Rate Bush as president (scale 1-10)

[4dmin]

Rate Bush as president (scale 1-10)

1 - worst
3 - worse than...
5 - average
7 - better than...
10 - best

--------------------------------------

i chose 4 b/c i think he is a little below average his most positive attribute is how he handled 911

[TIGERJC]

3 he had a few good moments

[Vteckidd]

i know i know 8

Our economy flourished, we did great things in terms of national security, taxes were low, we never got attacked again after 9-11

GDP Increased every year

over 95% of Americans had jobs for 99% of his terms

Consumer prices were low

Inflation was low

I dont see where we are that worse off under him than any other president. His numbers are the same if not better than CLintons. I we are SAFER under Bush than we ever were under Clinton IMO.

Look at the numbers, not your personal opinion

[4dmin]

i know i know 8

Our economy flourished, we did great things in terms of national security, taxes were low, we never got attacked again after 9-11

GDP Increased every year

over 95% of Americans had jobs for 99% of his terms

Consumer prices were low

Inflation was low

I dont see where we are that worse off under him than any other president. His numbers are the same if not better than CLintons. I we are SAFER under Bush than we ever were under Clinton IMO.

Look at the numbers, not your personal opinion

Looking at numbers America was doing fine under Clinton and fear/war wasn't needed to keep him in office. During Bushes terms our economy has taken a severe downturn starting around 911. He is a failure when it comes to domestic policy and foreign relations. He did a great job with 911 but Katrina was another disaster. I can not see where he is even average. I think may other people could of easily stepped up for 911 depending on their advisers/cabinet. by your post you think he is better president then Clinton :thinking: - scary. I would of rated Clinton a 6-7.

[AirMax95]

Mike.....I agree with the points you posted for the most part, but his fails were BIG.

Katrina really left a sour view on him. Point fingers where ever you want, but he was catching the blame either way b/c he has the power to change the direction of an operation. They way it was handled did not give the presence of a Commander in Chief. That was a National Disaster that needed him to depoly resources accordingly. Not all his fault, but he could have done more A LOT faster.

Bush's problem was also in his presentation. When he spoke to the American people, he didn't get his points across very well. He was ALWAYS ill-prepared during speeches. The war was needed, yes and no, but when it came to update the people he FAILED. If we needed to stay in Iraq he wasn't straight with the people on WHY. It gave people a sense of "screw you, I'm running this shit".

9/11 didn't help his term either, which is why I won't say he was horrible, but rather average.

People want answers, but Bush gave his classic face/grin and a joke.

To sum it up, he wasn't that bad, but he sure didn't explain why he did what he did. My baseball mentor Terry Harper always said, "there's a method to my madness".

[jwrape]

Man.....I know he made some bad decisions but he had a rough presidency. I mean 9/11, Katrina, Iraq(which he brought on himself), the economy....It was no joy ride. I'm sure it took some years off his life. I kinda feel sorry for him in one way and angry at him in others.:thinking:

[Vteckidd]

Looking at numbers America was doing fine under Clinton and fear/war wasn't needed to keep him in office. During Bushes terms our economy has taken a severe downturn starting around 911. He is a failure when it comes to domestic policy and foreign relations. He did a great job with 911 but Katrina was another disaster. I can not see where he is even average. I think may other people could of easily stepped up for 911 depending on their advisers/cabinet. by your post you think he is better president then Clinton :thinking: - scary. I would of rated Clinton a 6-7.
totally wrong. our economy FLOURISHED after 9-11 lol what numbers are you reading lol. Despite 9-11 and a recession inherited fron CLINTON, the economy has been the BEST IT EVER WAS UNDER BUSH LOL Its only started sliding in the last 6-8 months over the housing crises, which IMO is not SOLELY BUSHS fault

I would have rated clinton a 7, only because he drew down our national defense which led IMO (NOTICE I SAID OPINION) to 9-11. As much as i didnt like him, he did some good things and in hind site was pretty conservative

Why is he a failure on Domestic policy? Taxes have been LOW FOR EVERYONE. Bush TAX CUts Grew the economy and did give money back to the people in the middle class (they pay lower now then when Obama will get in when he lets the Tax Cuts expire)

OUr defense has been GREAT.

Foreign Relations? Because he has stood up to people that are harboring terrorists and talked down to people that wouldnt go to war or help out because of their own monetary interests? I mean you call him a war monger, but you got Russia, France who didnt want to do SHIT with IRAQ over OIL. Same with Germany.

I think his foreign relations have been fine. Most people either respect us more, and the ones that hate us, well, they hated us all along

[boosted b]

that bastard gets a 1

[Total_Blender]

He's not the worst when you think of global scale and compare him to Pol Pot, Pinochet, Kim Jong IL or Slobaknob Milosevic. So I'll give him a 4 on that regard. But as far as American presidents go I'll give him a 2 because Nixon was worse and nobody remembers < 6 month terms of James A. Garfield and Henry A Whatshisface.

Somebody should make an album of Bush's greatest hits. Including such classics as:



"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002


"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." —LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000


"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." —Greater Nashua, N.H., Jan. 27, 2000


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004


"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000


"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000


"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." —Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004


"It's your money. You paid for it." —LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000


"They misunderestimated me." —Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000
:lmfao:

[Vteckidd]

Mike.....I agree with the points you posted for the most part, but his fails were BIG.

Katrina really left a sour view on him. Point fingers where ever you want, but he was catching the blame either way b/c he has the power to change the direction of an operation. They way it was handled did not give the presence of a Commander in Chief. That was a National Disaster that needed him to depoly resources accordingly. Not all his fault, but he could have done more A LOT faster.

Bush's problem was also in his presentation. When he spoke to the American people, he didn't get his points across very well. He was ALWAYS ill-prepared during speeches. The war was needed, yes and no, but when it came to update the people he FAILED. If we needed to stay in Iraq he wasn't straight with the people on WHY. It gave people a sense of "screw you, I'm running this shit".

9/11 didn't help his term either, which is why I won't say he was horrible, but rather average.

People want answers, but Bush gave his classic face/grin and a joke.

To sum it up, he wasn't that bad, but he sure didn't explain why he did what he did. My baseball mentor Terry Harper always said, "there's a method to my madness".

With all due respect, Katrina was NOT SOLELY HIS FAULT.

You had people that REFUSED to leave, you had a mayor that was prob the dumbest motherfucker alive and didnt get the word out, had NO IDEA how to evacuate his city, no contingency plan, etc.

FEMA is supposed to work WITH CITY GOVT, not swoop in an take over. There were blunders on BOTH sides, FEMA, BUSH, New Orleans, etc. Thats why the response to Gustav and the other hurricanes were so much better.

[Total_Blender]

I'll add that the response to Katrina could have been Bush's finest hour, had he and Brownie handled it differently and had emergency services ready to go BEFORE disaster struck.

[Vteckidd]

I'll add that the response to Katrina could have been Bush's finest hour, had he and Brownie handled it differently and had emergency services ready to go BEFORE disaster struck.
they were ready, they couldnt get into NO

[Vteckidd]

now you can believe the liberal media again, but if you really dig deep you find out it was a cluster fuck on all sides. The mayor was the main person to blame

WASHINGTON — Drawing fire from members of Congress over his efforts to coordinate the response and prepare adequately for Hurricane Katrina, former FEMA chief Michael Brown (search) told a House committee Tuesday that his biggest mistake was not realizing early enough that local and state governments in Louisiana were "dysfunctional."

A defiant Brown said he should have known two days before Katrina struck the Gulf Coast that preparations were not going well inside state and local agencies.

"My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday [Aug. 27] that Louisiana was dysfunctional," Brown told Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the panel convened to look at failures to prepare for and respond to Hurricane Katrina.

Brown praised the Federal Emergency Management Agency's response to the disaster, saying that it did what it could and functioned properly internally by beginning to meet mid-week before the hurricane and placing vital personnel and equipment out of harm's way before the storm.

"FEMA pushed forward with everything that it had," but the widespread criticism following its response is coming from people who continue to misunderstand the agency's role, Brown said.

"Guess what, FEMA doesn't own fire trucks; we don't own ambulances; we don't own search-and-rescue equipment. In fact, the only search-and-rescue or emergency equipment that we own is a very small cadre to protect some property that we own around the country. FEMA is a coordinating agency. We are not a law enforcement agency," he said.
Related

*
Stories
o Cops: Superdome Violence Reports Exaggerated
o Ex-FEMA Chief Fesses Up to Katrina Mistakes
o Feds: Rita Response Was Better Than Katrina
o Reps. Propose Pet Safety in Disaster Prep Plans
o Katrina Inspector General Appointed
o Did New Orleans Reject Evacuation Aid?
o La. Hires Clinton's FEMA Chief
o FEMA Chief Brown Resigns
o FEMA Scraps Debit Card Program
o Big Tasks Not New to Katrina Chief
o FEMA Chief Taken Off On-Site Efforts
o FEMA Chief Has Become Chief Scapegoat
o GOP Leaders Seek to Deflect Katrina Outcry With Probe
o Lawmakers Propose Changes at FEMA
o FEMA Chief Waited Until After Storm
o New Orleans Hospitals in Crisis Situation
o Refugees Heading to Texas
o La. Island Residents Spared
o Red Cross: Shelters Filling
o Looters Strip Stores in Front of Cops
o New Orleans Hospital Struggles to Help Patients
o Utilities Rush to Restore Power After Katrina
o 'It Is Not Safe in New Orleans'
o Fast Facts: Costliest U.S. Storms
o Fast Facts: Hurricane Katrina
o Fast Facts: Deadliest U.S. Hurricanes
Video
o Brown Gets Defensive
o Brown Expresses Regret
Links
o Federal Emergency Management Agency

Brown told the committee members that two of his biggest faults in the response were not being able to convince Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco (search) and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin (search ) to act faster and not dealing with the media better.

Brown said he felt "personal regret that I was unable to persuade Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin to sit down, get over their differences and work together. I just couldn't pull that off."

Asked about Brown's comments, Nagin said it's premature to be laying blame on anyone.

