Jump to content

"Historians say Bush is a failure (98%), worst president ever (61


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
And yet the Democrat-controlled Congress has an even WORSE Approval Rating than Pres Bush Does....

The word is Democratic, and the reason for the low rating is that Congress has no ditto-head base of support. Republican ditto-heads don't like it since the Democrats took over. Democrats, who are at least more honest, don't like it because it hasn't stood up to the worst president in our history.

To understand statistics, you have to understand what you're looking at.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's different this time. Nine hundred documented lies on just one subject,

:lol:

Name one.

and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Let's see the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Pick your strongest case from the 900.

What a disastrous administration this has been. We saw the seeds get planted--it doesn't take a rocket scientists to know what the fruit will be.

Indeed, for rocket scientists have always been noted for their agricultural acumen.

http://theastronautfarmermovie.warnerbros.com/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Laughing Monkey
Oh, I don't know, how about telling the public that Hussein was in any way connected to 9/11, and that he was associated with Al Qaeda?

When did he ever tell the public that??

I've heard Democratic Stratagists say that--not the President.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
When did he ever tell the public that??

I've heard Democratic Stratagists say that--not the President.

That's because you don't listen.

"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade...We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." --http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html (emphasis added)

Here's another major lie.

In an interview with Polish television on May 29, 2003, President Bush stated: "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush was referencing two trailers or "mobile labs" discovered in Iraq.

Just days earlier, the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that the trailers "could not be used as a transportable biological production system as the system is presently configured." It was ultimately acknowledged that the trailers had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and were probably used to manufacture hydrogen employed in weather balloons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I don't know, how about telling the public that Hussein was in any way connected to 9/11, and that he was associated with Al Qaeda?

It is widely agreed that Bush did not make a connection between Hussein and 9/11, but if you can produce a well-attested quotation I'd be delighted to examine whatever evidence you can provide.

Hussein was "associated" with al Qaeda in terms of having contacts and negotiations with that terrorist group (among others), albeit short of functional cooperation. So you'll have to be more specific about that supposed instance in order to spin it into an example of a lie.

Your best examples, eh? You have chosen poorly, unless none of the 900 are legit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
It is widely agreed that Bush did not make a connection between Hussein and 9/11,

You are out of your damned mind.

"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Bush’s Letter to Congress, March 21, 2003

Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS is reason in itself to vote for Barack Obama. Because NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/o...-r_n_96690.html

Obama Would "Immediately Review" Potential Of Crimes In Bush White House

Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave it to a thoughtful historian to construct in words my very intuition about monkey boy:

“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are out of your damned mind.

Baloney. If only you had an argument good enough that it didn't need to run on insult.

"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Bush’s Letter to Congress, March 21, 2003

Bush is simply paraphrasing Congress' own wording on the Iraq AUMF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Contents

Here's the same language in a different document (also by the president).

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

And here's the source you're using (though your version of the quotation is somewhat inaccurate):

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(B) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030321-5.html

It's clear in the context of both documents that Bush is not pinning the 9-11 attacks on Hussein or Iraq, and that is reinforced abundantly by the presidents other speeches and statements.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021007-8.html

So, was that the best of the 900 or are you just fiddling around?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
It is widely agreed that Bush did not make a connection between Hussein and 9/11, but if you can produce a well-attested quotation I'd be delighted to examine whatever evidence you can provide.

Of course Bush never made a connection between Hussein and 9/11, there never was one.

What you conveniently neglect to mention is that Bush never missed an opportunity for fear mongering and implying a connection between Hussein and 9/11.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course Bush never made a connection between Hussein and 9/11, there never was one.

Meh. More word games from a craven "Guest." Bush never claimed that Iraq or Hussein was responsible for 9-11. Simple as that. Your dancing is futile.

What you conveniently neglect to mention is that Bush never missed an opportunity for fear mongering and implying a connection between Hussein and 9/11.

You're the one implying that Bush implied a connection between Hussein and 9-11. It didn't happen. His administration flatly stated on many occasions that there was no evidence of complicity by Hussein or Iraq with respect to the 9-11 attacks. The connection Bush did make was that 9-11 demonstrated how much damage could occur through terrorist tactics--tactics that Iraq could have greatly assisted with WMD or WMD technologies.

The dishonesty of the Democrat leadership, a large number of American liberals, and a large segment of the mainstream press on this issue has been absolutely appalling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is way off base. The worst president ever is, without a doubt, Jimmy Carter.

Regardless of your opinion of Bush. Carter had a horrendous foreign policy (and I use the term loosely) as President.

Then, as a former President, he has taken to meetings with Hamas, not once, but twice. The word inexcusable does not begin to describe the line this PUTZ has crossed.

Worst of all, he still seems to think he's relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is way off base. The worst president ever is, without a doubt, Jimmy Carter.

Regardless of your opinion of Bush. Carter had a horrendous foreign policy (and I use the term loosely) as President.

Then, as a former President, he has taken to meetings with Hamas, not once, but twice. The word inexcusable does not begin to describe the line this PUTZ has crossed.

Worst of all, he still seems to think he's relevant.

Observe pride and obtuse and denial posting in defense of the monkey president!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
This topic is way off base. The worst president ever is, without a doubt, Jimmy Carter.

Regardless of your opinion of Bush. Carter had a horrendous foreign policy (and I use the term loosely) as President.

Then, as a former President, he has taken to meetings with Hamas, not once, but twice. The word inexcusable does not begin to describe the line this PUTZ has crossed.

Worst of all, he still seems to think he's relevant.

Jimmy Carter did not get us into an unnecessary war based on a lie.

Jimmy Carter was not able to overcome the political inertia that caused some economic problems, but those problems were not nearly as severe as those caused by Bush, and unlike Bush, Carter did not affirmatively cause the problems.

If we had listened to Jimmy Carter 30 years ago and started a real energy independence program, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Jimmy Carter's main problem is that he was ineffective. He tried to buck the Washington establishment and it shot him down. That compromises his legacy, but he did not do anything like the damage Bush has done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Jimmy Carter did not get us into an unnecessary war based on a lie.

The implication seems to be that Bush lied, but you people always trip over your own feet and tongues when you try to get specific.

Giving Carter the benefit for his honesty, he may be ultimately responsible for touching of Islamic terrorism. His kid gloves approach to Soviet communism emboldened the USSR to invade Afghanistan without provocation. Carter's response was ineffectual. It was others in Washington who turned Afghanistan in the Soviets' Waterloo. And Jimmuh also allowed the rise of the Iranian mullahs with his vacillating response to the Iranian revolution.

Jimmy Carter was not able to overcome the political inertia that caused some economic problems, but those problems were not nearly as severe as those caused by Bush, and unlike Bush, Carter did not affirmatively cause the problems.

It's true that Nixon was in on the price control nonsense before Jimmy got into office--but you should give Carter his due: He succeeded in making the problems worse through his policies.

If we had listened to Jimmy Carter 30 years ago and started a real energy independence program, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Carter thought we'd run into oil shortages in the 1980s. What a guy. What a genius.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html

Jimmy Carter's main problem is that he was ineffective. He tried to buck the Washington establishment and it shot him down. That compromises his legacy, but he did not do anything like the damage Bush has done.

Carter was ineffective, but his policies were bad. He'd have had the US tightening its belt and sacrificing instead of recovering economically during the 80s and booming in the 90s. His economic prediction of loss of jobs because of oil imports was all wet. Free trade creates jobs all around and benefits the trading partners. If Carter had been an effective leader in terms of implementing his policies then his legacy would be even blacker than it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...