Author Topic: OT... Worst President? (Read 1853 times)

Haywire Haywood · « **on:** May 26, 2004, 11:00:06 AM »

I got this in an e-mail today and thought I'd share it.

Subject: Worse President?

Facts
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January.....

In the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January.

That's one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq!

Worst president in history?

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it.

One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror.

Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

Lincoln allowed the US to fall into civil war. How would you like a nice Civil war today? You could go and kill your out of state relatives!

FDR led us into World War II.

Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us.

From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was honoring that commitment.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.

Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.

Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack
at home. Worst president in history?

Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the
Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our military is GREAT!

Let's remember to honor what allows us to be as we are today and for our
children to be as they wish to be in the future.

Mitch in MI · « **Reply #1 on:** May 26, 2004, 11:20:40 AM »

When I saw the subject, I thought of two of your choices:

Lincoln: Civil War.

FDR: Sent us down the long, slippery slope leading to the nanny state. WWII is the 2nd major military action I do support, the first being the American Revolution.

Mitch.

Trapper-Jack · « **Reply #2 on:** May 26, 2004, 12:46:02 PM »

I like your train of thought. I couldn't begin to put it any better or plainer.

Big Blue · « **Reply #3 on:** May 26, 2004, 01:07:00 PM »

There is one BIG difference between Bush and all of those other Presidents. They never had to contend with the socialist mass media, that has hounded, and slammed Bush, ever since Gore lost the election. They present conjecture, that American sheeple believe is fact. As Rush is fond of saying, the seriousness of the charge, weighs more heavily than the nature of the evidence.
Don

gwhilikerz · « **Reply #4 on:** May 26, 2004, 02:02:57 PM »

All I know is that before we actually went to war in Iraq we were told that our country was not into nation building. I was all in favor of ridding Saddam from power. Then the next thing you know we are taslking about how to re-build Iraq. It reminds me of an old movie I saw where some rinky-dink country decided they would declare war on the U.S.. Then they would quickly surrender and apply for foreign aid to rebuild (before anything could be destroyed). It was funny in the movie, but not so funny in real life. Think about it. We are spending Billions of dollars to rebuild a country that doesn't like us one bit. We are losing young men and women in a place where we have already won the war. AL Quida has moved into Iraq for the purpose of keeping us there to get mired up just like we did in Vietnam. The President lowers taxes, we have an ongoing rebuild in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The gas prices go up and we spend more of our hard earned money to benefit some Muslim sheik or king (not to mention big oil companies). I am afraid President Bush is going to lose the election to Kerry. Then we will really be up the creek----- higher taxes, higher gas prices, more giveaways to Iraq and other such countries. Yes we are winning the battle in Iraq. But I think we just may be losing the war that Islam is waging against us because we refuse to acknowledge that there is even a war between them and Christians. I think we should get out of Iraq and use our military to attack Al Quida and other terrorists wherever they may be. And if the countries that harbor such terrorists don't kick them out, then we remove that government. Forget about rebuilding such countries. Then you can bet the others who may consider offering hospitality to terrorists will reconsider. WHEW! I didn't mean to get so long winded. Thanks for letting me blow a little staem. God Bless America!

Big Blue · « **Reply #5 on:** May 26, 2004, 02:26:22 PM »

I can't agree on pulling out of Iraq. It sends the a bad message to Al Quida. A little pressure and we fold like a cheap camera. Al Quida was able to control the politics in Spain that way, do we want to be in that same class? I always thought America had more backbone than that. We have been fed so many lies by the media, in their effort to prop up Kerry's bid for the Presidency. Any thinking person knows Sadam had WMD's, heck after the first war he admitted it to the UN, and even used them on the Kurds in Northern Iraq. We know he had dealings with terrorists, in the early part of the war, we saw footage of training camps. How long would it have been before sadam was able to do real damage to us by using his terrorist links? I believe it was members of Al Quida that had just beheaded Nick Berg. Doesn't that sort of place them in Iraq? If we want to go after Al Quida, let's stay in Iraq and do just that. The efforts by the press to twist the truth, reminds me of the Clinton shuffle. We know what the truth is, but they're right there telling us different. I think Bush's effort to control the mid-east by supporting democracy in the area, is an honorable thing to do.
Don

gwhilikerz · « **Reply #6 on:** May 26, 2004, 02:36:14 PM »

