George Bush: Worst American president in history

[BJean 16]

Mousecrazy, is that the best response you can think up to Betsyjane, Geezersue, T_O_M and Carlene - and me?

The reason people come down so hard on you and Jack and others who are pro-war is because your credibility is lacking. You go completely off point, just like the Republicans we hear every day, and rant and rave using inflammatory buzz words that actually are not counterpoints to the point that our activities in Iraq are not and were not righteous and good. None of you has given any plausible reason for our having gone to war there, causing the loss of thousands of American troops, about 100 journalists, and countless Iraqi citizens. No counterpoint that you've made has addressed the fact that Iraq is not better off now and that we have, for the whole world to see, an aggressive, greedy, hateful administration running this country.

No one has ever posted here how or why this war in Iraq brings freedom to the people there. Sure, they are rid of a tyrant who no longer slaughters them in large numbers, but now they're being killed by the different factions of terrorists and they've lost much of their infrastructure as well. After years of fighting and death and destruction, this is freedom? Yea, us.

[green 6]

I have been told that terrorism is war as it is fought by the poor and war is terror as it is fought by the wealthy. I don't know who said this first but it does make sense to me. When a seige of terror is being conducted by a group whose ideology we like, we call those people freedom fighters. When it is being conducted by those with whom we disagree, we call 'em terrorists and cowards.

The events of 9/11 were both horrifying and terrifying for America. They were for us Canadians, too, for we shared in your sense that this continent was invulnerable to attack and we also lost a number of our own citizens that day. This being said, we cannot share in the dread that many of you suffer as the aftermath of that day. We are, afterall, a foreign country, a minor player on the world's stage, and this was and is your trauma.

It made sense to enter into Afghanistan post-9/11; this was where Osama bin Laden was. And, indeed, America did have global support for this mission. European and Canadian troops are still there.

To enter Iraq, however, was simply bizarre and carries the stench of hubris for baby BuSh and his gang of cowboys. I have always been inclined to wonder whether his decision to go ahead with this wrong-headed war was not in part based on some kind of Freudian issue of competition with his old man.

The ulta-devout al-Quaeda and the secular Saddam have always been natural enemies. The neutral and U.N. appointed Hans Blix and his international crew found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction on Iraqi soil. BuSh was not supported by the international community in his plan to invade Iraq. His claim that he wanted to unseat a dictator and bring democracy to this country does not hold water; there are a multitude of dictators who are either ignored or actively propped up by the U.S. government.

By invading Iraq he has hollowed out the American economy. He has further destabilized an already unstable region. He has cleared the way for a new strong man, one who will most likely be a religious fundamentalist and thus hostile to the west and to Israel, to take over the country. He has caused a lot of young men to lose their lives. And he has further degraded America's reputation abroad. None of this is good.

[gailannr 1]

To quote GeezerSue,

"That would be the same as if Iran hepled carve out a little Muslim corner of the US, taking over Michigan, maybe. Would we be a little irate? You betcha."

--------------------------------------

I think they have already done that and I think I saw them in the streets in Michigan cheering and celebrating when Saddam hit the dirt.

Mousecrazy, maybe that "weenie wagging" is being confused with Clinton and "Wagging the Dog?" Oh, no wait, that was Clinton "Wagging the Weenie" There has been so much Weenie Wagging people just start to get confused if you know what I mean?

Oh yeah and when did Chelsey Clinton serve her time in the military? I must have missed that!

[Carlene 12]

I have been told that terrorism is war as it is fought by the poor and war is terror as it is fought by the wealthy. I don't know who said this first but it does make sense to me. When a seige of terror is being conducted by a group whose ideology we like, we call those people freedom fighters. When it is being conducted by those with whom we disagree, we call 'em terrorists and cowards.

