George Bush: Worst American president in history

[BJean 16]

The policy to go to war in Iraq was never right. It still isn't right. It still isn't improving anything for anybody. Congress continues to devote money to the effort because we cannot leave our military high and dry. They are there, we must give them what they need to survive.

The day that President Bush bombed Baghdad was a sorry, sorry day. It was a horrific sight to bring into my living room on my TV. The fact that some people thought it was correct (politically correct) to support our President at that time didn't make it right then and doesn't make it right today.

If we could do the job that he says we can do, of cleaning up the country from the in-fighting, establish a proper government, and rebuild, then that is what we should do. We owe it to them, unfortunately.

[Betsyjane 2]

Put the money into finishing the North American highway. Make alliances with Canada for natural resources. Rely on Canada instead of on the Middle East for oil. Make alliances with Mexico for cheap labor for factory work that has been outsourced. Create a common currency across the 3 countries. Work as partners to be a formidable force here to counterbalance emerging superpowers in India, China, Russia and possibly Brazil. Put good minds toward fixing the school system so we have great minds in the future. Stop being seen as an intruder in the Middle East by not haveing "interests" there, so we can for relationships instead.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Defend the USA. Do not build offensive weapons and claim that they are for defense.

>>>agree....Specifically which ones are these

Just about everything we build is offesive. In ancient Rome, soldiers had swords for offense and shields for defense. Today, we build weapons for attacking, not defending.

You can not learn as much as you need to know about your enemies by spy satellites and electronic eavesdropping.

>>>agree....now, where did the cuts in manpower & effectiveness of those assets suffer? Does the answer begin with a 'C'?

I am not placing blame on any particular US regime, I am placing the blame on all who since the cold-war allegedly ended have spent very little on learning Arabic, farce or much of anything else about Muslims or their history or culture.

In a nutshell, be ready for war, but expend more energy on deterring war. Even a rat will fight if cornered.

>>>>>coming to NYC and dropping planes from the sky is NOT 'cornered'....

That was not the first in the chain of attacks and counter-attacks between the West and Muslims. It was not even a surprize attack. We had bombed them and Bin Laden had declared war on us many years earlier. It was part of an ongoing war that we never tried to mediate by talking with the countries of the Middle-East.

[

Yes, there are terrorists in the world, but not all of them are Muslims and not all wear white sheets.

Many are born in the USA (80% Christian) and wear body armor. We are just as much terrorists to the people we attack as they are terrorists to us. We must learn to see things from their point of view.

>>>where's the list of targets taken out because our 'Christian jihadis' want to attack pizza joints, malls, tourist ships, civilian aviation, and embassies over the last 30 years?

When the USA bombs cities, there are hundreds of buildings destroyed, some of which are hospitals, restaurants, etc.

[

Our enemies do not want our destruction. They want us our of their land and their business. We have no right to Middle-East oil.

>>>we buy it on the market like every other country...

We also station troops and/or support the restrictive governements that squash the freedom of their people. Sweden buys oil on the open market but does not prop up the government od Saudi Arabia.

If Carter's alternate energy plans had not been killed by Reagan, we might not be fighting in the Middle-East right now.

>>>How do you explain the drop of oil cost from $37 to $12 at that time? And other factions in the US are rabid anti-domestic oil production.

Are you reducing the Iraq issue to being entirely oil/economic basis?<<<

The price of oil dropped because Iraq and Iran got into a war with each other and to afford the war, they each sold much more than their OPEC quota of oil, driving the price down (and US inflation down which Reagan took credit for). The Iraq issue is not entirely oil, but mostly oil related.

When is BuSh going to demand that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, and many more of our allies have fair and honest elections so that the people of those countries can be free (like the people of Iraq)?

>>>Given the ongoing rancor of the 2000 results in the US, just how would we 'demand' that happen? And, like the UN, should we just make resolutions that have no meaning to anyone? After all, if such a respected organization can not get a puppet dictator like Saddam to follow 17 'demands'--ie resolutions--along with defeat in a war in which he promised to behave, just how would this happen?

That was a rhetorical question to show that BuSh was full of BS about his need for Democracy in Iraq. It was an excuse. He knew there were no WMD, nor did Hussein have anything to do with 911, but he attacked anyway.

>>>How do you account for the rise in 'democratic governments' compared to 40 years ago, with this much oppression going on? Do you include Venezuela in this notion of 'fair election'....oh,yes, that one was certified by Mr. Carter....along with Arafat....of course, THOSE are the ones we want....

BTW, much of my complaints go back to just about every president and every administration since I was born.

