or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › GW Bush the worst president in US history
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

GW Bush the worst president in US history - Page 9  

post #321 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Er, he is the Commander and Chief, stupid.

He missed the opportunity to recruit Saddam's army into a security force (instead started the "de-Baathification"). In doing so, he created the insurgency we see today. Don't give me that Al Qaeda crap either. 2003 was the Lost Year in Iraq.


Yes SDW thinks that Bush isn't responsible for his own actions or lack thereof ( where applicable ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #322 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Here's the mood out there.

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




" It's the people vs. the government, new poll suggests "


" How do people think the Democratic Congress is doing after six months? Lousy. But better than the alternative. "

I think what we just saw was not the people against Govt but the people against the Corporations. Reid & Bush were both trying to screw our borders on immigration. Both derelict of duty to the People & Constitution and guilty of ignoring current laws. Working hard for those multinational corporations.

Somehow we must get some campaign laws down and kick out all lobbyst.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
post #323 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No really. I insist. What does "resonate" mean to you in this context?

From the Dictionary App,
Quote:
figurative evoke or suggest images, memories, and emotions : the words resonate with so many different meanings. (of an idea or action) meet with someone's agreement : the judge's ruling resonated among many of the women.

From the Stein link,
Quote:
Laura Schwartz: Right. And you know what? The average middle classer is getting $744 back a year. Yet, that average middle classer is paying 80 percent more a year in health care, that's $6,000 a year per family. They're paying 44 percent more a year for education. We've got college graduates walking across the stage this May with $19,000 of average debt.

Ben Stein: Well, that's fine. They should have debt.

Laura Schwartz: So, you add that together with gas prices and that's why 55 percent of Americans are saying the economy is getting worse, not better. They're not looking at the Dow. They're looking at their pocketbook.

Quote:
Neil Cavuto: By the way, the Republicans were no slouches in that regard. They lost their majorities because they spent.

Charles Payne: I think they lost because they were very arrogant and they distanced themselves from the average American. But, I do think a lot of people think this economy is going downhill. If you look at every opinion poll and you look at expectations for six months out, people are looking for the economy to fall off a cliff! And that's worrisome.

But Hell, it's working for you, the public must be stupid.

I don't think the current level of insurgency was predicted by most people, in or out of the Bush Administration. That said, it's clear we didn't have enough troops and have made many mistakes. That's certainly not a case for the President being "stupid."

The buck stops with the "Decider".
If he decided to go forward, ignoring and not planning for all contingencies, which were put forward, would that make him, smart?


Quote:
In late April 1999, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), led by Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret.), conducted a series of war games known as Desert Crossing in order to assess potential outcomes of an invasion of Iraq aimed at unseating Saddam Hussein.

The results of Desert Crossing, however, drew pessimistic conclusions regarding the immediate possible outcomes of such action. Some of these conclusions are interestingly similar to the events which actually occurred after Saddam was overthrown. (Note 1) The report forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors." Further, the report illuminated worries that secure borders and a restoration of civil order may not be enough to stabilize Iraq if the replacement government were perceived as weak, subservient to outside powers, or out of touch with other regional governments. An exit strategy, the report said, would also be complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq among those involved in the conflict.

Zinni disparaged the views of pro-war advocates who minimized the significance of Arab opinion: "I'm not sure which planet they live on, because it isn't the one I travel."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm

Quote:
Among other things, the 40-page Senate report reveals that two intelligence assessments before the war accurately predicted that toppling Saddam could lead to a dangerous period of internal violence and provide a boost to terrorists. But those warnings were seemingly ignored.

In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community's think tank the National Intelligence Council issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.

None of those warnings were reflected in the administration's predictions about the war.

In fact, Vice President Cheney stated the day before the war, Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18854414/

Yeah, who woulda thunk a bunch of "dead enders", Rumsfeld's line, would just quit after letting them loot to their hearts content.

