Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: BayGBM on July 04, 2007, 10:44:21 AM
-
The Worst President in History?
One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush
By SEAN WILENTZ
George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.
From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.
Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.
The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.
Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about "the current crop of history professors" than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled -- and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating -- reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled -- nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success -- flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.
Even worse for the president, the general public, having once given Bush the highest approval ratings ever recorded, now appears to be coming around to the dismal view held by most historians. To be sure, the president retains a considerable base of supporters who believe in and adore him, and who reject all criticism with a mixture of disbelief and fierce contempt -- about one-third of the electorate. (When the columnist Richard Reeves publicized the historians' poll last year and suggested it might have merit, he drew thousands of abusive replies that called him an idiot and that praised Bush as, in one writer's words, "a Christian who actually acts on his deeply held beliefs.") Yet the ranks of the true believers have thinned dramatically. A majority of voters in forty-three states now disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940s, only one twice-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush's in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceding his resignation in 1974. No two-term president since polling began has fallen from such a height of popularity as Bush's (in the neighborhood of ninety percent, during the patriotic upswell following the 2001 attacks) to such a low (now in the midthirties). No president, including Harry Truman (whose ratings sometimes dipped below Nixonian levels), has experienced such a virtually unrelieved decline as Bush has since his high point. Apart from sharp but temporary upticks that followed the commencement of the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a recovery during the weeks just before and after his re-election, the Bush trend has been a profile in fairly steady disillusionment.
* * * *
How does any president's reputation sink so low? The reasons are best understood as the reverse of those that produce presidential greatness. In almost every survey of historians dating back to the 1940s, three presidents have emerged as supreme successes: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These were the men who guided the nation through what historians consider its greatest crises: the founding era after the ratification of the Constitution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression and Second World War. Presented with arduous, at times seemingly impossible circumstances, they rallied the nation, governed brilliantly and left the republic more secure than when they entered office.
Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.
* * * *
THE CREDIBILITY GAP
No previous president appears to have squandered the public's trust more than Bush has. In the 1840s, President James Polk gained a reputation for deviousness over his alleged manufacturing of the war with Mexico and his supposedly covert pro-slavery views. Abraham Lincoln, then an Illinois congressman, virtually labeled Polk a liar when he called him, from the floor of the House, "a bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man" and denounced the war as "from beginning to end, the sheerest deception." But the swift American victory in the war, Polk's decision to stick by his pledge to serve only one term and his sudden death shortly after leaving office spared him the ignominy over slavery that befell his successors in the 1850s. With more than two years to go in Bush's second term and no swift victory in sight, Bush's reputation will probably have no such reprieve.
The problems besetting Bush are of a more modern kind than Polk's, suited to the television age -- a crisis both in confidence and credibility. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam travails gave birth to the phrase "credibility gap," meaning the distance between a president's professions and the public's perceptions of reality. It took more than two years for Johnson's disapproval rating in the Gallup Poll to reach fifty-two percent in March 1968 -- a figure Bush long ago surpassed, but that was sufficient to persuade the proud LBJ not to seek re-election. Yet recently, just short of three years after Bush buoyantly declared "mission accomplished" in Iraq, his disapproval ratings have been running considerably higher than Johnson's, at about sixty percent. More than half the country now considers Bush dishonest and untrustworthy, and a decisive plurality consider him less trustworthy than his predecessor, Bill Clinton -- a figure still attacked by conservative zealots as "Slick Willie."
Previous modern presidents, including Truman, Reagan and Clinton, managed to reverse plummeting ratings and regain the public's trust by shifting attention away from political and policy setbacks, and by overhauling the White House's inner circles. But Bush's publicly expressed view that he has made no major mistakes, coupled with what even the conservative commentator William F. Buckley Jr. calls his "high-flown pronouncements" about failed policies, seems to foreclose the first option. Upping the ante in the Middle East and bombing Iranian nuclear sites, a strategy reportedly favored by some in the White House, could distract the public and gain Bush immediate political capital in advance of the 2006 midterm elections -- but in the long term might severely worsen the already dire situation in Iraq, especially among Shiite Muslims linked to the Iranians. And given Bush's ardent attachment to loyal aides, no matter how discredited, a major personnel shake-up is improbable, short of indictments. Replacing Andrew Card with Joshua Bolten as chief of staff -- a move announced by the president in March in a tone that sounded more like defiance than contrition -- represents a rededication to current policies and personnel, not a serious change. (Card, an old Bush family retainer, was widely considered more moderate than most of the men around the president and had little involvement in policy-making.) The power of Vice President Dick Cheney, meanwhile, remains uncurbed. Were Cheney to announce he is stepping down due to health problems, normally a polite pretext for a political removal, one can be reasonably certain it would be because Cheney actually did have grave health problems.
* * * *
BUSH AT WAR
Until the twentieth century, American presidents managed foreign wars well -- including those presidents who prosecuted unpopular wars. James Madison had no support from Federalist New England at the outset of the War of 1812, and the discontent grew amid mounting military setbacks in 1813. But Federalist political overreaching, combined with a reversal of America's military fortunes and the negotiation of a peace with Britain, made Madison something of a hero again and ushered in a brief so-called Era of Good Feelings in which his Jeffersonian Republican Party coalition ruled virtually unopposed. The Mexican War under Polk was even more unpopular, but its quick and victorious conclusion redounded to Polk's favor -- much as the rapid American victory in the Spanish-American War helped William McKinley overcome anti-imperialist dissent.
-
The twentieth century was crueler to wartime presidents. After winning re-election in 1916 with the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War," Woodrow Wilson oversaw American entry into the First World War. Yet while the doughboys returned home triumphant, Wilson's idealistic and politically disastrous campaign for American entry into the League of Nations presaged a resurgence of the opposition Republican Party along with a redoubling of American isolationism that lasted until Pearl Harbor.
Bush has more in common with post-1945 Democratic presidents Truman and Johnson, who both became bogged down in overseas military conflicts with no end, let alone victory, in sight. But Bush has become bogged down in a singularly crippling way. On September 10th, 2001, he held among the lowest ratings of any modern president for that point in a first term. (Only Gerald Ford, his popularity reeling after his pardon of Nixon, had comparable numbers.) The attacks the following day transformed Bush's presidency, giving him an extraordinary opportunity to achieve greatness. Some of the early signs were encouraging. Bush's simple, unflinching eloquence and his quick toppling of the Taliban government in Afghanistan rallied the nation. Yet even then, Bush wasted his chance by quickly choosing partisanship over leadership.
No other president -- Lincoln in the Civil War, FDR in World War II, John F. Kennedy at critical moments of the Cold War -- faced with such a monumental set of military and political circumstances failed to embrace the opposing political party to help wage a truly national struggle. But Bush shut out and even demonized the Democrats. Top military advisers and even members of the president's own Cabinet who expressed any reservations or criticisms of his policies -- including retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill -- suffered either dismissal, smear attacks from the president's supporters or investigations into their alleged breaches of national security. The wise men who counseled Bush's father, including James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, found their entreaties brusquely ignored by his son. When asked if he ever sought advice from the elder Bush, the president responded, "There is a higher Father that I appeal to."
All the while, Bush and the most powerful figures in the administration, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were planting the seeds for the crises to come by diverting the struggle against Al Qaeda toward an all-out effort to topple their pre-existing target, Saddam Hussein. In a deliberate political decision, the administration stampeded the Congress and a traumatized citizenry into the Iraq invasion on the basis of what has now been demonstrated to be tendentious and perhaps fabricated evidence of an imminent Iraqi threat to American security, one that the White House suggested included nuclear weapons. Instead of emphasizing any political, diplomatic or humanitarian aspects of a war on Iraq -- an appeal that would have sounded too "sensitive," as Cheney once sneered -- the administration built a "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked, preventive warfare, based on speculative threats and embracing principles previously abjured by every previous generation of U.S. foreign policy-makers, even at the height of the Cold War. The president did so with premises founded, in the case of Iraq, on wishful thinking. He did so while proclaiming an expansive Wilsonian rhetoric of making the world safe for democracy -- yet discarding the multilateralism and systems of international law (including the Geneva Conventions) that emanated from Wilson's idealism. He did so while dismissing intelligence that an American invasion could spark a long and bloody civil war among Iraq's fierce religious and ethnic rivals, reports that have since proved true. And he did so after repeated warnings by military officials such as Gen. Eric Shinseki that pacifying postwar Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of American troops -- accurate estimates that Paul Wolfowitz and other Bush policy gurus ridiculed as "wildly off the mark."
When William F. Buckley, the man whom many credit as the founder of the modern conservative movement, writes categorically, as he did in February, that "one can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed," then something terrible has happened. Even as a brash young iconoclast, Buckley always took the long view. The Bush White House seems incapable of doing so, except insofar as a tiny trusted circle around the president constantly reassures him that he is a messianic liberator and profound freedom fighter, on a par with FDR and Lincoln, and that history will vindicate his every act and utterance.
* * * *
BUSH AT HOME
Bush came to office in 2001 pledging to govern as a "compassionate conservative," more moderate on domestic policy than the dominant right wing of his party. The pledge proved hollow, as Bush tacked immediately to the hard right. Previous presidents and their parties have suffered when their actions have belied their campaign promises. Lyndon Johnson is the most conspicuous recent example, having declared in his 1964 run against the hawkish Republican Barry Goldwater that "we are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." But no president has surpassed Bush in departing so thoroughly from his original campaign persona.
The heart of Bush's domestic policy has turned out to be nothing more than a series of massively regressive tax cuts -- a return, with a vengeance, to the discredited Reagan-era supply-side faith that Bush's father once ridiculed as "voodoo economics." Bush crowed in triumph in February 2004, "We cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket." The claim is bogus for the majority of Americans, as are claims that tax cuts have led to impressive new private investment and job growth. While wiping out the solid Clinton-era federal surplus and raising federal deficits to staggering record levels, Bush's tax policies have necessitated hikes in federal fees, state and local taxes, and co-payment charges to needy veterans and families who rely on Medicaid, along with cuts in loan programs to small businesses and college students, and in a wide range of state services. The lion's share of benefits from the tax cuts has gone to the very richest Americans, while new business investment has increased at a historically sluggish rate since the peak of the last business cycle five years ago. Private-sector job growth since 2001 has been anemic compared to the Bush administration's original forecasts and is chiefly attributable not to the tax cuts but to increased federal spending, especially on defense. Real wages for middle-income Americans have been dropping since the end of 2003: Last year, on average, nominal wages grew by only 2.4 percent, a meager gain that was completely erased by an average inflation rate of 3.4 percent.
The monster deficits, caused by increased federal spending combined with the reduction of revenue resulting from the tax cuts, have also placed Bush's administration in a historic class of its own with respect to government borrowing. According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever -- with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006. Yet Bush -- sounding much like Herbert Hoover in 1930 predicting that "prosperity is just around the corner" -- insists that he will cut federal deficits in half by 2009, and that the best way to guarantee this would be to make permanent his tax cuts, which helped cause the deficit in the first place!