>>>agree

We let WW11 go to our heads. We cry about avoiding defeat, but we did not win in either Korea or Vietnam and the country is still here. Pride can be our biggest virtue or our worst enemy.

>>>Just as attempting a political solution to a military problem....

BuSh just exacerbated the problem with his pre-emptive strike policy.

>>in other words, the problem was there already....what he did was to quit ignoring it and make a fundamental change in foreign policy....almost like the constitution says in definition of presidential power....That congress authorized his action and continues to vote money for it, is a separate question, don't you think so? How is it that so MANY of our other elected officials made that choice time and time again?

Given the same data and the same voices of Clinton Himself, the other NATO intelligence sources (really I'm NOT trying to bring this old stuff back up) all seemed to think there was a problem...even JFnKerry himself...

Gore was the heir apparent; how he lost such a vast lead remains subject to debate; Kerry's swaggering arrogance resulted in his loss; Bush's time is on the wane.

You probably recall the controversy over going in to Korea...and the controversy going in to Viet Nam looms large for many; the controversy of going into Panama; the controversy of nearly going into Cuba...the list goes on and on....

did we steal or buy or win in battle the bulk of the SW?

How is it the Atzlans believe they are going to take back what is theirs?

Do we cede LA because the largest percentage is coming to believe they are in Mexico?

So T_O_M....we seem to agree on many points....I entirely support your notions and your expression of them. How is it in this land of diverisity and 'the rights of others', that those who don't share your conclusions

raise such ire in your commentary? How is it we should meekly accept your ongoing show of disrespect of the President? ('BuSh')....you make some very good points. It is immaterial whether we agree or not. We have different opinions on some matters.

As long as the USA has this air of being Jesus' chosen country, no matter who is president, we will not make allies in the UN. As long as we support Israel, no matter what policy they employ, we will have problems in the UN. We can not expect fairness when we are in the right, if we act unfairly when we are in the wrong.

It is our attitude, not our people that much of the world hates.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Either the Iraq business was proper or not before 2004. Now the perception has changed, and the poll ratings have changed. What's different?

You will have to take my word for it, but I said in 2002, during the buildup to the Illogical Illegal Iraqi Invasion, that even if not one member of the US Military is killed in Iraq, the war would be wrong.

Many Americans only want out becaus,e we are losing people (and money). It is better than being stubborn and wanting to stay, but wanting out for that reason is not morally defendable.

[mousecrazy 2]

In regard to "democratically elected leaders", I am sure the savvy readers of this thread are aware that not all elections are held in the same manner as are ours, as imperfect and flawed as ours may be in places...we are still not voting in terror that the wrong vote will result in the deaths of our family. I do believe that situation exists in some of the "other" democratic countries on the planet.

Perhaps one problem is in the expectation of perfection...perhaps people want the pure-white-driven-snow in the motivations of politicians...I fear that these people are doomed to perpetual dissatisfaction and despair.

I continue to maintain that Bush-hatred is sapping the energy out of otherwise good-intentioned people, and is doing nothing to provide positive ideas, direction or solutions to the critical issues that face the United States.

Another thing: The UN is a corrupt organization, and due to its corruption, is functionally useless in addressing issues such as nuclear proliferation and global security. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the current US president, and will not be solved when a new US president is elected. Forget about them. Now, how do we deal with these issues? Please define "meddle". Is it meddling when we are requested (oh, yes...I believe the term is often DEMANDED) to step in and force a resolution to a situation....? Is it meddling when it is unpopular to those on the left, but reasonable when it involves environmental issues or global warming? I get confused....I know, you guys are not surprised. Poor mouse.

[BJean 16]

"pure-white-driven-snow" in the same sentence as "politicians"? Oxymoron.

The UN is functioning these days in a climate composed of countries who no longer choose to kowtow to the U.S.'s demands to solve world issues our way. So that makes it corrupt?

We used to be a country who was very influencial in the U.N. We've not been going there to solve or help solve issues that arise. We're going in there and telling them that they MUST do things our way, or the highway. They're laughing at us. They're uniting against us. So that makes it corrupt?

I'm only trying to make a small point. I am sure that there are definitely factions in the UN that are terribly corrupt. But I am not sure that casting aspersions on the entire UN is a productive approach to attaining peace in the world.

[mousecrazy 2]

I used the oxymoron on purpose. There is no perfection in politics.