Honorable thing to do? Yes it is. But just how many Islamic democracies are there? Al Quida can send just a few terrorists to Iraq to keep us busy there while they work elswhere (here maybe?). I am not a patsy and I don't give a hoot if we ever rebuild another country. let them take care of themselves. That way they will be way too busy to bother us for a long time. we used to walk softly and carry a big stick. Now we tip-toe and carry a brief case full of incentives and give-aways. I love my Country. I have served my country and would be proud to do so again. But we better get our heads on straight pretty dang quick. Again, my opinion.

wtxbadger · « **Reply #7 on:** May 26, 2004, 04:18:45 PM »

This topic is to important to just sit back and read. We are in a fight for our very existence this time. This is WWIII! The enemy does not have a frontline that we can go to, mobilize our forces, and fight until the best man wins. A war has been declared on each and everyone of us in America and will not stop until the the people who started this are eliminated. They have no honor or human decency in their conduct and must be defeated at all costs. If we give up on this most important challenge to our way of life then we stand to lose everything that has been fought for the past two hundred years. If you need a frontline for battle then consider Iraq to be the first line established in this war. There will be many more frontlines before this war is won or lost and we cannot give in and let people like the ones we face now win. Have we had any terrorist inicidents since we engaged with the terrorists in Afghanistan and finished the fight in Iraq where these same people were being helped and trained? Iraq now serves as as a magnet for these extremists and has drawn them to it in the battle we did not start, but will hopefully finish if the citizens of this country do not falter. This goes beyond politics and feelings. It is kill the enemy or be killed. It's that simple.

wtxbadger

Ditchdigger · « **Reply #8 on:** May 26, 2004, 04:34:31 PM »

I'm thinking that wars are there for one thing, money . What's to stop a major arms builder from funding some group like these terroist groups,start a war,and make billions. I was talking with a cousin of mine one night about the Viet Nam war, and he was telling me that he was in the bombers that bombed Hanoi. There targets were anything they wanted to bomb unless it had Texaco wrote on it. Seems as though Texaco was selling them there fuel. War is money and thats the bottom line in some peoples minds. I would bet money that the Kennedy's and some of the other liberauls are making a fortune off this Iraq war.
Well thats my 2 cents worth Digger

Paul5388 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 26, 2004, 07:42:31 PM »

I think we should get out of Iraq also. It's time to move on to Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the PLO!

gwhilikerz · « **Reply #10 on:** May 29, 2004, 03:13:56 PM »

Paul I agree.

scruffy · « **Reply #11 on:** June 04, 2004, 04:48:46 AM »

I look at the war a little different than most. Pre war there was lybia being a problem with WMD, north korea was a problem, etc etc etc. We were 'working' with these countries but nothing positive was progressing. Then we went in and in a matter of weeks brought down Iraq. Everyone in the world took notice. With all the media attention in iraq did you see what lybia did? Did you see North Korea's attitude change?

Deplomacy was useless before the war. We were constantly blackmailed by other countries paying out billions of dollars to other countries like North Korea in exchange for them not to make nueclear weapons which they did underground anyway. Everyone knew we had a big stick but thought we'd never use it. Now they know we will take that stick and smack the .... out of them. We're not going to pay them to not make weapons of mass distruction. They know if we are threatened we'll go knocking on their door and then bust it in.

I look back and laugh at the "shock and awe" media coverage of the war and missing the point. The "shock and awe" wasn't just to Iraq's milatary but to the world, how fast a super power, using only it's conventional army, could take over another country. That was the "shock and awe". Just like when we dropped the "bombs" in WWII, we "shock and awe" the entire world. It's one thing to have the strength, but it's not until you use it that everyone takes notice.

Just my two cents. I think we changed our position in the world. We've stepped up and taken the role of the worlds only super power.

later,
scruffy

dawei · « **Reply #12 on:** June 04, 2004, 06:25:25 AM »

Quote from: scruffy

I look at the war a little different than most. Pre war there was lybia being a problem with WMD, north korea was a problem, etc etc etc. We were 'working' with these countries but nothing positive was progressing. Then we went in and in a matter of weeks brought down Iraq. Everyone in the world took notice. With all the media attention in iraq did you see what lybia did? Did you see North Korea's attitude change?

Snip, snip, snip.......................

Just my two cents. I think we changed our position in the world. We've stepped up and taken the role of the worlds only super power.

later,
scruffy

I share a lot of your views; but also have some differences. I have family members on the next rotation with the Stryker Brigade. I'm a retired Army Officer; RVN vet, have seen my share. Here goes........... "No one hates war as much as we who have to fight it." H. Norman Schwartzkopf

We went in way too light and Rumsfield wouldn't listen to his Generals; he forced 47 to retire. The doctrine of "Haul Ass & Bypass" allowed the Iraqi Army & Republican Guard to melt away. They are the "insurgents" killing our troops. There exists no exit strategy. I think it will end; after all is said & done, much like VietNam. Rumsfield should be fired & Colin Powell or John McCain made SecDef.

