was '88, for GHW Bush; I was not as savvy then and his opponent was Mondale, what else was I to do?

Since then, I have come to the conclusion that the way we elect our representatives is seriously flawed. I think that the gerrymandering that has always been a scourge of our system has gotten totally out of control. To the point that in the last presidential election in 2004, I voted for my brother. He was on no ballot, I wrote him in. I realized that since I was living in NC, a state that was guaranteed to go for Bush, my vote would have no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the national election. I will admit that I hoped Bush would win, not because I liked him but more for the reason the Avon Lady spoke of: Bush appeared to me to be the lesser of two weevils, I mean evils, no I mean weasels; whatever.

Someone earlier alluded to the old saw: "The electorate gets what it deserves." I could not agree more. I place whatever blame is warranted here on people who don't pay attention. On people who don't vote. On people who vote without thinking. On people who vote for whoever their favorite TV personality tells them to vote for. On lemmings.

In '92 I voted for Perot, but believe me, if I had thought the man had a snowball's chance of winning, I would have voted for GHWB again. Perot is a flake, probably a decent fellow but too flaky to be president of the USA. I voted for him to scare the established politicos, and it worked. That was the best vote I have ever cast. Perot got 19% of the popular vote and the establishment was terrified, at least for a while. It was fun to watch him testifying before the joint House-Senate Government Reform Committee saying things like (paraphrasing): 'Senator, I don't think you are a crook, but you act like one, you sound like one, and the way you act makes most voters think you are a crook.' It was fun watching Rostenkowski squirm. [And then of course, Rostenkowski went to jail for stealing folding chairs. Ha!]

In 2000, I was living in Florida. I wanted Bush to beat Gore but a friend convinced me that no election ever came down to one vote so I went for Harry Brown. It gets better. I always vote absentee since I travel for a living and have no way of knowing where I will be on the Tuesday after the first Monday. I got to watch the overnight returns on CNN Asia from a bar in Sumatra (13 hours time difference) all day. At one point, they were calling the race for Bush by 53 votes. I was afraid I wouldn't be able to come home. My ex-pat Brit friends gave me a lot of grief that day (and if you remember, Missouri elected a dead man to the senate that day also.) I could always quiet my British friends though by asking for their latest copy of the Times of London (the most prestigeous newspaper in the world!!??) and pointing to the bottom of the page, where there was a cartoon strip describing what was to be on "Friends" this week. That always shut them up.

The rest of this thread is interesting but I think people put too much faith in the actual power of a president. While he certainly is the most powerful single person in the world, his most effective tool is rhetoric. People talk about Reagan's deficit spending but forget that the president can only propose a budget by courtesy. The House is the body empowered to write a budget, and the house was controlled by Regan's opposition in those years. I just got off the phone with my boss and best friend, my old college roomate, the communist bastard. He said that Clinton gave us a budget surplus and Bush turned it into a huge deficit. Never mind that Clinton ruled in the days of the tech boom and just before he left office, the Asian economy went into the ****ter. Neither of these gentlemen had the power to cause these events. This is not to say that I excuse the fiscal behavior of the current administration, indeed I think it almost criminal. The closest analogy I can think of is that this administration is spending money like a druken sailor, a subject I am unfortunately familiar with.

Since I hate to offer criticism without proposing a solution, here is mine:

If the objection is that the government no longer reflects the will of the people, I am inclined to agree. I think the government (particularly the Congress, but the administration too) is corrupt. I think the engine of that corruption is: first, the tax code that allows politicos to grant favors in exchange for contributions; and second, the campaign finance laws. My solution is to rewrite the tax code to be simple enough to fit on 20 or 30 pages (a flat tax with no deductions but an exemption for income up to perhaps 1.5 to 2 times the poverty line, and then a flat rate on anything over that.) Prohibit candidates from taking contributions from anyone who is not legally allowed to vote for them. No contributions from corporations or clubs or organizations, just individual voters registered in their districts. Let them accept any amount of money from legitimate voters as long as they publish their contributers names before the check clears.

To the original question, Is Bush the worst president? I don't know but I doubt it. Time will tell. I was born in Ike's administration though I only remember him by the fact that his funeral canceled Saturday morning cartoons. I remember my parents getting nervous in October '62 and then Kennedy getting shot in November '63. Nixon is the first I remember well. I think he was the best foreign policy president in my lifetime and perhaps the worst in domestic policy. I think Carter was basically a joke but he is the ex-president I would most like to go fishing with. I loved Reagan but he was not without his faults either. Clinton was the best speaker I have ever heard (and as I said earlier, a president's best tool is rhetoric) but I believe he should be spending the rest of his life in federal prison. Not for sexual misconduct but rather for the way he treated Billy Dale. Ford may have been the wisest, even while he was stumbling down the airplane steps and saying that Poland was not in the Eastern Bloc.

I think the job is too big for anyone to survive four years, much less eight, without making a lot of mistakes. In real life, I respect people who make mistakes and learn from them. I'm not sure that we allow our politicians to admit to mistakes these days. It seems that politics is more like a wolf pack than ever. As soon as the Alpha shows even a sign of weakness, his rivals are on his jugular and the rest of the pack just waits to see who will win.

I place much of the blame for the venal behavior of our representatives on our own lazy, self-centered, ignorant abrogation of our responsibilities. Read Gibbon. We are pretty close to the fall.

Cheers,

JBC