The rest of what remains of Bush's skimpy domestic agenda is either failed or failing -- a record unmatched since the presidency of Herbert Hoover. The No Child Left Behind educational-reform act has proved so unwieldy, draconian and poorly funded that several states -- including Utah, one of Bush's last remaining political strongholds -- have fought to opt out of it entirely. White House proposals for immigration reform and a guest-worker program have succeeded mainly in dividing pro-business Republicans (who want more low-wage immigrant workers) from paleo-conservatives fearful that hordes of Spanish-speaking newcomers will destroy American culture. The paleos' call for tougher anti-immigrant laws -- a return to the punitive spirit of exclusion that led to the notorious Immigration Act of 1924 that shut the door to immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe -- has in turn deeply alienated Hispanic voters from the Republican Party, badly undermining the GOP's hopes of using them to build a permanent national electoral majority. The recent pro-immigrant demonstrations, which drew millions of marchers nationwide, indicate how costly the Republican divide may prove.
-
The one noncorporate constituency to which Bush has consistently deferred is the Christian right, both in his selections for the federal bench and in his implications that he bases his policies on premillennialist, prophetic Christian doctrine. Previous presidents have regularly invoked the Almighty. McKinley is supposed to have fallen to his knees, seeking divine guidance about whether to take control of the Philippines in 1898, although the story may be apocryphal. But no president before Bush has allowed the press to disclose, through a close friend, his startling belief that he was ordained by God to lead the country. The White House's sectarian positions -- over stem-cell research, the teaching of pseudoscientific "intelligent design," global population control, the Terri Schiavo spectacle and more -- have led some to conclude that Bush has promoted the transformation of the GOP into what former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips calls "the first religious party in U.S. history."
Bush's faith-based conception of his mission, which stands above and beyond reasoned inquiry, jibes well with his administration's pro-business dogma on global warming and other urgent environmental issues. While forcing federally funded agencies to remove from their Web sites scientific information about reproductive health and the effectiveness of condoms in combating HIV/AIDS, and while peremptorily overruling staff scientists at the Food and Drug Administration on making emergency contraception available over the counter, Bush officials have censored and suppressed research findings they don't like by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture. Far from being the conservative he said he was, Bush has blazed a radical new path as the first American president in history who is outwardly hostile to science -- dedicated, as a distinguished, bipartisan panel of educators and scientists (including forty-nine Nobel laureates) has declared, to "the distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends."
The Bush White House's indifference to domestic problems and science alike culminated in the catastrophic responses to Hurricane Katrina. Scientists had long warned that global warming was intensifying hurricanes, but Bush ignored them -- much as he and his administration sloughed off warnings from the director of the National Hurricane Center before Katrina hit. Reorganized under the Department of Homeland Security, the once efficient Federal Emergency Management Agency turned out, under Bush, to have become a nest of cronyism and incompetence. During the months immediately after the storm, Bush traveled to New Orleans eight times to promise massive rebuilding aid from the federal government. On March 30th, however, Bush's Gulf Coast recovery coordinator admitted that it could take as long as twenty-five years for the city to recover.
Karl Rove has sometimes likened Bush to the imposing, no-nonsense President Andrew Jackson. Yet Jackson took measures to prevent those he called "the rich and powerful" from bending "the acts of government to their selfish purposes." Jackson also gained eternal renown by saving New Orleans from British invasion against terrible odds. Generations of Americans sang of Jackson's famous victory. In 1959, Johnny Horton's version of "The Battle of New Orleans" won the Grammy for best country & western performance. If anyone sings about George W. Bush and New Orleans, it will be a blues number.
* * * *
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT
Virtually every presidential administration dating back to George Washington's has faced charges of misconduct and threats of impeachment against the president or his civil officers. The alleged offenses have usually involved matters of personal misbehavior and corruption, notably the payoff scandals that plagued Cabinet officials who served presidents Harding and Ulysses S. Grant. But the charges have also included alleged usurpation of power by the president and serious criminal conduct that threatens constitutional government and the rule of law -- most notoriously, the charges that led to the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and to Richard Nixon's resignation.
Historians remain divided over the actual grievousness of many of these allegations and crimes. Scholars reasonably describe the graft and corruption around the Grant administration, for example, as gargantuan, including a kickback scandal that led to the resignation of Grant's secretary of war under the shadow of impeachment. Yet the scandals produced no indictments of Cabinet secretaries and only one of a White House aide, who was acquitted. By contrast, the most scandal-ridden administration in the modern era, apart from Nixon's, was Ronald Reagan's, now widely remembered through a haze of nostalgia as a paragon of virtue. A total of twenty-nine Reagan officials, including White House national security adviser Robert McFarlane and deputy chief of staff Michael Deaver, were convicted on charges stemming from the Iran-Contra affair, illegal lobbying and a looting scandal inside the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Three Cabinet officers -- HUD Secretary Samuel Pierce, Attorney General Edwin Meese and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger -- left their posts under clouds of scandal. In contrast, not a single official in the Clinton administration was even indicted over his or her White House duties, despite repeated high-profile investigations and a successful, highly partisan impeachment drive.
The full report, of course, has yet to come on the Bush administration. Because Bush, unlike Reagan or Clinton, enjoys a fiercely partisan and loyal majority in Congress, his administration has been spared scrutiny. Yet that mighty advantage has not prevented the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges stemming from an alleged major security breach in the Valerie Plame matter. (The last White House official of comparable standing to be indicted while still in office was Grant's personal secretary, in 1875.) It has not headed off the unprecedented scandal involving Larry Franklin, a high-ranking Defense Department official, who has pleaded guilty to divulging classified information to a foreign power while working at the Pentagon -- a crime against national security. It has not forestalled the arrest and indictment of Bush's top federal procurement official, David Safavian, and the continuing investigations into Safavian's intrigues with the disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, recently sentenced to nearly six years in prison -- investigations in which some prominent Republicans, including former Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed (and current GOP aspirant for lieutenant governor of Georgia) have already been implicated, and could well produce the largest congressional corruption scandal in American history. It has not dispelled the cloud of possible indictment that hangs over others of Bush's closest advisers.
History may ultimately hold Bush in the greatest contempt for expanding the powers of the presidency beyond the limits laid down by the U.S. Constitution. There has always been a tension over the constitutional roles of the three branches of the federal government. The Framers intended as much, as part of the system of checks and balances they expected would minimize tyranny. When Andrew Jackson took drastic measures against the nation's banking system, the Whig Senate censured him for conduct "dangerous to the liberties of the people." During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln's emergency decisions to suspend habeas corpus while Congress was out of session in 1861 and 1862 has led some Americans, to this day, to regard him as a despot. Richard Nixon's conduct of the war in Southeast Asia and his covert domestic-surveillance programs prompted Congress to pass new statutes regulating executive power.
-
Do people on this board really read all that?
Are we rsolving political issues on here?
Are you guys coming up with any solutions and plans of actions ???
-
By contrast, the Bush administration -- in seeking to restore what Cheney, a Nixon administration veteran, has called "the legitimate authority of the presidency" -- threatens to overturn the Framers' healthy tension in favor of presidential absolutism. Armed with legal findings by his attorney general (and personal lawyer) Alberto Gonzales, the Bush White House has declared that the president's powers as commander in chief in wartime are limitless. No previous wartime president has come close to making so grandiose a claim. More specifically, this administration has asserted that the president is perfectly free to violate federal laws on such matters as domestic surveillance and the torture of detainees. When Congress has passed legislation to limit those assertions, Bush has resorted to issuing constitutionally dubious "signing statements," which declare, by fiat, how he will interpret and execute the law in question, even when that interpretation flagrantly violates the will of Congress. Earlier presidents, including Jackson, raised hackles by offering their own view of the Constitution in order to justify vetoing congressional acts. Bush doesn't bother with that: He signs the legislation (eliminating any risk that Congress will overturn a veto), and then governs how he pleases -- using the signing statements as if they were line-item vetoes. In those instances when Bush's violations of federal law have come to light, as over domestic surveillance, the White House has devised a novel solution: Stonewall any investigation into the violations and bid a compliant Congress simply to rewrite the laws.
Bush's alarmingly aberrant take on the Constitution is ironic. One need go back in the record less than a decade to find prominent Republicans railing against far more minor presidential legal infractions as precursors to all-out totalitarianism. "I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the president," Sen. Bill Frist declared of Bill Clinton's efforts to conceal an illicit sexual liaison. "No man is above the law, and no man is below the law -- that's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country," Rep. Tom DeLay asserted. "The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door," warned Rep. Henry Hyde, one of Clinton's chief accusers. In the face of Bush's more definitive dismissal of federal law, the silence from these quarters is deafening.
The president's defenders stoutly contend that war-time conditions fully justify Bush's actions. And as Lincoln showed during the Civil War, there may be times of military emergency where the executive believes it imperative to take immediate, highly irregular, even unconstitutional steps. "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful," Lincoln wrote in 1864, "by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation." Bush seems to think that, since 9/11, he has been placed, by the grace of God, in the same kind of situation Lincoln faced. But Lincoln, under pressure of daily combat on American soil against fellow Americans, did not operate in secret, as Bush has. He did not claim, as Bush has, that his emergency actions were wholly regular and constitutional as well as necessary; Lincoln sought and received Congressional authorization for his suspension of habeas corpus in 1863. Nor did Lincoln act under the amorphous cover of a "war on terror" -- a war against a tactic, not a specific nation or political entity, which could last as long as any president deems the tactic a threat to national security. Lincoln's exceptional measures were intended to survive only as long as the Confederacy was in rebellion. Bush's could be extended indefinitely, as the president sees fit, permanently endangering rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizenry.
* * * *
Much as Bush still enjoys support from those who believe he can do no wrong, he now suffers opposition from liberals who believe he can do no right. Many of these liberals are in the awkward position of having supported Bush in the past, while offering little coherent as an alternative to Bush's policies now. Yet it is difficult to see how this will benefit Bush's reputation in history.
The president came to office calling himself "a uniter, not a divider" and promising to soften the acrimonious tone in Washington. He has had two enormous opportunities to fulfill those pledges: first, in the noisy aftermath of his controversial election in 2000, and, even more, after the attacks of September 11th, when the nation pulled behind him as it has supported no other president in living memory. Yet under both sets of historically unprecedented circumstances, Bush has chosen to act in ways that have left the country less united and more divided, less conciliatory and more acrimonious -- much like James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Herbert Hoover before him. And, like those three predecessors, Bush has done so in the service of a rigid ideology that permits no deviation and refuses to adjust to changing realities. Buchanan failed the test of Southern secession, Johnson failed in the face of Reconstruction, and Hoover failed in the face of the Great Depression. Bush has failed to confront his own failures in both domestic and international affairs, above all in his ill-conceived responses to radical Islamic terrorism. Having confused steely resolve with what Ralph Waldo Emerson called "a foolish consistency . . . adored by little statesmen," Bush has become entangled in tragedies of his own making, compounding those visited upon the country by outside forces.
