George Bush: Worst American president in history

[ELEEBANA2 0]

Hello Billiejean, Well if you did happen upon some young men outside Liverpool they would certainly not be Blair supporters, Liverpool is and always has been solid socialist, like most of northern England and almost all of Scotland. Blair is stepping down soon, or so he has announced and the quicker the better. He is looked on here, by the majority, according to the polls, as nothing but Bushs' poodle.

As for myself, Labour all my voting years, I am very, very disappointed with him. Heaven only knows he is no socialist, which he always purported to be before he took office and I. was so glad because everybody I know suffered badly under Maggie Thatcher,whose name I can hardly bring myself to type!

Years ago America tried to get Prime Minister Harold Wilson to support them in Vietnam but he refused saying that it was illegal and immoral, which it was. The CIA played some dirty deeds against him but he would not change his mind. After him Ted Heath was put under pressure to support Pakistan against India but he told America to find other shoulders to stand on because he could not interfere in that skirmish.

What makes Blair different? here the papers believe it is down to religion, both of them being born again Christians. Others believe he enjoys playing the world statesman.

If it is down to religion then I hope that they are haunted by the thought of those little children of that family and the 200,000 other Iraqis who have died when they are busy praying. None of them bombed New York. Bush's friends the Bin Ladens did that .All the bombers were Saudis. Americans forget that the Bushs used to entertain Bin Laden at their ranch. The Saudis have oil though don't they! It was only when the taliban changed their minds about The pipeline going through Afghanistan, that they suddenly became 'evil' in american eyes, although all Europe knew what they did to women and others.

[BJean 16]

Eleebanna2: Sounds like we share many of the same emotions about our current leaders. They have us in one heckofa mess. We have to put up with Bush for another 2 years. I hope we survive it.

When you said you had trouble even typing Thatcher's name, I had to giggle. Many people at this site have the same problem with Bush. They are so incensed by his actions that they (we) call him all manner of silly names. It offends the Republicans, and they think it is an affront to the entire country, but when you have lost all respect for someone it is difficult not to demonstrate your disgust.

The fact that they use the born again Christian label to justify their dirty deeds is especially upsetting. I've never been able to understand the right wing's war mongering stance. They want the whole world to be afraid of us and the whole world seems to think we are crazy.

Who will take Blair's place? Any hope there? BJean

P.S. You are right on about the Bush's connections to the Bin Ladens. Sure makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[ELEEBANA2 0]

Hi BJean, In answer to your question about who might possibly follow Tony Blair, That is very difficult. Blair is going early, well he says he is but one can never tell with him. Gordan Brown who is chancellor of the exchequer, that is the one who is in charge of the countrys' budget. he likes that job and has done well. He has never spoken in public about the war, but that does not mean that he might not disagree with it because, as a cabinet member and also number two in power, he would have to resign immediately because that is the way things must be done, it is called collective cabinet responsibility. In private he may disagree with the policy. He has a history as a true socialist, being the son of a scottish prestybarian minister. He learned as a young boy, about the problems of poverty and unemployment as his father helped people and he never forgot how miners were treated so badly. Blair on the other hand had wealthy parents who educated him privately, in fact his father was something important in the conservative party so that is the diference. Brown has always worked hard and went to Oxford by working hard and winning a scholarship, that is the socialist way so he is a true Labour man. The only doubt I have is that Brown is very pro American, but we shall see because soon he will lay out his claim to be the next party leader, then we shall read his manifesto. If he does not express his doubts about the war then I suppose I shall have to vote for the Green Party or the Liberal Democrats. Brown has done so much good for poor people here, such getting single mums back to work with tax breaks and credits. There is Sure Start that helps Mums on their own with things like free nursery places and how to educate their children at home and gives them emotional support.

So there You are that is my long rambling answer ! I think if I was in America they would think that I was some sort of communist or something, they have never understood the difference between a socialist and a communist there.

My husband ias a former refugee from communists in Hungary, in 1956, so it's not likely is it!

[Terrilen 0]

This bears repeating DO THIS!!!! Go to the Google Search Engine.....type in the word FALIURE and see what you get! I love it!