"Obviously there were issues across the board. Federal government, state goverment and local government did not have the processes in my opinion to deal with a storm of this magnitude," he said.

After touring storm-damaged Louisiana with President Bush earlier in the day, Blanco later issued a statement defending her actions and refuting Brown's claims.

Blanco said that she ordered the evacuation of New Orleans on Saturday, Aug. 27, not the 28th, as Brown said, and included three parishes — Orleans, Jefferson and Plaquemines — in her Aug. 28 disaster declaration for 14 parishes. Brown said she had not included those.

"Such falsehoods and misleading statements — made under oath before Congress — are shocking. It clearly demonstrates the appalling degree to which Mr. Brown is either out of touch with the truth or reality," Blanco said.

Blame Laid Elsewhere

Brown began his comments Tuesday, saying that while some criticism of all levels of government response to Katrina was valid, "I'll tell you that some of it is just not valid.

"You can't believe everything that you read in the newspapers, or everything that you see on television," Brown said, challenging online reports, magazine stories and other news outlets that he said reported incorrect facts about his resume and professional career.

"One national magazine not only defamed me, but my alma mater, the Oklahoma City University School of Law, in one sentence alone leveling six false charges," Brown said. "I guess it's the media's job, but I don't like it."

Brown added that he let the media manipulate his time, which could have been better spent.

"I failed initially to set up a series of regular briefings to the media about what FEMA was doing throughout the Gulf Coast region. And instead, I became tied to the news shows, going on the news shows early in the morning and late at night, and that was just a mistake," he said.

Without naming any specific officials at the Department of Homeland Security (search), the former emergency management chief also claimed that money he requested from the federal government, which could have improved the response and possibly saved lives, disappeared from his budget before it was submitted to Congress.

Asked about the charge during a separate event, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that FEMA's budget has increased 13 percent since it was moved to DHS. Chertoff added that FEMA's role has never been one to "have boots on the ground," but instead to help organize search-and-rescue, medical response and other volunteer teams in a partnership.

"I think FEMA did perform admirably in bringing some of these resources to bear," Chertoff said. "As I have said, we raised the budget over the past few years, but again we're going to look again into FEMA's capabilities, other capabilities the federal government has ... And we will, when we have a good sense of the lessons learned, put those lessons into effect as we go forward."

A Shocked and Awed Reaction to Brown's Testimony

Brown's appearance marked the second hearing convened by the House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina (search).

Though the inquiry was meant to be bipartisan, Democrats say Republican lawmakers cannot fairly investigate the GOP White House, and are calling for an independent commission. Democrats have largely boycotted the congressional investigation, but William Jefferson, who represents part of New Orleans, did participate in the questioning.

Brown told Jefferson that the emergency response system worked in Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, but not in Louisiana, raising the ire of the congressman, who suggested the former director's accusations are out of line.

"I find it absolutely stunning that this hearing would start out with you, Mr. Brown, laying the blame for FEMA's failings at the feet of the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans," Jefferson said.

"I don't think the response of the federal government can be explained on the basis of, as you have said here, you could not persuade the governor and the mayor to sit down and coordinate a response," he said.

Rep. Christopher Shays (search), R-Conn., said Brown's response to Katrina fell far short of that of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (search) to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I can't help but wonder how different the answers would be ... if someone like Rudy Giuliani had been in your position instead of you. I think he would have done things differently and I think his answers to us would have been very different."

Shays went on to say that while Brown had said the communications failures weren't known before the storm struck, the government had been alerted to potential problems during a hurricane response drill known as Hurricane Pam in 2004.

"I'm happy you left," Shays said. "That kind of look in the lights like a deer tells me you weren't capable of doing that job."

Brown took exception to Shays' comments, saying: "I never thought I'd sit here and be berated because I'm not Rudy Giuliani, and I never thought someone would sit here and take out of context the fact that I said I've thought of several things I would do differently. I mentioned two of them.

"There are lots of things that I would do different," Brown added.

Later, Shays told FOX News that while he too thought Nagin and Blanco failed in their duties, Brown did not to step up to his responsibilities.

"What Mr. Brown didn't realize was that this was such a unique circumstance, he needed to step in, be extraordinarily aggressive, fill in the void left by the incompetence of the state and local government," Shays said. "He should have taken charge if no one else was."

Shays added that he believed FEMA suffers from bureaucratic fatigue with a command structure that is not decentralized to allow people on the ground to make decisions.

Brown Defends the Record

Brown announced his resignation from FEMA three days after Chertoff removed him from overseeing the onsite disaster response. During that time, Brown was highly criticized for being a Bush administration political appointee without deep emergency management experience.

President Bush replaced Brown with acting director R. David Paulison. Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen took control of ground operations.

Brown has denied accusations that he padded his resume and pointed out that he has managed the federal government's response to a wide array of emergencies.

"I have overseen over 150 presidentially declared disasters. I know what I am doing. And I think I do a pretty darn good job of it," Brown said.

Brown, who still acts as an adviser for DHS, wasn't appearing with the backing of the Department of Homeland Security, a department spokesman said.

The spokesman said the department had little part in preparing his testimony except for "providing some nuts and bolts facts," and DHS would learn of his remarks on TV.

Before the hearing began Tuesday, new information arose about Brown's actions during the response. According to a congressional memo, Brown has said he was initially unaware of desperate conditions at the New Orleans Convention Center because it was not a planned Hurricane Katrina evacuation site.

In Katrina's aftermath, thousands of people swarmed the convention center, which did not have enough food, water or other supplies and was filled amidst a backdrop of violence and fear.

Brown said he misspoke when he appeared to be unaware during a news interview that residents of New Orleans had assembled at the convention center, and he knew the day before they were going there. Thousands more stayed at the Superdome, where many reports of rapes and murders have since been proved to be unfounded.

Brown said the "hysteric media" is to blame for such misreporting.

Brown resigned on Sept. 12 after running FEMA for more than two years. He has a two-week "transition" period remaining at the agency, during which he will advise the department on "some of his views on his experience with Katrina," Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said. He is receiving full pay for the time that he is in an advisory role, which expires Oct. 12, one month after his resignation.

During a press conference Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, lumped Brown into a tirade against the Bush administration, which Reid accused of being plagued by cronyism.

"I mean, it should make us all pause to think that the man who is the poster child of what went wrong with Katrina and FEMA is still on the payroll. Now, it's hard for me to understand that," Reid said.

[AirMax95]

With all due respect, Katrina was NOT SOLELY HIS FAULT.

You had people that REFUSED to leave, you had a mayor that was prob the dumbest motherfucker alive and didnt get the word out, had NO IDEA how to evacuate his city, no contingency plan, etc.

FEMA is supposed to work WITH CITY GOVT, not swoop in an take over. There were blunders on BOTH sides, FEMA, BUSH, New Orleans, etc. Thats why the response to Gustav and the other hurricanes were so much better.

Oh trust me, I know that it was not his fault, but his position trumps the operations of the local officials. It was a National Disaster, Bush's response was shitty. I could rain all day on the rest of the fuckups in regards to Katrina, but the thread is on Bush.

In the position of President, Commander in Chief, he should have handled it better when the shit hit the initial failure fan.

Not completely his fault, but on a weighted average scale, his fail percentage weighed more.

Honestly, I respect the guy because he did handle 9/11 pretty well. No more loons coming this way for fear of us invading them, lol.

[allmotoronly]

Bush may not have been the greatest president, but seriously, do any of you who talk shit about him thing you could do better if you were the president? That is a lot of responsibility to put on one person. You can't make everyone happy. If you try, you will end up pissing more people off.

On another point, the president can't even wipe his ass without the approval of congress. Don't just blame Bush, blame the house and the senate. They approved bush's plans, and didn't override any of bush's vetoes. There is a system of checks and balances. The past and current congress has just chosen (for the most part) not to use this system.

[BanginJimmy]

I voted a Bush a 5. He had a VERY difficult presidency and any comparisons to Clinton are completely unfounded. Clinton had a completely uneventful presidency, party because of him being spineless, partly becase nothing major happened. No major natural disasters, no single significant terrorist attack, 1 economic meltdown that was very localized and quickly smoothed over without white house intervention, and a very active and bi-partison republican congress. I would imagine ANY president could have done well during those times.

Back to Bush, history will look favorably on Bush, much as it has with FDR and Truman despite low approval at the time. We dont have nearly half the facts on what happened to make Bush head into Iraq. For all we know, they found a massive stockpile of nuke material that has not been made public so as to not cause more fear here at home. Outside of a few major decisions that I really dont like I think he has done well. Those bad economic decisions keep me from rating him high, as does the running of Iraq.

[Hulud]

3 is my vote.

[4dmin]

totally wrong. our economy FLOURISHED after 9-11 lol what numbers are you reading lol. Despite 9-11 and a recession inherited fron CLINTON, the economy has been the BEST IT EVER WAS UNDER BUSH LOL Its only started sliding in the last 6-8 months over the housing crises, which IMO is not SOLELY BUSHS fault

I would have rated clinton a 7, only because he drew down our national defense which led IMO (NOTICE I SAID OPINION) to 9-11. As much as i didnt like him, he did some good things and in hind site was pretty conservative

Why is he a failure on Domestic policy? Taxes have been LOW FOR EVERYONE. Bush TAX CUts Grew the economy and did give money back to the people in the middle class (they pay lower now then when Obama will get in when he lets the Tax Cuts expire)

OUr defense has been GREAT.

Foreign Relations? Because he has stood up to people that are harboring terrorists and talked down to people that wouldnt go to war or help out because of their own monetary interests? I mean you call him a war monger, but you got Russia, France who didnt want to do SHIT with IRAQ over OIL. Same with Germany.

I think his foreign relations have been fine. Most people either respect us more, and the ones that hate us, well, they hated us all along


- Clinton took office unemployment was really high and he was able to get id down under 5%

- Clinton also created more than 2x the jobs monthly than Reagan/Bush Sr.

