Bush: The worst president ever?

[highphin13]

I think you may be thinking about Henry Harrison who did his victory address in the rain, got sick and then died 6 weeks later.

 

[MarcoPollo]

I think you may be thinking about Henry Harrison who did his victory address in the rain, got sick and then died 6 weeks later.

Yeh, but I heard about it in the second grade so I didn't remember it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

True, but they didn't **** anything else up. Kennedy fought for human rights and freedom, Bush is trying to destroy them.

You think the CIA is bad now? Multiply it by a 1000 and you might get close to it back in the 60s.

Show me a source, as far as I recall they provided thousands of pages of their records which we now know were accurate.

Encarta.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701610462_2/U_S_-Iraq_War_of_2003.html#p19

You are missing what I am saying, the fact that they weren't in compliance before 2002 is irrelevent;

You said Clinton made them comply. For what? 6 months. Wow Bill you really deserve a pat on the back. Again, Saddam was merely playing games with us, and we let him do it up until 2002. You see the same thing with NK. We threaten them, focus our attention elsewhere and find them back at it again a year later (while they still have our money/technology sitting in their back pocket).

 

[iyfyoufhl]

i noticed if you like bush, you get banned (think about it)

 

[No Limit]

You think the CIA is bad now? Multiply it by a 1000 and you might get close to it back in the 60s.

Yes, I don't deny that. But when you look at the entire picture very little people will say that Kennedy was worse than Bush.

Encarta.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia...f_2003.html#p19

But as I pointed out my article shows they cooperated with the request of allow scientists a month before the invasion. Sure, they might have delayed but I don't see how that justifies an all out invasion.

You said Clinton made them comply. For what? 6 months. Wow Bill you really deserve a pat on the back. Again, Saddam was merely playing games with us, and we let him do it up until 2002. You see the same thing with NK. We threaten them, focus our attention elsewhere and find them back at it again a year later (while they still have our money/technology sitting in their back pocket).

Bush was the one that threatened NK, look what that did.

Let me ask you this, did you actually read the Downing Street Minutes yet? Remember, these are official, authentic, documents showing a transcript that went on in high levels of the government. What did you think of that document?

 

[No Limit]

i noticed if you like bush, you get banned (think about it)

Because past Bush supporters on here seem to be total asswipes that can't control themselves (with the exception of a select few).

 

[Raziaar]

i noticed if you like bush, you get banned (think about it)

I have never gotten banned.. nor even ever warned a single time as far as I am aware. Heh.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

I have never gotten banned.. nor even ever warned a single time as far as I am aware. Heh.

cool, so why do you support Bush?

 

[seinfeldrules]

But as I pointed out my article shows they cooperated with the request of allow scientists a month before the invasion. Sure, they might have delayed but I don't see how that justifies an all out invasion.

My quote says what it says. I really dont care what yours claims. Encarta is a perfectly credible source. Saddam delayed in 2002, just as he 'delayed' for four years when Clinton was around. He was basically playing the same game he did with Clinton knowing that the US would back off as usual. Well, this time we meant what we said and werent playing stupid games with him.

Bush was the one that threatened NK, look what that did.

Clinton gave NK what they wanted, look what that did (nothing!). I would rather give them nothing then appease their demands. Appeasement is a load of complete crap that was proven in the ultimate light before WWII.

Let me ask you this, did you actually read the Downing Street Minutes yet?

Those are the Brits. We know that the US had intel under both Clinton and Bush that portrayed Saddam as a holder of WMD and a man that posed a major threat to world peace. It is undeniable that both Clinton and Bush saw him in that light.

Yes, I don't deny that. But when you look at the entire picture very little people will say that Kennedy was worse than Bush.

Thats because he was assasinated, he was barely around.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

i say, there were bunch of way we could have dealt with Saddam, but some how we picked the worst one

 

[seinfeldrules]

i say, there were bunch of way we could have dealt with Saddam

Yeah, we should have just kept playing games with him. I'm sure he enjoyed it.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Yeah, we should have just kept playing games with him. I'm sure he enjoyed it.

don't put words in my mouth! :frown: i was thinking more along the lines of quiet assosonation (sorry spl.)

