The OFFICIAL I love W. thread!

wilhelm wrote:

I've never seen such a collection of bitter assholes being put in their place and pissed off about it on a daily basis.

Is your real name Karl Rove? Jeff Guckert? Victor Ashe?

You're talking about physical love, yes?

I like my virgin, bitter, hetero a$$hole just the way it is.

Have fun with your sweet "turd blossom" a$$ meat.

Ah Herrrrrrrrrrrrre Gud wrote:

WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER.

I have been alive for 42 years, during 8 presidents starting with LBJ. That means 35 presidents served before I was even born. There were some doozies in the 19th century (Andrew Johnson, anyone?? Polk?). So it's too early to claim that W. is the worst president ever. 20 or 30 years down the road we'll be able to more objectively judge W's presidency.

I'm not a big fan of W. I didn't vote for him. I don't think he's been a very good president. But, with every administration it's usually a mixed bag when you look back objectively. In 1973 Nixon was being burned in effigy on a daily basis. He was impeached in 1974 and resigned in disgrace. I remember how much my father hated Nixon. He was a criminal and a liar. If you asked a lot of people in 1974 who the worst president in history was, they would have said Nixon. Yet history was kinder to Nixon than almost anyone thought it would be. We recognize his deep flaws, his paranoia, his dishonesty. But we also appreciate some of his accomplishments, like creating the EPA, the opening to China, SALT I, etc..

Another interesting factoid to consider when judging politicians historically. CIA Director General Hayden announced yesterday that he is going to release the CIA's crown jewels - the files that detail all the CIA's dirty and often illegal deeds from the early 1950s onward. Much of this stuff is already known to some degree, but these files contain extensive reports by the CIA itself. Apparently, on the issue of attempting to assassinate foreign leaders, CIA documents reveal how personally involved Bobby Kennedy was in running the operation in the early 1960s to assassinate Castro. Bobby Kennedy - one of the heroes of liberal America was essentially an assassin. I don't dislike Bobby Kennedy. I think he stood for and accomplished a lot of great things, especially in civil rights. But does it not bother the Oliver Stones of the world that one of their great heroes was behind an assassination plot?

RunDaddy wrote:

[quote]Ah Herrrrrrrrrrrrre Gud wrote:

There were some doozies in the 19th century (Andrew Johnson, anyone?? Polk?). So it's too early to claim that W. is the worst president ever.

It's quite possible those presidents had the potential to be worse than Bush, but the federal government was much less powerful then than it is now, so they had much less opportunity to do harm.

Bush came to power at a time when the US was the sole superpower, he had a very compliant congress for the first six years of his administration, and he successfully used fear-mongering about terrorism to achieve an unprecedented expansion in the powers of the Executive Branch.

The result is that he's been able to do more damage in more areas than his predecessors.

Nice point and conservatives, liberals, and others will be dealing with the expansion of executive power for years. Those who think it is a good idea now will think twice if Clinton or another democrat gains the office. There is a reason for 3 branches of government and a checks and balances system.

While it is frustrating to have a standstill because of a divided government (one party in the executive branch and another in the legislative branch) it is often better to do "nothing" than to "something" wrong.

Why do there continue to be threads like this? If you still think after all this time that these misfits who are in charge of our country, have some sort of plan and did what they did for the reasons that they claimed, (in the words of Bob Herbert)

"You either don't read the newspaper or are in serious need of therapy"

There has never in the history of our country been a worse example of incompetence as this whole tragic fiasco.

These leaders, murdered their own soldiers plain and simple..by just throwing them into the fire without taking into consideration first, their importance as human beings, husbands, fathers, daughters and son's and the real need for sacrifice.

x y and z wrote:

It's quite possible those presidents had the potential to be worse than Bush, but the federal government was much less powerful then than it is now, so they had much less opportunity to do harm.

Bush came to power at a time when the US was the sole superpower, he had a very compliant congress for the first six years of his administration, and he successfully used fear-mongering about terrorism to achieve an unprecedented expansion in the powers of the Executive Branch.

The result is that he's been able to do more damage in more areas than his predecessors.

My main point is that to properly judge any presidency, some time needs to pass so we are removed from the emotion of the moment and can objectively assess the presidency in a historical context. I don't think a single responsible and respected historian would attempt to do otherwise.

