George Bush: Worst American president in history

[Wheetsin 714]

when someone looks like a savior to his followers, something has to be wrong

And sometimes anything that suggests a breath of fresh air can look like a savior, regardless of whether or not that's the case or intention. Have a really crabby professor for a semester, then have a level-headed one come in. Students will look upon the new professor like a savior. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the professor, because the students react the way they do.

[BJean 16]

Amen, Wheetsin!

[Mariah 0]

This appeared in the Dallas Morning News today:

Dr. Weaver said the petition organizers are deeply troubled by Mr. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, detain prisoners without trial and allow torture.

"I think that George Bush has been, in his presidency, so inconsistent with fundamental Christianity that he should not be associated with a Methodist university," Dr. Weaver said. "Methodist means decency, and this man has not been decent."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/011907dnmetbushmethodist.511bb5f9.html

[BJean 16]

Nailing a few houses together? Come on. You can do better than that, can't you? Defend your man instead of tossing out some irrelvant attack. (Irrelevant to the attack on your man, that is.)

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Want More Proof how bad BuSh is?

Today it was revealed that China was able to knock a satellite out of space. The reason that this is so important is that the USA depends on satellites for both military and commercial purposes. Without satellites, the US technological advantages in war would all but disappear. Our chance at winning even wars against small countries would be diminished.

Until this announcement, only Russia had the ability to destroy our satellites What makes it so annoying is that BuSh had a chance to demilitarize space by a UN treaty signed by 160 countries, but of course, BuSh always looking for the edge, refused and now China will militarize space. China has little to lose, having less than 10% as many satellites in space as the USA.

[anonemouse 1]

Kerry would have been worse.

We can't say whether he would have been better or worse, because he never got the chance to try.

[BJean 16]

No, no, no, Jack. I said defend your man, not attack and blame others for their actions. Why is it that no one can really defend his actions in a way that makes any sense at all? They just say that they like "some" of his policies, although " maybe not all" of them. What about the actions that he has taken that are known to cause much of the problem today, TODAY, in Iraq? Not the ones that have been going on for hundreds of years. How have his actions in Iraq secured the peace for ANYONE? Or even led us to a path of POTENTIAL PEACE? One might try the tactic of defending his actions as they relate to the U.S. not losing out on a very important oil resource. Because right now, it is quite possibly the only thing that really makes any sense at all.

[BJean 16]

P.S. What's the good in saying that you think that Kerry would have been worse? If you want that to be believable or relevant, tell us exactly what you know that would have transpired under Kerry's influence, that would be specificially worse? Before you jump onto that bandwagon, please know that we're going to want to know how you have magically come up with your knowledge of that fact. Because let's face it, George W. pledged a whole lot of things during his campaign that did not happen and in some cases have turned out to be quite the opposite of what he promised. So surely you aren't basing it on campaign promises or pledges.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

No, no, no, Jack. I said defend your man, not attack and blame others for their actions. Why is it that no one can really defend his actions in a way that makes any sense at all? They just say that they like "some" of his policies, although " maybe not all" of them. What about the actions that he has taken that are known to cause much of the problem today, TODAY, in Iraq? Not the ones that have been going on for hundreds of years. How have his actions in Iraq secured the peace for ANYONE? Or even led us to a path of POTENTIAL PEACE? One might try the tactic of defending his actions as they relate to the U.S. not losing out on a very important oil resource. Because right now, it is quite possibly the only thing that really makes any sense at all.

Didn't a much more intelligent, much better president once say, "This is not about oil!! Its about Democracy" as his rationale for putting the US Military in harm's way?

Wasn't his name George Bush?:faint:

But even he was lying, because Kuwait is a Monarchy and the closest thing to a Communist state that has ever existed on the planet Earth.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

P.S. What's the good in saying that you think that Kerry would have been worse? If you want that to be believable or relevant, tell us exactly what you know that would have transpired under Kerry's influence, that would be specificially worse? Before you jump onto that bandwagon, please know that we're going to want to know how you have magically come up with your knowledge of that fact. Because let's face it, George W. pledged a whole lot of things during his campaign that did not happen and in some cases have turned out to be quite the opposite of what he promised. So surely you aren't basing it on campaign promises or pledges.

The best Neo-Con line of all time (though it spread to the general public) was "Just think what would have happened if Gore had been president" after 911.

Well he would not have sat there reading a children's book with a look of stupidity on his face (I am giving BuSh extra credit when I say "reading", rather than "looking at").

I am so sick of the love affair this country has with Rudolph Giuliani. What else could he have done on 911? The attacks had subsided. This idea that only BuSh and Rudy could have handled 911 is based on what? Only Republicans can handle stress? I seem to remember hearing about a cripple (sorry for the rude term, but that's what they called him back then) who did not attack the wrong country when the USA was attacked, and I believe he was a Democrat.

[Betsyjane 2]

Iraq is not a shambles because of decades of our failed policies. Iraq is a shambles because the only thing holding it together was a vicous tyrant ruling through torture and terror. We removed him. Now they're back to squabbling as they have since 660 AD. But a president should have known enough history to predict that. Now that Iraq is not there to help stabilize Iran, we are in much bigger troubles.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Iraq is not a shambles because of decades of our failed policies. Iraq is a shambles because the only thing holding it together was a vicous tyrant ruling through torture and terror. We removed him. Now they're back to squabbling as they have since 660 AD. But a president should have known enough history to predict that. Now that Iraq is not there to help stabilize Iran, we are in much bigger troubles.

And this President only had to read his own father's Book, "A World Transformed" (GHW Bush and B Scowcroft) in which the perils and expected results of ousting Saddam Hussein where spelled out.

But Baby BuSh said, "When it comes to war and politics, I put my faith in a higher father".

Jesus would have counseled invasion of Iraq? Can you spell "disillusioned"?

[anonemouse 1]

In my opinion, bad dogs need a swat upside the head once in a while.

Do you truly see the mess in Iraq as a "swat upside the head" to Saddam? It seems more like we are "swatting" the poor kids the "bad dog" bit. If anything, we "swatted" a hornet's nest, and now we are being swarmed.

[BJean 16]

Good analogy, laurend. Leave it to the pro-war people to think it's beneficial to hit things.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

The mid-east continued to menace US interests in dangerous ways, that I considered important.

This may be the apex of our disagreement.

We have no right, IMHO to enforce our so-called interests in any region of the world.

We are responsible for ourselves.

If the USA spent more time making alliances and less time building weapons for the next war, which usually is part of the reason for the next war, maybe we could learn to get along.

I know it is easy to say that I am expecting Utopia, but when we go into every situation and every part of the world with this "we have the right to protect our interests" attitude, then conflict is inevitable.