George Bush: Worst American president in history

[anonemouse 1]

Good analogy, laurend.

It really is, the more I think about it. I can just see Bush spotting a hornet's nest hanging from a tree, saying, "That thang's DAIN-GEE-RUS, gotta git it down before it falls on someone's head!" Then he starts swatting at it with a stick and it falls and swarms of angry hornets come out. I can imagine him running around squalling, "Daddy, Daddy, help me!" with a layer of angry hornets on him and a trail of them swarming after him. Yep, the hornet's nest won't fall on anyone'e head anymore, but God help the people who Bush runs past.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

It really is, the more I think about it. I can just see Bush spotting a hornet's nest hanging from a tree, saying, "That thang's DAIN-GEE-RUS, gotta git it down before it falls on someone's head!" Then he starts swatting at it with a stick and it falls and swarms of angry hornets come out. I can imagine him running around squalling, "Daddy, Daddy, help me!" with a layer of angry hornets on him and a trail of them swarming after him. Yep, the hornet's nest won't fall on anyone'e head anymore, but God help the people who Bush runs past.

Good analogy except for one part. When he starts swatting the nest, it falls on someone else's head and he yells for others to fix things, while he sits back telling us how he is "the decider" and "Commander and Chief".

[BJean 16]

If any of those are the reasons that G.W. insisted on going to war in Iraq, why didn't he just say so?

Is G.W. any less responsible because past events during previous administrations? The political climate in the Middle East and elsewhere should be taken into account before declaring war, no matter whose fault it is or who may have caused it.

Are you just upset that we didn't go bomb somebody sooner? Would you be happy if we tried to wipe out the entire Middle East to solve the problems you listed? Is Iraq just the beginning of what you think will clean up the mess of past evildoers? Do you think that the U.S. should be the political police of the world?

Have fewer Americans been killed by terrorists post 9/11? We all know the answer to that. Are terrorists active in practically all parts of the world? Well, duh. I wish you would explain why you posted the list of terrorist activities instead of me having to guess, like everyone is having to guess Bush's motives.

[green 6]

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 ousted 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"?

Bill Maher said that America would be better off with a President who reads than a President who prays.

[green 6]

What of these little nests?

1979

Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.

1982–1991

Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983

April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1984

Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.

Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.

1985

April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.

June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.

Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.

Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986

April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.

April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988

Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1993

Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995

Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.

1996

June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998

Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000

Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

2001

Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)

But these activities have been carried out by al-Quaeda and the Hezbollah for the most part. I see no evidence of Iraq's involvement with these activities. Hezbollah is present in Lebanon and Palestine and is backed by Syria, I believe. Al-Qaeda has its roots in Wahhabism, a fundamentalist sect which originated in Saudi Arabia and seems to be linked up with the Taliban. There are a lot of these folk who are to be found in the border lands of Afghanistan and Pakistan. All of these activities are some distance away from Iraq.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Jack also forgot to mention that TWA flight 841 was destroyed by a bomb in the rear cargo compartment killing all 88 on board on 9-8-1974.

There is also much evidence (though refuted by the US FBI and CIA) that TWA flight 800 was destroyed by missiles fired by the US Navy trying to stop a small air-craft piloted by a Muslim Extremist and filled with explosives from purposely colliding with the TWA 747 (7-17-1996).

BUT

When the USA positions itself as the Super Power of the world, it puts itself into a bad position, because it can not invade country after country, especially when the countries are 1/10th the size of the USA. GW BuSh did not understand this idea and he invaded Afghanistan with too few ground soldiers and too much B52 carpet bombing. That was a strategy blunder, but a legal move because the attacks were launched from Afghanistan, but then he invaded Iraq, which if you will notice is not on Jack's list. The amount of people killed because BuSh tried his "Pre-emptive" strategy is larger than all the other people killed on Jack's list combined. About the only thing that invading Iraq did was to pre-empt a chance at a peaceful resolution.

[mousecrazy 2]

Something I would like clarification on: What exactly is the anti-Bush position on terrorism? Do you approve of it? Do you deny its existance? When Bush is out of office will it automatically decrease in intensity? Will they love us more then?

I posted a summarization of Jack's more detailed list earlier, and it keeps returning (Groundhog Day) to Iraq, as though there is some sort of compartmentalization of these things, and they are not connected. I see them as part of one big thing. I suppose there is a difference of opinion here, between the anti-Bush folk and people like me.