 

[MarcoPollo]

don't put words in my mouth! :frown: i was thinking more along the lines of quiet assosonation (sorry spl.)

Yeh, but there are still followers that are just as crazy as him. So assasination probably wouldn't be the best way. Although I do agree we could have handled it better.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Yeh, but there are still followers that are just as crazy as him. So assasination probably wouldn't be the best way. Although I do agree we could have handled it better.

followers, more like family, just take out the whole family and secretly replace him with a look-a-like, but who works for better good, but too late now, Bush f@cked it up

 

[MarcoPollo]

followers, more like family, just take out the whole family and secretly replace him with a look-a-like, but who works for better good, but too late now, Bush f@cked it up

I'm sure THAT would have worked :upstare:

I'm leaving, politics are ghey!

 

[iyfyoufhl]

I'm sure THAT would have worked :upstare:

I'm leaving, politics are ghey!

i was kind of joking with the whole look-a-like

 

[seinfeldrules]

Yeah, assassinate the family, all the generals and all the other gov't officals who followed him. That really would have worked.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Yeah, assassinate the family, all the generals and all the other gov't officals who followed him. That really would have worked.

not all, but the most top (maybe even all) better than starting a war and killing thousndas of inosent people

 

[T.H.C.138]

well it might have..but we will never know now ,will we? sometimes I think it would be better if we still did the spy/assassin thing..

Marco is right, politics are pretty "ghey"..

 

[No Limit]

Clinton gave NK what they wanted, look what that did (nothing!). I would rather give them nothing then appease their demands. Appeasement is a load of complete crap that was proven in the ultimate light before WWII.

Yeah, and Bush declared them the axis of evil which led them to withdraw from talks. But lets move on, we beat this dead horse many times.

My quote says what it says. I really dont care what yours claims. Encarta is a perfectly credible source. Saddam delayed in 2002, just as he 'delayed' for four years when Clinton was around. He was basically playing the same game he did with Clinton knowing that the US would back off as usual. Well, this time we meant what we said and werent playing stupid games with him.

And my news article says what it says. They delayed but they did what was asked of them before the invasion. But whatever, lets move on to the memo as that describes my entire point that Bush knew the war wasn't justified and he was set on attacking them long before he sent anything to congress and long before he said he will do everything to avoid a conflict.

Those are the Brits. We know that the US had intel under both Clinton and Bush that portrayed Saddam as a holder of WMD and a man that posed a major threat to world peace. It is undeniable that both Clinton and Bush saw him in that light.

But those were the brits, I am sad to say you just repeated a very weak Republican talking point. If there is nothing in this memo why won't Bush reply to the following letter signed by 88 members of the house:

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/letters/bushsecretmemoltr5505.pdf

Bush said he will not reply to the letter as there is no need. BULLSHIT!

Now you say this was the british, well duh! Americans would be much smarter in not getting something like this leaked. The fact it is British has nothing to do with it. It states that Bush was set on attacking Iraq, that he would be briefed on everything they talked about in August (which he was) and he would fix intelligence around policy.

It is also clear to me you didn't read the memo or you didn't pay any attention to what you read. Yes, there was intelligence but that intelligence was weak as the memo states. The memo also states an attack based on that intelligence wouldn't be justified since other countries such as Iran and NK had much greater capability to produce WMDs. So please reread the memo and respond:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/images/memotext.pdf

The bottom line is Bush lied when he said he would do everything he could to avoid war and he misled the entire country to go into war. I knew this a long time ago as many did; but you republicans don't want to see the light no matter how much evidance there is. So once again this is a HUGE peice of evidance added to the past evidance (such as Clark testemony) so please address it a little better than "it was the brits so it doesnt matter". Kerry is going to put this on the Senate floor on Monday so you guys will have to work overtime this weekend to come up with better talking points than that.

 

[seinfeldrules]

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program "

Clinton was given the same intel as Bush. Bush didnt need to make it up judging by Clinton's remarks. There is no arguing that quote. It is clear you cannot grasp Clinton's policies failed miserably in regard to NK and Iraq.