Bush & Cheney, & Wolfowitz; the biggest proponents of use of force never saw combat. They have NO CLUE as to what they are doing. They wave the flag & beat their chest; ram the Patriot Act down our throat. If we question any of this we are seen as unpatriotic. I love my country but damn sure fear my government.

We will never be able to establish democracy in the Arab world. DEATH TO ALL is all they will ever understand. You can't reason with these people. Actually people is too generous a term; they (Arabs) are homo sapiens, they are not human beings. (IMHO).

Major · « **Reply #13 on:** June 09, 2004, 11:35:38 AM »

Quote from: dawei

Quote from: scruffy
I look at the war a little different than most. Pre war there was lybia being a problem with WMD, north korea was a problem, etc etc etc. We were 'working' with these countries but nothing positive was progressing. Then we went in and in a matter of weeks brought down Iraq. Everyone in the world took notice. With all the media attention in iraq did you see what lybia did? Did you see North Korea's attitude change?

Snip, snip, snip.......................

Just my two cents. I think we changed our position in the world. We've stepped up and taken the role of the worlds only super power.

later,
scruffy

I share a lot of your views; but also have some differences. I have family members on the next rotation with the Stryker Brigade. I'm a retired Army Officer; RVN vet, have seen my share. Here goes........... "No one hates war as much as we who have to fight it." H. Norman Schwartzkopf

We went in way too light and Rumsfield wouldn't listen to his Generals; he forced 47 to retire. The doctrine of "Haul Ass & Bypass" allowed the Iraqi Army & Republican Guard to melt away. They are the "insurgents" killing our troops. There exists no exit strategy. I think it will end; after all is said & done, much like VietNam. Rumsfield should be fired & Colin Powell or John McCain made SecDef.

Bush & Cheney, & Wolfowitz; the biggest proponents of use of force never saw combat. They have NO CLUE as to what they are doing. They wave the flag & beat their chest; ram the Patriot Act down our throat. If we question any of this we are seen as unpatriotic. I love my country but damn sure fear my government.

We will never be able to establish democracy in the Arab world. DEATH TO ALL is all they will ever understand. You can't reason with these people. Actually people is too generous a term; they (Arabs) are homo sapiens, they are not human beings. (IMHO).

All I can say is I am much happier with the fighting and the bombings being over there in their sandbox rather than here at our home.

Big Blue · « **Reply #14 on:** June 09, 2004, 01:49:37 PM »

dawei,
While I thank you for your service to this country, and respect your right to your opinion, I have to ask what solution would you have chosen? I don't feel it's right to criticize the President and others for their actions in sending our soldiers to war, after all that's one of the jobs the man was voted in to do. The fact that he was never involved in war himself, doesn't prevent him from understanding his job to do what he thinks is right to protect this nation from terrorism.
Don

dawei · « **Reply #15 on:** June 10, 2004, 02:50:24 AM »

Quote from: Big Blue

dawei,
While I thank you for your service to this country, and respect your right to your opinion, I have to ask what solution would you have chosen? I don't feel it's right to criticize the President and others for their actions in sending our soldiers to war, after all that's one of the jobs the man was voted in to do. The fact that he was never involved in war himself, doesn't prevent him from understanding his job to do what he thinks is right to protect this nation from terrorism.
Don

Don....... Fair questions. Let me preface what I am about to say with the fact I voted for George Bush in 2000. I believe that he was right in as far as he went in Afghanistan. Unlike many I believe in "Preemption" in this time of world wide terrorism. I certainly want to fight them "over there instead of over here". The point is that GWB pounded into us about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) based on faulty intelligence. As a career Army Intelligence Officer I know of what I speak. Did Saddam have them; sure. But he had ample opportunity to hide/relocate them. More importantly he told the country that Saddam was a clear & present danger to the security of the United States. THAT was a stretch of the farthest sort. Is the UN ineffectual; Duh!!! While a noble idea they couldn't find their backside if they sat on their hands.

His intelligence was AND IS faulty in many respects. Declaring "Mission Accomplished" on the CVN Abraham Lincoln was a monumental blunder. Rumsfield wouldn't listen to SecArm White or his Generals. Instead he fired them. Our forces are way too light; AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, he won't, NOW, turn loose the dogs of war.

