George Bush: Worst American president in history

[missy4gordon 0]

I agree with you Mouse, well said.

[lisah25 3]

I am not embarrassed or sickened. I AM concerned that there are people who think that the evil in the world is the Republican party, or in America...at least the Republican party and President rightfully identify the evil in the world as being outside the U.S....not the Democrats.

Pretty much all of the Dems I know and have talked to realize that evil exists outside of the US. We just don't see a link between the evil of what happened on 9/11 and Iraq.

Terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists has been carried out long before President Bush took office. How does this fact fit into the world view of the "Bush Bad" and America-is-the-cause-of-the-evil-in-the-world point of view? I seriously don't understand this.

The "Bush bad" isn't linked with "America-is-the-cause...". I don't believe Bush is handling the very real threat of terrorism by some Islamic fundamentalists. That doesn't mean I don't realize that threat.

Should we be a nation that supports freedom, and comes to the aid of others seeking freedom? All the time? Sometimes? Never?

This is a tough one. I wish we could address all the wrongs out there, but we just can't. So, I'd like to see us do things that make us safer first.

People say we have given up our freedoms for this war on terror, but I have a hard time understanding what freedoms have been lost. I suppose I feel I have not lost any personal freedom in my day to day life. I still work, use my car, phone, bank, etc., just like always. What have I lost?

One thing I think we all have had happen is more security screening. I'm not saying that's bad, but look at the restrictions on what we can carry on an airplane. Or that we are searched before entering a stadium. Beyond that, there are things that may not affect us personally now, but misused could. Things like wire-tapping without following procedure.

I am interested in the issues beyond who is actually the sitting President.

I agree that many issues will still be there no matter who is elected. And I'm not interested in who the president is exactly, more in what they do.

[Carlene 12]

I am interested in the issues beyond who is actually the sitting President.

You can't really ignore the President and still address the issues. George Bush is responsible for the US invasion of Iraq and for our continued presence there. A presence that, according to this morning's news, has now exceed our involvement, time-wise, in WWII and has cost us more than 500 BILLION dollars - or ten times the President's original estimate.

The excuse that he may have relied on "bad information" only goes so far. No WMD? No problem....tip-toe quietly out of the country and close the door behind you.

And the Iraqi people were not begging for liberation, by the way. But even if they had, it isn't necessarily our obligation to police the world and rid it of tyrants, dictators, and the like. Great Britain DID beg the US for help, long before we finally declared war on Germany. We ignored their pleas, causing, indirectly, many lost lives. Does that mean we were the bad guys? No, it means that we were reluctant to get involved in somebody else's war. Sometimes minding your own business is terribly underrated.

[mousecrazy 2]

So all the mass graves in Iraq (over ONE MILLION Iraqiis are believed to have gone missing from 1983 to 1999-executed and buried in these mass gravesites), and the rape/torture rooms, the (under-reported) discoveries of chemical and biological agents/weapons, the terrorist training camps....just "nevermind" and "oh, so sorry".

I never expected the public's idea of WMD to be found. The very fact that UN resolutions were ignored, that US planes were being shot at daily, that $$ was being used to finance groups and terrorists to bring down America and American interests...any one or all of the above is enough to justify US involvment.

When leaders specifically state that their goal is the destruction of the United States, wouldn't it be arrogant at best, and foolish at least, to ignore the threat? Why wouldn't you believe it? The President of Iran says it practically every day.

Look at the big picture. Who cares why or how we are in Iraq, at this point. We cannot "lose" there. The cost is our lives and safety. Losing will embolden the others, and if you are of the belief Iraq was impotent, they are not. Showing a confused, weak, simpering and frightened face to the world will not show them how Enlightened and educated we are. It will show them how correct they were when they assessed that we were "paper tigers." I think that we are. I think it is very sad. We are so caught up in political correctness that we can't stand for anything. I hope, I pray, that our American strength and unity does not fail us, when it really counts.

[the best me 6]

So all the mass graves in Iraq (over ONE MILLION Iraqiis are believed to have gone missing from 1983 to 1999-executed and buried in these mass gravesites), and the rape/torture rooms, the (under-reported) discoveries of chemical and biological agents/weapons, the terrorist training camps....just "nevermind" and "oh, so sorry".

I never expected the public's idea of WMD to be found. The very fact that UN resolutions were ignored, that US planes were being shot at daily, that $$ was being used to finance groups and terrorists to bring down America and American interests...any one or all of the above is enough to justify US involvment.

When leaders specifically state that their goal is the destruction of the United States, wouldn't it be arrogant at best, and foolish at least, to ignore the threat? Why wouldn't you believe it? The President of Iran says it practically every day.

Look at the big picture. Who cares why or how we are in Iraq, at this point. We cannot "lose" there. The cost is our lives and safety. Losing will embolden the others, and if you are of the belief Iraq was impotent, they are not. Showing a confused, weak, simpering and frightened face to the world will not show them how Enlightened and educated we are. It will show them how correct they were when they assessed that we were "paper tigers." I think that we are. I think it is very sad. We are so caught up in political correctness that we can't stand for anything. I hope, I pray, that our American strength and unity does not fail us, when it really counts.

Good Heavens, where have you been all my life?! Here, here, Mouse! And AMEN!!! :amen: I was going to BOLD the stuff I REALLY liked about this post but I'd just have to BOLD all of it. Thank you!

[Carlene 12]

Look at the big picture. Who cares why or how we are in Iraq, at this point. We cannot "lose" there.