- Avg family income rose over 6k during his terms

- Raised min wage

- he actually paid off national debt

- home ownership raised to historic heights (but we know now why and what it has caused)

I don't see where you think Clinton did all that bad - beyond everything people liked him and weren't disenchanted w/ their gov like they are today. Reps love to talk about FREEDOMS/SECURITY but you can't put a price on happiness. People just aren't happy with Bush and Reps in general.

see charts below:

[Total_Blender]

. For all we know, they found a massive stockpile of nuke material that has not been made public so as to not cause more fear here at home. .

Do you seriously think that puppet master Karl Rove would let that happen? Fear is his stock and trade and W doesn't speak without Rove's hand up his butt.:lmfao:

http://chicagoist.com/attachments/chicagoist_kevinr/2008_1_karl_rove.gif

Edit:

Bush also didn't have to worry about Congress investigating his past and trying to dredge up scandals on him every couple of months. You guys can thank Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich for that mess :goodjob:

[BB6dohcvtec]

3 is my vote he did have some good moments his first term in office. I will give him his due respect for how he handled 9-11 because I don't think any other president could do better but after that it was downhill from there.

[BanginJimmy]

Do you seriously think that puppet master Karl Rove would let that happen? Fear is his stock and trade and W doesn't speak without Rove's hand up his butt.:lmfao:

OK bad example, but I was simply trying to illustrate that we dont know the half of what the intel and what has since been found in Iraq.


Bush also didn't have to worry about Congress investigating his past and trying to dredge up scandals on him every couple of months. You guys can thank Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich for that mess :goodjob:

I do believe Clinton had MAJOR hand in the reason he was being investigated, dont you? This is like blaming the cops for getting caught selling crack. You can also look at his pardons and I believe there is plenty of reason to go back and do some further investigating.

Put simply, if you dont want to be investigated dont purger yourself. And if you dont want to be called a idiot, dont say that you didnt think oral sex was sexual relations.

[Total_Blender]

Put simply, if you dont want to be investigated dont purger yourself. And if you dont want to be called a idiot, dont say that you didnt think oral sex was sexual relations.

A married man lied about getting a hummer. Thomas Jefferson, Kennedy , LBJ, and who knows how many other known womanizer presidents might have lied if they were in the same position. I would hope Congress would be investigating more important stuff than that. :ninja:

[Vteckidd]

A married man lied about getting a hummer. Thomas Jefferson, Kennedy , LBJ, and who knows how many other known womanizer presidents might have lied if they were in the same position. I would hope Congress would be investigating more important stuff than that. :ninja:
but they never lied under oath during a Federal Investigation.

It wasnt the BJ that was the problem i could care less about that. But what i do worry about is the potential BREACH of NATIONAL SECURITY by letting an intern into the oval office and having an affair with her.

And what mattered to me was that he LIED under oath, and convincingly

[redrumracer]

considering everything that he was dealt ill say a 9.

[BanginJimmy]

but they never lied under oath during a Federal Investigation.

It wasnt the BJ that was the problem i could care less about that. But what i do worry about is the potential BREACH of NATIONAL SECURITY by letting an intern into the oval office and having an affair with her.

And what mattered to me was that he LIED under oath, and convincingly

my sentements exactly.

[BABY J]

Mike - interns are in the Oval Office all the time. What you DON'T see when there are speeches from there are the 30 - 40 people behind the camera. It's not like they were in the War Room.

2ndly - the people that think that he can't wipe his own ass w/out Congress you are mistaken. The reason why he could do what he wanted was b/c he appointed people to HIS cabinet -- "yes men". Yes men will destroy any organization if you don't have a spine. Bush appointed people that allowed him to do as he pleased.

To the people that want to talk about the war - have you been? Did you go? Keep watching the news and you will continue to be an idiot. I personally got 2 Afghanistans and 1 Baghdad under Bush (among other low-to-no media missions) and the people to ask are the SOLDIERS - do you know people that lost their homes b/c they couldn't get communications in and out of the theater? I do. Sending people to war w/out life-saving tools - BULLSH*T. Allowing troops to skip CRITICAL schools and get "OJT" in theater. FAIL.

As far as lying under oath - BIG DEAL. That's just like not like Thriller b/c Michael Jackson was accused of molesting kids - FUCK his personal life, he makes great music. WIll I let him babysit? No. But will I let him produce my album - YOU BET. Clinton made GREAT decisions - depspite being a whore - I'm a whore too, but I'm the best UNIX Systems Engineer that money can buy. GDUB never had the horespower to run a country - he had a famous dad.

And the FINAL blow is the DIE HARD Repubs - who near the end of Bush's term wouldn't sign SH*T that he wanted passed. Politicians are largely grimy - when even THEY refuse to work with you then you can imagine the flack they are getting from their constituents. Not only did Bush hurt the country - but he hurt his party. It will take 10 years for history to be written on the FAILURE that is George Bush. The "close" race that the media wanted you to believe was a LANDSLIDE -- largely due to failures that BUSH could have mitigiated for his party.

[BanginJimmy]

To the people want to talk about the war - have you been? Did you go? Keep watching the news and you will continue to be an idiot. I personally got 2 Afghanistans and 1 Baghdad under Bush (among other low-to-no media missions) and the people to ask are the SOLDIERS - do you know people that lost their homes b/c they couldn't get communications in and out of the theater? I do. Sending people to war w/out life-saving tools - BULLSH*T.

back to back tours in Asscrackistan myself so I know a little about being deployed and no having all of the equipment that is needed. It sucks, but you suck it up and do your job. There is no point in crying about it. It doesnt do any good. Also, you might want to mention that a vas majority want to stay in Iraq to finish the job, they dont want to tuck their tail between their legs and run away.

If you know people that lost their homes while deployed it was because they failed to educate themselves. If they were reservists, unless they made more money, not including allowances, while deployed then no foreclosure action can be taken while they are under activation orders. If they are active duty, then no forclosure actions can be made against them until the deployed person returns from theater.



And the FINAL blow is the DIE HARD Repubs - who near the end of Bush's term wouldn't sign SH*T that he wanted passed. Politicians are largely grimy - when even THEY refuse to work with you then you can imagine the flack they are getting from their constituents. Not only did Bush hurt the country - but he hurt his party. It will take 10 years for history to be written on the FAILURE that is George Bush.

If this was the case then I wonder why more of congress didnt get the boot. Dont forget that Congress has about half the approval that the president has. Bush was pretty well stonewalled by dems starting in 06. There are a few RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) that also blocked anything that republicans wanted.

You are right that Bush hurt the republican party, but you are wrong on why. Bush was a very centric conservative on national security, but he was a very liberal spender. Until republicans can get some actual republicans to run for office they will continue to lose power and influance.

[BABY J]

back to back tours in Asscrackistan myself so I know a little about being deployed and no having all of the equipment that is needed. It sucks, but you suck it up and do your job.

See - this is what I mean. "It sucks --- carry on." BULLSHIT!! We have the resources to make this not so. I am not talking about me sitting on the AWACS flying 20 hour missions like I did -- I am talking about INFANTRY troops not having equipment. I am talking about ammunition rations. I am talking about the BASICS needed to stand and fight. I didn't serve w/ many cowards... but I saw pilots sign the AFTO781 on a plane that was UNFIT TO FLY teens of times for simple parts that any airport in America had stockpiled. That is a FAILURE by any stretch of the imagination.


There is no point in crying about it. It doesnt do any good. Also, you might want to mention that a vas majority want to stay in Iraq to finish the job, they dont want to tuck their tail between their legs and run away.

Easy for you to say - sounds to me like you had all that you needed to get the job done - but there are thousands that didn't and STILL don't.


If you know people that lost their homes while deployed it was because they failed to educate themselves. If they were reservists, unless they made more money, not including allowances, while deployed then no foreclosure action can be taken while they are under activation orders. If they are active duty, then no forclosure actions can be made against them until the deployed person returns from theater.

Failed to educate themselves? How about failed to BE EDUCATED by Services Squadrons that are supposed to do that. How about rushing KIDS out of basic and sending them to war w/out AIT --- what does a 18 year old w/ less than 2 months in service know about a Family Care Plan - he barely knows how to pack a C bag. Just to plus up numbers? Typical military fashin -- "gimme a warm body - any1 will do." That is NOT how you watch out for your own - that is NOT how you treat an American -- someones son and/or daughter. if I put you in harms way I am gonna make sure that you have what you need to give you the best chance at coming home... we are not Japs and these are not kamikaze missions.

[BanginJimmy]

See - this is what I mean. "It sucks --- carry on." BULLSHIT!! We have the resources to make this not so. I am not talking about me sitting on the AWACS flying 20 hour missions like I did -- I am talking about INFANTRY troops not having equipment. I am talking about ammunition rations. I am talking about the BASICS needed to stand and fight. I didn't serve w/ many cowards... but I saw pilots sign the AFTO781 on a plane that was UNFIT TO FLY teens of times for simple parts that any airport in America had stockpiled. That is a FAILURE by any stretch of the imagination.


This sounds like a command failure to me, not a failure at the presidential level. We NEVER let an aircraft fly if it wasnt safe for flight. Several times I worked 30+ hour shifts to get aircraft up and flying. By the time I left 3 of our 7 Cobras were hanger queens and so stripped down they had to be left as they were deemed structurally unsound because of missing parts. The same was true of 2 of the 6 Hueys.

I never saw or heard of ammo rations so I cannot speak on that.



[QUOTE=BABY J]Easy for you to say - sounds to me like you had all that you needed to get the job done - but there are thousands that didn't and STILL don't.

I did not have all I needed, but I did make what I had work. We up-armored our own hummers. We stripped down old russian tanked for steel and used a tank driveshaft to make bushings for CH53 flight controls.





Failed to educate themselves? How about failed to BE EDUCATED by Services Squadrons that are supposed to do that. How about rushing KIDS out of basic and sending them to war w/out AIT --- what does a 18 year old w/ less than 2 months in service know about a Family Care Plan - he barely knows how to pack a C bag. Just to plus up numbers? Typical military fashin -- "gimme a warm body - any1 will do." That is NOT how you watch out for your own - that is NOT how you treat an American -- someones son and/or daughter. if I put you in harms way I am gonna make sure that you have what you need to give you the best chance at coming home... we are not Japs and these are not kamikaze missions.

