GW Bush the worst president in US history - Page 6  

Originally Posted by jimmac

" but because they don't have the political cojones to do so. "

My guess is that they'll lower the boom on Mr. Bush in the fall. That way they gave his plan a chance and the opposition can't say they didn't support the troops.

Originally Posted by Northgate

Meanwhile soldiers DIE and get maimed while our politicians play games and politics!

Originally Posted by jimmac

Hey while your feeling so special don't forget you didn't address any of my assertions!

You just dismissed them as being nonlogical. Sorry that doesn't cut it.

Now I know you're young. Smoking out? I was only 16 in 1969. I know they start young these days but we were a little more innocent.

I have nothing against people keeping what they earn. However the world is a lot more complex than that. And some have learned to keep more of what they earn than others under the current tax laws.

It was my generation that started the focus on young people. We are the only culture that doesn't embrace and honor people who've been around awhile. The theory being if you've made it that far you've learned a thing or two in that time. Don't worry. When I was young I couldn't see that either.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Yup! They do. I didn't say I approved of it. I simply see their strategy.

Politics has become so convoluted sometimes in that game you have to do the wrong thing to accomplish the bigger good thing. Sometimes you have to play by the opposition's rules to win.

I didn't say it was right.

Like I said I realize that democrats like libertarians and republicans or whatever are politicians also.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Some... yep.



God Bless our soldiers. Each and every day.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

How will they do that? You don't understand. They can't. The only thing they can do is pull the funds. And they won't.

Of course, if the White House decides to reduce forces in 2008 as has been reported, the Dems will take credit and claim victory. Not in Iraq...but in Washington.

Oh, and I find it amusing that you claim they will be seen as "giving the plan a chance" while they pronounce it a failure all summer. Nice.




That's exactly what happens, actually. And you're mocking their deaths that have been practically encouraged by the Democratic leadership. Also nice.



1. Yes, you do. You even said so in the next sentence. Ironically, you don't realize that the "poor" got to keep more of their money...as did the middle class. Yet, that won't stop you from sticking the party talking point of "tax cuts for the rich." And pssst: Tax cuts for the "rich" work. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. And both times those tax cuts benefited the economy, not just "the rich." But you're party blindness can't see that.

2. If you were posting that just to point out the issue of respect for one's elders in our culture, I would agree. But you're not. You're pointing it out to try and prove that your opinions are more qualified than those that are also mature adults in the forum. It's really quite a lame argument and cheap tactic to pull the "I'm older than you" card, especially when you're in your 50s and I/we are in our 30s. If you were talking to teenagers or 21 year olds or what not, you might have a point.




Uh, yes you did. You said exactly that. "sometimes you have to...." You implied that you sanctioned it. In fact, no...I'm wrong...you actually said it.

Originally Posted by jimmac

SDW you're so full of shit it's incrediable.

Not only do you prove my point by silly attempt to say I mock someone's deaths but you apparently really get bothered by the fact that I am older than you and have seen some of the history you can only read about. I don't see why. I have no problem talking to someone who was alive during WWII. I'm fully willing to agknowlege that they have much more insight into those times than I ever could by reading about it.

By saying I'm mocking their deaths you just confirmed why the democrats chose this route. I'm sure the Bush administration would say the same thing about them. It would seem that the republicans would play just as many political games with their deaths as the democrats.

Giving the plan until fall isn't exactly a big secret or my invention as you could read about the speculation in the news at the time of the democrats giving in.

It's apparent that Bush's plan is a failure now so why not point it out? Maybe he might come to his senses and stop those needless deaths. We all doubt that though.

SDW quit trying to defend the undefenable. The Bush administration is the most dangerous mistake we've ever allowed into US government as you'll see yet another example in my next post.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I know there's another thread about this in AO but I think the info belongs here.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/...nts/index.html

Yet another example of why this administration is so dangerous. Not only does Cheney consider himself not a part of the executive branch of government ( when it's convenient of course ) he then tries to abolish the examining committee!

These guys really think of themselves above the law. Also you have to ask yourself what kinds of things they are covering up that they have to go lto such lengths?

An interesting article on how Cheeney operates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19378776/

Originally Posted by SDW2001

It doesn't belong here. You said yourself there was another thread about this, and you're right. Whether Cheney is right or wrong on this (and I feel he's wrong) is not the issue. At issue is your unbelieveable polarization. Tell me, how does it feel to, well, feel that way for 6.5 years? Not very good, I imagine!