By letting it go unchecked, they enabled lawlessness and the consequences.
Saying who could have foreseen what is happening now is just plain stupid.

Lots of people could see the dangers and Bush and his, I use the term with contempt, Administration either ignored, didn't believe or want to believe and plan accordingly.
If they failed to give Bush all the information, thinking his brain might explode, keep it simple and tell him it'll be a cakewalk.
That didn't happen of course, Bush is one arrogant stupid person, which is a deadly combination, as history is proving.



Deceptive and highly selective. Please look at the following:



I assume you're speaking of the effective tax rate. The problem is that you're cherry picking data. I can easily turn that back around on you:



The top income earners are the ones who are paying the taxes, friend. But assuming you're correct, my question is...so? What you clearly fail to understand is that the tax cuts helped the overall economy. For some reason liberals can't get that through their heads. Tax cuts "for the rich" actually work.

Quote:
But assuming you're correct, my question is...so?

Yup, tax cuts actually work, for the rich.
post #324 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


Game. Set. Match.

And still a bunch of you claim the rich "aren't paying enough." If you paid the same percentage they paid, we'd never hear the end of it. Class warfare at it's finest. That tired, old, liberal "we mush punish success" thing. Completely idiotic.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #325 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No really. I insist. What does "resonate" mean to you in this context?


From the Dictionary App,

Quote:
• figurative evoke or suggest images, memories, and emotions : the words resonate with so many different meanings. • (of an idea or action) meet with someone's agreement : the judge's ruling resonated among many of the women.

From the Stein link,
Quote:
Laura Schwartz: Right. And you know what? The average middle classer is getting $744 back a year. Yet, that average middle classer is paying 80 percent more a year in health care, that's $6,000 a year per family. They're paying 44 percent more a year for education. We've got college graduates walking across the stage this May with $19,000 of average debt.

Ben Stein: Well, that's fine. They should have debt.

Laura Schwartz: So, you add that together with gas prices… and that's why 55 percent of Americans are saying the economy is getting worse, not better. They're not looking at the Dow. They're looking at their pocketbook.

Quote:
Tracy Byrnes: Yes, and it comes back to the Republican Party. My biggest gripe with them is they are not marketing the economy like they should. The Democrats are doing a fine job of saying it's terrible. But it's not. It's terrific! And the Republicans are not getting the message out.

Right, because they don't feel good, you gotta tell 'em.
Forget reality, it's all marketing.


Quote:
Charles Payne: I think they lost because they were very arrogant and they distanced themselves from the average American. But, I do think a lot of people think this economy is going downhill. If you look at every opinion poll and you look at expectations for six months out, people are looking for the economy to fall off a cliff! And that's worrisome.

Reality versus perception, could they be the same?
post #326 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But SDW he's right. I linked to that same poll which was talked about on on MSNBC.

Sorry but it's for real.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19466360/

So, you concur that Americans are morons after 9/11. Gotcha.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #327 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Game. Set. Match.

And still a bunch of you claim the rich "aren't paying enough." If you paid the same percentage they paid, we'd never hear the end of it. Class warfare at it's finest. That tired, old, liberal "we mush punish success" thing. Completely idiotic.

What I like is the original post had a link to this image, on ImageShack. Anybody can post images there. There was no source (the very thing SDW always hounds everyone else about he can't do himself). I could make a spiffy-looking little chart, too, and post it and then link to it... hmmm...

Some people will believe anything that is in front of them, the very makings of a Lemmings Nation and the very reason advertising works so well. Question the source.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

post #328 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Yup, tax cuts actually work, for the rich.

No, they work for the economy, which benefits everyone.

Quote:
Laura Schwartz: Right. And you know what? The average middle classer is getting $744 back a year. Yet, that average middle classer is paying 80 percent more a year in health care, that's $6,000 a year per family. They're paying 44 percent more a year for education. We've got college graduates walking across the stage this May with $19,000 of average debt.