 

[No Limit]

Clinton was given the same intel as Bush. Bush didnt need to make it up judging by Clinton's remarks. There is no arguing that quote. It is clear you cannot grasp Clinton's policies failed miserably in regard to NK and Iraq.

We talked about NK a whole lot, I will not be getting back in to this. If you have something to add to our previous discussion post in the threads we had that discussion in (there are at least 2).

Now lets talk about Iraq and how Bush lied. Clinton again doesn't apply here, we again had that discussion many times. The Memo told of that intelligence that Clinton got and how it would need to be fixed around policy to get support for the war. so again, did you read the memo and can you please address my last questions in my last post? I am so sick of people on this board that support this war ignoring key facts and embracing lies. So I want to get to the bottom of this, if Bush wasn't a lying sack of **** why didn't he reply to the letter. here, let me write those replies for him assuming he isn't a lying sack of ****:

1)Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
Bush If He wasn't a lying sack of ****: I can not speak for the British government but it seems to be accurate. With that said the information in the memo is false.

2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
Bush If He wasn't a lying sack of ****: No, none of that is accurate.

3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
Bush If He wasn't a lying sack of ****: No

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
Bush If He wasn't a lying sack of ****: (I would answer this with when diplomacy failed but Bush didn't wait so I don't know what a date would be. I'm sure he'd come up with something)

5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?
Bush If He wasn't a lying sack of ****: No, we used the latest intelligence and did not hide anything from Congress and the American people.


So tell me, why can't he simply do that if this document doesn't matter since it's British? Or is it because the House of Representatives hates our freedom so they are discredited?

 

[No Limit]

I might not get a change to reply today so here is a story dated back to Oct 8, 2002 which validates the memo further:

Some administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq
By WARREN P. STROBEL and JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight-Ridder Tribune News

WASHINGTON -- While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.

These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses -- including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network -- have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.

They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.

"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews.

No one who was interviewed disagreed.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1607676

And please, do not give me the "opinion talking point".

 

[seinfeldrules]

Do you just choose to ignore this quote?

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program "

Bush and Clinton saw the same intel. They said the same things, just acted differently. Seriously, you are ignoring this quotation that says it all.

I am so sick of people on this board that support this war ignoring key facts and embracing lies.

Yes, I'm sick of people ignoring that many politicans in this country came to the same conclusion as Bush when looking at the same intel. Including Kerry and Clinton.

So I want to get to the bottom of this, if Bush wasn't a lying sack of **** why didn't he reply to the letter.

Its not his job to reply to everything sent his way. I'm sure he has plenty of more pressing matters on his plate right now.

 

[No Limit]

Bush and Clinton saw the same intel. They said the same things, just acted differently. Seriously, you are ignoring this quotation that says it all.

No I am not ignoring this, I already replied to it twice in this thread and I can recall numerous times you used it in other threads. Clinton saw intelligence that said this, yes but he was fully aware it wasn't enough to start a full scale invasion. The attack that took place under Clinton was due to Iraq not allowing UN Inspectors to investigate them; Clinton never said they had developed WMDs, just that they might be able to produce them in the future. Under Bush Saddam was allowing investigation but Bush said he was 100% sure Saddam already had WMDs and needed to be stopped. He then manipulated the intelligence by fixing it to support his policy (again, see memo). Bush was 100% wrong and as I stated here with back up he probably knew this before the invasion. Also, keep in mind your republican firends at the time were highly critical of the strike on Iraq. here are other quotes from the speech you are talking about:

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

Now, you are ignoring what the memo says so I am still assuming you didn't read it as it talks about that intel (the one Clinton also saw) and how high level American and British officals would have to fix it.

Its not his job to reply to everything sent his way. I'm sure he has plenty of more pressing matters on his plate right now.

