YES, Worst President EVER!

[aoxamaxoa]

"It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html

what will history say?

[aoxamaxoa]

Leahy: Bush Should be "Terrified"
http://greenmountaindaily.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=704

Should it be terrorfried?

[Hawkins]

Here's a quote from the article that best sums up why I don't like this presidency:

quote:Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.

[guido911]

The author of that article has apparently forgotten the susepnsion of habeas corpus rights of Amrerican citizens during the civil war by Lincoln's administration and the interning of American's of Japanese descent during FDR's administration during WWII. Yep, taking away the rights of those terrorist pigs taken from battlefields certainly compares to those two actions by well regarded former presidents.

[rwarn17588]

Ummm ... a few of those alleged terrorists are U.S. citizens (Jose Padilla is an example). Should you take away their habeas corpus rights, too?

The notion you're trying to float that these are all just foreign terrorists is specious.

[guido911]

Ummm. I recall Padilla was indicted. I also recall the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the Bush administration's detention and treatment of Padilla was lawful. What other American's are being denied habeas relief? And by the way, good job avoiding the other examples of prior president's actions that are far worse than anything Bush has done in the face of national and international crisis.

While I certainly do not agree with everything Bush has done (immigration policy, spending, energy policy), I do not think he is out there condoning the torturing of prisoners. I believe, and again this is my opinion, that he is doing all he can to prevent: hijacked planes from crashing into buildings, U.S. citizens being incinerated or burned alive while at work, persons having no choice but to jump from buildings or burn to death, and all the other horrors this country faced on 9/11.  

[rwarn17588]

Padilla was held for months and months without charges before the courts finally *forced* the government to file.

Bush is NOT doing all he can to prevent terrorism. Or else, he would have:

-- closed the Mexico and Canadian borders.

-- would not have signed off on one of our ports being owned by a Middle Eastern country with sympathies to radical Muslims.

-- would not have ordered the invasion of the country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and create a new hornets nest of terrorists.

[Rowdy]

Bush rocks.[8D][B)][8D]

[movingtotulsa]

-- would not have ordered the invasion of the country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and create a new hornets nest of terrorists.


Amen. Unfortunately, I voted for him 4 times.

[unknown]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Padilla was held for months and months without charges before the courts finally *forced* the government to file.

Bush is NOT doing all he can to prevent terrorism. Or else, he would have:

-- closed the Mexico and Canadian borders.

-- would not have signed off on one of our ports being owned by a Middle Eastern country with sympathies to radical Muslims.

-- would not have ordered the invasion of the country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and create a new hornets nest of terrorists.

Although, I don't agree with a lot of what the Bush Administration has done the ports were already foreign owned and the UAE has joined to fight against Global Terror and supports the US military. Plus the Coast Guard is still in charges of Security... so not much has changed.

Closing our borders would cause more harm to us than good. Higher security is a must, but we are entering a global economy and America can not afford to isolate itself to the rest of the world.

The Iraq war, well I just see it as a modern day Vietnam.

[Hawkins]

Directly after 9/11, we were told Osama bin Laden wanted U.S. troops out of the (Mulsim) holy land (Saudi Arabia).

We have since responded by leaving our troops stationed there, and invading two more Muslim nations.

Explain to me how this is fighting the war on terror? What's really going on is the U.S. government is flexing its muscle at this philosophy, and possibly taking further advantage of the opportunity to secure military bases across the middle-east in a pre-emptive attempt to secure energy resources in the event we find ourselves in a real war down the road--with China.

And we are stirring up more and more recruits for the radical faction in the process. More attacks on the U.S. by these radicals is almost certain. But this will just give a government more of an excuse to further take control of the region.

Sometimes it seems that we, the citizens of the U.S., are just pawns in this game of global power plays.

[guido911]

RW:  You mean Bush is not doing all YOU would have him do. For the record, just what exactly are YOUR foreign policy credentials? Do you have any or is this more Monday Morning quarterbacking/I can do better/I hate George Bush surfacing again.

Oh, and how many terror attacks have there been in the U.S. since 9/11 (here comes the anthrax letters crowd in the weeks after 9/11)? Can't get past that pesky fact that you will never give Bush credit for...

As for Padilla, what "force" did the 4th Cir. press on Bush exactly? You do not know because you probably have never read the opinion...As I have said before to others, legal opinions are not that hard to read. Read them yourself. Do not rely on other person's interpretation or their personal spin of legal opinions in forming your opinions/talking points.

[rwarn17588]

My foreign policy credentials are the same as George W. Bush's. The whale of difference is that I have more common sense and less delusion and arrogance.

Are you saying the people who just published the Iraq Study Group report are Monday morning quarterbacks, too? In case you've been sleeping, a  huge majority of American are now Monday morning quarterbacks. That's what I call a consensus.

And, yes, I do consider the anthrax mailings a terrorist attack.

[aoxamaxoa]

President Bush's war policies have failed in almost every regard, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded Wednesday, and it warned of dwindling chances to change course before crisis turns to chaos with dire implications for terrorism, war in the Middle East and higher oil prices around the world.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061206/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

[Artiem]

Here's what I don't understand. You have two nations, both sworn enemies of the U.S.

Nation #1:

Never threatened direct attacks on the U.S.
Did not have WMD (despite lies to the contrary)
Never claimed to have nuclear weapons
Posed no immediate threat to the U.S.

Nation #2:

Has directly threatened the U.S. with attack, as well as several of our allies
Is known to have WMD
Has actually bragged of its nuclear weapons program and publicly announced it has tested them
Poses a direct and immediate threat to U.S. forces stationed along its border, as well as the aforementioned allies
Is run by someone who can only be described as megalomaniacal and insane

So which nation did the Bush administration decide to attack? Nation #1 of course...

My favorite theory (which I find intriguing but don't necessarily advocate) is that Bush and his fundamentalist friends hope to spark Armageddon, which of course requires a final conflict involving Israel. Interesting, but admittedly a bit far-fetched.

Still, it can't be denied that Bush and Rumsfeld systematically lied to, bullied, and cajoled this nation into a war that was unnecessary. What exactly have we accomplished? Getting rid of a piss-ant dictator? There are about 150 more out there that are every bit as despotic, some of whom are considerably more dangerous -- back to Nation #2 again...

At least I can say I didn't vote for this fool. It pains me that a man who can't pronounce the word "nuclear" has his finger on the atomic button. And in case you think I'm some kind of rabid Democrat, I DID vote for his old man.