Again these are command failures, not presidential. I was still AD at the time and over 9 years I never saw anyone goto their unit without going to MOS school. In the guard unit I am in now, our commander said stright up that he would not allow anyone to deploy wihtout first being MOS Q. I know the army and air force dont operate in the same manner that the Corps and Nvay do, but I find it hard to believe a sevice would send new people to their units before sending them to school.

I dont know what unit you are with, but it sounds to me like their failures are nearly criminal. It means that your unit did not get required briefings on family readiness and other subjects and the paperwork was probably pencil whippped to show the briefings were done.


We agree that failures were abundant, but we disagree on who the blame for those failures belong to. I was a Marine and we used command discretion at the lowest levels. Most of what you listed sounds like it belongs to those lower level commanders. Company commanders and 1st Sergeants that were doing their jobs should have caught most of what slipped through.

[BABY J]

Where do you think funding comes from? Do you think commands are just "choosing" not to receive hardened vehicles?? Why do you think that as SOON as these officers retire they finally say what they are not allowed to say while they are in uniform? This line of thought blows my mind that you think units are operating autonomously and are responsible for "acquiring" these items on their own. I was in the Air Force - and I've flown combat missions in planes that my training tells me is unfit for flight. Commanders need funds to get equipment. I know these stories from Army personell and Marines and Navy as well DIRECTLY - not from the news, not from hearsay. People being waived through schools when they should have been washed-back or reclassed - and I agree that this is borderline criminal sh*t. My point is simply when you wanna send people to war, you send them w/ the best chance at getting the job done --- that didn't happen (and in large fashion) - and if you served then you should know that moreso than most.

ALSO, you say that your unit armoring up your own vehicles proves my point perfectly - I am glad that you agree. :) Having to devise those solutions you mentioned is BECAUSE of the failures from the White House kind sir.

[Echonova]

A married man lied about getting a hummer. Thomas Jefferson, Kennedy , LBJ, and who knows how many other known womanizer presidents might have lied if they were in the same position. I would hope Congress would be investigating more important stuff than that. :ninja:Like steriods in baseball...:rolleyes:

[Echonova]

I give Bush a 7. I think he was a good president, not the best and sure he could have handled some things better. But given what he had to deal with during his presidency, I think he did better than most would have. We have not been hit again, and that is a feat in itself. To the folks that like gaffs, you're gonna have a ball for the next 4-8 years.



But I guess we can chalk that up to Joe just being Joe.:rolleyes:

[BanginJimmy]

Where do you think funding comes from?

Funding comes from Washington, but you need to look at the funding bills before you apply blame. Both sides of the aisle have voted no because these bills contained or did not contain unrelated funding for pet projects. That is where McCain got the line that Obama voted no to funding for the troops.





Do you think commands are just "choosing" not to receive hardened vehicles??

The Corps had the first uparmored Hummers. They had them because the Corps used its own R&D money to develop the kits. The Army and other services turned them down because of the extra weight and didnt get fully on board with the program until they saw the benefit of these vehicles. The first line of these vehicles was hated by the military also. They were too heavy and the weight really bogged them down just like the Army said it would.

But to answer your question, no these commands didnt choose not to have the vehicles. It sucks, but in a time of war you dont always get the best of everything.



Why do you think that as SOON as these officers retire they finally say what they are not allowed to say while they are in uniform?

For the same reasons a good NCO doesnt critisize their superiors in front of subordinates. It creates a break in confidance in the command. It is also horrible for morale.


This line of thought blows my mind that you think units are operating autonomously and are responsible for "acquiring" these items on their own.
If the commands are not responsible for aquiring these itmes then who is? I dont mean that it is a platoon leaders responsibility to make sure the company ASP has enogugh rounds for everyone, but it is someones responsibility. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of the commander of that ASP, whether it be a Captian, or a General.




I was in the Air Force - and I've flown combat missions in planes that my training tells me is unfit for flight.

If the plane was truely unfit for flight, then you need to speak up. Sometimes you will be given an answer that calms your fears and you fly, sometimes you dont get an answer that calms your fears and you fly anyways. I flew one mission out of Bagram in a CH53 at night in March with no rear cargo hatch because it was in my shot for a major repair. I spent 5 hours freezing my ass off in -90-100* weather.


Commanders need funds to get equipment. I know these stories from Army personell and Marines and Navy as well DIRECTLY - not from the news, not from hearsay. People being waived through schools when they should have been washed-back or reclassed - and I agree that this is borderline criminal sh*t.

Again, in my 9 years in the Corps, I never heard of a single Marine being sent through school without passing. I can only speak to what I have been seen personally though.




My point is simply when you wanna send people to war, you send them w/ the best chance at getting the job done --- that didn't happen (and in large fashion) - and if you served then you should know that moreso than most.

I agree. When my unit left for Asscrackistan we got 3 weeks notice because another unit did not pass proficiency. When we left we didnt have alot of things we needed. We had to beg borrow and steal (literally a times) what we needed to get the job done.


ALSO, you say that your unit armoring up your own vehicles proves my point perfectly - I am glad that you agree. :) Having to devise those solutions you mentioned is BECAUSE of the failures from the White House kind sir.

I agree those are failures, but I dont agree that they come form the White House. If they come from Washington at all, they come from the Capital Building.

[DrivenMind]

Conservatives are always looking for ways to kiss Bushes ass, and sing his praises, because he was in his own little demented way a good conservative president. Which tells you a lot about the conservative ideology.

But lets not kid ourselves lads. The man was a bigger crook than Nixon, he just changed all the rules so it was legal for him to get away with it. He responded to 9/11 like a moron, responded to Katrina like an asshole. The former guy running FEMA had his credibility destroyed when the American people found out that was an incompetent fool, with bullshit credentials. We can only hope the same will be done to Bush, and the mindset that fuels these people who think wars are "ok" so long as the "economy" flourished.

[ka24boost]

I give bush a 1 for couples of reasons. We put billions of dollars in the irag economic every month and they have a 90 billion surplus. While United States people are struggling to keep there homes and jobs. Also the reason the housing market is struggles because the Republican Party supports no regulation (a joke). We are trying to free a country that don’t want or need our help. We are supporting the Iraq economic and they try to offer an oil partnership with Russia and not us. When Katrina hit it was not his fault that the people didn’t leave but he is to blame for the late response. Also what you didn’t hear after Katrina people couldn’t leave because the army and police threaten to shoot them if they cross the bridge. When a storm hit the Mid West or Ca Fema reacts within 1-2 day not weeks. The City of New Orleans is still in the same shape years after, what happen to all the Federal money that was given to repair the city ( Which Dick Cheney company have the contracts for New Orleans and Iraq). Clinton was smart he never show how weak or strong the United States and no country were willing to find. Now bush have shown the world our weakness and now we get bitch slap by North Korea, Iran etc..

[bookthief]

UNO!!!

[112480]

Conservatives are always looking for ways to kiss Bushes ass, and sing his praises, because he was in his own little demented way a good conservative president. Which tells you a lot about the conservative ideology.

But lets not kid ourselves lads. The man was a bigger crook than Nixon, he just changed all the rules so it was legal for him to get away with it. He responded to 9/11 like a moron, responded to Katrina like an asshole. The former guy running FEMA had his credibility destroyed when the American people found out that was an incompetent fool, with bullshit credentials. We can only hope the same will be done to Bush, and the mindset that fuels these people who think wars are "ok" so long as the "economy" flourished.

Well said:goodjob: Mike..... man hopefully one day you will wake up. At least we know who you voted for... the economy florurished??? HAHAHA!!!!!!

[BanginJimmy]

Well said:goodjob: Mike..... man hopefully one day you will wake up. At least we know who you voted for... the economy florurished??? HAHAHA!!!!!!


Actually the economy did flourish during Bush's Presidency until the housing bubble burst. You can look at all measures of the economy and you will see that. Huge gains in the GDP, corporate and personal incomes ere way up, taxes were lower.

[SLo_MKIII]

I vote 6 because bush had a a lot of bad things happen during his terms... I felt they could of been handled better but no one is perfect

[Alan®]

Conservatives are always looking for ways to kiss Bushes ass, and sing his praises, because he was in his own little demented way a good conservative president. Which tells you a lot about the conservative ideology.

But lets not kid ourselves lads. The man was a bigger crook than Nixon, he just changed all the rules so it was legal for him to get away with it. He responded to 9/11 like a moron, responded to Katrina like an asshole. The former guy running FEMA had his credibility destroyed when the American people found out that was an incompetent fool, with bullshit credentials. We can only hope the same will be done to Bush, and the mindset that fuels these people who think wars are "ok" so long as the "economy" flourished.
Bigger crook than Nixon? :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

Right $20 says Obama makes Nixon look like an open book.

Responded to 9/11 like a moron? :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

Right considering the guy had a 90% approval rating after 9/11 :rolleyes: . Cause going after Bin Laden and the gang was the wrong move :rolleyes: .

Responded to Katrina like an asshole? :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

I love this one. I'll have find the link but you do realize that the slow response had next to nothing to do with him right? You do realize that the President can not be sent into an area by the President. the Governor or Mayor have to request it. Go find out how long it took either to do so.

[Alan®]

Also the reason the housing market is struggles because the Republican Party supports no regulation (a joke). We are trying to free a country that don’t want or need our help.
Wrong. The reason the housing market is as bad as it is is because the Dems pushed through legislation that basically required banks to give loans to people that could never pay them back. IMHO I don't see how renegotiating principle on home loans fixes anythings. The only way I see to start is over is to put the original requirements back in and enforce them. As for the people facing foreclosure. That sucks but why should everyone suffer for the mistakes a few. Let the bottom REALLY fall out and let's start over.