If I were Bush; I'd fire Rumsfield, Gen Meyers, and Condoleeza Rice. I'd call in Colin Powell, John McCain, MG Bufford, and (Ret) Gen Shalikashvili. Out of that meeting would come a SecState, SecDef, ChairmanJCS, & a new National Security Advisor. More importantly our forces would be OFFENSIVE; not Defensive.

Please understand that I'm NOT TRYING TO FLAME YOU; BE DISRESPECTFUL, or argue. You ask fair, poignant questions. One last thing; I WILL NOT vote for Bush again; and for damn sure not for Kerry either.

Thank you for your thoughtful questions & observations.

scruffy · « **Reply #16 on:** June 10, 2004, 08:00:23 AM »

Ok, maybe this is a dumb question, but isn't a vote for someone other than Bush actually a vote for Kerry? Like when a Demecrat votes for Nadar it's a vote for Bush. You have 10 people in a room, 4 vote for Kerry, 3 vote for bush, 1 for nader, and the remaining 2 kerry/bush haters vote for someone else, doesn't that allow Kerry to win with 40% of the vote?

It's interesting by reading your response that you seem more critical of Rumfield and company than you do of Bush. I agree with your staff changes 100%, but I'd still leave Bush behind the big desk. The only other option is Kerry.....

later,
scruffy

Big Blue · « **Reply #17 on:** June 10, 2004, 11:16:08 AM »

I do agree that the timing on going into Iraq could have been better. It should have been done the first time Sadam didn't comply with the UN resolutions. Long before Bush had become President. I do however believe going there was needed. The fact that our inteligence could not pinpoint the location of the WMD's, is reason enough. The terrorist ties were real, and therefore a real threat to us. The proof of terrorist ties can be seen in the training camps that were uncovered, and if nowhere else, the murder of Berg by known Al Quida operatives. As for taking the offense, rather than the defence, when does the effort change? There is no doubt this war was started with a tremendous offensive effort, the knowing when they've had enough, is the hard question. I think at that time we had pretty much hit every target we could find, afterwards, public opinion, and left leaning media, started playing into the equation.
Don

Major · « **Reply #18 on:** June 10, 2004, 01:48:19 PM »

Quote from: scruffy

Ok, maybe this is a dumb question, but isn't a vote for someone other than Bush actually a vote for Kerry? Like when a Demecrat votes for Nadar it's a vote for Bush. You have 10 people in a room, 4 vote for Kerry, 3 vote for bush, 1 for nader, and the remaining 2 kerry/bush haters vote for someone else, doesn't that allow Kerry to win with 40% of the vote?

It's interesting by reading your response that you seem more critical of Rumfield and company than you do of Bush. I agree with your staff changes 100%, but I'd still leave Bush behind the big desk. The only other option is Kerry.....

later,
scruffy

That is exactly the way I see it too scruffy. A vote for anyone else will let Scary Kerry get his foot in the door by default and that will be the end of this country as we know it.

Just remember that for the most part Bush can only do what Congress lets him do. If he REALLY is running amuck it is their job to reign him in but I dont see that happening. We just need to keep showing what lies the left has said and how they are twisting things around.

Big Blue · « **Reply #19 on:** June 12, 2004, 01:02:25 PM »

I hate to throw a wet blanket on this party, but like Clinton, Kerry may get the nod despite our best efforts to the contrary. To my eternal shame, I did not vote for Bush 41 on his second go round. For eight years I felt personally responsible for allowing Clinton to get in. I won't make that mistake ever again. If Kerry does get in, that only leaves one option, grin and bear it! We all had lots of practice doing that with eight years of Der Slickmeister. May God have mercy on us!
Don

dawei · « **Reply #20 on:** June 12, 2004, 06:04:56 PM »

Quote from: scruffy

Ok, maybe this is a dumb question, but isn't a vote for someone other than Bush actually a vote for Kerry? Like when a Demecrat votes for Nadar it's a vote for Bush. You have 10 people in a room, 4 vote for Kerry, 3 vote for bush, 1 for nader, and the remaining 2 kerry/bush haters vote for someone else, doesn't that allow Kerry to win with 40% of the vote?

It's interesting by reading your response that you seem more critical of Rumfield and company than you do of Bush. I agree with your staff changes 100%, but I'd still leave Bush behind the big desk. The only other option is Kerry.....

later,
scruffy

What you are referring to is the election of 92 when Perot ran. Because of this Klinton was elected with a Plurality instead of a Majority. Part of the problem is we have no viable 3rd Parties. The only way to bring them into preeminence is to work & campaign for them; and most assuredly vote for them. I don't buy the argument that my vote is wasted. I vote for the candidate I feel will do the best job. I'm voting Libertarian.