No historian can responsibly predict the future with absolute certainty. There are too many imponderables still to come in the two and a half years left in Bush's presidency to know exactly how it will look in 2009, let alone in 2059. There have been presidents -- Harry Truman was one -- who have left office in seeming disgrace, only to rebound in the estimates of later scholars. But so far the facts are not shaping up propitiously for George W. Bush. He still does his best to deny it. Having waved away the lessons of history in the making of his decisions, the present-minded Bush doesn't seem to be concerned about his place in history. "History. We won't know," he told the journalist Bob Woodward in 2003. "We'll all be dead."
Another president once explained that the judgments of history cannot be defied or dismissed, even by a president. "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history," said Abraham Lincoln. "We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation."
(From RS 999, May 4, 2006)
-
Bush wins hands down. Even his own have mostly turned on him.
Frankly if it weren't so close to election, his own might move to impeach at theis point.
-
how likely is the chance that either one would get impeached? Realistically will it happen?
-
how likely is the chance that either one would get impeached? Realistically will it happen?
Its like any crim charge, you mfg it. W/ Clinton they forced him in a corner where they knew he'd lie.
Similar to Martha Stewart. The Law is a game w/ rules.
At this point they wont. If there were 3 yrs to go, I think they'd go for it. Hes a disaster.
-
BayGBM, why use a question mark when it's an exclamation point that's required?
C'mon dude, ...I know you were raised on this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD6uvri5OXI) :P
-
Its like any crim charge, you mfg it. W/ Clinton they forced him in a corner where they knew he'd lie.
Similar to Martha Stewart. The Law is a game w/ rules.
At this point they wont. If there were 3 yrs to go, I think they'd go for it. Hes a disaster.
You should be in a courtroom.
-
don't be so negative about bush.
listen to rush and get a realistic view on the bush presidency.
And while you are at it, bend over.
-
why impeach the strongest president this nation has ever elected?
He may be the strongest, ...but there's not enough air freshener to get the stink out of the Oval Office
-
I didnt really like Taft. or any of the post 1865 presidents into the early 1900's. they were all fuckups. Favorite was Linclon and Clinton and FDR...I liked teddy also because he was tough.
-
Worst? not even close. I can't imagine how bad the last 6 years would've been and how awful the next 10 or 20 would be if anyone other than him was in office.
Most hated? Possibly. The American populace has been so run over by hateful media coverage and nothing short of hatred from the left which seems to get worse every year. It also doesn't help that the vast majority of the US is dumber than a doornail ever since our culture became one of a "tolerate anything, accept everything, and be accountable for nothing" mentality.
I personally believe Carter to be the worst president in our history.
-
Worst? not even close. I can't imagine how bad the last 6 years would've been and how awful the next 10 or 20 would be if anyone other than him was in office.
Most hated? Possibly. The American populace has been so run over by hateful media coverage and nothing short of hatred from the left which seems to get worse every year. It also doesn't help that the vast majority of the US is dumber than a doornail ever since our culture became one of a "tolerate anything, accept everything, and be accountable for nothing" mentality.
I personally believe Carter to be the worst president in our history.
I'll 2nd Carter. He's the winner Hands Down. He is responsible for the condition of the Mid East today.
-
Worst? not even close. I can't imagine how bad the last 6 years would've been and how awful the next 10 or 20 would be if anyone other than him was in office.
Most hated? Possibly. The American populace has been so run over by hateful media coverage and nothing short of hatred from the left which seems to get worse every year. It also doesn't help that the vast majority of the US is dumber than a doornail ever since our culture became one of a "tolerate anything, accept everything, and be accountable for nothing" mentality.
I personally believe Carter to be the worst president in our history.
Bwaaaahaaaahhaaaaaaaaaa
It's only July and yet this bad boy gets my vote for "Delusional Post of the Year".
Yeah, if anyone else was in office these last two terms we'd be in worse shape than we are now and in fact the next 10-20 years would be horrific as well.
I love neotaints, they bring so much unintended comedy. And the irony of Prof. Hawking here mentioning that the vast majority of the US is dumber than a "doornail" is simply fantastic.
I love these morons.
I'll 2nd Carter. He's the winner Hands Down. He is responsible for the condition of the Mid East today.
Another winner. Nice job.
-
Bwaaaahaaaahhaaaaaaaaaa
It's only July and yet this bad boy gets my vote for "Delusional Post of the Year".
Yeah, if anyone else was in office these last two terms we'd be in worse shape than we are now and in fact the next 10-20 years would be horrific as well.
I love neotaints, they bring so much unintended comedy. And the irony of Prof. Hawking here mentioning that the vast majority of the US is dumber than a "doornail" is simply fantastic.
I love these morons.
Another winner. Nice job.
lol.. this guy calls me a moron after not saying a single intelligent thing in his entire post. good job ;D
-
lol.. this guy calls me a moron after not saying a single intelligent thing in his entire post. good job ;D
Again with the irony and unintended comedy. Simply fantastic.
BTW, you're right in your assessment that we as a nation would be in worse shape than we are now and for the next 20 years if anyone other than Bush had been our President for the last two terms.
Bwaaaaaahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaa aaaaa
-
I dont know, We gona suffer a long time for Bush's screw up here.
He messed w/ centuries of evolution in the Mid East. It gonna be worse off for it.
We gonna pay a big price too. We aint EVER gettin out of there and keeping that region secure.
Not happening. Its like that Dumb shit went and kicked a hornets nest.
-
Worst? not even close. I can't imagine how bad the last 6 years would've been and how awful the next 10 or 20 would be if anyone other than him was in office.
Most hated? Possibly. The American populace has been so run over by hateful media coverage and nothing short of hatred from the left which seems to get worse every year. It also doesn't help that the vast majority of the US is dumber than a doornail ever since our culture became one of a "tolerate anything, accept everything, and be accountable for nothing" mentality.
I personally believe Carter to be the worst president in our history.
I have to agree with you, Brixtonbulldog. George Bush, without a doubt, will go down as the most hated. I think history is going to be more favorable to him as events occur over time.
-
I have to agree with you, Brixtonbulldog. George Bush, without a doubt, will go down as the most hated. I think history is going to be more favorable to him as events occur over time.
the debacle of Iraq and the 400+ billion in debt hinders my vision into the future. I can see him getting props for his handling of 9/11 and Afghanistan but it's all shadowed by Iraq.
Additionally:
What did Carter do in the ball park of what Bush has done in Iraq? Most of what i hear about Carter is pure opinion. What BUSH has done is fact.
-
the debacle of Iraq and the 400+ billion in debt hinders my vision into the future. I can see him getting props for his handling of 9/11 and Afghanistan but it's all shadowed by Iraq.
Additionally:
What did Carter do in the ball park of what Bush has done in Iraq? Most of what i hear about Carter is pure opinion. What BUSH has done is fact.
Carter did nothing....absolutely NOTHING
-
Carter did nothing....absolutely NOTHING
Sure he did, he sat w/ a finger up his ass while The 1st Islamo Fascists took over Iran.
-
Sure he did, he sat w/ a finger up his ass while The 1st Islamo Fascists took over Iran.
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
;D
-
Carter did nothing....absolutely NOTHING
If BUSH did nothing with Iraq we wouldn't be in the sad shape we are now.
And it's not true he nothing...you know that, you are over 40 i think.
Sure he did, he sat w/ a finger up his ass while The 1st Islamo Fascists took over Iran.
If he did anything they kill the hostages immediately. what would you have done? Invade?
-
I believe the people who still stand behind Bush are looking for a new kind of America. They must not be happy with the America that has been so great for the last 231 years.
-
If BUSH did nothing with Iraq we wouldn't be in the sad shape we are now.
And it's not true he nothing...you know that, you are over 40 i think.
Not quite, but close enough to know that he did JACK while in office.
His legacy comes after his presidency, however, this legacy is in danger do to the anti-semitic crap he's spewing as of late.
-
the debacle of Iraq and the 400+ billion in debt hinders my vision into the future. I can see him getting props for his handling of 9/11 and Afghanistan but it's all shadowed by Iraq.
Additionally:
What did Carter do in the ball park of what Bush has done in Iraq? Most of what i hear about Carter is pure opinion. What BUSH has done is fact.
I'm hardly going to defend Carter's Presidency but this attempt to shade the disgrace that is Bush's Administration by focusing on Carter is a common neotaint tactic.
The only defending I'll do of Carter is that he was/is HIGHLY intelligent and decent. His Presidency was ineffective and weak but his intelligence and decency are beyond reproach.
Bush on the other hand has none of those traits and in fact has been at the helm of what can only be described as one disgrace after another. To defend Bush at this point is tantamount to sticking your head in the ground or covering your eyes and ears and jumping up and down so that you can't see or hear anything negative.
Did you get see that post claiming that if any other President had been in office these last two terms that the US would be in far worse shape now and for the next 10-20 years?
That was a beauty.
-
If BUSH did nothing with Iraq we wouldn't be in the sad shape we are now.
And it's not true he nothing...you know that, you are over 40 i think.
If he did anything they kill the hostages immediately. what would you have done? Invade?
Ya, you got some good points OsmO, But recall that the Hostages were let go Pronto as soon as Ronnie Ray-Gun
took the helm. They knew better. Gadafi took it hard asap and never was to mouthy in public after.
(Not counting a Jumbo passenger plane in the dirt)
As far as dooing nothing, yes we'd be better off. I could Give him (W) a break as it's hindsight, but the Prez has the best intell and Im sure they warned exactly of what we got in Iraq now.
The Isralies cant keep order and they heve a well established Govt and millitary. What? We gona go bargeing in and make everything peachy inthe land of stonings and beheading and mutilations ::).
Gross Negligence at a minimum. Some say we hanged the wrong one.
-
I'm hardly going to defend Carter's Presidency but this attempt to shade the disgrace that is Bush's Administration by focusing on Carter is a common neotaint tactic.
The only defending I'll do of Carter is that he was/is HIGHLY intelligent and decent. His Presidency was ineffective and weak but his intelligence and decency are beyond reproach.
Bush on the other hand has none of those traits and in fact has been at the helm of what can only be described as one disgrace after another. To defend Bush at this point is tantamount to sticking your head in the ground or covering your eyes and ears and jumping up and down so that you can't see or hear anything negative.
Did you get see that post claiming that if any other President had been in office these last two terms that the US would be in far worse shape now and for the next 10-20 years?
That was a beauty.