Originally Posted by SDW2001

1. I am not bothered that you are older. Not even a little bit. I am bothered that you pathetically toss the fact around as if it's supposed to mean something in itself.

2. I have no idea what the second paragraph is supposed to mean.

3. No, it's no secret. That's when the administration has said it will begin to make judgments and when the generals will report. The Dems however are pronouncing the surge a failure now, Whether or not you agree with their assessment is not the point (though only a fool would assess the results at this juncture). You are claiming they are giving the President the time he wants. They are positively not doing that.

4. Jesus. How can you judge it a failure when the surge just took effect in earnest about two weeks ago? And yes there are deaths...duh. We have more troops engaging the enemy directly. What did you think was going to happen? How incredibly arrogant of you to pronounce these combat deaths "meaningless."

5. Overstated, rhetorical nonsense. Oh, and take a look at my blog and see how much I blindly support Bush.

Originally Posted by jimmac

It's political and does belong here. Also you'd excuse anything he does.

Originally Posted by jimmac

They are meaningless deaths in the sense that this situation shouldn't be happening! They don't need to be there! It's a shame they're being asked to put their lives on the line for such a thing!

Also they are giving it time but any fool can see it's not working!

Get real SDW! You really can't defend this!

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

I am a realist who has a friend serving in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

Depends on the rank and experience of my friend, I guess. I think I should go with his assessment over yours.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

No,..it doesn't belong in THIS THREAD. Your inclusion of it was troll like.





Shit, you really do leave in a fantasy world, don't you? It "shouldn't be happening?" WTF does that mean? It is happening. We're there. Now the question is how do we move forward. Do we draw down troops and turn over security to Iraqi Army? Or do we try and secure the country with a surge first? Pissing and moaning about "we shouldn't have been there in the first place" is not productive. It's basing a decision on your own emotional knee-jerk reactions, as usual.

Your second comment: Let me get this straight. The generals in charge (one of whom was unanimously confirmed by the Senate) said the surge would not even be up to full operational strength until summer, sometime in mid-June. That means the surge has been fully operational for a maximum of two weeks. Those same generals have said repeatedly that they will be able to judge the effectiveness of the surge and make policy recommendations concerning it by fall. That is when they'll know how things are progressing.

Now, YOU, "jimmac, AppleInsider Member and Baby Boomer" (TM) have announced that the generals are wrong, because clearly anyone with half a brain can see the surge is a failure. I mean, it's so obvious. Especially to someone who's been around the block a few times, bucko.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

The generals in charge (one of whom was unanimously confirmed by the Senate) said the surge would not even be up to full operational strength until summer, sometime in mid-June. That means the surge has been fully operational for a maximum of two weeks. Those same generals have said repeatedly that they will be able to judge the effectiveness of the surge and make policy recommendations concerning it by fall. That is when they'll know how things are progressing.

That the Bush administration, and specifically its military commanders, decided to begin using the term "Al Qaeda" to designate "anyone and everyeone we fight against or kill in Iraq" is obvious. All of a sudden, every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as "Al Qaeda."

But what is even more notable is that the establishment press has followed right along, just as enthusiastically. I don't think the New York Times has published a story about Iraq in the last two weeks without stating that we are killing "Al Qaeda fighters," capturing "Al Qaeda leaders," and every new operation is against "Al Qaeda."

Originally Posted by southside grabowski

The soldiers dont necessarily see themselves as the hapless victims some want to paint them as.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's exactly what happens, actually. And you're mocking their deaths that have been practically encouraged by the Democratic leadership. Also nice.

With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Chenney saying he's not part of the executive branch.

Originally Posted by Northgate

Mocking? Hey buddy, fuck you! How's that for mocking you sanctimonious piece of garbage! You know goddamn well what I was saying and what I meant. So fuck you very much!

Originally Posted by jimmac

No WMD.
They really don't want us there.
This was supposed to be a quick procedure.
The killing goes on.
We throw more lives at the problem and predictably it's not really making a difference.
... Just like Vietnam.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Everyone we fight in Iraq is now "al-Qaida"

Well that simplifies all this now, doesn't it? Not "insurgent", not "militant", not "Sunni" or "Shia'a", just plain old Al Qaeda. Because we need an enemy.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

What a perfect regurgitation of The Murtha Talking Points. Lots of "independent" thinking going on. Fucking hilarious. I give you a "10" for knowing, or at least being able to re-type, your party line.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

OK, cool. Screw Dick and all... but...