[green 6]

@Eleebana2: I heard that the fact that Gordon Brown is Scottish may also act against him. Is that true? He certainly sounds like a worthy man.

[mousecrazy 2]

Please provide credible evidence that Usama bin Laden has been entertained at the Crawford, Texas ranch by the Bush family. I would like to know when this occurred, and where it is documented. I was under the impression that UBL was ousted or disowned by his family long ago.

I don't think that Americans "forget" this...I think it never happened.

[BJean 16]

Where has anyone here said that Usama bin Laden was entertained by the Bushes at Crawford Texas?

It was stated that the Bush family has entertained Bin Laden at their ranch. It doesn't state anything about someone named Usama bin Laden. It doesn't mention which ranch, which Bushes, or which member of the Bin Laden family. Why should anyone document something that they didn't even say?

Furthermore I agreed about the connection between the Bin Laden family and the Bush family. I am sure that there is no way I could possibly document that connection in such a way that would please you. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, dear.

I can tell you for sure that the Bin Ladens owned a home in Florida, near Orlando (Windermere to be precise) and when 9/11 happened, the Bin Ladens were picked up and escorted out of the country for their protection. The house was put on the market by a very close friend of mine. She was informed that the name was never to be used in connection with the marketing of the home. That direction specifically came from a representative of the Bush family. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that all of the Bin Laden family that were in the U.S. were permitted to leave the country without benefit of questioning regarding Osama's whereabouts or about any other sensitive and potentially helpful information that might be garnered that would aid in his capture.

No one has to believe anything that is said here. This is not a school. This is simply a forum dedicated for the purpose of allowing people to exchange ideas and experiences and beliefs. There have been quite a number of posts on other threads that make claims about the pros and cons of Lap Band surgery and all that entails. I haven't once seen anyone require documentation for any of it. It's a good thing because much of it is a lot of bunk.

This is a forum. This is not journalism, it is not an Encyclopedia. It isn't a website that claims to be providing facts about anything. It is a forum whereby participants are able to discuss whatever they wish and the other participants are able to read what is posted and use it or discard it however they see fit.

If you require documentation on any subject with which you disagree, go forth and find it. Then state your case right here if you want to. But there have been no rules set forth that state that one must document each claim in their post with specific dates, times, places, names, or other facts. Please just chill out. If you don't like what you're reading just say so if you wish. And if you want to challenge someone about something they've stated, do so. But to require documentation is an effort for you to defend something that you obviously can't defend with any documentation of your own or you would have provided it.

[leatha_g 4]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Carlene 12]

I don't know anything about what goes on in Crawford, TX but I read the other day, I think it was USA today, that the Saudis are shipping large sums of cash to the insurgents in Iraq, presumably to buy weapons. Some of the couriers have confessed to their part and some of the shipments have been confiscated. There are many extremely wealthy Saudis that sympathize with the Iraqis. Whether any of them are bin Ladens or not, I don't know and the article did not say.

Osama bin Laden's family have publically distanced themselves from him, that is true. I wouldn't bet the farm on it being the absolute, whole truth, however. Blood is thicker than Water.

[BJean 16]

leatha_G: By whom were you directed and you were ridiculed by whom? Someone who runs this website or another bandster? Was it in regard to this thread or a different one? Just curious and always willing to learn the rules. BJ

[Carlene 12]

Are we taking a vote? I'm in favor of providing supporting documentation. Otherwise, it's not a debate - it's just an argument.

[mousecrazy 2]

This is in post #370: "Americans forget that the Bushs used to entertain Bin Laden at their ranch." I guess I could be picky on this, but I took it to mean THE Usama bin Laden...for who careS what other bin Ladens were entertained? The implication here is that there is some connection between President Bush, or the Bush family, and UBL...AND that Americans are stupid enough to forget such a thing.

Neither are true. I happen to think that is slightly important.

When untruths like this are passed up, unchallenged, even by those of the same philosophical mind, it is wrong. I know some of you on the left side of the fence knew this was untrue, but let it slide. Intellectual dishonesty will not assist us in reaching any conclusion, except an incorrect one.