Ben Stein: Well, that's fine. They should have debt.

Laura Schwartz: So, you add that together with gas prices… and that's why 55 percent of Americans are saying the economy is getting worse, not better. They're not looking at the Dow. They're looking at their pocketbook.

Let's assume that $744 is a correct figure. That can easily represent a 10-15% tax cut in terms of actual taxes paid. That's enormous. But beyond that...I challenge the figures anyway. 80 percent more in health care? Link? As for college...what do you want to do...make it a right for everyone?

Regardless, I realize you're talking about the perception of the economy. In that sense you're right...the tax cuts aren't "resonating." I just don't see why that is something worth pointing out. Public opinion doesn't define whether or not something is a good policy.

Quote:
But Hell, it's working for you, the public must be stupid.

I'm not really sure what this means. If you're saying we could implement better tax policies than we have now, I agree. However, that doesn't mean the Bush tax cuts were ineffective. And no, I don't think the public is stupid. I just think that most people don't understand the data points that makeup the economy, nor do they even understand how much less they are paying now. They'll only realize that when taxes rise.

Quote:
he buck stops with the "Decider".
If he decided to go forward, ignoring and not planning for all contingencies, which were put forward, would that make him, smart?

It's impossible to plan for "every contingency." The Administration made judgments about troop levels and about what things would look like in the occupation phase. Clearly, the troop level decision as pushed by Rumsfeld was fine for battle, but not good for occupation. Clearly the occupation has not gone has they intended.

So what you're saying is that the reasons these mistakes happened was that Bush is stupid. I think that's both inaccurate and unfair. If you want to use that logic, then Clinton was stupid too, for a great many things.

Quote:
Yeah, who woulda thunk a bunch of "dead enders", Rumsfeld's line, would just quit after letting them loot to their hearts content.

By letting it go unchecked, they enabled lawlessness and the consequences.
Saying who could have foreseen what is happening now is just plain stupid.

Lots of people could see the dangers and Bush and his, I use the term with contempt, Administration either ignored, didn't believe or want to believe and plan accordingly.
If they failed to give Bush all the information, thinking his brain might explode, keep it simple and tell him it'll be a cakewalk.
That didn't happen of course, Bush is one arrogant stupid person, which is a deadly combination, as history is proving.

I agree that the occupation was mismanaged and that we let things get way too far out of control. I don't think that means anyone was "stupid." I would also like to know who "lots" of people were. That's always the thing with Smart Liberals...they are always much smarter after the fact and in hindsight.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #329 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

What I like is the original post had a link to this image, on ImageShack. Anybody can post images there. There was no source (the very thing SDW always hounds everyone else about he can't do himself). I could make a spiffy-looking little chart, too, and post it and then link to it... hmmm...

Some people will believe anything that is in front of them, the very makings of a Lemmings Nation and the very reason advertising works so well. Question the source.

Are you challenging the data?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #330 of 455
[QUOTE=SDW2001;1105150I don't think the current level of insurgency was predicted by most people, in or out of the Bush Administration. That said, it's clear we didn't have enough troops and have made many mistakes. That's certainly not a case for the President being "stupid."
[/QUOTE]

If he had information and didn't plan accordingly, he's stupid and responsible for a lot of dead people.
If he had information and ignored it, he's stupid and arrogant which is an even deadlier combination, as history is proving.

Quote:
In late April 1999, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), led by Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret.), conducted a series of war games known as Desert Crossing in order to assess potential outcomes of an invasion of Iraq aimed at unseating Saddam Hussein.

The results of Desert Crossing, however, drew pessimistic conclusions regarding the immediate possible outcomes of such action. Some of these conclusions are interestingly similar to the events which actually occurred after Saddam was overthrown. (Note 1) The report forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors." Further, the report illuminated worries that secure borders and a restoration of civil order may not be enough to stabilize Iraq if the replacement government were perceived as weak, subservient to outside powers, or out of touch with other regional governments. An exit strategy, the report said, would also be complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq among those involved in the conflict.

