Bush - Worst President Ever?

[WIcruizer]

Originally Posted by WIcruizer
You lose all credibility when you say he lied.



Lose credibility with whom? You?

With anyone who is honest and not filled with hate. Unless you think Clinton and most of Congress were liars also.

 

[boomhauer]

With anyone who is honest and not filled with hate. Unless you think Clinton and most of Congress were liars also.

I'm not filled with hate. I'm simply being honest.

I don't understand why you keep bringing Clinton into this. What does he have to do with Bush? Are you trying to justify Bush's mistakes by saying Clinton made some as well? Doesn't that seem somewhat insignificant and childish?

 

[micknpluto]

Leave Bill alone. Wish the laws could change, I would take Bill for four more years!

I'm pretty sure many people who voted for Bush are regretting it now...

I wasnt even born at the time, but I'm also a JFK fan, what is it with Presidents who cheat on their wives???? HMMMMM

 

[DawnCt1]

I'm not filled with hate. I'm simply being honest.

I don't understand why you keep bringing Clinton into this. What does he have to do with Bush? Are you trying to justify Bush's mistakes by saying Clinton made some as well? Doesn't that seem somewhat insignificant and childish?

Speaking for myself, I don't think that President Bush made a mistake by pursuing this war on terror, into Afghanistan or into Iraq. No presidency exists in isolation and 8 years of ignoring, and withdrawing or pursuing terrorists attacks in the court room instead of on the battle field has lead to the perception that we wouldn't fight back. I think that Clinton's lack of action emboldened our enemies.

 

[boomhauer]

Speaking for myself, I don't think that President Bush made a mistake by pursuing this war on terror, into Afghanistan or into Iraq. No presidency exists in isolation and 8 years of ignoring, and withdrawing or pursuing terrorists attacks in the court room instead of on the battle field has lead to the perception that we wouldn't fight back. I think that Clinton's lack of action emboldened our enemies.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Of course, one who disagrees with you would probably ask, why is it "our" enemies waited 8 years until Clinton was out of office, then struck just 9 months after Bush was in office?

 

[DawnCt1]

The perpetrators of the first WTC bombing were tried, convicted, and have been in prison for nearly 10 years.

The Bush administration has yet to arrest, least of all convict, anyone in connectionw with the 9/11 bombing.

However, they do have the 20th hijacker in custody: They've got one in Pakistan, one in Virginia, one in Jordan........do you see a pattern developing here?

19 of the hijackers are dead. The ACLU is concerned about the "rights" of the 20th. We have recently killed OBL's second in command in Pakistan with a Preditor Drone. We have detained hundreds of Al Qaeda members at Gitmo and elsewhere. We have killed thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have some of the plotters in 9/11 in custody. Does it matter where as long as they won't see the light of day?

 

[Yensid FoNaf]

That's what I don't get. A lot of people blame Kenedy for starting Vietnam, but he inherited it from Eisenhower. Do they not know history, or just trying to discredit a popular Democratic president?

It is true that Kennedy did not "start" the Vietnam War. I retract that statement. The war started in 1959 before Kennedy took office. BUT... once Kennedy was in office, our troop numbers increased significantly and the US involvement in the war escalated. I believe that THIS is why a lot of people consider Kennedy to be mostly responsible for the US part of the Vietnam War.

PS… I think that Kennedy was a very good president. He did some great things and started some great movements in this country that have made this world a better place. It is sad that he did not get the chance to complete his term in office.

 

[LadyDay]

What did the fish say when it swam into a wall?

Dam.



Rich::

Simple, but funny.

 

[LadyDay]

You lose all credibility when you say he lied.



Whar are you talking about? The economy is roaring! Start a war he can't win? Thank you Mr. Dean. Not only will we win this war, but it is going extremely well.

And Mugg Mann, I'll keep this simple considering the simple mind I'm dealing with. I'm not an awkward geek who has hours to spend finding and posting links, typing paragraphs of drivel, and bringing up every trivial point imaginable. You can continue to whimper in the corner, I'll continue to praise President Bush's decision to go to war. He won, you lost. And if he ran again today he would STILL beat Hillary, Kerry, Dean or any other hack the Dems would run. Why" Despite any polling, people act very differently when they have to actually vote. And they'll vote for a true leader who will protect them over second guessing hand wringers every time.

Must be some bad hootch out there.

 

[DawnCt1]

Must be some bad hootch out there.

Why is that the response from the left when confronted with the reality of the situatio on the ground? For the left to succeed the country must fail. It must be awful to attach yourself to that philosophy.

 

[LadyDay]

Lose credibility with whom? You?

And the 65% if the American public who think this country is headed in the wrong direction.

 

[boomhauer]

And the 65% if the American public who think this country is headed in the wrong direction.