When Katrina hit it was not his fault that the people didn’t leave but he is to blame for the late response.
See my other post


Also what you didn’t hear after Katrina people couldn’t leave because the army and police threaten to shoot them if they cross the bridge. I want to see concrete proof of this. I have heard this a few times but no one has ever backed up their claim


The City of New Orleans is still in the same shape years after,
Not surprised. Who the hell lives in a city that is below sea level. CNN did a special on this about a year after and found that most people that left there that didnt come back found better opportunities living conditions then Pre-Katrina NO.


Clinton was smart he never show how weak or strong the United States and no country were willing to find. Now bush have shown the world our weakness and now we get bitch slap by North Korea, Iran etc..
And that would be? The one country I would not want us to get into a war with is China. They could field our army a dozen times over.

God I love how much people drink the cool aid but fail to do research.

[Vteckidd]

Well said:goodjob: Mike..... man hopefully one day you will wake up. At least we know who you voted for... the economy florurished??? HAHAHA!!!!!!
Greg you should really educate yourself.

The numbers dont lie, the economy has seen some of the BEST NUMBERS UNDER BUSHs TERM. And he had to deal with 9/11, something clinton never had to deal with. And we have a war going on.

GDP, Personal salaries, taxes, unemployment, etc all were PHENOMENAL under BUSH.

Hell we had a 96% unemployment rate, how do you do that with a BAD ECONOMY?

Go read up on some stuff before you start believing everything that is being told to you :)

[Barefoot]

Greg you should really educate yourself.

The numbers dont lie, the economy has seen some of the BEST NUMBERS UNDER BUSHs TERM. And he had to deal with 9/11, something clinton never had to deal with. And we have a war going on.

GDP, Personal salaries, taxes, unemployment, etc all were PHENOMENAL under BUSH.

Hell we had a 96% unemployment rate, how do you do that with a BAD ECONOMY?

Go read up on some stuff before you start believing everything that is being told to you :)what #s are u reading. u must have been in your own world for last few years.

[okra1981]

Bush may not have been the greatest president, but seriously, do any of you who talk shit about him thing you could do better if you were the president? That is a lot of responsibility to put on one person. You can't make everyone happy. If you try, you will end up pissing more people off.

On another point, the president can't even wipe his ass without the approval of congress. Don't just blame Bush, blame the house and the senate. They approved bush's plans, and didn't override any of bush's vetoes. There is a system of checks and balances. The past and current congress has just chosen (for the most part) not to use this system.

Last I checked, a President has the power to call for immediate action without the say so of Congress to get something started while he waits for the full cooperation (I can't remember the actual time frame, I took government classes about ten years ago). Also, I could probably run the country better, along with many other people. We wouldn't be corrupted by all of the oil companies that got us to that place (we do know about Cheney's previous job and his $30 million severance package, and we do know about where Bush's family got most of their money).
As for Mr. Kidd, blinders dude, I think you've glossed over some figures, or gotten them from the "conservative media."

[DrivenMind]

Bigger crook than Nixon? :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

Right $20 says Obama makes Nixon look like an open book.

Responded to 9/11 like a moron? :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

Right considering the guy had a 90% approval rating after 9/11 :rolleyes: . Cause going after Bin Laden and the gang was the wrong move :rolleyes: .

Responded to Katrina like an asshole? :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

I love this one. I'll have find the link but you do realize that the slow response had next to nothing to do with him right? You do realize that the President can not be sent into an area by the President. the Governor or Mayor have to request it. Go find out how long it took either to do so.

Of course he had a sky rocketing approval rating after 9/11. There is nothing like a good old fashioned, "evil" enemy to stir up the popular sentiments of slumbering patriotism. It's the oldest tricks in the persuasive politicians book.

What, do you think the American people are going to boo, and hiss because he was spouting off empty rhetoric about an getting the "bad guy", bring those responsible to justice, and "winning"? Absolutely not.

But yea... some how I missed the part where invading Iraq, had anything to do with capturing the US trained group of militant extremist Saudis responsible for 9/11. Call me fucking crazy, but if a group of influential extremists nationals, from Poland whom our government had close ties to, pulled of the biggest attack on our countries soil in recent history, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to launch a full scale invasion, and forced regime change in Germany, because they had some outdated weapons, and a leader with a bad attitude. Now replace "Poland" with "Afghanistan" and "Germany" with "Iraq". The logic is simple.

RedGT don't give me that shit about Bush not being a crock. His Vice President is the former head of fucking Halliburton. Are you not aware of what services Halliburton provides for the US military? I mean really are you so fucking blind to not see how obvious this kind of shit is. It's blatant profiteering. He didn't pick anyone in his administration based on credentials, they're all businessmen, and they all stood mysteriously to make a god damned fortune off of the Iraq war, mostly at the cost of their own fucking people, via the exploitation of the general publics fear after 9/11. Yea bro, that's a fucking crook.

It's fucking astonishing how open they can be about this shit, and some people still not be even remotely suspicious, still happily waving the conservative ideology flag around, like it's some kind of cool uber-patriotic thing to suck Republican dick, while they rape and pillage your own people, and drive your country into the ground because they don't really give a shit, and neither do we. It's really fucking amazing.

But I guess it's all just unfortunate coincidence.

[BanginJimmy]

Of course he had a sky rocketing approval rating after 9/11. There is nothing like a good old fashioned, "evil" enemy to stir up the popular sentiments of slumbering patriotism. It's the oldest tricks in the persuasive politicians book.

What, do you think the American people are going to boo, and hiss because he was spouting off empty rhetoric about an getting the "bad guy", bring those responsible to justice, and "winning"? Absolutely not.

But yea... some how I missed the part where invading Iraq, had anything to do with capturing the US trained group of militant extremist Saudis responsible for 9/11. Call me fucking crazy, but if a group of influential extremists nationals, from Poland whom our government had close ties to, pulled of the biggest attack on our countries soil in recent history, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to launch a full scale invasion, and forced regime change in Germany, because they had some outdated weapons, and a leader with a bad attitude. Now replace "Poland" with "Afghanistan" and "Germany" with "Iraq". The logic is simple.

RedGT don't give me that shit about Bush not being a crock. His Vice President is the former head of fucking Halliburton. Are you not aware of what services Halliburton provides for the US military? I mean really are you so fucking blind to not see how obvious this kind of shit is. It's blatant profiteering. He didn't pick anyone in his administration based on credentials, they're all businessmen, and they all stood mysteriously to make a god damned fortune off of the Iraq war, mostly at the cost of their own fucking people, via the exploitation of the general publics fear after 9/11. Yea bro, that's a fucking crook.

It's fucking astonishing how open they can be about this shit, and some people still not be even remotely suspicious, still happily waving the conservative ideology flag around, like it's some kind of cool uber-patriotic thing to suck Republican dick, while they rape and pillage your own people, and drive your country into the ground because they don't really give a shit, and neither do we. It's really fucking amazing.

But I guess it's all just unfortunate coincidence.

most of your post is simply mindless babble, but here are a points for you to consider.

You mentioned the profiteering of Cheney, yet you dont mention the ties that Obama and a few of his apointments have to the FM's and the bills they passed that directly caused them to profit from it.

Those same people that bring up republicans blindly sucking Bush's dick, are the ones that are blindly sucking Obama's. Every time someone mentions all of Obama's friends and advisors who have been outed as hating America or profitting from illegal activites they are called a racist or simply told that Obama didnt know about it so it should be ignored.

Dems always talk down about how McCain said the fundamentals of our economy were still strong, yet they ignore the remarks by Barney Frank when he said the FM's were strong, right before they collapsed. Al;so not mentioned was the huge amounts of campaign donations given to these dems by the same people that were cooking the books at the FM's.

How about Pelosi's land deal in Cali where she bought what was basicly worthless land at a very good price, right before she pushed a bill through that made that land worth more than 10x what it was bought for.

[Nomad!]

Other than the funding he approved for AIDS research/prevention, his lows FAR out weighed his "highs".

[Nomad!]

Right considering the guy had a 90% approval rating after 9/11 :rolleyes: . Cause going after Bin Laden and the gang was the wrong move :rolleyes:
Bush's approval rating was high after 9/11 because everyone was literally, up in arms because of the attacks. Most Americans wanted something to be done to, not only make them feel safe, but to get some retribution as well. People wanted action to be taken and were willing sacrifice their own freedoms & support just about anything that was remotely close to getting the pay back they wanted. When Bush promised action, he told the masses what they wanted to hear so, of course his approval rating was high during that time.

As for going after Bin Laden and the gang...that idea was quickly abandoned when Iraq became the primary focus of the "war on terror".

[BABY J]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/3274186/George-W-Bush-in-pictures.html

[BABY J]

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/i/f/bush_worstdisaster.jpg

[Tech5]

Bush straight up sucked balls!! I mean I even think that SAMMICH could even be a better President then BUSH!!!


and about OBAMA!! Holly shltt ! I think I will move to Germany!

[4dmin]

bush is a moron there is something to be said that it only took him 8 years to figure out our economy wasn't doing so hot... the word RECESSION just entered his vocab recently ;)

from failed domestic/international policies, katrina, and gun blazing attitude... i think history will only tell the one positive action was how he handled 911.

[umairejaz]

What a Fail. Weapon's of mass destruction? His entire presidency has been based on lies, miscommunication, and screwed up "intelligence".

[umairejaz]

And the Bank Bail out? WHAT A JOKE! All he did was bail out his buddies. Try getting a loan for a new car or house, the banksters have horded all of our money. America got the short end of the stick and when it came time to bail us out from the auto industry, the industry that actually employs hard working Americas, how resistant were they? This industry drives America, puts food on our table and gas in our tanks that help keep us moving. They were afraid our tax dollars would actually benefit us.

And those still supporting him, :lmfao:. Your still getting played. The economy is the worst it has been since the 20's.

[BanginJimmy]

And the Bank Bail out? WHAT A JOKE! All he did was bail out his buddies. Try getting a loan for a new car or house, the banksters have horded all of our money. America got the short end of the stick and when it came time to bail us out from the auto industry, the industry that actually employs hard working Americas, how resistant were they? This industry drives America, puts food on our table and gas in our tanks that help keep us moving. They were afraid our tax dollars would actually benefit us.