Yeah it was a beauty. Some people have been programmed to hate over the last few years by the republican propaganda machine and for some good reasons but these people need to look at things more objectively and cast away their "feelings". Carter certainly wasn't a good president overall, but far from the worse and far from BUSH in that category.
Fact is, we are between I-rock and hard place right now because of BUSH's incompetence.
-
If it werent for Carter, we wouldnt be in Iraq today.
We are in fact fighting Iran there.
-
If it werent for Carter, we wouldnt be in Iraq today.
We are in fact fighting Iran there.
WHOA.................... ........
please elaborate.
-
Yeah it was a beauty. Some people have been programmed to hate over the last few years by the republican propaganda machine and for some good reasons but these people need to look at things more objectively and cast away their "feelings". Carter certainly wasn't a good president overall, but far from the worse and far from BUSH in that category.
Fact is, we are between I-rock and hard place right now because of BUSH's incompetence.
I like how you pretend to be objective.
You think we have been programmed to hate yet all that is said about bush/repubs/conservatives is pure hatred... nothing more. The fact that Iraq is portrayed as such a failure is a falsehood. It's a war.. it's violent.. and it's in part of the world we haven't had to really fight yet. Yet you all continue to claim events that occur there as part of ANY war mean we've failed, we're incompetent, we were wrong etc.
Carter was far worse than Bush... bush is just more hated. That was the point I was trying to make.
http://newsbusters.org/node/12890
http://voluntaryxchange.typepad.com/voluntaryxchange/2004/07/a_jimmy_carter_.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950378-3,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article1837738.ece
-
WHOA............................
please elaborate.
The whole powerstructure and region would be diff if the Shaw were not deposed.
We wouldn't be where we are if Khomeini didn't get a foothold in there.
There's No telling but it would be different..
Make no mistake we fighting Iran here. The technology and goddies is largely from them, in particular the
"'Shaped Charges" thet penetrate armour.
Amadjeasshole is a big player in theis game, and hes winning.
-
The whole powerstructure and region would be diff if the Shaw were not deposed.
We wouldn't be where we are if Khomeini didn't get a foothold in there.
There's No telling but it would be different..
Make no mistake we fighting Iran here. The technology and goddies is largely from them, in particular the
"'Shaped Charges" thet penetrate armour.
Amadjeasshole is a big player in theis game, and hes winning.
Exactly, remember that Ozmo when you say WE created the Iraqi terrorist threat.
-
Exactly, remember that Ozmo when you say WE created the Iraqi terrorist threat.
I never said "We" created the threat. I said our actions increased it in the area.
Let's face it, BB, i can the same for you about being objective.
But what I'm looking at is the mess BUSH has put us in due to his incompetence.......do i need to elaborate on how he screwed up a the post-invasion for starters?
-
I never said "We" created the threat. I said our actions increased it in the area.
Let's face it, BB, i can the same for you about being objective.
But what I'm looking at is the mess BUSH has put us in due to his incompetence.......do i need to elaborate on how he screwed up a the post-invasion for starters?
Oh, ok.
Sure, name it. But there's a difference between mistakes and incompetence. Keep in mind it was a military operation. You can put a lot of responsibility on the Generals shoulders as well. As far as a fighting war is concerned we've done better than the media would lead you to believe.
And a few million Iraqis turning out for a democratic election is testament to who wants a new country and what we can offer through Saddams demise.
-
I never said "We" created the threat. I said our actions increased it in the area.
Let's face it, BB, i can the same for you about being objective.
But what I'm looking at is the mess BUSH has put us in due to his incompetence.......do i need to elaborate on how he screwed up a the post-invasion for starters?
I wont argue a bit for Bush, and I voted for him 2x ::) :'( (even Stood in line a LONG time 2nd time :-[)
I really think he put in motion all the ingredients for a climactic Armagedon showdown a Hundred years sooner than need be (Peak Oil). Bottom line is That region MUST be kept secure. Should have just contained and tolerated Saddam.
Shit,.. in all Honestly I think we'd been better off to have released him, apologized and packed up.
It takes a vicious brutal despot to run those contries, and in the end it will be no different.
-
I like how you pretend to be objective.
You think we have been programmed to hate yet all than is said about bush/repubs/conservatives is pure hatred... nothing more. The fact that Iraq is portrayed as such a failure is a falsehood. It's a war.. it's violent.. and it's in part of the world we haven't had to really fight yet. Yet you all continue to claim events that occur there as part of ANY war mean we've failed, we're incompetent, we were wrong etc.
Carter was far worse than Bush... bush is just more hated. That was the point I was trying to make.
http://newsbusters.org/node/12890
http://voluntaryxchange.typepad.com/voluntaryxchange/2004/07/a_jimmy_carter_.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950378-3,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article1837738.ece
Again with the idiocy. I love this guy, he's the new Mr. Hate.
As factual evidence that Carter's a "far worse" President than is Bush he links newsbusters.org, whose mission statement is "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias".
Voluntaryxchange.com whose main page contains stories about a Roswell UFO Festival, the history of the Rabbit Proof Fence and a story about Rosie O'Donnell.
A story by a British writer for a British newspaper and a Time story from get this March 17, 1980.
Bwaaaahhaaaaaaaaaaaa
Now that's a winner of a post right there.
If it werent for Carter, we wouldnt be in Iraq today.
We are in fact fighting Iran there.
If it weren't for Bush we wouldn't be in Iraq. Iraq was his own personal mission. There is more than a little evidence that invading Iraq was in the works before 9/11 and before he took office.
I've never heard anyone criticize the invasion in Afghanistan. Iraq is completely different though and should be thought of as separate and distinct from a military action based solely on 9/11.
-
Again with the idiocy. I love this guy, he's the new Mr. Hate.
As factual evidence that Carter's a "far worse" President than is Bush he links newsbusters.org, whose mission statement is "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias".
Voluntaryxchange.com whose main page contains stories about a Roswell UFO Festival, the history of the Rabbit Proof Fence and a story about Rosie O'Donnell.
A story by a British writer for a British newspaper and a Time story from get this March 17, 1980.
Bwaaaahhaaaaaaaaaaaa
Now that's a winner of a post right there.
-Nothing wrong with an editorial column.. it gets the point across. (but I forget that you lack the brain power to grasp it)
-See Above
-So being British means he's wrong? (great argument, genius)
-And so a piece written closer to his presidency isn't as accurate? (once again.. this guy calls ME stupid)
Still waiting for something correct or smart to come out of your mouth... looks like i'll have to cancel my plans for the rest of the week on this one!
-
-Nothing wrong with an editorial column.. it gets the point across. (but I forget that you lack the brain power to grasp it)
-See Above
-So being British means he's wrong? (great argument, genius)
-And so a piece written closer to his presidency isn't as accurate? (once again.. this guy calls ME stupid)
Still waiting for something correct or smart to come out of your mouth... looks like i'll have to cancel my plans for the rest of the week on this one!
Stop Prof. Hawking, you're only making your party look worse. Your nonsensical defense hurts your cause more than it helps it. BTW, nice job of Googling on your part.
I'm going to get another good laugh and read that "Roswell UFO Festival" story and then I'm going to read up on "Rabbit Proof Fences" and then the latest doings of Rosie O'Donnell all from the link you posted.
Thanks Capt. Moron, you've given me enough laughs to make what was a relatively boring day pretty amusing.
-
http://www.statecraft.org/chapter13.html
http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-128.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1838814/posts
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/05/23/look_in_the_mirror_jimmy_carter/
This time read em.. try it slowly, it might work better for you.
-
Stop Prof. Hawking, you're only making your party look worse. Your nonsensical defense hurts your cause more than it helps it. BTW, nice job of Googling on your part.
I'm going to get another good laugh and read that "Roswell UFO Festival" story and then I'm going to read up on "Rabbit Proof Fences" and then the latest doings of Rosie O'Donnell all from the link you posted.
Thanks Capt. Moron, you've given me enough laughs to make what was a relatively boring day pretty amusing.
Glad I could help... of course you realize you've lost any hope of winning this one, right?
-
Glad I could help... of course you realize you've lost any hope of winning this one, right?
Bwaaaahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
There's nothing to win, you're not clever enough to actually win anything from. It's like debating an infant.
Here's a lovely picture from the link you posted "proving" Carter was a "far worse" President than Bush. I got another great laugh out of it.
Hey, how's that "The US would be in worse shape now and for the next 10-20 years if anyone else was our President" theory working out for you?
Any chance you can prove that little beauty or was it just pathetic neotaint rhetoric?
-
Bwaaaahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
There's nothing to win, you're not clever enough to actually win anything from. It's like debating an infant.
Here's a lovely picture from the link you posted "proving" Carter was a "far worse" President than Bush. I got another great laugh out of it.
Hey, how's that "The US would be in worse shape now and for the next 10-20 years if anyone else was our President" theory working out for you?
Any chance you can prove that little beauty or was it just pathetic neotaint rhetoric?
I already won. You haven't posted a single intelligent sentence or said anything substantial the entire thread. Owned!
-
I already won. You haven't posted a single intelligent sentence or said anything substantial the entire thread. Owned!
I'm going to talk type real slow for you.
My contention with your insane post was with your assertion that the US would be in far worse shape now and for the next 20 years if anyone other than Bush was President.
Of course you haven't proven such little ditty. Do you care to Prof. Hawking or was that just typical neotaint rhetoric?
BTW, here's a picture from the link you provided as proof Carter was a "far worse" President than Bush.
BWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
-
I'm going to talk type real slow for you.
My contention with your insane post was with your assertion that the US would be in far worse shape now and for the next 20 years if anyone other than Bush was President.
Of course you haven't proven such that little ditty. Do you care to Prof. Hawking or was that just typical neotaint rhetoric?
BTW, here's a picture from the link you provided as proof Carter was a "far worse" President than Bush.
BWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAHA... Hey retard, even liberals have admitted that a John Kerry or Al Gore would've been disasterous for 9/11, Afghanistan, and even Iraq.
Yeah I can PROVE something that's 20 yrs in the future... your folks must be REAL proud of you, lol!
So now you've not only NOT written anything intelligent, but you're actually running out of stupid shit to spout so you're RETYPING IT!!!
ROTFLMAO!
-
HAHA... Hey retard, even liberals have admitted that a John Kerry or Al Gore would've been disasterous for 9/11, Afghanistan, and even Iraq.
Yeah I can PROVE something that's 20 yrs in the future... your folks must be REAL proud of you, lol!
So now you've not only NOT written anything intelligent, but you're actually running out of stupid shit to spout so you're RETYPING IT!!!
ROTFLMAO!
So you're saying that even you though you said it you can't prove it.
That's an excellent strategy. Make a wild accusation and when asked to prove it say "Yeah, I can PROVE something that's 20 yrs in the future".
Hey Einstein, you're the one that said it. If you make a definitive statement at least have the balls to back it up.
As I said earlier, you're hurting your own cause and clearly you're not intelligent enough to either comprehend the weight of your statements or you're just spouting without thinking.
