Miss GW Yet?

[OzmO]

It's funny but Benny and 333 are pretty much the same type of posters.  Just on different sides of the spectrum. 

I agree but the difference is 33333 will also full on debate with you in his owns words, Benny doesn't as much. 

[Skip8282]

I agree but the difference is 33333 will also full on debate with you in his owns words, Benny doesn't as much. 

That's because 33 typically bitch slaps Benny in 99.99% of all his threads.  If you were continually getting schooled like a retarded douche, you probably wouldn't stick around either. 

[Soul Crusher]

That's because 33 typically bitch slaps Benny in 99.99% of all his threads.  If you were continually getting schooled like a retarded douche, you probably wouldn't stick around either. 

I like everyone but him.  I like Straw, blacken, 240, andre, etc.  Benny is the only jerkoff I get delight in giving a beat down to. 

[Benny B]

[Benny B]

Worst. President. Ever.

By Scott Horton

    “It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”

America’s historians, it seems, don’t think much of George W. Bush.

Now in all fairness, historians should wait a while before passing judgment on a president’s who served recently, much less one still in office. But the current incumbent is a special case. After all, 81 percent of Americans, according to a recent New York Times poll, believe he’s taken the country on the wrong track. That’s the highest number ever registered. The same poll also says 28 percent have a favorable view of his performance in office, which is also in Nixon-in-the-darkest-days-of-Watergate territory.

But, as George Mason University’s History News Network reports, the historians have a different measure. They want to stack him up against his forty-two predecessors as the nation’s chief executive. Among historians, there is no doubt into which echelon he falls–his competitors are Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Franklin Pierce, the worst of the presidential worst. But does Bush actually come in dead last?

Yes. History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure.”


Historians Rate George W. Bush a “Failure”

This marks a dramatic deterioration for Bush. Previously he wasn’t viewed in the most positive terms, but there was a consensus that he wasn’t the “worst of the worst” either. That was in the spring of 2004. In the meantime, Bush has established himself as the torture president, the basis for his invasion of Iraq has been exposed as a fraud, the Iraq War itself has gone disastrously, the nation’s network of alliances has faded, and the economy has gone into a tailspin–not to mention the bungled handling of relief for victims of hurricane Katrina. In 2004, only 12 percent of historians were ready to place Bush dead last.

Here are some of the comments that the historians furnished:

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

    “With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of areas: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

[OzmO]

He's a gimmick.   

[Soul Crusher]

BUMP

To all the spineless, cowardly, smug, brownosing morons that bitched and whined about GW's foreign policy, can we have a teachable moment based on what has transpired in Libya? After looking like a complete affirmative action flunky that is unqualified to wipe his own ass, let alone run the United States regarding Egypt and fumbling around like a drunk 16 year old attempting to sneak in before mom and dad woke up to locate a coherent and consistent position, he has further embarrassed himself as it now appears that Gaddafi's  rag tag army of mercenaries is going to retake the country. What did Obama do in this case? What he always does. Empty threats, meaningless platitudes, pussy ass statements with absolutely no intention on backing them up, and in the end, even with Europe and the entire Arab world urging us to act by merely endorsing a no-fly zone, Obama sat on his hands and filmed his NCAA tournament picks for ESPN.

Can we now agree that Obama has no clue what he's doing, has no handle on the situation in the middle east, has been made to look like a complete nincompoop on the international stage with regard to foreign affairs, has weakened the United States irreparably, has made the world less safe and has exposed himself as a incompetent yellow bellied cockroach that is obsessed with his anti colonialist- anti American agenda.

I am more embarrassed to be American now than I ever was after GW was in office. The man stands for nothing, is worth less than nothing and the pieces of shit that still support him should be euthanized at the local dog pound.  

[blacken700]

not at all  2 words      iraq war    4000 lives and 2 trillion dollars

[Soul Crusher]

not at all  2 words      iraq war    4000 lives and 2 trillion dollars

How many have we lost since O-TWINK has become POTUS and how much has he added to the debt? 

[blacken700]

and remind us where it started

[Soul Crusher]

and remind us where it started

9/11/2001 - that is where it started. 

[blacken700]

9/11/2001 - that is where it started. 

and if we go by your thinking it must be bushes fault because he was pres. at the time,right

[RRKore]

not at all  2 words      iraq war    4000 lives and 2 trillion dollars

Not to mention the killing of something like 500,000 Iraqis. 