And those still supporting him, :lmfao:. Your still getting played. The economy is the worst it has been since the 20's.

While Bush did sign off on it, it was the dems, and Pelosi in particular that really pushed the bank bailout. When it failed in the house the first time, Pelosi added bribes into the bill to get the votes she needed to pass it.

The auto bailout, again, blame the dems as they are the ones that killed it. Bush is actually the one that pushed it through.

But go ahead and hate on Bush, facts are irrelevant anyways.

[BATMOBL]

Just FYI the average IA Bush Score is 3.95 out of 10

[umairejaz]

While Bush did sign off on it, it was the dems, and Pelosi in particular that really pushed the bank bailout. When it failed in the house the first time, Pelosi added bribes into the bill to get the votes she needed to pass it.

The auto bailout, again, blame the dems as they are the ones that killed it. Bush is actually the one that pushed it through.

But go ahead and hate on Bush, facts are irrelevant anyways.

What about spending $410 million A DAY on a war that still has no bases and is considered a complete disaster and mistake? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Were we lead to believe things just so the government could have an unjust strong military holding in a middle east where the US has much interests for its own sake? All this done in the name of democracy and freedom, when we ourselves have acted so unjust.

[Elbow]

I gave him a 2, I hate him, he sucks, HORRIBLY. BUT he handled 9/11 ok at the time so..

LOL @ the Bush lovers in here having a pissy fit because nobody likes their loved cock sucker.

[BanginJimmy]

What about spending $410 million A DAY on a war that still has no bases and is considered a complete disaster and mistake? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Were we lead to believe things just so the government could have an unjust strong military holding in a middle east where the US has much interests for its own sake? All this done in the name of democracy and freedom, when we ourselves have acted so unjust.

what does all this have to do with the post about the bailouts that you quoted?


I wont comment on the WMD aspect as the same info we used was used by another couple dozen countries that went into Iraq with us. I will say that I found several articles that pointed out that there was plenty of proof that WMD labs existed in Iraq. I guess that the 3+ months of warning that he had that we were coming were enough to get rid of them. On top of that, there is plenty of public info stating that Iraq did have WMD's as late as 01, and we all know that Sadaam had no problems using them. Also, it was a fact that we would have been in Iraq eventually anyways. It was only a matter of time before he pushed too far.

[BABY J]

Some people just DON'T get it. LOL. To each his own.

[umairejaz]

what does all this have to do with the post about the bailouts that you quoted?



This is his presidency which I believe is the topic of the thread. The gangsters in Washington and the banksters in wall street are really taking this country for a ride.

Maybe one man isn't to blame for all this but hell, this all happened during his presidency. It well reflect upon him without a doubt. He is supposed to lead this country.

[BanginJimmy]

This is his presidency which I believe is the topic of the thread. The gangsters in Washington and the banksters in wall street are really taking this country for a ride.

Maybe one man isn't to blame for all this but hell, this all happened during his presidency. It well reflect upon him without a doubt. He is supposed to lead this country.


I agree with his 100%. Bush was no a good president, but I dont believe he was half as bad as some people want to make him out to be. He was an average leader in a time when we needed a superior one. I also believe in the process of hating Bush, we elected a man that will do far more damage than Bush ever could.

[BABY J]

I suppose McCain couldn't do far much damage than Bush ever could... correct? Sounds like to me that's what you are saying.

[ka24boost]

If you want proof read a damn New Orleans news paper. What happen to the 2000 million to fix the levels which are still leaking and letting water in the city. I guess you ever been to New Orleans before the storm cause living anywhere esle would be better. But what ever everyone has their opinion


Wrong. The reason the housing market is as bad as it is is because the Dems pushed through legislation that basically required banks to give loans to people that could never pay them back. IMHO I don't see how renegotiating principle on home loans fixes anythings. The only way I see to start is over is to put the original requirements back in and enforce them. As for the people facing foreclosure. That sucks but why should everyone suffer for the mistakes a few. Let the bottom REALLY fall out and let's start over.



See my other post

I want to see concrete proof of this. I have heard this a few times but no one has ever backed up their claim


Not surprised. Who the hell lives in a city that is below sea level. CNN did a special on this about a year after and found that most people that left there that didnt come back found better opportunities living conditions then Pre-Katrina NO.


And that would be? The one country I would not want us to get into a war with is China. They could field our army a dozen times over.

God I love how much people drink the cool aid but fail to do research.

[BanginJimmy]

I suppose McCain couldn't do far much damage than Bush ever could... correct? Sounds like to me that's what you are saying.

McCain would have been a horrible president, but none of the changes he was going to make would be lasting, or very hard to change. Obama's health care plan, and his obsession with appeasing the Euros, will create programs that will be nearly impossible for anyone to remove.

With 40+ million people jumping into Obama's healthcare plan, what do you think will happen to any politicians that propose getting rid of that healthcare program? That fact alone will cost the taxpays nearly a trillion dollars a year.

[BanginJimmy]

If you want proof read a damn New Orleans news paper. What happen to the 2000 million to fix the levels which are still leaking and letting water in the city. I guess you ever been to New Orleans before the storm cause living anywhere esle would be better. But what ever everyone has their opinion

I just did a search and couldnt find any articles saying that people trying to leave NO were threatened by the Army. All I found was an article that said Grenta Police would not allow refugees to come into their city.


In an interview with UPI, Gretna Police Chief Arthur Lawson confirmed that his department shut down the bridge to pedestrians: "If we had opened the bridge, our city would have looked like New Orleans does now: looted, burned and pillaged."

As for the "levels", you can blame the LOCAL govt in NO for that one. They used the money for other programs instead of using it to fix and upgrade levies.

[ka24boost]

Hurricane IKe prove the levels are still leaking and not repair correctly. I have family that live 100 yard from the level that had 4 feet of water in their yards. That happen with out the storm being anywhere close to
New Orleans. The local govement is reponsible for the repair of the levels it belong to the federal govement. The corp was pull from the project because of their poor design for the first levels. Also dont forget that cheney company owns the contract to repair New Orleans and every thing look the same. The only work that is repair that is going on in New Orleans is done by private company. If you want the article about the bridge try nola.com back edition. If that does not work Hbo did a mini series on the Kartina.



I just did a search and couldnt find any articles saying that people trying to leave NO were threatened by the Army. All I found was an article that said Grenta Police would not allow refugees to come into their city.



As for the "levels", you can blame the LOCAL govt in NO for that one. They used the money for other programs instead of using it to fix and upgrade levies.

[Alan®]

Hurricane IKe prove the levels are still leaking and not repair correctly. I have family that live 100 yard from the level that had 4 feet of water in their yards. That happen with out the storm being anywhere close to
New Orleans. The local govement is reponsible for the repair of the levels it belong to the federal govement. The corp was pull from the project because of their poor design for the first levels. Also dont forget that cheney company owns the contract to repair New Orleans and every thing look the same. The only work that is repair that is going on in New Orleans is done by private company. If you want the article about the bridge try nola.com back edition. If that does not work Hbo did a mini series on the Kartina.
Most of the major LEVEE rpeair has been completed on the federal level. MOST not all of it. The local LEVEE that have to be repaired are way more behind schedule than the federal ones

[DVSRX-7]

i vote 1... he can suck dick for using our fucking tax money to go to war and kill innocent people in Iraq.. families have fucking died for no fucking reason because of that POS!! FUCK BUSH!!! GO OBAMA!! for 09 there will be a change

[BanginJimmy]

i vote 1... he can suck dick for using our fucking tax money to go to war

If he isnt going to use tax money, what money is he going to use? Oh and dont forget that Bush couldnt do anything without congress. So I guess you should say fuck congress too. In case you forgot, both a rep and dem congress voted for the war.



and kill innocent people in Iraq..

Are these the same innocent people that were shooting at our troops?



families have fucking died for no fucking reason because of that POS!!

really, is this the best you can do? As sad as it is, innocent people die in a war. This is especially true in an insurgency type of war.



FUCK BUSH!!! GO OBAMA!! for 09 there will be a change

What change will that be? I know he hasnt said anything about what he will change, and how he will make the changes.

[Chosen One]

Well, He's better than Truman!

[sidewayz13b]

the whole problem with katrina is that most of the people over there were fuckin lazy. they had ample chance to get out but everyone wanted to stay so they could blame it on someone else. oh yeah what color were most of em?

[Total_Blender]

the whole problem with katrina is that most of the people over there were fuckin lazy. they had ample chance to get out but everyone wanted to stay so they could blame it on someone else. oh yeah what color were most of em?

You are assuming they all had transportation and a safe place to go, and they they had been informed by the local authorities just how bad the devastation would be.

Which is the same mistaken assumption that Bush & co, made and why they failed at handling Katrina.

[BanginJimmy]

You are assuming they all had transportation and a safe place to go, and they they had been informed by the local authorities just how bad the devastation would be.


Do they not have TV in N.O? I remember hearing for a week that it was a huge, strong hurricane and it would cause massive damage and probably overwhelm the levies. The hurricane was actually weaker when it hit land than the forecasters were expecting.


Which is the same mistaken assumption that Bush & co, made and why they failed at handling Katrina.

Federal govt is not responsible for first response or preliminary evactuations. The city and state handle that, and it was handled extremely poorly. Blaming that on Bush and ignoring the massive mistakes on the aprt of state nd city officials is just another way of showing your hate for Bush.

[Total_Blender]

Federal govt is not responsible for first response or preliminary evactuations. The city and state handle that, and it was handled extremely poorly. Blaming that on Bush and ignoring the massive mistakes on the aprt of state nd city officials is just another way of showing your hate for Bush.

FEMA should have been ready and mobilized before that hurricane even hit so that they could go in and get their job done ASAP.

I will agree with you that no one handled the situation correctly at any level. But to assume that the whole city has the ability to just up and leave at will is a stretch.

[Vteckidd]

WEll let me ask you this then, when Hurricane Gustav hit this past year, why did Jindal do a 120290423493249 times better than the previous person in power?