Either way you look bad and you hurt your cause.
But hey, why let that get in your way.
Here's a picture from the link you posted.
-
So you're saying that even you though you said it you can't prove it.
That's an excellent strategy. Make a wild accusation and when asked to prove it say "Yeah, I can PROVE something that's 20 yrs in the future".
Hey Einstein, you're the one that said it. If you make a definitive statement at least have the balls to back it up.
As I said earlier, you're hurting your own cause and clearly you're not intelligent enough to either comprehend the weight of your statements or you're just spouting without thinking.
Either way you look bad and you hurt your cause.
But hey, why let that get in your way.
Here's a picture from the link you posted.
Wow.. and even a THIRD TIME!!! HOLY SHIT!!!! We've got a real winner here don't we?!?!
Refer to my last post. If you need to, have that crack addict of a mother read it to you out loud for emphasis since you didn't get it the first time. Also, ask her if she drank and smoked heavily during your pregnancy.
And for the record, the only thing I did to hurt my case was to speak to you thinking a simpleton like yourself could comprehend what I was saying and be able to defend your opinion without running out of shit to say and resorting to furiously repeating yourself, "rain man." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... good lord.
-
Boys! Boys..
-
Wow.. and even a THIRD TIME!!! HOLY SHIT!!!! We've got a real winner here don't we?!?!
Refer to my last post. If you need to, have that crack addict of a mother read it to you out loud for emphasis since you didn't get it the first time. Also, ask her if she drank and smoked heavily during your pregnancy.
And for the record, the only thing I did to hurt my case was to speak to you thinking a simpleton like yourself could comprehend what I was saying and be able to defend your opinion without running out of shit to say and resorting to furiously repeating yourself, "rain man." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... good lord.
So you're not going to prove the claim you made?
Fact, you said "The US would be in worse off now and for the next 20 years if anyone other than Bush was President".
Fact, when asked to prove it you said "Yeah, I can PROVE something that's 20 yrs in the future".
Here's another fact, if you're going to make outlandish statements it's better for your cause if you're prepared to prove them when you're called out.
Of course this simple fact is above your comprehension because you're not bright enough to understand simple logic.
Nice job.
I look forward to your next post, it's always fun watching a neotaint squirm his way out of proving what he claims.
-
So you're not going to prove the claim you made?
Fact, you said "The US would be in worse off now and for the next 20 years if anyone other than Bush was President".
Fact, when asked to prove it you said "Yeah, I can PROVE something that's 20 yrs in the future".
Here's another fact, if you're going to make outlandish statements it's better for your cause if you're prepared to prove them when you're called out.
Of course this simple fact is above your comprehension because you're not bright enough to understand simple logic.
Nice job.
I look forward to your next post, it's always fun watching a neotaint squirm his way out of proving what he claims.
MELTDOWN
You had to call your mom, didn't you? Well whatever works as long as you finally got it.
I also posted, "HAHA... Hey retard, even liberals have admitted that a John Kerry or Al Gore would've been disasterous for 9/11, Afghanistan, and even Iraq." Now obviously it cannot be PROVEN because no one has built a time machine yet but it's pretty clear the direction this county would be headed down if another was president by looking at the history of the opposing party. Saddam would again wreak havoc in the region, buffer his arsenal. He would be years closer to a nuclear arsenal. His intentions for the west were also very clear and the only thing stopping him was the US/UN efforts to keep him in the stone age. Terrorism the world over would be thriving because Gore nor Kerry would have gone to Afghanistan and Iraq. Even if they did they would've pulled a Clinton and lobbed a few T-hawks and been done with it. Only a president like Bush would be this persistent. This should be obvious considering how much flak he's received for doing it and STILL he maintains the position.
I love how intellectual lightweights like yourself and many on the left seem to think it would've been better to turn a blind eye until an imminent threat is looming off the coast of New York/LA/Miami etc.
If you actually doubt that would've been the case I now challenge you to defend that position, "Einstein." lol
-
don't be so negative about bush.
listen to rush and get a realistic view on the bush presidency.
Hello Mr. Intenseone
-
MELTDOWN
You had to call your mom, didn't you? Well whatever works as long as you finally got it.
I also posted, "HAHA... Hey retard, even liberals have admitted that a John Kerry or Al Gore would've been disasterous for 9/11, Afghanistan, and even Iraq." Now obviously it cannot be PROVEN because no one has built a time machine yet but it's pretty clear the direction this county would be headed down if another was president by looking at the history of the opposing party. Saddam would again wreak havoc in the region, buffer his arsenal. He would be years closer to a nuclear arsenal. His intentions for the west were also very clear and the only thing stopping him was the US/UN efforts to keep him in the stone age. Terrorism the world over would be thriving because Gore nor Kerry would have gone to Afghanistan and Iraq. Even if they did they would've pulled a Clinton and lobbed a few T-hawks and been done with it. Only a president like Bush would be this persistent. This should be obvious considering how much flak he's received for doing it and STILL he maintains the position.
I love how intellectual lightweights like yourself and many on the left seem to think it would've been better to turn a blind eye until an imminent threat is looming off the coast of New York/LA/Miami etc.
If you actually doubt that would've been the case I now challenge you to defend that position, "Einstein." lol
Again you haven't proven your original assertion. You blatantly said if "anyone" else was President. That means any human being, in other words Republican, Democrat and Independent.
It's curious that all you've mentioned in way of proving your insane assumption is "Hey retard, even liberals have admitted that a John Kerry or Al Gore would've been disasterous for 9/11, Afghanistan, and even Iraq."
Is that your proof? Is that all you've got? I just read it again to see if I missed anything and I still can't find anything in the way of proof. In fact you're backpedalling now by saying "no one has built a time machine".
You're mind is so clouded by neotaint rhetoric that you clearly don't think straight. You spew unprovable nonsense and get defensive when asked to prove your assertions. You're the worst kind of neotaint.
Open your mind Prof. Hawking, it will only make you a better person.
Here's a tip, next time you feel like posting something outrageous, stop, do some research to see if you can back it up. If you can back it up then post away, if not then don't be surprised when someone rational calls you out.
-
Oh, ok.
Sure, name it. But there's a difference between mistakes and incompetence. Keep in mind it was a military operation. You can put a lot of responsibility on the Generals shoulders as well.
- Invading a country with out a good post invasion plan that covers potential problems IS incompetence.
- Not consulting Colin Powell, the only person with real combat experience on your staff IS incompetence.
- Assuming the Iraqis would just embrace democracy and act right as a result after the invasion IS incompetence.
- Not securing the government buildings after the invasion of a repressed impoverished country IS incompetence.
- Setting up ROE's that don;t allow your troops to protect said infrastructure IS incompetence.
- Invading with too few men to secure a stable environment after the invasion IS incompetence.
None of the above had anything to do with the Generals. These are strategic decisions. Decisions that were made by men who were out of touch with reality while intoxicated with war fever.
BUSH and company who have the blood of 3500+ dead sons, brothers, and fathers on their hands from their irresponsible incompetence and people still make excuses for them. Pathetic.
None of the above things were mistakes. The problem was the ASSHAT (bush) was too busy believing he was on a holy mission from God to listen to anyone but Rummy the desk jockey.
As far as a fighting war is concerned we've done better than the media would lead you to believe.
Are we start talking about ice cream cones now?
It's 4 years later and no end in sight.
Are the 3500 DEAD AMERICANS A LIE? Is the media lying?
Is the violence everyday a lie from the media?
i can't believe people still try and pass me that media is making out to be worse than it is crap. Save that for the neo-con rally. They should go tell the mothers of the 3500+ dead soldiers that BULL SHIT.
And a few million Iraqis turning out for a democratic election is testament to who wants a new country and what we can offer through Saddams demise.
What we can offer? Can we offer safe local markets from suicide bombers?
Those people can't handle democracy yet. But some people still hold to that fantasy as the reason we are there after being buffalo-ed by BUSH.
-
The media does not cover good news..its counter productive...a boring day where nobody dies in Iraq..gimme a break. If it bleeds it leads. Orzmo..u blame Bush..i blame the neo's who swayed Bush. I'm not sure what happened to Powell..but basically I agree with u.
-
I'd go further than incompetence, Negligence if he was warned by intell, which he surely was.
-
don't blame bush for iraq, w/o the dems vote there wouldn't be a war.
your gimmick is getting old.
-
sorry, just the truth.
lol you didn't get either of the posts ::)
-
Again you haven't proven your original assertion. You blatantly said if "anyone" else was President. That means any human being, in other words Republican, Democrat and Independent.
It's curious that all you've mentioned in way of proving your insane assumption is "Hey retard, even liberals have admitted that a John Kerry or Al Gore would've been disasterous for 9/11, Afghanistan, and even Iraq."
Is that your proof? Is that all you've got? I just read it again to see if I missed anything and I still can't find anything in the way of proof. In fact you're backpedalling now by saying "no one has built a time machine".
You're mind is so clouded by neotaint rhetoric that you clearly don't think straight. You spew unprovable nonsense and get defensive when asked to prove your assertions. You're the worst kind of neotaint.
Open your mind Prof. Hawking, it will only make you a better person.
Here's a tip, next time you feel like posting something outrageous, stop, do some research to see if you can back it up. If you can back it up then post away, if not then don't be surprised when someone rational calls you out.
I didn't prove it.. I supported it. Which is what you would be doing if you had a point to support. Naturally, you're IQ is sub par so you expect me to prove something that didn't happen yet. It was a prediction. PRE-DIC-TION... sound it out. It means to make an educated guess based on the information available.
Oh yeah.. I loved the line your giving about being a better person.. this twat thinks he's giving me life advice, hahahahaha... wow. A liberal dirt spec giving ME advice. Jeez. I really have seen everything now!
And I know that you love saying "neotaint rhetoric"... we've established that. Unfortunately you have shown your ignorance by spouting it since it's babble with no foundation... I'm not a neocon and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I believe anything I say to you goes right over your head anyway.
In summation... it is obvious by your posts that have never tried harder in your life to convince yourself of being right..
.. and fail so terribly. Meanwhile I'll get to work on "researching" the future, hahahahahaahahhahhahahah ah!!!!!! ::)
-
- Invading a country with out a good post invasion plan that covers potential problems IS incompetence.
I'm sure YOU could have done better. ::) But I think pres has enough tools at his disposal to come up with a good plan. And considering the nature of this war I think he's in a far better position to decide that than the media (who hate him) and people (like yourself) who believe anything they say.
[/quote]
- Not consulting Colin Powell, the only person with real combat experience on your staff IS incompetence.
[/quote]
His staff???? His "staff" is every member of the armed forces. Some of them are rumored to have combat experience from time to time.[/b]
[/quote]
- Assuming the Iraqis would just embrace democracy and act right as a result after the invasion IS incompetence.