Zinni disparaged the views of pro-war advocates who minimized the significance of Arab opinion: "I'm not sure which planet they live on, because it isn't the one I travel."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm

Quote:
Among other things, the 40-page Senate report reveals that two intelligence assessments before the war accurately predicted that toppling Saddam could lead to a dangerous period of internal violence and provide a boost to terrorists. But those warnings were seemingly ignored.

In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community's think tank the National Intelligence Council issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.

It also warned that many angry young recruits would fuel the rank of Islamic extremists and "Iraqi political culture is so embued with mores (opposed) to the democratic experience that it may resist the most rigorous and prolonged democratic tutorials."

None of those warnings were reflected in the administration's predictions about the war.

In fact, Vice President Cheney stated the day before the war, Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18854414/

Yup, who woulda thunk it.
Some humor from here, maybe bad taste, but there is truth in them.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...riraqjokes.htm

Quote:
"Looks like some kind of civil war brewing in Iraq. Well, who could have seen that coming? That came out of left field, huh? They say it is total chaos over there. People are roaming the streets with guns. It's like everyone is Dick Cheney now." --Jay Leno

Quote:
"President Bush admitted that the United States went to war in Iraq based on bad intelligence. But he says knowing what we know now he would still do it again. So at least we're learning from our mistakes." --Jay Leno

Quote:
"The general election's taking place today in Iraq, so I guess that means we're one step closer to being there for another 10 years." --David Letterman

Quote:
"Already there have been reports of 1000 fake ballots in the Iraqi election. So it looks like another victory for Republicans." --David Letterman

Quote:
"A rumor is circulating that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will retire next year. Today, Rumsfeld denied it, saying if you've seen my work in Iraq, you know I don't plan that far ahead." --Conan O'Brien

Quote:
"According to CNN, Donald Rumsfeld said the war in Iraq did not go according to plan. And President Bush said, 'What? We had a plan?'" --Jay Leno

Quote:
"A new poll shows that 66% of Americans think President Bush is doing a poor job on the War in Iraq. And the remaining 34% think Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church." --Tina Fey

Quote:
"Now here's surprising and sad news coming out of Iraq. According to reports, Iraqi officials have embezzled $1.2 billion in Pentagon money. $1.2 billion. And Halliburton, when they heard about this, they said hey! Hey! We were going to embezzle that money. That's our money." --David Letterman

And it goes on and on, how sad.
Not a joke about blowjobs in site.

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnis...ews-columnists

Quote:
When a high-ranking French leader suggested in a private meeting that President George W. Bush consider Algeria as a model for a staged disengagement from Iraq, the president reportedly listened, no doubt with that dazed attention span of a windshield wiper. Bush was said to have assured his European petitioner that he just happened to be finishing a book on the Algerian War.

Quote:
The Algerian War took the lives of at least a million Muslims, uprooted French settler-colonists, known as pieds-noirs, and, according to Horne, collapsed the Fourth Republic and wrecked six French governments. Finally, President Charles de Gaulle took the bold stance of ordering a French withdrawal from Algeria.

The lesson Bush apparently draws from Horne's exhaustive study, according to Irwin Stelzer of the Weekly Standard, is that despite the price in blood and treasure, France didn't stay the course long enough in Algeria. This is not exactly what the high-ranking French official had in mind when offering up Algeria as a model for America's disengagement from Iraq.

Maybe Laura skipped the bad parts, then again, he should have let her read it to him before the Iraq fiasco.
post #331 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Game. Set. Match.

And still a bunch of you claim the rich "aren't paying enough." If you paid the same percentage they paid, we'd never hear the end of it. Class warfare at it's finest. That tired, old, liberal "we mush punish success" thing. Completely idiotic.