Come on Seinfeld, I know I can have a smarter discussion with you on this than that. You are telling me that Bush couldn't take 10 minutes out of the day to respond to 88 MEMBERS of the HOUSE while he has unlimited time to take a vacation to his ranch on a regular basis. Please, look at this objectively and tell me why he won't respond. Since Bush wont provide simple anwers to extremely simple questions maybe you, a Bush supporter, can fill me in on why as I'm hainvg a hell of a time understanding it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The attack that took place under Clinton was due to Iraq not allowing UN Inspectors to investigate them; Clinton never said they had developed WMDs

Read the quote.

very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction

while he has unlimited time to take a vacation to his ranch on a regular basis.

And come on, I thought you were more intelligent to realize that the President never takes a vacation. Just because he isnt in DC doesnt mean he cant perform the same functions, especially with the technology of today. I don't know why he doesnt respond, I'm not in the White House so I cannot give a certain reason. Neither can you. By the way, 88 would be a bigger deal if it was the Senate. 88 in the House is only ~20%, not exactly an earth shattering figure.

Clinton saw intelligence that said this, yes but he was fully aware it wasn't enough to start a full scale invasion.

Look at the language he used, it is clear he considered Iraq exactly what GWB told the nation. A rogue state with possesion of WMD.

 

[No Limit]

Read the quote.

I did, and I admitted he was wrong. But again, the attack he launched was based on the fact that Saddam was not in compliance with the UN, the justfication for it wasn't WMDs. Bush's entire justification relyed slightly on terrorism (which was completely false) and almost completely on WMDs. And again, Clinton did an attack, not an invasion like Bush did.

And come on, I thought you were more intelligent to realize that the President never takes a vacation. Just because he isnt in DC doesnt mean he cant perform the same functions, especially with the technology of today.

When he is playing golf he certainly isn't working. But this debate is being turned upside down to stupidity; you know damn well the reason he isn't responding has nothing to do with not having time. He did have time to comment on the letter saying he will not respond as he doesn't see a reason to; in that same amount of time he could have address the simple questions.

I don't know why he doesnt respond, I'm not in the White House so I cannot give a certain reason. Neither can you. By the way, 88 would be a bigger deal if it was the Senate. 88 in the House is only ~20%, not exactly an earth shattering figure.

You don't know why but you support Bush on that? I can give you an exact reason, the reason he won't respond is that he knows that his only option is to try and ignore it. If he replies and is forced to lie (he will never admit he wanted war the whole time contradicting what he told congress and the american people) an investigation could easily be done and he could be impeached if the memo turns out to be accurate (which it most likely would). Thankfully Kerry will be talking about this on the senate floor on Monday so if it works out the media won't be able to ignore this any longer and Bush will have to respond.

The whole you weren't there so you don't know defense is absolutely redicilous. When Condi and Powell said in 02 that Saddam didn't have any weapon program and then they changed their position a few months later your defense was again you don't know why they flip flopped since you weren't there. It is obsolutely insane.

 

[Vigilante]

i <3 bush.

 

[Smack500]

This makes no sence to me.

Clinton used the economy plans in place set by reagon, this is why the economy was doing good during his time. Bush was handed a recession, so its clinton fault were doing so badly now.

Do I really need to point out the huge flaw in this statement???



Bush supporters on this thread have defended the war by stating that now the us is respected, and countries know we mean business now. However NK continues to publicly defy us, and basically laugh in our faces. They have done what we were trying to stop iraq from doing, they are one of the countries of evil acording to bush. They publicly go against our agreements, and dont care what we have to say really. Americans are looked down upon in other countries, even canada, more then ever in recent history. A candian is making thousands on a "how to look candian kit" hes been selling about a year after the war started, hundreds of americans who go on vacation buy them up like hot cakes.

"Conservative reasoning makes me laugh " -quoted from a well known intelligent bipartisan, Ill let you figure out who.

 

[DarkStar]

Well, Bush is by no means a great president, but he's certainly not the worst.

People tend to forget that we once elected a crook. Nixon was a CRIMINAL.

 

[i z 3 r]

Bush isn't the best man for the job. But he sure as hell is better than Kerry. And I thought he took post 911 conflicts and actions very well. I had full confidence in him during the years 2001. And I still do today.

 

[No Limit]

Bush isn't the best man for the job. But he sure as hell is better than Kerry. And I thought he took post 911 conflicts and actions very well. I had full confidence in him during the years 2001. And I still do today.