[/quote]
Historically.. that's a fairly reasonable expectation. And a lot of them did.. a lot of Iraqis ARENT terrorists!!! (blows your mind, doesn't it).
[/quote]
- Not securing the government buildings after the invasion of a repressed impoverished country IS incompetence.
[/quote]
Hey... it's war. You do what you can with the soldiers you have. I'd also like to point out that this was another decision GENERALS on the ground would be making.
[/quote]
- Setting up ROE's that don;t allow your troops to protect said infrastructure IS incompetence.
[/quote]
New enemy.. new tactics. Our ROE's have to change with the conflict and 4 or 5 years really isn't enough time to have perfected fighting the most difficult kind of war.
[/quote]
- Invading with too few men to secure a stable environment after the invasion IS incompetence.
[/quote]
Let's thank the dems for that one shall we?
[/quote]
BUSH and company who have the blood of 3500+ dead sons, brothers, and fathers on their hands from their irresponsible incompetence and people still make excuses for them. Pathetic.
It's 4 years later and no end in sight.
Are the 3500 DEAD AMERICANS A LIE? Is the media lying?
[/quote]
3500? You wanna compare that to ANY other major conflict? I didn't think so. And It's obvious by your statement that you're nothing more than someone who personally hates Bush and wants to blame him for the death of SOLDIERS who VOLUNTEERED to fight a war with TERRORISTS and anyone else who threatened this country.
Funny.. I thought radical islamic terrorists had that blood on thier hands... hmm.
If you hate bush and just want to blame him and no one else for something he didn't start but WILL finish just say so. It's already pretty obvious.
-
If you hate bush and just want to blame him and no one else for something he didn't start but WILL finish ??? ::) just say so. It's already pretty obvious.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bush WILL Finish? Oh Boy. Bush (and any of us) wont live long enough to see the "Finish" of this.
This is a century long disaster.
-
I'm sure YOU could have done better. ::) But I think pres has enough tools at his disposal to come up with a good plan. And considering the nature of this war I think he's in a far better position to decide that than the media (who hate him) and people (like yourself) who believe anything they say.
Actually i could have based on a principle from Colin Powell's book. Never invade with too few troops.
But that's besides the point isn't BB?
Was it a good plan? NO.
His staff?Huh His "staff" is every member of the armed forces. Some of them are rumored to have combat experience from time to time.[/b]
The one person he should have consulted he didn't.
The fact is, it was a major failure to "assume" the iraqis would embrace democracy and the violence would stop and they would respect law and order.
"assumption is the mother of all fuck ups"
BUSH, CHENEY, and RUmmy assumed
Historically.. that's a fairly reasonable expectation. And a lot of them did.. a lot of Iraqis ARENT terrorists!!! (blows your mind, doesn't it).
NOT securing the borders from outside influence in weapons and foreign fighters because they had too few troops to invade with is another act of Incompetence.
Hey... it's war. You do what you can with the soldiers you have. I'd also like to point out that this was another decision GENERALS on the ground would be making.
ROE's are political. I'm surprised you think otherwise.
What's the point of going further with you? You obviously think things are just great as you don't have any direct involvement. Based on your ":excuses for BUSH" you are not going to see any reasoning in face of facts. Just remember, BUSH will go down as making the worse foreign policy decision in our history.
BUSH is ultimately responsible for what has happened. he is the commander and chief. whether he entrusted others for decision making or not, it falls on his shoulders in the end. As he likes to say: he is the decider.
BUSH is to blame. he spear headed the push to invade and authorized the plan.
I don't know how more plain that can be. He irresponsibly and recklessly put our soldiers in harms way. He has an obligation to do the right thing and make the right decisions. Personally he should be impeached for that IMO.
People's hatred towards BUSH is more than justified.
He is the worse president we've had.
-
What's the point of going further with you? You obviously think things are just great as you don't have any direct involvement. Based on your ":excuses for BUSH" you are not going to see any reasoning in face of facts. Just remember, BUSH will go down as making the worse foreign policy decision in our history.
BUSH is ultimately responsible for what has happened. he is the commander and chief. whether he entrusted others for decision making or not, it falls on his shoulders in the end. As he likes to say: he is the decider.
BUSH is to blame. he spear headed the push to invade and authorized the plan.
I don't know how more plain that can be. He irresponsibly and recklessly put our soldiers in harms way. He has an obligation to do the right thing and make the right decisions. Personally he should be impeached for that IMO.
People's hatred towards BUSH is more than justified.
He is the worse president we've had.
People's hatred for Bush is a combination of not understanding politics, war, and international affairs and a media that has gone so far out of the realm of objective reporting while maintaining the attention of a fat, lazy, ignorant and otherwise dim witted populace.
At least we finally got to the bottom of this.. YOU, like most of the other ass-to-mouths on this board and elsewhere, have completely ignored the fact that you, yourselves have hated him for what he is for quite sometime. Any failure, any where since 2000, has been placed upon his shoulders when a great deal of failures made by past presidents have not been held to such a standard (or no standards, in some cases). This was not an "easy" time to be president and although none of todays headlines result from Bush being close to perfect I can only remember who the alternatives would have been. And because of this I have yet to see ANY objectivity from most of the mental "powerhouses" on getbig. But I do see a lot of pretenders (which you are one) who try so hard to seem unbiased and objective.
But as long as we're showing our colors let me say that I am ecstatic we invaded Iraq and are slaughtering insurgents at a rediculus rate. On a personal level, as long as the loathsome liberals and democrats are angry at Bush/conservatives/GOP then I'm certain we're doing something right. I don't think Bush was even close to the greatest president ever but he's certainly not anywhere near the worst.
-
Hey Im a conservative and voted for him, and HATE him. He should be impeached but time is too short.
I have so many uptight Repub Biz owner associates that feel the same, it aint funny!
-
I didn't prove it.. I supported it. Which is what you would be doing if you had a point to support. Naturally, you're IQ is sub par so you expect me to prove something that didn't happen yet. It was a prediction. PRE-DIC-TION... sound it out. It means to make an educated guess based on the information available.
Oh yeah.. I loved the line your giving about being a better person.. this twat thinks he's giving me life advice, hahahahaha... wow. A liberal dirt spec giving ME advice. Jeez. I really have seen everything now!
And I know that you love saying "neotaint rhetoric"... we've established that. Unfortunately you have shown your ignorance by spouting it since it's babble with no foundation... I'm not a neocon and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I believe anything I say to you goes right over your head anyway.
In summation... it is obvious by your posts that have never tried harder in your life to convince yourself of being right..
.. and fail so terribly. Meanwhile I'll get to work on "researching" the future, hahahahahaahahhahhahahah ah!!!!!! ::)
More bullschit from our resident neotaint moron.
Do you know what a prediction is? I think not because stating that we're better off with Bush than with anyone else isn't predicting anything, it's a statement of fact. You comprehend the difference right? You're intelligent enough to know there's a difference between a prediction and a statement right?
Bwaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
As I said earlier, it's like debating with an infant, there's nothing to win. Keep digging genius, hopefully for your sake one of these times you'll get something right.
P.S. How's that "The US is better off now and for the next 10-20 years with Bush instead of anyone else" prediction statement of fact working out for you?
You delusional neotaints are always good for a pity laugh.
People's hatred for Bush is a combination of not understanding politics, war, and international affairs and a media that has gone so far out of the realm of objective reporting while maintaining the attention of a fat, lazy, ignorant and otherwise dim witted populace.
At least we finally got to the bottom of this.. YOU, like most of the other ass-to-mouths on this board and elsewhere, have completely ignored the fact that you, yourselves have hated him for what he is for quite sometime. Any failure, any where since 2000, has been placed upon his shoulders when a great deal of failures made by past presidents have not been held to such a standard (or no standards, in some cases). This was not an "easy" time to be president and although none of todays headlines result from Bush being close to perfect I can only remember who the alternatives would have been. And because of this I have yet to see ANY objectivity from most of the mental "powerhouses" on getbig. But I do see a lot of pretenders (which you are one) who try so hard to seem unbiased and objective.
But as long as we're showing our colors let me say that I am ecstatic we invaded Iraq and are slaughtering insurgents at a rediculus rate. On a personal level, as long as the loathsome liberals and democrats are angry at Bush/conservatives/GOP then I'm certain we're doing something right. I don't think Bush was even close to the greatest president ever but he's certainly not anywhere near the worst.
Bwaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa
More incredible humor from our resident genius neotaint. He's calling other people dim witted and yet he doesn't even know how to spell "ridiculous".
Newsflash Mr. Hawking, when you're trying to appear superior don't misspell simple words. See what I mean about hurting your own cause?
Concerning the "fat" comment, aren't you that blubbery clown with the fat rolls on your neck and the idiotic tattoo?
LOL, this tool is the funniest dude that posts on this board. He makes Mr. Hate seem rational.
-
People's hatred for Bush is a combination of not understanding politics, war, and international affairs and a media that has gone so far out of the realm of objective reporting while maintaining the attention of a fat, lazy, ignorant and otherwise dim witted populace.
At least we finally got to the bottom of this.. YOU, like most of the other ass-to-mouths on this board and elsewhere, have completely ignored the fact that you, yourselves have hated him for what he is for quite sometime. Any failure, any where since 2000, has been placed upon his shoulders when a great deal of failures made by past presidents have not been held to such a standard (or no standards, in some cases). This was not an "easy" time to be president and although none of todays headlines result from Bush being close to perfect I can only remember who the alternatives would have been. And because of this I have yet to see ANY objectivity from most of the mental "powerhouses" on getbig. But I do see a lot of pretenders (which you are one) who try so hard to seem unbiased and objective.
But as long as we're showing our colors let me say that I am ecstatic we invaded Iraq and are slaughtering insurgents at a rediculus rate. On a personal level, as long as the loathsome liberals and democrats are angry at Bush/conservatives/GOP then I'm certain we're doing something right. I don't think Bush was even close to the greatest president ever but he's certainly not anywhere near the worst.
man you are one twisted wack job. sorry.
Just to set the record straight. Had BUSH not invaded Iraq i'd have little to say on the matter.
I believe he did the right thing in Afghanistan and applaud the way he did it. He lost me and most of the 70% of the US population at Iraq.
The only ones left are the hopelessly brainwashed, chest thumpers who use the principles to solving problems they discovered from WWF. Your indifference and hatred have separated you from your humanity.
You are no better then a nazi. A self-righteous hate-filled fearful blunt instrument.
I'd have some respect for you if you were saying the things you say and were in Iraq. but you are not. You're safe behind you computer casting down judgments on people who see the madness of our involvement in Iraq.
You can claim I'm not objective as much as you want. perhaps I'm not, and probably becuase i am against Bush as his reckless policies makes me that in your eyes. Thing is, this isn't politics as far as BUSH is concerned. For those who still hold on to supporting him it is.