The events of 9/11 were both horrifying and terrifying for America. They were for us Canadians, too, for we shared in your sense that this continent was invulnerable to attack and we also lost a number of our own citizens that day. This being said, we cannot share in the dread that many of you suffer as the aftermath of that day. We are, afterall, a foreign country, a minor player on the world's stage, and this was and is your trauma.

It made sense to enter into Afghanistan post-9/11; this was where Osama bin Laden was. And, indeed, America did have global support for this mission. European and Canadian troops are still there.

To enter Iraq, however, was simply bizarre and carries the stench of hubris for baby BuSh and his gang of cowboys. I have always been inclined to wonder whether his decision to go ahead with this wrong-headed war was not in part based on some kind of Freudian issue of competition with his old man.

The ulta-devout al-Quaeda and the secular Saddam have always been natural enemies. The neutral and U.N. appointed Hans Blix and his international crew found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction on Iraqi soil. BuSh was not supported by the international community in his plan to invade Iraq. His claim that he wanted to unseat a dictator and bring democracy to this country does not hold water; there are a multitude of dictators who are either ignored or actively propped up by the U.S. government.

By invading Iraq he has hollowed out the American economy. He has further destabilized an already unstable region. He has cleared the way for a new strong man, one who will most likely be a religious fundamentalist and thus hostile to the west and to Israel, to take over the country. He has caused a lot of young men to lose their lives. And he has further degraded America's reputation abroad. None of this is good.

You are absolutely correct in your assessment, Green. But Mousecrazy and others like her want to sweep all that under the rug with statements like, "But we ARE in Iraq, and since we're there, we have to DO something." To which I say, no....we don't. We can tiptoe out the same way we came, and quietly shut the door behind us. Yes...I know the new government will topple without us there to prop it up, but that will happen anyway. It's not a question of IF, but only WHEN. Remember, we tried this same old tactic in Vietnam and it didn't work there, either.

He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it. Evidently George Bush is dead set on ignoring the mistakes made by previous administrations. At our expense. And that pisses me off.

[shauntil6266 0]

I agree 200% he is the worst president ever, and just plain stupid!!!!

[GeezerSue 7]

To quote GeezerSue,

"That would be the same as if Iran hepled carve out a little Muslim corner of the US, taking over Michigan, maybe. Would we be a little irate? You betcha."

--------------------------------------

I think they have already done that and I think I saw them in the streets in Michigan cheering and celebrating when Saddam hit the dirt.

Mousecrazy, maybe that "weenie wagging" is being confused with Clinton and "Wagging the Dog?" Oh, no wait, that was Clinton "Wagging the Weenie" There has been so much Weenie Wagging people just start to get confused if you know what I mean?

Oh yeah and when did Chelsey Clinton serve her time in the military? I must have missed that!

I don't recall mentioning Chelsea...but her dad was NOT waging war. The Bobsey-Tramps have a dad who IS waging war.

Weenie-wagging is not ALWAYS about penises...it has come to refer to a contest to establish bragging rights. As in, Mr. "Bring-'em-ON Bush." False bravado, that kind of thing. But I am always amazed by the ongoing interest in a penis in the Oval Office...it's certainly better than the ass we have there now. Do you all REALLY still think that that was the first piece of nookie knocked off in the Oval Office? Amazing!!!

[BJean 16]

It was just the first piece that Republicans could bring attention to in the oval office. They were still paying us back for Nixon. And they have the nerve to declare that Clinton lied, and that's what made him a bad person. Like Nixon was a nice guy that had the unfortunate circumstance of accidentally(?) employing a few bad guys? Who do they think they're kidding?

We get jabbed for bringing up Viet Nam (when the parallels are unmistakable) and they have the nerve to continue to bring up Clinton as if he were as bad as Nixon and Bush. HELLO? Do you think some (literal) weenie wagging in the White House is in any way in the same league with the evil crookedness, dishonesty and greed of Bush and Nixon? If you do, you have some seriously scary hangups that may be have something to do with why you are pro-war.