As for the UN, no...the fact that other (third world) countries don't kowtow to the US is NOT what makes it corrupt. The entire structure lends itself to corruption. It is the gold-standard of bureaucracy that exists to guarantee it's continued existence. Each member country has one vote, so naturally little tiny countries (who contribute practically nothing to its HUGE operating budget) can band together to block vote against the interest of the US. This is not good for America, who supplies, in contrast, a large percentage of the UN's operational funds. These bureaucrats spend the day doing mostly nothing, making much more than than comparable jobs in the real world (where they are expected to contriubte to a bottom line), have immunity from simple laws (like traffic tickets) and a pretty wonderful benefit plan. What makes it corrupt are scams such as the most recent Oil for food program...and others like it.

It is a mistake to place America's foreign policy and security interests in the hands of people whose stated public goals are to destroy us. Does this honestly make sense to you?

Please, make your case for the effectiveness of the UN and why we should have faith in their ability to solve any issue, at all. Has anything been solved there in the past ten years? Five years? Passing resolutions does not count if there is no enforcement (we have to have some criteria).

[BJean 16]

Do you think that there is any, ANY approach to the problems in the world, in the Middle East specifically, that can be used to resolve issues, other than utilizing weapons?

[mousecrazy 2]

Seriously, and I know you will not like this, but not really.

Peace talks and accords and agreements have been tried; all have failed. Israel has made land concessions, and still there are wars.

Now, Iran has big intentions, and due to Iran and Syria, the problems in Iraq continue to build and Israel fears being "wiped from the face of the Earth."

What can we possibly do to change the belief system of people who raise their kids to kill us? Their tv's are filled with images of the Statue of Liberty superimposed with Satan and fire. It's their version of MTV.

I know it feels good to say we need to find a political solution...but I have no idea what that means. I know what killing the enemy means.

Sorry it's so blunt, and so unpopular here, but that is my honest answer to your question.

[green 6]

I believe that Mousecrazy has a point with respect to the U.N.'s current structure and I, for one, have no idea as to whether this is something that can be solved. In theory the fact that one nation has one vote is both good and just but many of these minor nations are ruled by tinpot dictators whose interests are not representative of their countrymen. Of course their representatives abroad and this includes the U.N. representative will represent the individual agendas of their strongmen.

And too, who's to say that how these minor third world nations vote isn't often influenced by a visceral knee-jerk reaction against the proposals of the wealthy western countries?

Of course this is where diplomacy comes in. Diplomats are merely lobbyists who function on an international level. Diplomacy consists of offering a blend of gifts and threats: Gifts would include such items as investment in the country's infrastructure and loan forgiveness; threats involve economic sanctions and worse.

Nevertheless, there are a lot of small and hostile countries out there and everyone of them is guaranteed a vote.

It should also be noted that the U.N. is in the hole financially and the U.S. has been carrying the organisation. While this does not mean that the States is owed votes it does mean that America is owed her props.

While I agree with Mouse that the voting structure of the U.N. is skewed and grants the tiny players too much weight, I cannot see any other approach. This is what we call participatory democracy.

I do, however, sense some paranoia present in your statement, Mouse, concerning your stated concerns over the interests of the United States being blocked on an international level.

The truth is that Americans continue to enjoy an affluent life style, one that is only available to the wealthy in most countries. The truth is that although Americans endured the attack of 9/11 - an experience of profound horror and terror - upon their home soil, terrorists and their attacks are something that the United Kingdom and continental Europe have had to live with for a long time now.

We who live inside continental North America live sheltered lives compared to the rest of the world. We are buffered by two major oceans.

The fractious Muslims of the Middle East are not a threat; they are too busy squabbling amongst themselves, trying to destroy Israel, burning American and Danish flags, and the like. These people are not a united and coherent force.

There are two emerging industrial economies who are, however, for these nations have huge labour pools who will work for less than ours can, they do not have any environmental or worker health controls in place and these countries will be competing with North America for the fossil fuel supply. These countries are India and China. (India, by the way, has an enormous middle class. Its population is greater than the entire population of Canada.)

These are both politically stable countries with huge populations. They are already in the way of providing North America with cheap goods. They both have nuclear technology and they have both shown that they are anxious to engage with the west. These are countries which are embracing modern ways. It will be these countries who will be in need of fossil fuels. It will be these countries who will be taking environmental short cuts in order to assist production.

[mousecrazy 2]

More common ground, I think...I agree we should keep an eye on China for sure. I know India is gaining ground, but I have not studied the situation there as far as its relationship with America. I perceive it to be an ally; I do not perceive China to be.

Is it really paranoia when Ahmadinejad goes on the "hate America" tour (and even calls it something like that)? You can call it paranoia, but I think of it as pragmatic or realistic. I'd prefer to be paranoid and prepared, than not. I'd rather face the consequences of paranoia than foolish optimism, at least in this area.