What I have a problem with is that none of this is going to change, we will have a new President, and we are still going to live in the United States (well, some of us) and our enemies will still want our destruction. Then what?

Could the other side explain the plan?

[BJean 16]

Yep. I believe my grandchildren will not only speak English, but they will sing Cumbaya as well. That is, if they don't have to go into a senseless war and get their A$$es shot off. Some grandmothers haven't been so lucky, have they?

You still have not answered the question of how our involvement for the past several years has made us more free, safer or done anything for my grandchildren. Nobody is arguing that terrorism has or has not happened anywhere or everywhere in the world.

You are so right... this is a non-debate.

Furthermore I am not surprised that Mousecrazy is still having trouble understanding that we do not (if I make speak for more than myself here) endorse terrorism.

We hate terrorism.

We believe that we should do all that we can to prevent terrorism.

If going to war would prevent terrorism we would be all for going to war.

We are not people who are just anti-war at all costs. We are not peaceniks.

We believe in using intelligence and working with people to solve problems. If we cannot solve problems diplomatically, we try to resolve them without bloodshed.

If someone threatens us or our safety, we believe we should do all we can to protect ourselves.

What we have been trying over, and over and over in this thread to explain, is that we do not believe that the war in Iraq was done for any of the reasons I've just mentioned.

We believe that many, many people have been killed because of the war in Iraq, both Americans and citizens of Iraq and elsewhere. We believe that their deaths have been in vain. We believe that we have been lied to and that Bush's motives are not pure.

[BJean 16]

P.S. We're not talking about wanting other countries to love us, Mouse. We're talking about our being able to inhabit this planet in somekind of peaceful coexistence.

Bombing the crap out of people is a temporary fix and it harms our own country in the process. If things are pushed to the limit and we have no choice, then that is our choice. If there are other ways to deal with bad people, especially ways that are beneficial to the world at large, then it should be incumbent upon us to lead the way.

[anonemouse 1]

Yep. I believe my grandchildren will not only speak English, but they will sing Cumbaya as well. That is, if they don't have to go into a senseless war and get their A$$es shot off. Some grandmothers haven't been so lucky, have they?

You still have not answered the question of how our involvement for the past several years has made us more free, safer or done anything for my grandchildren. Nobody is arguing that terrorism has or has not happened anywhere or everywhere in the world.

You are so right... this is a non-debate.

Furthermore I am not surprised that Mousecrazy is still having trouble understanding that we do not (if I make speak for more than myself here) endorse terrorism.

We hate terrorism.

We believe that we should do all that we can to prevent terrorism.

If going to war would prevent terrorism we would be all for going to war.

We are not people who are just anti-war at all costs. We are not peaceniks.

We believe in using intelligence and working with people to solve problems. If we cannot solve problems diplomatically, we try to resolve them without bloodshed.

If someone threatens us or our safety, we believe we should do all we can to protect ourselves.

What we have been trying over, and over and over in this thread to explain, is that we do not believe that the war in Iraq was done for any of the reasons I've just mentioned.

We believe that many, many people have been killed because of the war in Iraq, both Americans and citizens of Iraq and elsewhere. We believe that their deaths have been in vain. We believe that we have been lied to and that Bush's motives are not pure.

P.S. We're not talking about wanting other countries to love us, Mouse. We're talking about our being able to inhabit this planet in somekind of peaceful coexistence.

Bombing the crap out of people is a temporary fix and it harms our own country in the process. If things are pushed to the limit and we have no choice, then that is our choice. If there are other ways to deal with bad people, especially ways that are beneficial to the world at large, then it should be incumbent upon us to lead the way.

:clap2::amen:

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Something I would like clarification on: What exactly is the anti-Bush position on terrorism? Do you approve of it? Do you deny its existance? When Bush is out of office will it automatically decrease in intensity? Will they love us more then?

I posted a summarization of Jack's more detailed list earlier, and it keeps returning (Groundhog Day) to Iraq, as though there is some sort of compartmentalization of these things, and they are not connected. I see them as part of one big thing. I suppose there is a difference of opinion here, between the anti-Bush folk and people like me.