As far as your point about the expansion of the powers of the Executive branch, this has really been the story of the republic itself. Executive power has certainly been expanding in the last 60 years or so, as Schlesinger argued in The Imperial Presidency. I think it's out of whack and needs to be corrected. But I don't necessarily agree with your point that someone elected today in an era of expanded executive power is more likely to be worse than any of his/her predecessors because they possess this expanded power. Is that what you're saying?

It's also interesting that this incredibly 'powerful' president was unable to get his own party to support his immigration bill and the legislation may never become law. The power of the executive branch has expanded in certain areas, but remains constrained in many others. Remember, Bill Clinton authorized military action against Serbia with no UNSC resolution and no authorization from Congress. While Iraq has been a debacle, Bush did have an authorization for military action from Congress. So from that standpoint you could argue that Clinton exercised a more expansive interpretation of executive power than Bush did.

for everything that the government is telling you, are you really going to believe it all? get real you guys, the government lies to us, hides so much and says false things. so any arguement you have saying "well the govt said this," could be completely off. if everyone in america knew what was going on, things would be a lot worse.

Not sure why someone picks Polk out for 19th century abuse when Pierce and Buchanan were far worse, and may in fact be the only valid challengers to Bush 43 for worst president ever.

I just cannot fathom anyone who at this point suggests that we should in any way feel grateful for having Bush 43 as president, even if he HAS made a little bit more money for a few people. Our international standing has been destroyed, and for those who STILL think that doesn't matter and we can keep saying "we're #1" as if that's the cure for everything, well..you are in for a rude awakening.

Saddam violated a cease fire from the first Gulf action hundreds of times and he needed to be taken out.

Al Quaida is fighting US soldiers in Iraq instead of US civilians in the US. Whick is better?

W has expanded Gov to a huge degree and we will be paying for that for years and years. We will pay for that.

No child left behind perscriptions drug coverage....lots of gov growth... sad sad sad

But I doubt that it will be enough to have him labled as the worst president.

The most important issue of our day is the war against jihadiis. In this would anyone in the world rather have had Gore or Bush watching our backsides?? Anyone? anyone?

Moderate republicans have distanced themselves as much as possible from Bush. It's only the wingatics who still support him. Even the republican presidential debates Bush gets slammed over and over.

x y and z wrote:

It's quite possible those presidents had the potential to be worse than Bush, but the federal government was much less powerful then than it is now, so they had much less opportunity to do harm.

Bush came to power at a time when the US was the sole superpower, he had a very compliant congress for the first six years of his administration, and he successfully used fear-mongering about terrorism to achieve an unprecedented expansion in the powers of the Executive Branch.

The result is that he's been able to do more damage in more areas than his predecessors.

Another thing: I don't necessarily agree that Bush has "an unprecedented expansion" of executive power. That seems the popular snap judgment of the day. But if you go back and look at the power Nixon had (and abused terribly) before the Church Committee, it was a lot more than Bush has now. There was no FISA law under Nixon (or before), for example. There was also very little congressional oversight on intelligence activities. The president did not have to issue a 'finding' for covert operations under title 50.

The Patriot act relaxed some restrictions under FISA and EO1233, but it in no way put us back to the way things were before these laws were in place.

Even the CIA says Bush has created more terrorists than he's eliminated. That's just sad.

I LOVE THE W....

Weary wrote:

Our international standing has been destroyed, and for those who STILL think that doesn't matter and we can keep saying "we're #1" as if that's the cure for everything, well..you are in for a rude awakening.

Our international standing has not been destroyed. Temporarily damaged, yes. But not destroyed. All the countries that 'hate us' will love us as soon as they need us for something. I've dealt with too many foreign governments in my career to see how many of them publicly criticize us, then privately cozy up when they want something out of us.

You must have a very short memory. In 1975 when Saigon fell it certainly looked like the U.S. was losing the global war against communism. We abandoned South Vietnam to its fate after nearly 60,000 Americans had died trying to save it, which hurt our credibility with many other third world allies. Nixon had resigned. The economy sucked. Domestic sentiment was strongly in favor of staying out of foreign wars, etc... Yet 5 years later Reagan was elected and the country moved on. The defeat in Vietnam wasn't nearly as disastrous as people predicted. Nor will the defeat in Iraq be.