Had BUSH stayed out of Iraq chances are he'd have been held as one of our greatest presidents. But rest assured; shortly the democrats will be screwing up the country mainly becuase BUSH screwed it up now.
-
Bwaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
More incredible humor from our resident genius neotaint. He's calling other people dim witted and yet he doesn't even know how to spell "ridiculous".
Bwaaaahhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa
Newsflash Mr. Hawking, when you're trying to appear superior don't misspell simple words. See what I mean about hurting your own cause?
Well normally I'm typing too fast that it doesn't really matter... but seeing how hard it was for you to understand 99% of anything else I've written I can see why you're so upset.
-
Well normally I'm typing too fast that it doesn't really matter... but seeing how hard it was for you to understand 99% of anything else I've written I can see why you're so upset.
That's it? That's all you've got?
I'm laughing my ass off at you and this is all you can manage?
I'll reiterate again, it's like debating an infant. ::)
-
man you are one twisted wack job. sorry.
Just to set the record straight. Had BUSH not invaded Iraq i'd have little to say on the matter.
I believe he did the right thing in Afghanistan and applaud the way he did it. He lost me and most of the 70% of the US population at Iraq.
The only ones left are the hopelessly brainwashed, chest thumpers who use the principles to solving problems they discovered from WWF. Your indifference and hatred have separated you from your humanity.
You are no better then a nazi. A self-righteous hate-filled fearful blunt instrument.
I'd have some respect for you if you were saying the things you say and were in Iraq. but you are not. You're safe behind you computer casting down judgments on people who see the madness of our involvement in Iraq.
You can claim I'm not objective as much as you want. perhaps I'm not, and probably becuase i am against Bush as his reckless policies makes me that in your eyes. Thing is, this isn't politics as far as BUSH is concerned. For those who still hold on to supporting him it is.
Had BUSH stayed out of Iraq chances are he'd have been held as one of our greatest presidents. But rest assured; shortly the democrats will be screwing up the country mainly becuase BUSH screwed it up now.
Right a nazi... you've lost me. I'm a nazi because I can see past the media to what has really happened, you can't. You think I sit here and have nothing to lose yet this was the same guy who signed up for the service DURING WARTIME, genius.
The fact is that everyone today that throws people on my side down by saying we're "brainwashed", "hateful" are themselves showing every trait attributed to being brainwashed by the media and hateful of what you obviously can't grasp. Name it, war, Bush's motives, intelligence, foreign policy, terrorism... your side has almost no comprehension of what these things mean, and now you're the poster boy for that. Spouting insults towards my side instead of offering better alternatives for the choices someone in his office had to face AND showing how misled you have been by an underhanded and ultra-biased media with a death grip on the American mind.
-
That's it? That's all you've got?
I'm laughing my ass off at you and this is all you can manage?
I'll reiterate again, it's like debating an infant. ::)
Too busy typing to someone with a point. I see you've already forgotten how stupid you looked trying to debate me through the rest of this thread. Unlike the broke ass record you have been so far, I can't stand repeating myself to people who can't read.
T- To- To- TODAY JUNIOR!
And skimming back through your posts it seems like I can sum up everything you've said today with one word "bullshit." How does it feel to have some "neotaint" put you in your place! ah HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHH!!!!! loser
-
Too busy typing to someone with a point. I see you've already forgotten how stupid you looked trying to debate me through the rest of this thread. Unlike the broke ass record you have been so far, I can't stand repeating myself to people who can't read.
T- To- To- TODAY JUNIOR!
And skimming back through your posts it seems like I can sum up everything you've said today with one word "bullshit." How does it feel to have some "neotaint" put you in your place! ah HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHH!!!!! loser
Another disappointing post.
Come on Prof. Hawking, make another genius level prediction statement of fact that I can laugh at, you know something reduculus ridiculous.
I've only got about 15 minutes before I'm out and I would love to laugh at your deluded intellect one more time.
How about something like, "Without Vice President Chaney the Earth would no longer spin on it's axis or revolve around the Sun", that sounds like a statement of fact you would make.
-
Right a nazi... you've lost me.
It's not hard to lose someone who is brainwashed. Just start talking facts.
I'm a nazi because I can see past the media to what has really happened, you can't.
no, you are nazi and you are brainwashed becuase you refuse to acknowledge teh debacle in Iraq even in the face of overwhelming facts. You simply in one swoop blame it on the media. you are a nazi becuase of comments like this:
But as long as we're showing our colors let me say that I am ecstatic we invaded Iraq and are slaughtering insurgents at a rediculus rate. On a personal level, as long as the loathsome liberals and democrats are angry at Bush/conservatives/GOP then I'm certain we're doing something right.
This shows how polarized you've allowed yourself to get forfeiting any intelligence on objectivity you once had that has become easily manipulated hate.
You think I sit here and have nothing to lose yet this was the same guy who signed up for the service DURING WARTIME, genius.
Are you there now fighting for what you believe in? NO. like i said. I'd respect you more, becuase IF you really in your heart believed the BS you spew, you'd be there. But you figure you did your bit, so now you can dictate........I'm not buying for a second and i don;lt think anyone else does. Keep telling yourself what you need to make your self feel better.
The fact is that everyone today that throws people on my side down by saying we're "brainwashed", "hateful" are themselves showing every trait attributed to being brainwashed by the media and hateful of what you obviously can't grasp.
This is the biggest classic misconception among the unenlightened: media = liberal bias. Who owns the media? Who owns the half dozen companies that bring your news? do you think these are liberals? They are conservative people who cater to the almightly dollar. they give us what they think we want so they get advertising revenue.....liberal or conservative.
Name it, war, Bush's motives, intelligence, foreign policy, terrorism... your side has almost no comprehension of what these things mean, and now you're the poster boy for that.
This is from the guy who refuses to acknowledge anything negative from the war on this insurgency? oh please. ::)
go get an ice cream cone in Baghdad.
Spouting insults towards my side instead of offering better alternatives for the choices someone in his office had to face AND showing how misled you have been by an underhanded and ultra-biased media with a death grip on the American mind.
tion
I've offered better choices:
1. we had a choice not to go to war
2. we had a choice to do it right with a good plan
3. we had a choice to allow the iraqis to take care of their insurgency with their gloves off
4. we now have a choice to continue doing the same things and expecting a different result or not.
Misled......400 billion in debt, 20,000 wounded, 3500+ dead and NO END in sight. yeah right. ::)
-
Another disappointing post.
Come on Prof. Hawking, make another genius level prediction statement of fact that I can laugh at, you know something reduculus ridiculous.
I've only got about 15 minutes before I'm out and I would love to laugh at your deluded intellect one more time.
How about something like, "Without Vice President Chaney the Earth would no longer spin on it's axis or revolve around the Sun", that sounds like a statement of fact you would make.
You mean 15 minutes till your bedtime. You leave me so little to work with since, apparently, you have absolutely zero to contribute to this conversation and have yet to make a point about anything. You're irrelevant.. figures.
-
It's not hard to lose someone who is brainwashed. Just start talking facts.
Oh really? And what FACTS might those be? Just because someone who doesn't know better deems our efforts a failure (out of hatred even) doesn't mean that's the case.
no, you are nazi and you are brainwashed becuase you refuse to acknowledge teh debacle in Iraq even in the face of overwhelming facts. You simply in one swoop blame it on the media. you are a nazi becuase of comments like this:
Ok.. I know. I have the balls to speak my mind. So kill me. I'm Jewish so that hardly makes me a nazi for having an opinion. I'm sure the moment you drop the "I'm objective, really!" facade .. the same could be said about yourself.
This shows how polarized you've allowed yourself to get forfeiting any intelligence on objectivity you once had that has become easily manipulated hate.
I haven't said a single thing to be taken as hatred. YOU, on the other hand, have said nothing but.
Are you there now fighting for what you believe in? NO. like i said. I'd respect you more, becuase IF you really in your heart believed the BS you spew, you'd be there. But you figure you did your bit, so now you can dictate........I'm not buying for a second and i don;lt think anyone else does. Keep telling yourself what you need to make your self feel better.
Yeah, I did my time. That a privilege you get when you dedicate yourself to the service of this country no matter where it takes you. (obviously something you do not understand) I believe whole heartedly that what we're doing is just. The soldiers there today are there by making a choice to stand behind this country and fight (possibly die) because we were asked to.
This is the biggest classic misconception among the unenlightened: media = liberal bias. Who owns the media? Who owns the half dozen companies that bring your news? do you think these are liberals? They are conservative people who cater to the almightly dollar. they give us what they think we want so they get advertising revenue.....liberal or conservative.
Yeah, and THAT is a proven fact. The media represents the left and takes advantage of that position. Both liberal and conservative media in this country are out for money, but that hasn't stopped CNN, the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, USA Today, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR (get the point, numnuts?)
This is from the guy who refuses to acknowledge anything negative from the war on this insurgency? oh please. ::)
go get an ice cream cone in Baghdad.
tion
I've offered better choices:
1. we had a choice not to go to war MISTAKE (we should have marched on Baghdad in 91)
2. we had a choice to do it right with a good plan Plans can only be SO good.. war is war (I doubt you can understand that)
3. we had a choice to allow the iraqis to take care of their insurgency with their gloves offCan't (incapable and unwilling)
4. we now have a choice to continue doing the same things and expecting a different result or not. Win the war, period. Do what it takes. Another concept your side doesn't understand. Maybe it's the whole "winning" aspect you're not used to.
Misled......400 billion in debt, 20,000 wounded, 3500+ dead and NO END in sight. yeah right. ::)Compared to other wars?? Please.
Face it. No matter what Bush did, you would hate. You believe everything you see on TV. You think that by being critical, you're being objective. The truth is you have been misled to believe something that isn't true. You hang on, not because you know better, but because you feel your dissent means you question the man in office and you somehow understand things you have never dealt with. You're fake. And I see right through you.
-
Most terrorist groups or rouge terrorist supporting countries do not play by the rules, but count on the west to do so!
Just look, no one likes blowing up civilians like the Arabs but no one is more horrified when it happens to them.
That is why they hate the Israelis, because they speak a language the Arabs understand "Blow up a hospital and we will blow up one of yours, fire rockets into our country and we will fire shells back etc"
Wether you hate Bush or not he was a definite check and a balance to those countries and organisations.
They came to realise that here is some one just as crazy as them WHO IS NOT SCARED TO DO WHAT THEY DO.
I think a saner man would have done a worse job, some times you need a crazy man in power.
-
Do people on this board really read all that?
Are we rsolving political issues on here?
Are you guys coming up with any solutions and plans of actions ???
Exactly, everybody loves to criticize but no one wants to put their foot down and do something about what's supposedly so wrong and horrible.
-
Carter did nothing....absolutely NOTHING
Understand there were players undermining Carter's efforts every step of the way in preparation for an election.
Sure he did, he sat w/ a finger up his ass while The 1st Islamo Fascists took over Iran.