[BJean 16]

Mousecrazy: Who exactly IS "Usama" anyway? I'm surprised that someone thinks that the Bushes having a relationship with the bin Laden family is only slightly important.

But I'm glad you stated your feelings this time instead of just challenging someone else to do what you think they should here.

I'm like Leatha about the "rules" here, and to my way of thinking the good part is that there ain't no rules. If someone wants to pull up tons of info that enlightens us all, so be it. If someone wants to come here just to state their opinion, like me, that's fair too. But I think we all need to understand that our opinions and politics are ours alone and we all have the same options open to us. Thank God for diversity and tolerance is what makes America a great place to live.

[mousecrazy 2]

I believe there are two spellings of the name: Osama and Usama. I have seen the name abbreviated "UBL", but never "OBL".

I believe I was clear that what was SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT was the fact that the readers of post #370 were lead to believe that President Bush met with Osama/Usama bin Laden when that did not happen. I was being sarcastic. It would be VERY IMPORTANT.

Why is it "bad" for the Bush family to have a relationship with any Saudi family, including the bin Ladens? I have been told that MORE communication with the folks in the Middle East is necessary, not less. If the Americans refuse to talk to M.E. leaders, they are bad; if they talk to M.E. leaders, they are bad. This does not make sense to those who think along the same lines as I do. The current president is not the only president to have had conversations and relationships with individuals from M.E. countries (Clinton/Arafat).

I have stated my feelings ad nauseum (to many, I am sure), so not sure what you mean, BJean, by that...but I am still challenging the statement that "Bush met with bin Laden". What does that mean? Which is bin Laden?

I completely agree with you about most of your last paragraph, except this one thing: if someone puts up information that is just blatantly false, like this ~ American forgets that Bill Clinton entertained the Ku Klux Klan in the White House ~ then someone else has the obligation to point that out. At the very least, it should be expected that the claim be supported with something, don't you think? I do not see that as being intolerant. Is that your definition of intolerant?

What I see here is a climate of "tolerance" meaning conservatives and supporters of America must accept liberals and American fault-finders, while the reverse is rarely ever true. And while I realize that I am beating my head against the proverbial brick wall, and bucking the commonly accepted definition of diversity (everything EXCEPT American/Christian), I choose to visit here and try to engage in some kind of dialogue. Some people even find me reasonably intelligent.

[BJean 16]

Mousecrazy: My point was that you were changing the wording of the post with which you took issue. I was being a little sarcastic too.

"Relationship" would need to be defined with reference to Bush and/or the Bush family when discussing their relationship with any of the bin Laden family or any bin Laden individual if we really wanted to get to the bottom of whether it is relevant to this topic, or not.

Political diplomacy is one type of interaction or relationship a President may have with nationals of other countries, close personal relationships or ties are quite another. You're intelligent enough to understand the difference and tossing that about as a means to divert attention from the meat of the discussion isn't worthy of you.

And as for me, I never said that Bush met with bin Laden. You must have me mixed up with some other poster.

As to your use of the analogy "Clinton entertained the Ku Klux Klan in the White House" I find that not analogous at all, considering there has never been any discussion of that in the press, has there? There has been lots of media attention to the Bush family's relationship with the bin Laden family.

But to answer your question regarding whether I perceive you to be intolerant by questioning the statement made earlier about Bush's family meeting bin Laden's family (or whatever), the answer is no. I expect anyone who disagrees with any statements made here to state their opposition openly if they would like to. That doesn't speak to intolerance, this is an open forum of discussion about the issue of the "...worst American President" which is the title of the thread.

But I will take issue with your statement that, "... conservatives and supporters of America must accept liberals and American fault finders, while the reverse is rarely ever true." Your incendiary statement to that effect shows that in this forum, quite the opposite is true. You're the one who is is taking personal pot shots. Those of us whom you call, "liberals and American fault finders" are 1) quite possibly not all that liberal and, 2) not finding fault with America. We just think that this president stinks. Your name-calling and labeling of us because you disagree with our politics is of course, your choice to make.