Hardly. That's how percentages work. Its more weighted toward the rich, because we have a progressive tax system. I think many, if not most, people understand we have progressive tax brackets. It follows that those with more income will pay larger amounts of tax. This is generally considered a crazy idea by ron paul backers. (All five of you.) Most people, even bush-level republicans, understand and agree with taxing the rich more so than poor, in both percentages and hard dollars.

I saw Warren Buffet in the news recently. (those who don't know him, he's ridiculously rich CEO type; chair of Berkshire Hathoway, possibly the most expensive individual stock on an american exchange.) He says he pays a lower rate on his taxes than his secretary. Most of his money is on capital gains ($45M gain, taxed at around 17%), and hers is mostly standard wages ($60K, taxed at around 30%). He certainly pays a higher dollar figure, no doubt, but he is upset that he pays half her percent; without getting into the specifics of adjustments and tax breaks. here's one article on it. He frames it as a social obligation, "If youre in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."
post #332 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuh Freak View Post

"If youre in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."

Only if you believe you won't be paying for some else's way through life like some here believe.
post #333 of 455
An open response... not specifically to t'Freak:

The progressive system is the problem. If everyone paid the same percentage, then all would be concerned about government spending, and would all be contributing an equal stake to the services we enjoy.

It's fucked up (and a Communist plank) that those who work hard, create wealth, and succeed are forced to hand over the rewards of their success to the government for redistribution to corporations and non-producers. Money that keeps buying ever more wars. Money that secures further support from non-producers who are all too glad to continue voting more for themselves on the backs of the successful. Noblesse Oblige at gunpoint.

What happens if your boss is taxed to a point of layoffs? I've done it in my company. I let two employees go- simply from my tax burden. So now what? They can go vote for HRC, who will take their paychecks from me under threat of force. Nice. Why bother? It's part of the reason we're stopping new contracts in about October this year... why bother working only to keep ever less? Once I've met my lower goal, I'm going on vacation, and saving those new contracts for January 2. They are worth more to me then. I've said it before around here... and never found a decent response- why is a January dollar worth more than a December dollar?

I just don't understand how you can support taking from the successful to buy the votes of the less-successful. Is power for the sake of power really that seductive, that you'll punish achievement just to stay in office? That is exactly where we are in this country. It's really sick that a lot of you feel ENTITLED to TAKE what is not yours, with the threat of government force. The communist hatred of wealth is alive and well with many of you. It's something I just cannot get my head around, why so many here want to control and enslave their fellow citizens to such an extent.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #334 of 455
We really need Fairtax.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #335 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So, you concur that Americans are morons after 9/11. Gotcha.


I prefer " Sheep ".

The terrorists got what they wanted. All of us paranoid.

Bush of course used this to his advantage By employing it to further his own goals that had nothing to do with 911 ( like Iraq ). The terrorists were probably aware we would react like this and so would Bush. So they got what they wanted. Us afraid and the rest of the world doesn't trust us anymore because of our knee jerk reaction and of course Bush's preemptive actions.

They are called :

TERRORists after all.

But SDW like everything else we've already gone over this.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #336 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

If he had information and didn't plan accordingly, he's stupid and responsible for a lot of dead people.
If he had information and ignored it, he's stupid and arrogant which is an even deadlier combination, as history is proving.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18854414/

Yup, who woulda thunk it.
Some humor from here, maybe bad taste, but there is truth in them.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...riraqjokes.htm
















And it goes on and on, how sad.
Not a joke about blowjobs in site.

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnis...ews-columnists





Maybe Laura skipped the bad parts, then again, he should have let her read it to him before the Iraq fiasco.


Like I've always said there are only two possibilities where Bush is concerned.

One he's incompetent.

Two he's dishonest.

Take your pick.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #337 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No, they work for the economy, which benefits everyone.



Let's assume that $744 is a correct figure. That can easily represent a 10-15% tax cut in terms of actual taxes paid. That's enormous. But beyond that...I challenge the figures anyway. 80 percent more in health care? Link? As for college...what do you want to do...make it a right for everyone?

