Bush was worst president in US history

[Chanman]

via E-mail...

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 US 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 mis-management claims.

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. 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?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Funny part is the SAME people that think Bush was worst think Clinton was one of best.:tongue

No I don't think Clinton was worst pres in my time--I give that distinction hands down to Carter.

Wonder what those complaining of Afgan venture would say on Russia's venture in comparison.

DJV "Well Bush said it be short war and look,10 years and 15,000 deaths later---"
Just pickin on ya DJV


MOSCOW (AFP) - Fifteen years ago, the Soviet Union ended its last war, a disastrous 10-year invasion of Afghanistan (news - web sites) that claimed the lives of at least 15,000 soldiers and fuelled the rise of radical Islamic extremists such as Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s Al-Qaeda terror network.

 

[StevieD]

I know that you right wingers are used to having things both ways but maybe you can answer a question for me. In the article that Chanman quotes it blames Kennedy for starting the war in Vietnam. It blames Johnson for turning it into a quagmire. Yes, I agree Johnson turned it into a quagmire and yes, Kennedy did send the first "advisors" over there. Be that as it may for this discussion. But it is said in a way that going to Vietnam was a mistake. Just last week with Tim Russet, Bush claimed to have "supported his countries position" as far as Vietnam is concerned.
Now, was Vietnam a good thing or a bad thing. Bush still seems to think it was a good thing. You guys have bashed Kerry, who did serve in Nam but came home to protest the war. You have blasted Clinton for protesting the war, now you are blasting Kennedy for starting the war and Johnson for escallating the war.
I am confused. Either you think the war was good and Kennedy and Johnson should be praised for their rolls in it, or the war was a bad idea and Bush should be blasted, along with Kennedy and Johnson for supporting it from afar.







i

 

[Chanman]

StevieD- I post articles like these for info, not to rile up ppl. I got this as an E-mail and thought it would get ppl to thinking about history from another angle. I agree that everyone brings up Clinton, 'Both' of them, too much. Speaking of confused- I don't understand Kerry either- first he fights the war in V. Nam, then he is against it w/Hanoi Jane, then he throws his medals over the White House fence, now he says he still has them, before he voted for the current military action, now he says Bush fvcked up, and on and on.
I like to read these posts and try to at least broaden my horizions- but just because I post a view someone does not like does not mean that I support that view or that I'm trying to knock the left. I lean to the right, but can be swayed.

P.S.- I also got this E-Mail...

Just watched a show on Canadian TV.

There was a black comedian who said he misses Bill Clinton.

"Yep, that's right - I miss Bill Clinton! He was the closest thing we ever got to having a black man as President."

Number 1 - He played the sax.

Number 2 - He smoked weed.

and Number 3 - He screwed ugly white women

"Even now - Look at him. His wife works and he don't; And, he gets a check from the government every month."

 

[dawgball]

I don't think that what Chanman posted makes those President's look bad. Some of them may have been mistakes, but that happens. I think the reasoning behind that article is just putting this war and Bush's decision in perspective.

How is Bush's comments that he supported his country's position in Vietnam a bad thing? I think some of the Democratic candidates would do their campaign well by supporting their country's position on terror more rather than constantly taking the high road.

Just my opinion.

Does anyone else get weary during primaries? I think our system could use a lot of work.

 

[StevieD]

Chanman, I don't mean it as a shot against you but I was pointing out the weakness of the article you posted and the hypocrasy of the right wing within that context.

 

[Chanman]

Thanx Dawg- At least StevieD asks questions & makes good points w/out being rude. I respect his posts.

I thougnt this was a good article too-

A Dozen Reasons Why I'm A Conservative

Americandaily
Edward Daley,
02/13/04

Excerpt:

Let me begin this article by stating that I am not a Republican. I am, however, a conservative. I embrace conservatism because that particular philosophy is distinguished, in part, by the following precepts.

1. Governmental control over our lives should be limited to those few trammels which are absolutely necessary to the survival of an otherwise free nation. In the words of Thomas Paine, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

2. Taxation should only occur when necessary to provide for the common defense, civilian police agencies, firefighting organizations, roadways, railways and other essential aspects of our nation's infrastructure. If we are to have income taxes, everyone but the destitute should pay a proportional amount of those taxes (the same percentage of taxes regardless of their income), and those who pay no income taxes should be thankful to those who do.

3. Our nation was founded upon the principle of God-given rights, regardless of the conflicting opinion of a small minority of American citizens who do not believe in the concept of a higher power. After all, not every American believes in the viability of the capitalist system either, but our system is still based upon capitalism no matter what some people choose to believe.

4. The preservation of innocent human lives is of paramount importance to all moral people, and those who wish to gratuitously destroy a fetus in the womb have an obligation to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that an unborn child is not a human life, worthy of the same legal protections that all other individuals enjoy, before committing abortion.

5. Free market principles should be applied to public education, health care and a host of other systems, which have of late been thrust into the socialistic downward spiral of governmental intervention and over-regulation.

6. We, the people, have an expectation of public accountability and private responsibility. With every individual right claimed, there is an equally important responsibility attached to it, and for every ounce of power claimed by some people over everyone else, there should be a pound of accountability awaiting those claimants at the end of the day.

7. People who wish to immigrate to our country need to do so legally. They should be willing to learn our language, respect our culture and obey our laws once they're here. Those who refuse to do so should be deported immediately.

8. Our federal government should have autonomy in determining what is in the best interest of our country internationally, as opposed to relying on organizations such as the United Nations to make our decisions for us.