It's C-H-E-N-E-Y. The Vice President of the United States. For over six years now. Two elections of wall-to-wall signs. Countless bad newspaper and TV headlines. READ your talking points- they spell the man's name right in those, generally.

Not Cheeny.
Not Chenney.

CH-EN-EY.

In 2006, Afghanistan accounted for 92 percent of global illicit opium production, up from 70 percent in 2000 and 52 percent a decade earlier. The higher yields in Afghanistan brought global opium production to a record high of nearly 7,300 tons last year, a 43 percent increase over 2005.

The area under opium poppy cultivation in the country has also expanded, from nearly 257,000 acres in 2005 to more than 407,000 acres in 2006 an increase of about 59 percent.

"This is the largest area under opium poppy cultivation ever recorded in Afghanistan," the report said, noting that two-thirds of cultivation was concentrated in the country's south.

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

You could spell it Cheeseball for all I care. The guy is so useless worrying about the correct spelling of his name is giving him more credit than he is due.

If the only defense left for the guy is the spelling of his name, then his supporters finally might see the light.

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

Dick (how many of them are in public office?)

Originally Posted by screener

GW, the drug lords best friend.

Originally Posted by screener

GW's lack of attention span is improving Afghanistan's economy.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/...2bO0akUVPMWM0F

GW, the drug lords best friend.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Oh, I agree that Old Dick is without salvation and all that screed. Not one of my favorite people. I just think that the all-wise sage and Designated Boomer should know how to spell a six letter name- the man has been in government for almost forty years.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Forty years too long. And I think you should come up with arguments of more substance.

Originally Posted by franksargent

Wow. I love the smell of a free market in the morning.

1. Decreased taxes and increased spending is a recipe for fiscal disaster

How can a conservative President decrease taxes while increasing spending? I'm not entirely sure. Maybe the President is referencing different economists than the ones we are familiar with? Maybe he's just confusing his debits with his credits? Again, all we can do is speculate and hope the next guy (or gal) in charge can at least grasp the fundamentals of high school business math.

2. Prosecuting social ills does not cure society

Instead of making certain substances legal, or even just cutting back on the absolutely un-winnable 'war' America is waging on its own citizens, our President expanded the "War on Drugs." As he stated, "Illegal drugs are the enemies of ambition and hope and when we fight against drugs we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans." But Mr. Bush's well-documented drug and alcohol penchant clearly didn't rob him of his ambition to become President of the United States, did it?

3. Federal education policy is out-of-touch, and leaves everyone behind

Standardized testing only teaches kids to pass a test- it does not ensure a quality education nor does it even ensure our students are getting the same education throughout the country. "Standardized" testing is a misnomer, as each state can make their test as easy or difficult as they see fit (which makes it likely that politicians will manipulate the test to achieve the highest results and the most funding). Undoubtedly, Mr. Bush is right: our public school systems do need reform. However, a school voucher program would alleviate most of the sources behind the problem by giving parents power to exercise choice, thus solving the root of the problem and not just the symptoms.

4. The federal government is extremely poor at responding to disasters or emergencies

If the immediate aftermath of 9/11 didn't convince you that the federal government is slow moving and wholly ineffective when it comes to relief efforts, Hurricane Katrina surely did. Let's use the dollars we put into our relief effort system to instead pay a 3rd party to perform the same service. That way, we at least get some competition between the already well-funded and well-organized non-profits, which will naturally lead to an increase of quality overall. If we even had the states contract out for their own humanitarians-for-hire services, we could provide faster response time and more knowledgeable staff.

5. Sacrificing much liberty for very little safety helps no one

The Patriot Act, the denial of habeas corpus, and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp are all excellent examples of what not to do when trying preserve the limited government ideals upheld in the Constitution. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security is especially baffling. We already have the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the five branches of the US Military, state and local PDs, as well as a host of other less well known organizations designed specifically to counteract destructive agents to the United States. Yet bewilderingly, the President decided we needed another bloated, ineffective government agency to protect the country against terrorists. So far the Department's main contribution has been in the form of an adorable multi-colored chart, conveniently providing a gauge to how terrified we should feel when we wake up in the morning.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

WARNING: Libertarian Website]