Sure, sitting on his ass for 7 minutes while the nation was under attack was great leadership. Going after Saddam and not the people that attacked us was another great leadership move. And while Washington DC was under a high alert leading to the biggest evacuations of the capital since 9/11 he was away mountain biking and not even informed of the threat until after everything was back to normal. You might think this is great leadership but I certainly don't; but whatever, I don't want to branch off in to another discussion until seinfeld addresses my point of Bush misleading the nation to go to war. I think if that allegation is true any republican must admit Bush did something illegal and is a horrible president; so I hope they come back here to defend Bush and his lies.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Sure, sitting on his ass for 7 minutes while the nation was under attack was great leadership. Going after Saddam and not the people that attacked us was another great leadership move. And while Washington DC was under a high alert leading to the biggest evacuations of the capital since 9/11 he was away mountain biking and not even informed of the threat until after everything was back to normal. You might think this is great leadership but I certainly don't; but whatever, I don't want to branch off in to another discussion until seinfeld addresses my point of Bush misleading the nation to go to war. I think if that allegation is true any republican must admit Bush did something illegal and is a horrible president; so I hope they come back here to defend Bush and his lies.

no, but admit that Kerry just SUCKED

 

[No Limit]

no, but admit that Kerry just SUCKED

Kerry did suck as a candidate; he let the Republican spin machine walk all over him including letting them destroy his honorable military record (just like Bush did to fellow Republican McCain in the 2000 primaries). Presonally I think Dean, if not for that one yelling moment that defined him, would have won the elections if he won the primary. I did disagree with Kerry on a few issues (such as gay marriage) but I still voted for him proudly. What do you think made Kerry suck? I think he is doing a great job as a senator.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Kerry did suck as a candidate; he let the Republican spin machine walk all over him including letting them destroy his honorable military record (just like Bush did to fellow Republican McCain in the 2000 primaries). Presonally I think Dean, if not for that one yelling moment that defined him, would have won the elections if he won the primary. I did disagree with Kerry on a few issues (such as gay marriage) but I still voted for him proudly. What do you think made Kerry suck? I think he is doing a great job as a senator.

Kerry as a person and a senator is fine by me, but as candidate not really

i loved dean, but the whole thing with yelling was blown up too big, i didn't think it was a big deal, poor, poor doctor ;(

 

[No Limit]

Seinfeldrules, here is some more evidance for you that they manipulated the case for war:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...,0,5899539.story?coll=ny-uspolitics-headlines

A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani "had to go," particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.

Please, do let me know what you think of all this evidance. Also let me know if you aren't familiar with Richard Clarke's testimony; I will be happy to post it.

 

[A.I.]

"If Clinton was the answer, it must have been a stupid question"

lol. My grandpa has that as a bumper sticker. He was raised democrat, too.

LOL, that goes to my sig.

 

[Smack500]

I dont like judging to many things/people that were around before I was born (85). So I will just say out of the presidents I have been alive to see bush is easily the worst. I dont care what is said about him in the future, I will never forget or forgive him for lieing to the country to get us to go to war. Which caused the deaths of thousands of troops, and hundreds of thousands of inocent civilians including thousands of small children. All of it for no good reason at all, then he tries to cover it up with complete bs. IE. operation iraqi freedom my *** .

 

[seinfeldrules]

Please, do let me know what you think of all this evidance.

I think it doesnt add up to the powerful quotes I have from people like Bill Clinton, George Bush, and John Kerry who all say the same things supporting the case against Iraq.

Oh, and by the way, I just checked CNN.com and FoxNews.com. I couldnt find an article about your man Kerry's speech today. Either its being slowly reported, or people just really dont give a damn about him anymore.

 

[Smack500]

seinfieldrules please dont speak of someone elses opinion when you say things like this:

NOT A QUOTE BUT BASICALLY WHAT YOU SAID

Clinton had a successfull economy because of what was handed to him. Bush couldnt do but so much because a recesion was handed to him. Its not reagon or bush's fault the economy was bad while they were in office.

If you dont see the problem in this logic then ...