9. You can't bargain with bullies, tyrants or terrorists, and to even try is not only naive but potentially suicidal. Sometimes violence is the only means by which one can defend one's liberties. Those who refuse to resort to violent acts under any circumstances are destined for slavery.

10. Affirmative action is racism, no different than those forms of racism practiced by the Nazis of W.W.II Germany or former President Charles Taylor's regime in modern-day Liberia.

11. People are not basically good, nor are they basically bad. They're both, that's why a moral code is necessary to the sustainability of a free society.

12. All human beings crave liberty and felicity, and to deny even one person who chooses to live a virtuous life the opportunity to pursue happiness and experience individual freedom, is a crime against humanity.

Too late-just posted this when I saw your reply StevieD. No offence taken at all- your reputation precedes you :thumb:

 

[djv]

Well one think that is dead wrong here. Ike sent the first 200 advisors to Nam 1959. You wont here much about it but you can find it in our history about Ike. When Kennedy was elected we had over 500 there. The die was cast.
Lest give creit for the real balls Kennedy had. Remember the missle crises.
ThankYou FDR for winning WW11. After we were attacked.

IRAQ when will everyone get it right they never attacked us.
AFgan was the RIGHT thing to do that was where the folks came from that atttacked us 9/11. That and Saudi. And Bush gave Saudi a free pass.

 

[Chanman]

:com:

 

[djv]

By the way why is Bush doing just like Clinton giveing N Korea a free pass.

 

[Wilson]

DJV=Michael Moore

 

[djv]

Wilson seems like a fair question. So many say Clinton handled NK wrong. I dont see any changes.

 

[StevieD]

We are strong on terrorism. That is why we are against this war with Iraq. The terrorist who attacked us where not there, nor did Iraq have the WMD that they were going to use to get us. If anything this war with Iraq wated resources that could have been used to fight terrorism. But Halliburton made out okay. Lets' see, steal a few hundred million then give a few million back. What a joke.

 

[AR182]

stevied,

good to see you posting. i missed you(lol).


israeli intelligence has stated that iraq's wmd's were shipped to syria. there were also a few trucks spotted headed to syria right before the start of the war. don't know if wmd's were in them or not. i don't know if the u.s. is pursuing them or not.

binladen's right hand man, the thug who the u.s. just raised the bounty on, was medically treated (leg amputation from afghanistan war) in iraq. therefore they were hgarboring a criminal.

saddam gave $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers vs. israel. how do we know that all of the money went to the families? meanwhile alqaeda has been seen in palestine with arafat & his crew.

there are many articles that i copied & pasted that if you wanted you could do a search that talks about the connection between saddam & alqaeda, including a testimony by clinton appointed cia director, mosely who sworn under oath that he believed there was a connection between the two, including proof that iraq's military was training high jackers.

there are many more examples that i can give you showing a connection, but i don't believe it would change your opinion about the iraq war. you believe that kerry, edwards, dean, or kucinich would do a better job than bush (which is your right), so anything i or some else says won't convince you.

but it's still good to see you posting again. and my sympathy for the red sox again blowing an opportunity for out doing the evil empire(my best friend is a die hard red sox fan).

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

DJV Where do you see George giving N Korea a free pass?
Would appreciate you posting your source or is it just more liberal "opinion"?
---what I gather from article in Asian Free Press today,times are currently a little different than on Slicks watch. How much do you think N Korea would pay to have Clinton back at helm???? I know they and China miss those free bed and breakfast for contributions deals

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...040216/ts_afp/nkorea_nuclear_kim_040216060019

IMHO the biggest blame I would put on Viet Nam would be neither of the presidents but a fellow by the name of
McNamera(spl)

 

[djv]

DTB the deals going to be the same. Food,Oil, from us and they stop playing with there nuke program. Unless were really dump enuogh not to give our extra food for safty of that region. I see Bush is offering the same now. But for a while offered nothing. We are talking about a nut case in NK. When you have nothing to lose and NK seems to feal that way. You better make them feal like they have lots to lose. Or they may do some dam strange things. We still have to many troops in NK to play to many games.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

DJV Did you not read above link or do you just ignore anything that does not support your opinion????

"The situation on the Korean peninsula has reached a very grave phase due to the Bush administration's hostile policy toward the DPRK (North Korea)," Yang Hyong Sop, vice-president of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly (parliament), said in a speech."

"The reforms, however, sent prices soaring and led to high foreign exchange rates. The North's energy shortage deepened after Washington and its allies stopped an annual shipment of 500,000 tonnes of fuel oil in late 2002."

What part of above do you fail to comprehend?????

 

[Blitz]

DJV Did you not read above link or do you just ignore anything that does not support your opinion????

I think you know the answer to that question...

 

[kosar]

Come on my man Dogs,

I'm always puzzled when comments like this are busted out. I don't know if i've heard a single person anywhere, ever, 'complain' about attacking Afghanistan. Attacking Afghanistan and occupying Iraq are two different things entirely and it's possible to support one and not the other.

Wonder what those complaining of Afgan venture would say on Russia's venture in comparison.

 

[theGibber1]

IRAQ when will everyone get it right they never attacked us.

Im tired of this logic. Are we supposed to wait till they do attack us?

We knew Osama and his crew were dangerous. But we didnt do anything about it till thousands of innocents died.

Iraq did not attack us. So we should sit around and wait till they do? This makes no sense to me. Personally im glad to see we are finally taking care of these terroist groups before they have a chance to blow up more buildings.