What I have a problem with is that none of this is going to change, we will have a new President, and we are still going to live in the United States (well, some of us) and our enemies will still want our destruction. Then what?

Could the other side explain the plan?

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

Talk to your friends, but talk to your enemies twice as much as your friends.

You can not learn as much as you need to know about your enemies by spy satellites and electronic eavesdropping. You can not expect your enemies to learn to speak English to make it easier for you. Learn to speak the language of your enemies and their history and customs.

In a nutshell, be ready for war, but expend more energy on deterring war. Even a rat will fight if cornered. Leave your enemies an out, so that they may thank you someday (even in secret) rather than having the choice of fighting to save face.

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.

The USA wants financial control of the world so that we can keep wasting commercial goods for the benefit of the major corporations. We (the government) value the almighty dollar more than we value life.

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. If Carter's alternate energy plans had not been killed by Reagan, we might not be fighting in the Middle-East right now. The US is militarily supporting some of the most restrictive governments in the world. 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)? Our two face attitude about Democracy does not go unnoticed accept by the citizens of the USA.

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

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

[anonemouse 1]

Or how about this:

The National Park Service could have been fully funded at current levels for the next 250 years with the amount of money we have spent on Iraq.

[mousecrazy 2]

Amen, Jack.

What I was looking for was suggestions for resolving the terrorism threats. We agree that we do not support or defend terrorism (unlike Carter, apparently). Now, we can't count on the UN to do anything. We can talk to our enemies, okay. What is it we talk about?

Please, stop raising your children to think that the US and Christians are Satan's spawn? Stop calling for the destruction of Israel and portraying all Jews as apes? Stop telling your children that strapping bombs to their bodies and blowing themselves up is better than living?

How do you negotiate with this ideology?

As Jack also pointed out...where are the examples of radical Christians blowing up and hijacking cruise ships and airplanes, and attacking foreign embassies? We cannot hope to deal with a problem if we continue to see it through the soft-focus lens of political correctness. This is the point I am trying to get at least some of you to consider. I know it sounds good to say we should use diplomacy, but I am wondering...how?

I've brought this up before, but when chaos is the aim (such as in messianic Islam) then why would we delude ourselves into thinking they want peace? Not everyone wants peace; they certainly don't.

This won't be very popular around these parts, but the National Park Service may not exist 250 years from now. That kind of depends on if there is a USA, doesn't it?

[green 6]

Though the sentiment of be reasonable, see it my way, is powerfully seductive for all of us it is imperative that the United States understand that many other countries operate with different social values.

I will cite as an example this business of socialized medicare. Industrial Europe has universal medicare in place as does Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. These are states which are highly industrialized and which are democratic. These are countries that function under the principles of capitalism. They have modified it is all.

Nevertheless, Canada has come under attack from the American right wing. We have been called the home of the "Commu-Nazis" and we have been referred to as "Soviet Canuckistan."

Canada has chosen to follow a European model both politically and socially. This is not surprising. The country is much, much younger than yours and our ties to Europe are much more profound.

Canada has also prospered by virtue of being sheltered by the power and the wealth of the United States. We are lucky to be sheltered, I think, by the wealth and the power of our neighbour to the south and we are anxious to see that you continue to prosper.

Nevertheless, it occurs to us and it occurs to those nations who are less favourably disposed to America that your power structure is prone to paranoia and international meddling; indeed there are dirty stories about American sponsored activities in Africa that date back to the early 60s. This would be around the time that the European colonial powers were withdrawing from Africa.

Though I am often critical of American policy in my posts I must tell you that I am a fan of the United States and I am very anxious that America retain her power and her status.

I do, however, have many, many concerns. I would not like to see this country destroy itself over this Iraqi war. I would not like to see those wild and whacky fundamentalists overrun the fundamental freedoms of this big country. And I would certainly not like to see my Godless country, Soviet Canuckistan, invaded either and I am talking about our neighbours from the south, the ones who don't like our politics.

[anonemouse 1]

What I was looking for was suggestions for resolving the terrorism threats.

How about this for a suggestion: We get our noses out of everyone's business. Most terrorists don't hate us because we're free, they hate us because we meddle. If we stop meddling, who knows, they might leave us alone.

If we were doing this for democracy, we would be supporting ALL democratically chosen leaders, not just the ones we like.