Regardless, I realize you're talking about the perception of the economy. In that sense you're right...the tax cuts aren't "resonating." I just don't see why that is something worth pointing out. Public opinion doesn't define whether or not something is a good policy.



I'm not really sure what this means. If you're saying we could implement better tax policies than we have now, I agree. However, that doesn't mean the Bush tax cuts were ineffective. And no, I don't think the public is stupid. I just think that most people don't understand the data points that makeup the economy, nor do they even understand how much less they are paying now. They'll only realize that when taxes rise.



It's impossible to plan for "every contingency." The Administration made judgments about troop levels and about what things would look like in the occupation phase. Clearly, the troop level decision as pushed by Rumsfeld was fine for battle, but not good for occupation. Clearly the occupation has not gone has they intended.

So what you're saying is that the reasons these mistakes happened was that Bush is stupid. I think that's both inaccurate and unfair. If you want to use that logic, then Clinton was stupid too, for a great many things.



I agree that the occupation was mismanaged and that we let things get way too far out of control. I don't think that means anyone was "stupid." I would also like to know who "lots" of people were. That's always the thing with Smart Liberals...they are always much smarter after the fact and in hindsight.


" Clinton was stupid too, for a great many things. "

No comparison.


Nope! Sorry but Clinton didn't start another Vietnam for us.

The economy was quite outstanding under Clinton.
The world still respected us.

The only time Clinton was stupid was when he opened his fly and lied to the american people.
Thus paving the way for the hairless ape Bush.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #338 of 455
As the pressure mounts......




http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/....ap/index.html


" Chairman ready to go to court to enforce White House subpoenas "

"The president and vice president are not above the law anymore than you and I are," Leahy said.

Leahy spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #339 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Like I've always said there are only two possibilities where Bush is concerned.

One he's incompetent.

Two he's dishonest.

Take your pick.



Actually, there is a third possibility:

Three: he's incompetent and dishonest.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

post #340 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I prefer " Sheep ".

The terrorists got what they wanted. All of us paranoid.

Bush of course used this to his advantage By employing it to further his own goals that had nothing to do with 911 ( like Iraq ). The terrorists were probably aware we would react like this and so would Bush. So they got what they wanted. Us afraid and the rest of the world doesn't trust us anymore because of our knee jerk reaction and of course Bush's preemptive actions.

They are called :

TERRORists after all.

But SDW like everything else we've already gone over this.

Yeah, jimmac...so it is written, so it is done.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #341 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

" Clinton was stupid too, for a great many things. "

No comparison.


Nope! Sorry but Clinton didn't start another Vietnam for us.

The economy was quite outstanding under Clinton.
The world still respected us.

The only time Clinton was stupid was when he opened his fly and lied to the american people.
Thus paving the way for the hairless ape Bush.

1. Yeah, he just treated terror like a law enforcement operation, failed to respond to multiple attacks, sold out national security to the Chinese for business interests and campaign contributions, and gave nuclear reactors to NK. You're right, no comparison. He was way more stupid.

2. The economy was outstanding from about 1996-early 2000. The recovery from 1992-95 was anemic at best.

Secondly, I'll ask you again: what specific actions did Bill Clinton propose or implement that helped the US economy?

3. The world was in love with Clinton. That's true.

4. I beg to differ. He was stupid to lie under oath. He was stupid to obstruct justice. He was stupid for all the reasons I've listed. Yet all I hear from you and the libs is "But SDW! The economy was good! It was grrreeeat! The world liked us more!"

Funny, we never hear about blackhawk down. We never hear about the Cole. We never hear about the pathetic "framework" with NK, devised by the stupendously intelligent First Female Secretary of State and Certified Genius (TM). We never hear about Clinton making the exact same arguments about Iraq that George Bush did. No...never. "See SDW, the economy was SOOOO good. I don't know why, but it was good. Really good. And we had a surplus. And everything was so good. Man, I wish things would get good again."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #342 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I agree that the occupation was mismanaged and that we let things get way too far out of control. I don't think that means anyone was "stupid." I would also like to know who "lots" of people were. That's always the thing with Smart Liberals...they are always much smarter after the fact and in hindsight.