Sure we can....and we ARE, even as we speak. Our new Secretary of Defense said it, too. We are not winning the war in Iraq. That's what he said, and my money's on him. I think the man knows whereof he speaks.

[mousecrazy 2]

I think you would have to define the term "lose". The military won the battles, but we have failed to control the peace. We promised the Iraqi govt. that we would support their democracy, and we should stand behind that promise. Sure, it is costly and the way is difficult. Some things are. Thank God there are men and women who are up to the job. I'm glad your money is on the new Sec. of Defense. I think he might surprise you.

[BJean 16]

Political correctness is causing people to be shocked by Bush's decisions? Political correctness is the reason people are furious about Americans being killed everyday?

Political correctness is what's making Americans look bad to other countries?

Political correctness makes Americans not stand for anything?

Poppycock. Using that tired old "political correctness" argument means absolutely nothing and it is not correct!

We are losing in Iraq because of the way we are operating there and the way that the insurgents are operating there. We are not winning the war in Iraq because it can't be won by us in the way our administration has decided we should go in there. We are losing people everyday and we are not winning. We are not a "paper tiger" country. We have lots of might. We've certainly proven our willingness to show up and fight! But we have not been smart about our actions in Iraq. We did not have enough support from other countries, especially the countries surrounding Iraq, so we look like we are weak because of our lack of proper planning and our approach there. We look weak because we didn't use our intelligence. We look weak because we went in like a dumb big bully without regard for anybody else. If you think we went in there to make that country a democracy, the American powers that be hoped you'd believe that. We're there because of greed and we fought we way we have because of stupidity. There's not one iota of political incorrectness or correctness in that fact.

We are never going to agree about Iraq or President Bush, because we see them from completely opposing viewpoints. But I ask you to not read what people are writing here. Watch your television. Listen to the news and read the newspaper. We have lost in Iraq and we throwing good Americans to the wolves everyday that we make them stay there.

Let's all hope that someone uses all that we've learned over these years of involvment in Iraq to find a solution that will HELP the Iraq people, whatever their religious beliefs. And let's care enough about our own flesh and blood family of American military not to condone the loss of one more life for such a fruitless cause.

[Carlene 12]

By Bill Nichols and Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Conditions in Iraq are "grave and deteriorating," a high-level study warned today, urging the White House to accelerate diplomacy across the Middle East in the hopes of bringing most U.S. troops home by 2008.

The much-awaited report from the 10-member, bi-partisan, congressionally-mandated Iraq Study Group said President Bush's policy in Iraq "is not working." Said former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, the group's co-chairman: "Our ship of state has hit rough waters. It must now chart a new way forward."

Former secretary of State James Baker, the commission's other co-chair, said the stay-the-course approach in Iraq long supported by Bush "is no longer viable." Decisions on a new policy "should be made with some urgency."

Bush received the report in an early morning meeting at the White House and pledged to treat its recommendations seriously and to act in "timely fashion."

"This report gives a very tough assessment of the situation in Iraq," Bush said. "This report will give us all an opportunity to find common ground."

The report's recommendations are not binding and other reviews of Iraq policy are underway by the Pentagon, State Department and White House.

Bush has signaled, however, that the suggestions of the study group will be taken seriously, both because the panel is bi-partisan and because Baker and Hamilton are two of Washington's most respected senior statesmen.

[BJean 16]

Thanks for the specific info Carlene. Baker and others called me for my opinion recently and thankfully they listened. Now if we can just get Bush to get real. :bandit

[Carlene 12]

"We are winning the war," Army Chief of Staff Gen. Harold K. Johnson said of Vietnam in August 1967.

"No, Mr. President, we are not winning the war," Republican Rep. Tim Lee Carter told President Lyndon Johnson.

"We shall persist, and America shall succeed," President Johnson said in June 1966.

Oct. 25: President Bush said, "Absolutely, we're winning."

Tuesday: Robert Gates, defense secretary nominee, told a Senate panel, "No, sir."

These guys (Johnson and Bush) have a lot in common. Johnson didn't want to go down in history as the President who lost the war in Vietnam. George Bush is now in the same boat, and it's sinking fast. It sucks to be you, George.

[misschrissie67 0]

I just had to say I completely agree with the title of this thread! :clap2: I just pray our country can hang on 2 more years.

[BJean 16]

Amen to both of you sisters!

[ELEEBANA2 0]

Dear Wootsie, Shortly after the start of this dreadful war I watched a Iraqi man and wife standing in their small living room, crying and holding photographs of their five dead children, all under 12years old. They had all been killed by an american cluster bomb. I felt ashamed that our prime minister was supporting America and I remembered seeing some young Americans sitting on a fence in some state that was pretty empty country."Oh boy we are going to kick them iraqs asses" they laughed. They could not even say where Iraq was.

This is the popular picture that the rest of the world has of America now, which I find very sad as I have visited several places over the years and have met some very nice kind people.

[BJean 16]

Eleebana2: Brings up an interesting point. How do you explain why your Tony Blair is such a proponent of the war in Iraq? Why has he commited British troops to it? Do most British people support your Prime Minister?From your post, it sounds as if you feel about this war as many of us in the U.S. do.

We may not have a picture of a couple of rednecks sitting on a fence outside Liverpool, talking about kicking some unknown Iraqi's ass, but you all seem to be just as committed to the war. Especially after hearing some of the remarks from your Prime Minister yesterday.

And believe me, I've known some nice Englishmen too.