[BJean 16]

P.S. Chelsea Clinton's service in the military? When are the Bush twins signing up? It's their dad who is so anxious to send more of our people to Iraq.

P.S.S. Good grief, now they've stooped to bringing up the children. Obviously they have run out of feeble arguments.

[BJean 16]

Poodles: You have every right to be angry!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

On September 12th 2001:

80% of the world said the USA had been wronged

80% of the world was on the side of the USA

All our allies were behind us

By 2006: a majority of the people poled outside the USA said that George W. BuSh was the biggest deterant to peace in the whole world.

Most of our past allies were distancing themselves from US foreign policy.

It took a lot to be able to screw things up that much.

It took George W. BuSh to screw things up that much.

[BJean 16]

T_O_M: How can we possibly resign ourselves to this? We HAVE to speak up as often and as much as we can. Otherwise, we are doomed as a nation of good, honorable and compassionate people, to become a nation of screwed up people just like him. The more often people justify his bad behavior, the more often they can justify their own.

[anonemouse 1]

I think one of the major differences between those of us who are pro-war and those of us that are anti-war is our standard of evidence. As in, those of us who are anti-war actually have a standard of evidence.

Those who are pro-war like to use buzz words that work people up emotionally. "We're protecting FREEDOM!" "There's a WAR being waged on DEMOCRACY!" "They'll attack US if we don't attack them FIRST!" They work to establish fear and paranoia in the WASPs. They hate having Vietnam brought up because there are obvious parallels between that war and this one. If people talk about Vietnam and the lessons we should have learned there, they have no defense. "But, but, that was the PAST! We're talking about the PRESENT!" Buzz words are just that, only words. If you can't back it up with actual evidence, they have no meaning and no use except to rile up emotions and paranoia.

In contrast, most of us who are anti-war work with logic and actual evidence. THAT is why we (possibly) seem to have a little bit of a condescending attitude when it is directed at the pro-war folks. We can see the holes in your logic, and they are gaping. We know that the U.S. isn't always the good guy. If you have any doubt about that, look at the past. We put Saddam in power. We trained Osama. We have supported numerous dictators because they were friendly to OUR interests. Do you honestly think we didn't know that Saddam was killing his countrymen or that Osama was a nutjob? Get real. The United States isn't all sunshine and kittens. We don't give a damn about genocide or "terrorism" unless it threatens our interests or makes us look bad.

[Poodles 0]

Pro War?? Anti War??

I believe in War, when it is needed. I would pick up a gun and kill anyone trying to hurt my family and friends in the good ol USA. I would not however force my belief system on someone else, go after the wrong man, line my pockets with the blood of your children, and then send more kids to die for people that don't want/need our help.

gailannr:

I believe the reference to the Twins going to Iraq was mine. I don't care if you are republican/democrat/liberal, if you are in the White House and find the war so important to talk about the draft again (which I heard on the news) then you better be ready to send your kids in too once they are of age (18).

My rant: "We the people... led by Bush."

"We" are so high and mighty standing on "moral grounds", saying the word "God" 27 times in a speech, but showing no more moral character than the biggest mass murderer in the world. "We" have shown the ethics of Hitler, with propoganda spilling out of our mouths, and the masses believing the stupidity. "We" will send our young, poor, uneducated men to the front lines to die for someone elses country, while "we" keep our children safe in boarding school/college.

"We" as a nation, led by Bush, are doomed by his stupidity.

[anonemouse 1]

In my post, pro-war/anti-war was in reference to the war in Iraq, not war in general.

[anonemouse 1]

What would you have me say instead? What I said was correct, even if you didn't like the words I used or their connotation. If you support the war in Iraq, you ARE pro-war, even if you are just "pro-war-in-Iraq". If you are against the war in Iraq, you ARE anti-war, even if you are just "anti-war-in-Iraq". Again, what I meant by pro-war and anti-war was for the war in Iraq, not all wars in general. Believe me, I am not a pacifist, but I do consider myself anti-war when it comes to Iraq.