I posted who lots of people were and of course you just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.
Kinda like the Decider.
post #343 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

I posted who lots of people were and of course you just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.
Kinda like the Decider.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting actually. There were various positions within the administration. The one that won out was Rumsfeld's....fewer troops. My understanding is that Powell was on the other side of things. It's fine to label that a mistake, but don't pretend the the whole world knew better. At worst it was an untested theory. It turned out to be half successful...great for battle...not good for occupation.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #344 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm not sure what you're suggesting actually. There were various positions within the administration. The one that won out was Rumsfeld's....fewer troops. My understanding is that Powell was on the other side of things. It's fine to label that a mistake, but don't pretend the the whole world knew better. At worst it was an untested theory. It turned out to be half successful...great for battle...not good for occupation.

This is what you said,

Quote:
I don't think the current level of insurgency was predicted by most people, in or out of the Bush Administration.

I gave 2 links that undeniably showed proof that the Administration knew what could happen and yet they gambled with the lives of troops and civilians.

You don't gamble in war unless you're desperate, like now.

Remember John Wayne's rallying cry, "some of us are gonna die" in some movie I forgot the name of.
What did you guys get, Cheney's, we'll be greeted as liberators.

Even if, as you claim, that it was a theory, they should have been prepared for anything, which anyone going into any situation, being war or climbing a mountain and having half a brain would do.

And when the trouble started, they still did nothing and still didn't see how it could escalate.

Stupid is as stupid does.
post #345 of 455
Double post deleted.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #346 of 455
News just in, Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence.

Lying under oath for republicans is a okay.

Another nail for Bush.
post #347 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. Yeah, he just treated terror like a law enforcement operation, failed to respond to multiple attacks, sold out national security to the Chinese for business interests and campaign contributions, and gave nuclear reactors to NK. You're right, no comparison. He was way more stupid.

2. The economy was outstanding from about 1996-early 2000. The recovery from 1992-95 was anemic at best.

Secondly, I'll ask you again: what specific actions did Bill Clinton propose or implement that helped the US economy?

3. The world was in love with Clinton. That's true.

4. I beg to differ. He was stupid to lie under oath. He was stupid to obstruct justice. He was stupid for all the reasons I've listed. Yet all I hear from you and the libs is "But SDW! The economy was good! It was grrreeeat! The world liked us more!"

Funny, we never hear about blackhawk down. We never hear about the Cole. We never hear about the pathetic "framework" with NK, devised by the stupendously intelligent First Female Secretary of State and Certified Genius (TM). We never hear about Clinton making the exact same arguments about Iraq that George Bush did. No...never. "See SDW, the economy was SOOOO good. I don't know why, but it was good. Really good. And we had a surplus. And everything was so good. Man, I wish things would get good again."


And things can be that good again. We can get started on that as soon as the current administration is out of office. As to the economy Yeah! Clinton's idea of tightening our belts and actually paying for things really worked didn't it? Imagine that!

You may remember his campaign montra " Focus on the economy like a laser beam " or what people were saying about his election success " It's the economy stupid ". People were pretty fed up with the way the economy had been handled for several years by the previous republican administration ( funny that the last name was the same ). Yes the early years were kind of auster because of the recession and debt he inherited. But he worked to get past that because balancing the budget was important to him.

And he did have the maturity to show some retraint in his foreign policy. Albeit times weren't as tense as they would become ( when Bush took office there were already reports on his desk that Al-Queda was training men for using airplanes as weapons ).

And yes we had a surplus. Something we hadn't had for most of my lifetime ( and I'm no spring chicken ). And then there was the longest running Bull market in history...........