Ya, ...but who supported the Ayatollahs' rise to prominence, and recommended Carter do nothing?
(will ellaborate further later as time permits)
Ya, you got some good points OsmO, But recall that the Hostages were let go Pronto as soon as Ronnie Ray-Gun took the helm. They knew better.
Exactly! But was it fear that brought that about, ...or was it something else... like a pre-arranged release date, after all negotiations had been concluded? How many are aware that after the hostage incident, the US actually barred embassy hostages from filing suit against Iran for the ordeal they suffered? ...or for that matter, that it was the US (or rather the US taxpayer) that paid out reparations ...I'm not referring to payment to the hostages, but rather to Iran? Do you think they were paying the Iranians for the food... rent & boarding of their embassy employees for the last year? The very same people in charge at the time, are also the main players in this administration.
As far as dooing nothing, yes we'd be better off. I could Give him (W) a break as it's hindsight, but the Prez has the best intell and Im sure they warned exactly of what we got in Iraq now.
The Isralies cant keep order and they heve a well established Govt and millitary. What? We gona go bargeing in and make everything peachy inthe land of stonings and beheading and mutilations ::).
Gross Negligence at a minimum. Some say we hanged the wrong one.
I read the transcripts of some of those debates, and they were so long, so boring, and arduous, that even I got hit with ADD, but that is exactly right. He was warned of exactly what would happen. Every scenario they predicted, ...has come to pass. Even tho they were forewarned, Rummy got on national TV and sold the population and bunch of lies "We'll be welcomed & greeted as liberators" ::) If that's how they greet their liberators, ...I'd hate to see the welcome if they were hostile.
...but then again I s'ppose he wasn't lying, ...they do see the coalition forces as liberators... liberating them of their oil.
-
- Invading a country with out a good post invasion plan that covers potential problems IS incompetence.
- Not consulting Colin Powell, the only person with real combat experience on your staff IS incompetence.
- Assuming the Iraqis would just embrace democracy and act right as a result after the invasion IS incompetence.
- Not securing the government buildings after the invasion of a repressed impoverished country IS incompetence.
- Setting up ROE's that don;t allow your troops to protect said infrastructure IS incompetence.
- Invading with too few men to secure a stable environment after the invasion IS incompetence.
None of the above had anything to do with the Generals. These are strategic decisions. Decisions that were made by men who were out of touch with reality while intoxicated with war fever.
BUSH and company who have the blood of 3500+ dead sons, brothers, and fathers on their hands from their irresponsible incompetence and people still make excuses for them. Pathetic.
None of the above things were mistakes. The problem was the ASSHAT (bush) was too busy believing he was on a holy mission from God to listen to anyone but Rummy the desk jockey.
Are we start talking about ice cream cones now?
It's 4 years later and no end in sight.
Are the 3500 DEAD AMERICANS A LIE? Is the media lying?
Is the violence everyday a lie from the media?
i can't believe people still try and pass me that media is making out to be worse than it is crap. Save that for the neo-con rally. They should go tell the mothers of the 3500+ dead soldiers that BULL SHIT.
What we can offer? Can we offer safe local markets from suicide bombers?
Those people can't handle democracy yet. But some people still hold to that fantasy as the reason we are there after being buffalo-ed by BUSH.
Brilliant assessment!!! (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/thumbup.gif) (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/thumbup.gif)
I'd also add that in Bush's case, you can also use the words myopic and delusional interchangeably with incompetent.
-
Most terrorist groups or rouge terrorist supporting countries do not play by the rules, but count on the west to do so!
Just look, no one likes blowing up civilians like the Arabs but no one is more horrified when it happens to them.
That is why they hate the Israelis, because they speak a language the Arabs understand "Blow up a hospital and we will blow up one of yours, fire rockets into our country and we will fire shells back etc"
Interesting commentary. And not too far off from the opinions of the Iraqi I was speaking to the other night.
He said "Iraqi people are crazy. They don't care who or what you are... there could be 30 guys challenging 1 Iraqi, ...and the Iraqi will say 'Bring it on!' " "Iraqi people are crazy like that, and everyone over there knows it. Now Jordan, Syria, and all these other countries are overrun with crazy Iraqi refugees." "They're not happy about it either"
The above italicized quotes in red, are his words not mine.
Wether you hate Bush or not he was a definite check and a balance to those countries and organisations.
They came to realise that here is some one just as crazy as them WHO IS NOT SCARED TO DO WHAT THEY DO.
I think a saner man would have done a worse job, some times you need a crazy man in power.
A saner man would not have invaded with half-baked and delusional plans to begin with.
Infact, ...a saner man would have HAD plans. What they laid out was not a plan, it was wishful thinking. One big neo-taint circle-jerk.
hmmm... I wonder if they got any on the carpet. Maybe we could do a DNA test and then have them impeached? :P
-
I think we're about to see winter in July. I always thought the day George W. Bush got my vote,
...it would be a very cold day in hell. Well here it is... and Georgie boy has finally managed to get my vote
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/ballot.jpg)
-
Funny how all you fuck twits jump on Bush like he's an asian prostitute offering free BJ's and forget that there have been presidents who have screwed over our country here at home and there is no debate about it. May I present Warren G. Harding for you little turds, you should all do some history rather then focus on todays popular opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding)
-
Funny how all you fuck twits jump on Bush like he's an asian prostitute offering free BJ's and forget that there have been presidents who have screwed over our country here at home and there is no debate about it. May I present Warren G. Harding for you little turds, you should all do some history rather then focus on todays popular opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding)
Harding may have been a philanderer, and his administration corrupt, ...but he didn't plunge the country into war over lies. His impact didn't have far reaching global effects, and he didn't unleash a genie that's so damned impossible to put back into the bottle. For all his faults, corruptions, manipulations etc., he doesn't even compare to this current guy.
ps - Have you ever considered the possibility that perhaps it's not that people hate him so they point out his flaws, but rather because of his flaws, people hate him.
-
One little thingE about All THis - How we Done the RIGHT THING in Afghanistan.
Give 9ballSlim a listen. He says that Talliban basiclay OWNS everything outside the wire at his
base. If you cant controll ground, DONT TAKE IT! ITs as simple as that.
Destroy from a distance and mop up and get out. rinse and repeat.
Carter is responsible for laying the groundwork that led up to a idiot (Bush) making repeated
disastrous decisions. The people and congress/senate are guilty of siting by like sheep, and
rallying behind him, but it human nature.
-
Harding may have been a philanderer, and his administration corrupt, ...but he didn't plunge the country into war over lies. His impact didn't have far reaching global effects, and he didn't unleash a genie that's so damned impossible to put back into the bottle. For all his faults, corruptions, manipulations etc., he doesn't even compare to this current guy.
ps - Have you ever considered the possibility that perhaps it's not that people hate him so they point out his flaws, but rather because of his flaws, people hate him.
Again with all the wah wah wah war crap. We are kicking ass over there, for every American lost the Iraqi's lose many times more people fighting for their own freedom. We also have taken down allot of the "terrorist" causing all these problems, it's obvious the enemy there is also the enemy of the Iraqi people not just us. Imagine this being Afghanistan before Al-qaeda took over, should we just let Islamic extremist just take control of a country, especially one formerly run by a harsh dictator.
-
You mean 15 minutes till your bedtime. You leave me so little to work with since, apparently, you have absolutely zero to contribute to this conversation and have yet to make a point about anything. You're irrelevant.. figures.
It's reduculus isn't it?
-
Face it. No matter what Bush did, you would hate. You believe everything you see on TV. You think that by being critical, you're being objective. The truth is you have been misled to believe something that isn't true. You hang on, not because you know better, but because you feel your dissent means you question the man in office and you somehow understand things you have never dealt with. You're fake. And I see right through you.
I'm not surprised you missed the point.
400 billion in debt, 20,000 wounded, 3500+ dead and NO END in sight
was all unneeded.
Yeah, and THAT is a proven fact. The media represents the left and takes advantage of that position. Both liberal and conservative media in this country are out for money, but that hasn't stopped CNN, the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, USA Today, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR (get the point, numnuts?)
Try again skippy. Maybe you'll release from your neo-con nipple long enough to see that the news reported that i'm talking about are the facts not the opinions. Facts you refused to acknowledge while your face is buried in an ice cream cone.
Ok.. I know. I have the balls to speak my mind. So kill me. I'm Jewish so that hardly makes me a nazi for having an opinion. I'm sure the moment you drop the "I'm objective, really!" facade .. the same could be said about yourself.
there are plenty of Jews who believed in the nazi ideals outside of the anti-jewish parts.
The truth is you have been misled to believe something that isn't true.
What part of this isn't true? 400 billion in debt, 20,000 wounded, 3500+ dead and NO END in sight
What part of Saddam not being a religious fanatic isn;t true?
What part of Saddam being a common thug with associated mentality isn't true?
What part of Saddam wanting to survive with his power in place isn't true?
You see, you are so brainwashed you think he was a real threat when the real threat was corralled in Tora Bora. You actually think invading Iraq was about the war on terrorism when in fact is was takkng advantage of an opportunity with the gullible American public which you are poster boy for to establish a larger military presence and control the resources.
You call going in with too few troops and not prepare for the tearing down of the infrastructure and wide open borders a mistake?
If you call that just a mistake i'd hate to see what you call incompetence.... ::)
Win the war, period. Do what it takes. Another concept your side doesn't understand. Maybe it's the whole "winning" aspect you're not used to.
More us against them mentality even with-in your own country. (Blunt instrument)
Doing what it takes is a concept i'm very familiar with as I'm self employed for over 23 years. Not to mention my hobby/interest almost all my life has been modern military and WW2 history. And all you have here is the same BS mentality we had in Nam. 4 years is enough to know what we are ding is working, but you think we should keep towing the same line? ::)
Roll EyesCompared to other wars?? Please.
So now it's ok? That makes everything lost ok? OMG. Nazi.
-
genius typically isn't understood for decades. einstien, edison, bell etc.
bush is no different.
Umm, hate to burst your bubble, Mr. Gimmick......all those people you mentioned were noted for their genius while they were alive and at the peak or their careers.
-
i think not, the genius of einstein and edison is just being understood today.
They were understood then. It was Einstien who sent a letter to President Rossevelt urging him to direct funds into what became the Manhattan project. They gave it a unlimited budget largely from Einstein's urging. Only a well respected "genius" could cause that.
Research einstien in your spare time between neo-con rallies and you'll the former patton clerk's Genius was well recognized long before that letter.
Edison, before and after the lightbulb was recognized for his genius as an inventor.
Keep trying skippy, you'll make a valid point sooner or later....even a blind squirrel gets a nut sometimes.
-
Keep trying skippy, you'll make a valid point sooner or later....even a blind squirrel gets a nut sometimes.
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dude, I am soooooo stealing that line!
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/rotflmao.gif)
-
Obama without even a close second.