No American should be proud of that.

[24KT]

YAWN...When will all of you DUMBASSES come to understand and accept what Politics is all about. No politician is any better or worst than the one before or after him...WHY? because they are all controlled manipulated PUPPETS whose handlers are BANKERS and other BIG BUSINESSES. Come to know and understand that and free yourselves from endless mindless blaming and commentary that means NOTHING...

POLITICS... POLY = MANY
                 TICS - BLOOD SUCKERS

So in short the system means  MANY BLOODSUCKERS who feast off of YOUR FLESH

WoW!!  QFT!!!

[Dos Equis]

Not to mention the killing of something like 500,000 Iraqis. 

No American should be proud of that.

No American should believe that propaganda. 

[RRKore]

No American should believe that propaganda. 

Which part is propaganda? 

Are you quibbling over the exact number of Iraqis who died as a consequence of the USA invading their country?

What number of dead Iraqis is low enough for you to be proud of America's actions over there?

[bears]

love this.  yet all the libs on here voted for democrats that voted yes to go to war with Iraq.  Pelosi, Biden, Clinton, Kerry,........that fact is conveniently left out of this thread though.  


no one wants to remember Hillary saying

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

 It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.  Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

 This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make.  Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

     Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
     Addressing the US Senate
     October 10, 2002


but all the same liberals will all vote for her while still talking shit about GWB's "bullshit war".  that's why i'm convinced that no one cares about any of this shit.  this country runs on gays and abortion.  no one will ever convince me otherwise simply because of shit like this.

I get it if you believe its a bullshit war.  but don't sit on this board and stroke every democrats cock while talking about GWB and the Republicans bullshit war in Iraq.  democrats and republicans voted to do this.  own it and move on. 

or just be an ignorant asshole and post another article talking about how bad GWB was

[bears]

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will.  I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

 For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

 The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

 I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution.  That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

 With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership.  And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing.  And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone.  It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not.  I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."

    Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
    During a meeting with "Code Pink" at the US Capitol
    March 6, 2003


SO FUNNY HOW CONVENIENTLY NONE OF THE DIE HARD LIBERALS REMEMBER HOW OUTSPOKEN HILLARY WAS FOR HER SUPPORT OF THE WAR IN IRAQ.

[bears]

  "I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities.  I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein.  ...  Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein.  Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

     Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
     Addressing the US House of Representatives
     October 10, 2002
     Congressional Record, p. H7777
 

OH yeah and Nancy Pelosi too.  check her out "applauding" the President.  you libs all hate her right?  and you hate Obama's entire administration too right?  they did support GWB in the horrible atrocities that he committed against the Iraqi people right? 

here is where all of you guys scramble and make silly excuses about how they were all tricked.........by the (in your words in about 10,000 threads) the STUPIDEST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE US.

so you guys wouldn't vote for the STUPIDEST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE US.  you'll just vote for all of the people he was able to trick into a bullshit war right? 

[RRKore]

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will.  I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

 For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

 The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

 I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution.  That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

 With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership.  And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing.  And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone.  It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not.  I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."

    Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
    During a meeting with "Code Pink" at the US Capitol
    March 6, 2003


SO FUNNY HOW CONVENIENTLY NONE OF THE DIE HARD LIBERALS REMEMBER HOW OUTSPOKEN HILLARY WAS FOR HER SUPPORT OF THE WAR IN IRAQ.

Like a lot of us, she was wrong. 

Whether she was mislead (like most of us) or was knowingly pulling the okeydoke (like I suspect Cheney and his pals were) is really the question she'll likely need to answer again and again if she wants to be president.

It's pretty natural and normal, I think, for most people to get whipped up into "war fever" when your country is attacked. 

It just sucks when you make a Ron Artest-like mistake (à la Malice at the Palace) and attack the guy who DIDN'T throw the beer on you.

[Dos Equis]

Which part is propaganda? 

Are you quibbling over the exact number of Iraqis who died as a consequence of the USA invading their country?

What number of dead Iraqis is low enough for you to be proud of America's actions over there?

All of it.  Not quibbling over the exact number.  You just latched onto a false number that has been floating around the internet for years.  But don't let the facts get in the way of internet propaganda.  

[OzmO]

How do you know it's false?

Did you do the body counts yourself?

Was the death of 4000 Americans, husbands, sons, daughters, wives,..... families shattered worth disposing Saddam followed by 8 years of insurgency and trillions of debt?   All based on bull shit Intel?