Those silly Americans.

Don't they realize that the economy is BOOMING and the war with Iraq is going so well???

 

[Chicago526]

It is true that Kennedy did not "start" the Vietnam War. I retract that statement. The war started in 1959 before Kennedy took office. BUT... once Kennedy was in office, our troop numbers increased significantly and the US involvement in the war escalated. I believe that THIS is why a lot of people consider Kennedy to be mostly responsible for the US part of the Vietnam War.

PS… I think that Kennedy was a very good president. He did some great things and started some great movements in this country that have made this world a better place. It is sad that he did not get the chance to complete his term in office.

Okay!

I've just seen the "Kennedy started Vietnam" claim in several other threads before and it always makes me go . I wasn't sure if the posters just didn't know history (which doesn't surprise me, as a travel agent, I discovered long ago that Americans certainly don't know geography!) or if the posters were trying discredit a popular president because he was a Democrat. It sounds like you do know your history and didn't mean any harm by it. In my opinion, trying to finnish a war is vastly differant than starting one to begin with, but that's a matter of debate, not history.

 

[DawnCt1]

It is true that Kennedy did not "start" the Vietnam War. I retract that statement. The war started in 1959 before Kennedy took office. BUT... once Kennedy was in office, our troop numbers increased significantly and the US involvement in the war escalated. I believe that THIS is why a lot of people consider Kennedy to be mostly responsible for the US part of the Vietnam War.

PS… I think that Kennedy was a very good president. He did some great things and started some great movements in this country that have made this world a better place. It is sad that he did not get the chance to complete his term in office.

In addition to your comments, Johnson, Kennedy's successor further escalated the war. Much of the early war protests were directed towards him. Interestingly enough, the war became later known by many on the left as "Nixon's War", the president that got us out. Comments have been made by the Viet Nam and USSR governments that they didn't think that they had any hope of winning until they saw the American protesters in the streets. If we loose Iraq, it will be due to the hue and cry from the left. It doesn't go unnoticed by our enemy. In fact, I think some of the Democratic talking points are showing up at Saddam's trial. Not good!

 

[LadyDay]

19 of the hijackers are dead. The ACLU is concerned about the "rights" of the 20th. We have recently killed OBL's second in command in Pakistan with a Preditor Drone. We have detained hundreds of Al Qaeda members at Gitmo and elsewhere. We have killed thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have some of the plotters in 9/11 in custody. Does it matter where as long as they won't see the light of day?

I think you're on to something here.........the new GOP mantra.

Does it matter:

1) Bin Laden is still out there?

2 Bush has claimed to have caught 4-5 twentieth hijackers?

3) 80% of the Iraqi public now see us as occupiers?

4) Etc., etc., etc.,...............

The obvious answer, to the Republicans, is no because you people will buy anything peddled by Bush and crew.

 

[LadyDay]

Why is that the response from the left when confronted with the reality of the situatio on the ground? For the left to succeed the country must fail. It must be awful to attach yourself to that philosophy.

It must be truly awful to attach yourself to a philosophy in which the only way you see progress is to either be clueless or pretend to be clueless, in which case, your performance is Oscar-worthy.

 

[DawnCt1]

It must be truly awful to attach yourself to a philosophy in which the only way you see progress is to either be clueless or pretend to be clueless, in which case, your performance is Oscar-worthy.

Joe Lieberman is a Democrat and he feels very encouraged by what he sees on the ground. He has broken ranks with his party to assert that. Where do you get your ideas that freeing 27 million people is irrelevant to changing the middle east and impacting the war on terror???

 

[micknpluto]

Oh come on, how can you defend GWB? He is so openly stupid. When I see "TV Bloopers" featuring GWB, showing clips of the MANY speeches where he just messed up completely, that should tell you something! HE is the EMBARRASSMENT!!!

 

[DawnCt1]

I think you're on to something here.........the new GOP mantra.

Does it matter:

1) Bin Laden is still out there?

2 Bush has claimed to have caught 4-5 twentieth hijackers?

3) 80% of the Iraqi public now see us as occupiers?

4) Etc., etc., etc.,...............

The obvious answer, to the Republicans, is no because you people will buy anything peddled by Bush and crew.

The Iraqi government and the people on the street know that we need to stay to help stablize the existing government and train the army. They have a lack of officers and leadership skills take time to develop. All Iraqi polls my an overwhelming majority indicate that they are better off now then they were under Saddam. They are more optomistic about the success of their country than the Democratic party is. That's sad!

 

[DawnCt1]

Oh come on, how can you defend GWB? He is so openly stupid. When I see "TV Bloopers" featuring GWB, showing clips of the MANY speeches where he just messed up completely, that should tell you something! HE is the EMBARRASSMENT!!!

Your not being shallow, are you?