I remember waking up every morning and not cringing everytime they mentioned the president on TV. Also I kept expecting that the economy would take a downturn but you know it just kept going and going and going.

As for lying under oath I have know doubt that George W. Bush would do the same thing.

And yes that's the only thing within reason I find fault with the guy because he was just that. Human. And humans make mistakes.

And SDW you really don't want to get into a discussion about comparing Bush and Clinton's mistakes.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #348 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

News just in, Bush commutes Libby's prison sentence.

Lying under oath for republicans is a okay.

Another nail for Bush.


Just to supply a link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_...kZbHwlGUqs0NUE

No more CNN links from me. Their new layout looks like it was developed by a deranged lawyer on steroids and is capable of inducing seizures in healthy people.

In the GW WH, the ends justify the means but, as nobody really understands what the ends are or should be nor do they have any clue as to how to get there, just about any kind of behavior becomes tolerable.


What about a count-down thread showing the days left until the world is freed from this idiot?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

post #349 of 455
Quote:
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the Republican-appointed federal prosecutor in the Plame/CIA leak case, released a brief statement tonight, after President Bush commuted the prison sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

It read: "We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative.

"We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as 'excessive.' The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

"Although the Presidents decision eliminates Mr. Libbys sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.

El Presidente (también conocido como GWB) el Idiota ha hablado.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
post #350 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

And still a bunch of you claim the rich "aren't paying enough." If you paid the same percentage they paid, we'd never hear the end of it. Class warfare at it's finest. That tired, old, liberal "we mush punish success" thing. Completely idiotic.

And the imaginary liberal boogyman morphs once again...
post #351 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

And the imaginary liberal boogyman morphs once again...

Imaginary? Gee, it didn't seem so "imaginary" when I wrote that check in April... working harder made my efforts less valuable.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #352 of 455
"Class warfare"? You aren't the voice of "success." Unless, of course, success has come to mean humping your gun collection.
post #353 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

"Class warfare"? You aren't the voice of "success." Unless, of course, success has come to mean humping your gun collection.

You know, the "fuck the rich" populist Liberal Dem line since '68? The "they have it and if you keep voting for us, we'll take it from them and give it to you..." thing.

And you don't know how successful or unsuccessful I am. So stick to whatcha know, k?

Try Content.™ Not ad-homs. Content. You've been around long enough to know the difference.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #354 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Content.

"Content" for you seems to be limited to fiction. I'm more of a non-fiction kind of guy. Just a personal preference.
post #355 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

"Content" for you seems to be limited to fiction. I'm more of a non-fiction kind of guy. Just a personal preference.

It's not about me. Or you. It's discussion on issues.
Kindly stop trolling and the ad-homs and get OT.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #356 of 455
Issues, indeed. You are the expert in that area.

But let's get "on topic." Just so it's clear, are we using the "wealthy elite liberal" boogie man, the "poor hippie communist liberal" boogie man, the "upper east-side liberal" boogie man, the "hollywood liberal" boogie man, or the "young college protester liberal" boogie man? Ooh, wait, I know. It must be 2 or 5, right? Cause, like, you said "class warfare."
post #357 of 455
Last night I laid out my clothes. But this morning I was missing a sock I knew I had put there. Weird.

Damn hippie-protestor-college-elite-lazy-theiving-liberals.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #358 of 455
Wow!

Sorry about the double post up above guys!

I really don't know why that happened unless it's because I'm trying out the Safari beta.

Well maybe it needed saying twice for SDW that Beef loving, redneck, uptight, straight laced, " we just need to go back to the 50's ", conservative!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #359 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Last night I laid out my clothes. But this morning I was missing a sock I knew I had put there. Weird.

Damn hippie-protestor-college-elite-lazy-theiving-liberals.



Could also be the first sign of dementia.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

post #360 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Could also be the first sign of dementia.



I love you guys...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › GW Bush the worst president in US history