What if the number of dead Iraqis was 12?   Is a dozen acceptable to you?   Was that worth 4000 of our lives?

How many Iraqis died makes no difference to the point that that war was wrong.  If we really wanted to save an enslaved people, if our intentions were really true.......we would have invaded north Korea. 

The dems voted for it because they are whores for votes to vote.against at the time is to risk losing their next election. 

[Dos Equis]

How do you know it's false?

Did you do the body counts yourself?

Was the death of 4000 Americans, husbands, sons, daughters, wives,..... families shattered worth disposing Saddam followed by 8 years of insurgency and trillions of debt?   All based on bull shit Intel?

What if the number of dead Iraqis was 12?   Is a dozen acceptable to you?   Was that worth 4000 of our lives?

How many Iraqis died makes no difference to the point that that war was wrong.  If we really wanted to save an enslaved people, if our intentions were really true.......we would have invaded north Korea.  

The dems voted for it because they are whores for votes to vote.against at the time is to risk losing their next election.  

How do I know the number is wrong?  For the same reason I know we didn't kill three million people.  Doesn't make any dang sense.  And I read an analysis a long time ago debunking that 500,000 number.  Pretty sure it has been posted on the board.  

No, I didn't count any bodies.

I wasn't commenting on whether the war was right or wrong (although you already know my views on the war), just pointing out the number is BS.

And no, North Korea isn't the same.  We beat that horse to death.

[bears]

Like a lot of us, she was wrong. 

Whether she was mislead (like most of us) or was knowingly pulling the okeydoke (like I suspect Cheney and his pals were) is really the question she'll likely need to answer again and again if she wants to be president.
It's pretty natural and normal, I think, for most people to get whipped up into "war fever" when your country is attacked. 

It just sucks when you make a Ron Artest-like mistake (à la Malice at the Palace) and attack the guy who DIDN'T throw the beer on you.

she won't have to answer that question.   no one asks.  no one cares to dredge up the fact that she was just as in favor of this war as GWB was because why? 

no one cares.  that's why.  all anyone cares about is gay marriage, abortion, and the liberal agenda.  they only PRETEND to care about the war in Iraq. 

if they actually did care about the war in Iraq and innocent Iraqi people dying they would be incensed at Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, etc and all of those people would be on the receiving end of the same venom that GWB is getting in this thread.  but no one says a word. 

look at your response.  it says it all.  you suspect Cheney and the Republicans were lying.  but you're JUST NOT SURE IF HILLARY WAS MISLED OR NOT.  and misled by who?  Republicans?  that's fucking bullshit.  you've been conditioned to think like that by the liberal media.     

all of the intelligence committees were bipartisan. if she had intelligence it came from committees of Republicans and Democrats.   

you're letting her off easy because she's a liberal.  period.  you're blatantly picking and choosing facts based upon convenience.  period.

these are the things that really get me pist off.  I can accept the belief that this was a bullshit war and that we did it for whatever nefarious reason we did it for.  i can honestly accept that. 

but you don't get to pick and choose who you want to demonize based on how you vote.  you should only be demonizing people based on all of the facts that we know. 

[Soul Crusher]

Awesome post - dead on 

she won't have to answer that question.   no one asks.  no one cares to dredge up the fact that she was just as in favor of this war as GWB was because why? 

no one cares.  that's why.  all anyone cares about is gay marriage, abortion, and the liberal agenda.  they only PRETEND to care about the war in Iraq. 

if they actually did care about the war in Iraq and innocent Iraqi people dying they would be incensed at Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, etc and all of those people would be on the receiving end of the same venom that GWB is getting in this thread.  but no one says a word. 

look at your response.  it says it all.  you suspect Cheney and the Republicans were lying.  but you're JUST NOT SURE IF HILLARY WAS MISLED OR NOT.  and misled by who?  Republicans?  that's fucking bullshit.  you've been conditioned to think like that by the liberal media.     

all of the intelligence committees were bipartisan. if she had intelligence it came from committees of Republicans and Democrats.   

you're letting her off easy because she's a liberal.  period.  you're blatantly picking and choosing facts based upon convenience.  period.

these are the things that really get me pist off.  I can accept the belief that this was a bullshit war and that we did it for whatever nefarious reason we did it for.  i can honestly accept that. 

but you don't get to pick and choose who you want to demonize based on how you vote.  you should only be demonizing people based on all of the facts that we know.