New Orleans/Louisiana was at fault for being lazy and not getting their people out. They were at fault for not being ready for such a disaster.

FEMA fault was trusting the NO/LA govt thinking they could handle such a disaster

[BanginJimmy]

FEMA should have been ready and mobilized before that hurricane even hit so that they could go in and get their job done ASAP.

FEMA cannot step in until the President makes a formal declaration of disaster. The president cannot declare a disaster until the local and state govts do the same. It took 3 days for the LA gov to declare a disaster.


I will agree with you that no one handled the situation correctly at any level. But to assume that the whole city has the ability to just up and leave at will is a stretch.

No FEMA didnt handle it well, but their shortcomings were small compared to those of state and local authorities.

[BABY J]

WRONG.

Diaster is ALL that FEMA does --- NO local/state Gov will perform well (or as well) as FEMA is equipped to. YES LA has some level of disaster preparedness just as any other state. But when it reaches levels that it did, FEMA should have been more ready than any other entity on the planet - PERIOD. FEMA failed.

As far as natural disasters go - I was living in OKC when the F5 rolled through --- the Feds took over phone lines, hard lines as well as mobiles. You can't declare a fuckin emergency when there is no way to communicate --- FEMA does not have to wait to act - they def didn't do it in OKC.

[Dr.G35]

totally wrong. our economy FLOURISHED after 9-11 lol what numbers are you reading lol. Despite 9-11 and a recession inherited fron CLINTON, the economy has been the BEST IT EVER WAS UNDER BUSH LOL Its only started sliding in the last 6-8 months over the housing crises, which IMO is not SOLELY BUSHS fault

I would have rated clinton a 7, only because he drew down our national defense which led IMO (NOTICE I SAID OPINION) to 9-11. As much as i didnt like him, he did some good things and in hind site was pretty conservative

Why is he a failure on Domestic policy? Taxes have been LOW FOR EVERYONE. Bush TAX CUts Grew the economy and did give money back to the people in the middle class (they pay lower now then when Obama will get in when he lets the Tax Cuts expire)

OUr defense has been GREAT.

Foreign Relations? Because he has stood up to people that are harboring terrorists and talked down to people that wouldnt go to war or help out because of their own monetary interests? I mean you call him a war monger, but you got Russia, France who didnt want to do SHIT with IRAQ over OIL. Same with Germany.

I think his foreign relations have been fine. Most people either respect us more, and the ones that hate us, well, they hated us all along
i agree

[DESTRO_91]

i know i know 8

we never got attacked again after 9-11

I we are SAFER under Bush than we ever were under Clinton IMO.

Look at the numbers, not your personal opinion

I love this country, but when you start to sh!t on other countries, you start to make enemies. Clinton had a better rapport with the world, hence no attacks, our enemies got bold enough to attack us on our own soil after bush was in office. It was karma. Then you mentioned how he handled 911, aside from invading iraq and capturing saddam, who alias is not osama who claimed responsibility for 911, what did he do? Beef up security we never needed before and allowed the govt. more access to your life. His "numbers" don't really matter. The feelings of the citizens do. How do you feel safer under bush, when the thought of an attack at home never crossed before 911. The first WTC bombing in the garage got dismissed so quick you barely remember it. Just my take.

[BanginJimmy]

I love this country, but when you start to sh!t on other countries, you start to make enemies. Clinton had a better rapport with the world, hence no attacks, our enemies got bold enough to attack us on our own soil after bush was in office.


You area showing your age and your ignorance. There fore I had no reason to read any further than this.

No attacks under Clinton? Are you serious?

What about the '93 WTC bombing?
What about the '95 car bomb in Riyadh?
What about the '96 bombing of the Khubar Towers?
What about the '98 bombing of Embassies in Africa?
What about the '98 rocketing of the Embassy in Beruit?
What about the '00 bombing of the Cole?

Funny how this lists ends with 9/11.

[DESTRO_91]

You area showing your age and your ignorance. There fore I had no reason to read any further than this.

No attacks under Clinton? Are you serious?

What about the '93 WTC bombing?
What about the '95 car bomb in Riyadh?
What about the '96 bombing of the Khubar Towers?
What about the '98 bombing of Embassies in Africa?
What about the '98 rocketing of the Embassy in Beruit?
What about the '00 bombing of the Cole?

Funny how this lists ends with 9/11.

Notice I said on our own soil. I did mention WTC bombing. Granted US embassies are considered our soil, but they are not the continental US.

[BanginJimmy]

Notice I said on our own soil. I did mention WTC bombing. Granted US embassies are considered our soil, but they are not the continental US.

so you have prov that Bush and Clinton had the same number of attacks on our soil during their presidency, and Bush had 5 less worldwide during his presidency, but Clinton's rapport with other countries kept us safer. Where do you get this stuff.

Also, look what you said again,

Clinton had a better rapport with the world, hence no attacks, our enemies got bold enough to attack us on our own soil after bush was in office.

That quote says that we never got attacked under Clinton, but in less than 9 months Bush managed empower the world's terrorists and led to an attack on our soil.
The actual truth of the matter is that Clintons inaction after repeated attacks, and his severe drawdown of US intelligence capabilities and military led to 9/11. Judging by the lack of attacks in the last 7 years I think it would be safe to say that if Clinton had the balls to fight terrorism back in '93, 9/11 would have never happened.

[BABY J]

LOL @ balls to fight terrorism. Show me some1 that has fought terrorism and won. You can't fight terrorism --- you can only respond to it. That's like waging a war on prejudice -- you can't. FYI: the US ALWAYS responds to attacks... the ones that you know about --- and the ones that you don't know about that I DO know about.

[BanginJimmy]

LOL @ balls to fight terrorism. Show me some1 that has fought terrorism and won. You can't fight terrorism --- you can only respond to it. That's like waging a war on prejudice -- you can't. FYI: the US ALWAYS responds to attacks... the ones that you know about --- and the ones that you don't know about that I DO know about.


Well Clinton's typical response was 1 or 2 cruise missiles and call it a day. It was obvious from the beginning that that response did nothing more than embolden terrorists.

There re plenty of ways to fight terrorism. Just because its a never ending battle doesnt mean we should jut give up and allow them to attack us at will.

I take it from your response though that you thought a cruise missile was a strong enough response though. You probably think that the reason we havent been attacked again is pure coincidence also.

[BABY J]

I probably worked at the Mountain for over 2 years (and over 10 years in intelligence altogether, both in and out of uniform) and PERSONALLY know more about what responses we have engaged in than you ever will - LOL. It's funny what people think they know. Remember this -- you don't know what you don't know.

[BanginJimmy]

I probably worked at the Mountain for over 2 years (and over 10 years in intelligence altogether, both in and out of uniform) and PERSONALLY know more about what responses we have engaged in than you ever will - LOL. It's funny what people think they know. Remember this -- you don't know what you don't know.


I'm not talking covert as I know I know very little about it. I am talking about overt action of the type that sets an example. Firing cruise missles into training camps does not instill fear. Covert action only instills fear in those that witness it. Clinton never took decisive overt action in his time in office and that hurt us. And if you were in uniform during his years you will know how far he drew down the intelligence communities.



BTW I am considering moving into the intell side when I re-enlist. Got any tip on what to go out for and what areas to avoid?

[BURRITO_mike]

7- because america was safer and not bowing to the arabs and i had a job ever since obama stepped ive been unemployed

[DriVaH]

i put a 1 caues -34178614144789617979815 was not a choice...lol

[bdydrpdmazda]

I voted a Bush a 5. He had a VERY difficult presidency and any comparisons to Clinton are completely unfounded. Clinton had a completely uneventful presidency, party because of him being spineless, partly becase nothing major happened. No major natural disasters, no single significant terrorist attack, 1 economic meltdown that was very localized and quickly smoothed over without white house intervention, and a very active and bi-partison republican congress. I would imagine ANY president could have done well during those times.

Back to Bush, history will look favorably on Bush, much as it has with FDR and Truman despite low approval at the time. We dont have nearly half the facts on what happened to make Bush head into Iraq. For all we know, they found a massive stockpile of nuke material that has not been made public so as to not cause more fear here at home. Outside of a few major decisions that I really dont like I think he has done well. Those bad economic decisions keep me from rating him high, as does the running of Iraq.
I gave him a 5 also and I agree with this post.

[Total_Blender]

Clinton was smart in not starting a war in central asia/middle east. Even Alexander the Fucking Great couldn't keep up a prolonged land war there. The smart approach is to use surgical strikes to go after the leadership of these groups, and to double up defensive measures on the homefront.

Also, a major part of Bush being elected in the first place was that he called Clinton/Gore out on the terrorism threat and their downsizing of the military. So if anyone should have been prepared for a terrorism event it was W. :screwy:

[BanginJimmy]

So if anyone should have been prepared for a terrorism event it was W. :screwy:

So conservatives are crazy to expect to see any improvement in the economy under Obama in 10 months, but Bush should have been able to rebuild trust within the intelligence community, rebuild and modernize the military, AND solve a moderate recession in 8? Makes perfect sense to me.

[Total_Blender]

:blah:

Intelligence agencies were following Bin Laden already. The evidence that something big was about to happen concerning Al Qaeda was already on the table. The lack of intelligence wasn't the problem, the problem was the failure to act on the intelligence. And then once he did act, he fucked it up royally.

[BanginJimmy]

Intelligence agencies were following Bin Laden already. The evidence that something big was about to happen concerning Al Qaeda was already on the table. The lack of intelligence wasn't the problem, the problem was the failure to act on the intelligence. And then once he did act, he fucked it up royally.

There wasnt enough intelligence to act on, that was the problem Clinton had as well. From what I remember, we knew there were terrorists in the country, we knew they were planning something big, and we knew it had something to do with airplanes, airlines, or airports. That is all we knew at the time. Also, before 9/11 the intelligence community did not talk to each other about anything. That was one of the biggest consequences of Clinton's intelligence spending policies. Agencies were basicly paid for results, so they didnt tell anyone else about anything they uncovered.