As others have pointed out, the Islamic hatred for us has been going on for a long time (to bring it back to the topic--long before Bush). That is why I often try to get everyone turned to the problems and away from the Bush-hating. He's a moot point in some ways...we do agree that these problems will exist after he has left office, and existed before he came. We don't agree on lots of other things, I know.

[anonemouse 1]

Is it really paranoia when Ahmadinejad goes on the "hate America" tour (and even calls it something like that)? You can call it paranoia, but I think of it as pragmatic or realistic. I'd prefer to be paranoid and prepared, than not. I'd rather face the consequences of paranoia than foolish optimism, at least in this area.

I view the paranoia over terrorism as just that, paranoia. We have a much greater chance of getting killed in a car than we do of dying in a terror attack, yet we still drive cars. All this paranoia isn't stopping anything. If anything, I believe it makes us more likely to be attacked, since we apparently have no qualms about stepping on people's rights in the process.

One of my biggest objections to the whole mess is that we are focusing entirely on Muslim terrorists, when there is a whole crop of home-grown terrorists right here in the U.S. What happens when they finally realize that we have inadvertently given them a green light to attack us while our attentions are turned to the Middle East?

[green 6]

Seriously, and I know you will not like this, but not really.

Peace talks and accords and agreements have been tried; all have failed. Israel has made land concessions, and still there are wars.

Now, Iran has big intentions, and due to Iran and Syria, the problems in Iraq continue to build and Israel fears being "wiped from the face of the Earth."

What can we possibly do to change the belief system of people who raise their kids to kill us? Their tv's are filled with images of the Statue of Liberty superimposed with Satan and fire. It's their version of MTV.

I know it feels good to say we need to find a political solution...but I have no idea what that means. I know what killing the enemy means.

Sorry it's so blunt, and so unpopular here, but that is my honest answer to your question.

Mouse, do not forget that it is in the interests of all of western Europe as well as such countries as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and much of eastern Europe (including Russia) to insure that the U.S. does not lose ground.

America is the single most powerful global player today and she is founded upon white European and - dare I say it! - Christian values. These are the values with which the countries which form the power block are comfortable and it may be argued that these are values that do work for these are the countries which are stable, affluent, industrialised and more or less successfully democratic. (I have no doubt that Japan and South Korea are also heavily invested in seeing that the United States continues to prosper; these countries do live cheek by jowl with China, a huge land and an emerging powerhouse economy.)

Certainly America has made many enemies in the international arena since the end of the Second World War. I would suspect that some of this is because of a moral arrogance and the resulting unwillingness to follow international protocols and a reluctance to finesse situations.

And of course America has been the rich kid on the block. Europe was left in shambles after the Second World War. Both France and the United Kingdom were colonial powers before the War. Great Britain was able to spin her former holdings off into commonwealth countries during the late 40s and throughout the 50s without too much bloodshed or loss of face. France, on the other hand, had big problems with her former African colonies. Decolonialisation was a serious problem that was additional to the fact that these countries had been hollowed out by the war which had been fought on their lands.

It is my understanding that all of Europe was nothing more than land that was pretty much smashed. Land and houses had been destroyed. People had gone missing. The local economies had been destroyed. It is my understanding that the geographical, ethical, linguistic, and moral structures of this land mass had been smashed. This is what happens to countries who find themselves in a war zone.

It is understandable that the formerly powerful European countries, the cradle of modern civilization, might feel kinda sour and kinda jealous about seeing themselves eclipsed by a former colony. It is always fun to critique the rich and the powerful.

Understand, however, that the continuing well-being of the United States does indeed guarantee global stability. Thus your comments, Mouse, strike me as being kinda over the top. Let me assure you, grrrl, that if push came to shove America would have the support of all of the industrialised world. It is in our interest to ensure that America continues to remain in good shape.

[BJean 16]

Mousecrazy: Your statements: "I know what killing the enemy means" and "... political solution...I have no idea what that means." are certainly welcomed by me. I appreciate your honesty and your views about the UN and our participation there.

Thank you so very much for stepping up to the plate and saying what you really think.

I don't have all the answers either, and I know that I am idealistic in my approach to all things political. I am just too much of a woman, mother and grandmother to believe that war is ever the answer. How are we different from Saddam Hussein, except in numbers and scale, if we use deadly force to change the world to our benefit?

[BJean 16]

Jack can you think of (or are you even willing to think of) one incident where diplomatic negotiations have been successful in the past?

Is the only way that the U.S. has made any achievements or resolved any conflicts, through war?