My personal view is that it's no longer Republican & Democrats; rather, Republicrats & Demlicans. Our last really good President left office on 20 Jan 1989.

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #21 on:** June 13, 2004, 11:24:06 AM »

You gotta admit that the Libertarian Party has -Zero- chance of winning a presidential election. At best, they may draw enough votes to leave us with a Clinton and get some press attention for a few weeks following the election just like in the 92 vote mentioned. It's a shame that a lot of us are forced to vote not for the candidate that we want in office but vote defensively -against- the one we don't. I'll vote for Bush this time also. My wife will probably vote Kerry. :?

Ian

Major · « **Reply #22 on:** June 13, 2004, 06:14:44 PM »

Quote from: Haywire Haywood

I'll vote for Bush this time also. My wife will probably vote Kerry. :?

Ian

Sir, you have my sympathy. If my wife and I can't agree on our politics we would be headed for a divorce court.

dawei · « **Reply #23 on:** June 14, 2004, 03:06:25 AM »

Quote from: Haywire Haywood

You gotta admit that the Libertarian Party has -Zero- chance of winning a presidential election. At best, they may draw enough votes to leave us with a Clinton and get some press attention for a few weeks following the election just like in the 92 vote mentioned. It's a shame that a lot of us are forced to vote not for the candidate that we want in office but vote defensively -against- the one we don't. I'll vote for Bush this time also. My wife will probably vote Kerry. :?

Ian

I appreciate your candor. I can't; however, vote for either Bush or Kerry. To me BOTH LACK THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING I WANT IN A PRESIDENT: INTEGRITY!

scruffy · « **Reply #24 on:** June 14, 2004, 08:56:28 AM »

Elections are not voting for someone, it's voting against someone.... An unfortunate fact of democracy.

And I wasn't refering to perot, I was refering to nador (or however you spell it). A report I read back after the last election and another here just recently saying that if nador wasn't in the previous election a majority of nador's votes in Florida would have gone to Gore, more than enough for him to carry the state of florida and the presidency.

There's been a spoiler more than once.

later,
scruffy

Mitch in MI · « **Reply #25 on:** June 18, 2004, 07:50:54 AM »

You guys remind me of a Simpsons episode a few years back. Both the Republican and Democrat nominees were unmasked as aliens from outer space who wanted to eat us. Once the truth was out, somebody said "we'll have to vote for a third party candidate". An alien replied "And waste your vote???".

The final scene showed Homer and Marge being shipped off to the slaughterhouse after the election. Homer turned to Marge and said "Don't blame me, I voted for the other man-eating space alien."

Who told you that you have to choose between two treasonists who want to destroy your Constitution?
Are you really going to put up with that?

Earlier this year, Al Sharpton said something I totally agree with:
"It's an election, not a horse race. You are supposed to vote for the man you want to win, not pick the man who's going to win anyway. If you vote for a candidate you don't want, then your vote truly is wasted."

dawei · « **Reply #26 on:** June 18, 2004, 08:20:31 AM »

Quote from: Mitch in MI

LARGE SNIP.......................

Earlier this year, Al Sharpton said something I totally agree with:
"It's an election, not a horse race. You are supposed to vote for the man you want to win, not pick the man who's going to win anyway. If you vote for a candidate you don't want, then your vote truly is wasted."

While I'm no fan of Al Sharpton he hit the nail on the head with that statement. I'll support the Libertarian candidate because that's who & what I believe in.

scruffy · « **Reply #27 on:** June 18, 2004, 08:26:01 AM »

Just curious, what has Bush done to destroy my constitution? And I don't mean political "talk" that all polititions say the media to get/stay elected, I'd like to know what actions he has done to destroy the constitution. Like Clintons 2nd amendment assult with the AWB (that is sunsetting under Bush's administration).

later,
scruffy

Mitch in MI · « **Reply #28 on:** June 19, 2004, 04:02:38 AM »

Scruffy:
(un)Patriot Acts I & II are such broadbased attacks on individual liberty & government accountability that I really don't know where to begin. The very idea that everything I do should be open for government scrutiny while the government should keep its operations secret from me is terrifying.

You might also note that GWB has repeatedly promised to sign the AWB if it lands on his desk. His BATFE is attacking gun shops with the same vigor exhibited during the Clinton administration. He told us that "instant check" records must be destroyed when Clinton was in power, now he has Ashcroft retaining them just like Reno. Aside from GWB's desire to get rid of limits on power plant emmissions and his ability to keep his c*** out of Monica Lewenski, I don't see much change from the Clinton years.
I'm just fed up with Republicrats in general. 99% of them want stronger government and weaker citizens.