I find it funny that Bush is hammered for not acting on sketchy and incompelete intelligence before 9/11, then is attacked again when he acted on much better intelligence that turned out to be false. The hypocrisy of a liberal knows no bounds does it.

[Total_Blender]

Are you talking about the intelligence of Ahmed Chalabi? The false testimony of ONE PERSON that led us into the Iraq war. As far as "intelligence" goes, that was transparent BS, and it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out at the time. We sure as hell didn't find Bin Laden in Iraq, no WMD's either.

The mark of a good comand is to be able to tell good intel from bad, to know when to act, and to act both judiciously and decisively. Bush sat on good intel, acted bigtime on bad intel, and failed to act judiciously, dividing the effort by adding an un-necessary front.

[BanginJimmy]

The mark of a good comand is to be able to tell good intel from bad, to know when to act, and to act both judiciously and decisively. Bush sat on good intel, acted bigtime on bad intel, and failed to act judiciously, dividing the effort by adding an un-necessary front.

Once again, the intel before we went into Iraq was BETTER than the intel before 9/11. We had far more info, but because the intelligence services didnt talk to each other, there was never a clear picture. You are also ignoring the fact that about 15 other country's intel services reviewed our raw data and came to the same conclusions we did.

[punkr6]

as bad as BUsh was, Obama is making him look better and better by the day....

[BABY J]

Once again, the intel before we went into Iraq was BETTER than the intel before 9/11. We had far more info, but because the intelligence services didnt talk to each other, there was never a clear picture. You are also ignoring the fact that about 15 other country's intel services reviewed our raw data and came to the same conclusions we did.

This is not true. LOTS of the major players didn't go w/ us on this one. We basically did it alone.

[JDMbabe]

um 2

that is all.

[XanRules]

LOL @ people saying Bush kept us safe from terrorism, especially compared to Clinton.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Anyone else remember that?

[BABY J]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_go_co/us_tora_bora_bin_laden

[BanginJimmy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_go_co/us_tora_bora_bin_laden


Just another attack on Bush. We are all used to those at this point.


At the time, Rumsfeld expressed concern that a large U.S. troop presence might fuel a backlash and he and some others said the evidence was not conclusive about bin Laden's location.

Here is the problem the military faces no matter who is in office. We should be nice to the people that hate us cause we dont want to make enemies out of enemies. End this PC shit and end the war. Send 4 or 5 full divisions into Pakistan and wipe out anyone that fires a shot at them. It wont take long at all before you find someone that will tell you exactly what you want to know.

[BABY J]

What part of that makes it look like an attack? It's just good news reporting correct?

[BanginJimmy]

What part of that makes it look like an attack? It's just good news reporting correct?


Not the reporting, the whole review and the fact that it was made public. Its just another attack on Bush by Obama. He's good for at least 2 or 3 a week.

[BABY J]

Pretty sure Obama had nothing to do w/ that article - LOL. But okay.

[Black4DrEK]

2 for shits and giggles.. FUCK BUSH!

[BanginJimmy]

Pretty sure Obama had nothing to do w/ that article - LOL. But okay.

Fine, I will say the Obama administration. Its all the same though as Obama gave the go ahead to release it.

[BABY J]

Show me where you get that info.

[BanginJimmy]

Show me where you get that info.

Its called common sense.

[BABY J]

Oh - so you can't show me. You could have just said that... it's kool.

[Glides]

Here is the problem the military faces no matter who is in office. We should be nice to the people that hate us cause we dont want to make enemies out of enemies. End this PC shit and end the war. Send 4 or 5 full divisions into Pakistan and wipe out anyone that fires a shot at them. It wont take long at all before you find someone that will tell you exactly what you want to know.

While this may sound like a good strategy, it will never work for one reason.

You are only thinking of Pakistan. You aren't thinking globally. Yes we are the largest super power on the planet but we are not above every other power. If we go into Pakistan stomping around, shooting whoever does this and that, the ENTIRE world will turn on us. Once that happens, we are fucked.

We are in the midst of an economic crisis now. We cannot afford to piss anyone off, especially our somewhat allies, such as China and Japan, who combined hold about %45 of our debt. Not to mention India who is the largest Democracy in the world at this time. So going in guns blazing will do nothing but turn the world even further against us and undo what Obama has done (see below)

Bush was not the worst president in the United States by far, but he was pretty shitty on the grand scale of things. His personal vendetta against Saddam was responsible for much of the hatred of Americans worldwide and in their eyes, showed America as what they always thought it was, Cowboys. We are still recovering from Bush's bullshit and will be for years to come. The Iraq war was bullshit, a waste of resources and lives. It will go down in history as a failed war simply for that reason alone. There was no need for it. We pulled troops out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq and now are having to deal with what we should have dealt with back then, wasting more American lives and money.

Now for Obama. Obama is good for the country, in the worlds eyes, simply because he is black. That is not the only reason he is good for the country, he is charasmatic, level headed, a good speaker and he is alot more real world person than Bush ever was. Bush was an idiot. He mispronounced words, used them in sentences incorrectly and generally made an ass out of himself....like hugging the Queen. Just sheer stupidity. He embodied every other countries idea of what an American is...ignorant, flippant, deserving, unclassed and apathetic to anything other than themselves. That's pretty much Bush.

But what most of the world sees when Obama gets on stage, is that he's black. So in their eyes, we as a country have elected a black president and maybe...just maybe, we are coming out of the caveman days. Add to that the fact that he's pretty much the exact opposite of Bush, and you have countries warming up to us now. They want to impress Obama. You have countries sending more troops to Afghanistan now simply bcause Obama is. They don't have to....but they are, because of Obama. The exception is Germany, who is waiting til January. but even they are under pressure from allies now that Obama has announced the 30,000 troop surge.

So I voted 4. Bush wasn't the worst, but he damm sure wasn't the greatest.

[MachNU]

i am willing to bet everyone who voted 1-3 all voted for Obama...therefore there vote is null and void! :lmao:

[Total_Blender]

i am willing to bet everyone who voted 10 all voted for McCain/Palin...therefore there vote is null and void! :lmao:

Fixed it for you :lmfao:

[MachNU]

Fixed it for you :lmfao:

This coming from the man who voted for the person whos going to go down in history as the WORST president ever.

[Glides]

This coming from the man who voted for the person whos going to go down in history as the WORST president ever.

I have to somewhat agree with this statement.

Obama was seen by many, blacks especially, as the saviour of America. he was thought off to be the culmination of all the struggles of the blacks throughout history and the symbol of the "We shall overcome" train of thought. He wins, gets in office and his populatiry skyrockets.

Come to present day. his populatiry is steadily going down, especially amongst those who thought him the harbinger of change. Now alot of blacks don't care for Obama since he didn't do for them what they thought he was going to.

Unfortunatly, he will go down in history as the guy who "Gave away the Country". Him and his democratic army passed so much, so fast and gave away so much money.....that his own party is slowly turning against him. The amount of money he has spent is incredible......money we don't have.

I personally like Obama, didn't vote for him, but I like him. I think had he not had to deal with Bush's fuck ups that were already stinking up the White house, he could have done much better.

[Total_Blender]

I think this poll shows that Bush is the one going down as "worst". Most of what Obama is doing now is continuing crap that W started. We're still fighting both of W's wars, after all. Meet the new boss: same as the old boss.

[BanginJimmy]

Bush will not be thought of as anywhere near the worst. That title is firmly implanted on the Carter name. Bush will go into a long line of presidents that were mediocre. He got 1 bad deal after another during his 8 years and still stayed his course. This country is FAR safter today than we were on 9/10 2001. As far as I'm concerned, he is in the same class as Eisenhower, Clinton, and Reagan. No one else is really worth mentioning in the last 60 years.


BTW, Truman had equally bad polling numbers when he left office and some still think of him as a good president.


BTW, since we are using an IA poll to decide a president's place in the pecking order. Obama is ALREADY far worse than Bush.

[David88vert]

Bush will not be thought of as anywhere near the worst. That title is firmly implanted on the Carter name. Bush will go into a long line of presidents that were mediocre. He got 1 bad deal after another during his 8 years and still stayed his course. This country is FAR safter today than we were on 9/10 2001. As far as I'm concerned, he is in the same class as Eisenhower, Clinton, and Reagan. No one else is really worth mentioning in the last 60 years.


BTW, Truman had equally bad polling numbers when he left office and some still think of him as a good president.


BTW, since we are using an IA poll to decide a president's place in the pecking order. Obama is ALREADY far worse than Bush.

I disagree. You cannot put either Bush in the same league as Reagan or Eisenhower. They were clearly better.

I personally think that even Clinton was better than Bush on a large variety of issues, especially domestic. I feel Bush did better than Clinton on others, such as security.

Carter was terrible, but I wouldn't say that allows Bush to be put on a pedestal.

It is way too early to decide on Obama's legacy.

[BanginJimmy]

I disagree. You cannot put either Bush in the same league as Reagan or Eisenhower. They were clearly better.

Bush Sr wasn't a good president. The only reason he was elected in the first place was his being VP for Reagan. Without that name association he didn't have a shot. I think Jr will be looked upton kindly because he stayed the course even when he could have justified wavering in favor of polling numbers. The relative safety we enjoy now falls squarely on his shoulders.


I personally think that even Clinton was better than Bush on a large variety of issues, especially domestic. I feel Bush did better than Clinton on others, such as security.

Clinton was solid on domestic issues but lacked dangerously in foreign issues. I also give a lot of credit to congress duing that time.


Carter was terrible, but I wouldn't say that allows Bush to be put on a pedestal.
I'm not putting Bush on any pedistal, just dropping Cater into the dumpster he belongs in.

It is way too early to decide on Obama's legacy.

I agree to a point. His legacy may well be decided by outside forces, but to this point he has been a complete disaster.

[On_Her_Face]

Bump.

[BanginJimmy]

I just read through this entire thread. I couldnt type for shit. I was tempted at times to edit the comments I made cause I looked so bad making them.



I did find a couple of my predictions came true though.