BEST. PRESIDENT. EVER.

robert wrote:

Saddam violated a cease fire from the first Gulf action hundreds of times and he needed to be taken out.

I hate it when people misuse the word "need". Saddam didn't "need" to be taken out. He wasn't an imminent threat. At the time of the invasion, there were weapons inspectors in Iraq telling us they were making progress and that there was no need for invasion. Bush, the retard, pulled the trigger anyway. And we've been paying for it ever since.

And for the guy that was all happy because he has more money now because of tax cuts. Considering our federal deficit, that's like me charging all my expenses to a credit card and then being happy because I have a bunch of spare cash laying around.

I don't like Bush because he's the most unqualified person to become president since that peanut farmer from Georgia...and I'm a Democrat by birthright. At least learn to speak right.

Bush's problem is that he has too little of his daddy in him. Bush I was a very calculated military man. His sons have fallen off the wagon a number of times (ha!). He actually had control of his presidency. You can't say the same with this Bush.

Bush II from the word go has simply been a funny figure head. Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other leftover hawks from the Nixon administration have been wanting to extend the US's military power and hold over the world for quite some time. A continuation of Manifest Destiny to the east. The USSR as a threat was squashed in the early 90s and the stage was set, but Bush I lost reelection and the hawks had to wait...and wait...and hope for good luck...which happened when the election came down to a recount in the state of Florida where a Bush was Governor. Conflict of interest?

Bush is an uneducated moron who is a simple "yes man". Meanwhile the real war in Afghanistan is being lost. Heroin is back in full production and Bin Laden is still int he mountains. The warlord control much outside Kabul.

What a shame.

Alan

O.K. let me see if I get your logic. The more al quaida has to worry about survival, they more they have to run and hide in Afganistan and Iraq the more Al quaida we create. So If we do nothing......we will be more safe.

We need to worry not just about Al quaida but also Jihadiis. And contrary to the "no other attck lsince 9/11 line you here there have been many, many unprovoked violent attacks/murders by jihadiis since 9/11.

We have lost over 3000 soldiers. They died protecting us From Jihadiis. My Idea is that the more they kill them over there the less brave those here will be and if they are dead they will not be doing anymore damage.

The war is fought over there and over here and all around the world. Jihaddiis are out to conquer the world. that is not hyperbole that is fact. They must be fought and must be stopped.

The CIA report that you use ....maybe you should look at more than one report. Just a thought.

We are in a fight for the survival of western civilization!!! to deny that is suicide!!!

STOP SPEWING SUCH NONSENSE LIKE THAT!!!!!!!!!!

God almighty. Sorry to flip out, but as I already pointed out, this is the most idiotic argument I've ever heard, and war supporters bring it up endlessly because they like the way it sounds without stopping to critically think about it for one single second.

If we had not invaded Iraq, we would not, I repeat NOT be figting Al Q on the streets of our cities. What in god's name, besides the fact that you hear Iraq war apologists repeating it ad nauseum, makes you think that if it were not for the Iraq War we would be waging war against Al Q on our shores, and even more absurdly, that "US Civilians" (????) would be the ones fighting the war? Such a comment as yours is beyond irrational. You don't think it is a LITTLE easier for many Al Q sympathizers to enter Iraq's porous war torn borders from a neigboring Islamic country than it would be for them to fly over to the US, set up shop, and then wage attacks on us? Of course they are hitting us in Iraq, because we are easy targets to hit over to there. But if we weren't there, it wouldn't be like they'd say: "hmmm....no American soldiers around to hit, so.....lets just go skip across the ocean and fight their civilians. Yes, that will be easy."

There is zero logic to the idea that "if we were not fighting them there, we'd be fighting them here." Zero, zilch, nada. So, please in God's name, stop saying it.

(it is on par with the argument that, ' gee, compared to WW2 we've lost a lot less soldiers in Iraq, so Iraq is not that bad. ' Yeah, because those two situations are just sooooo friggin' analagous, well except for about a million important differences. Or another doozie: 'remember how long it took our own US gov't to get set up in the 18th century, so give the Iraqis time, don't rush them.' Yeah, because again, those two situations are just comparable and analagous.

Yeah, because Bush has done just such a bang up job fighting the jihadistsm that the Middle East is more unstable than ever, and there are more terrorists than ever. We had pratically the whole world on our side after 9/11, and Bush managed to f*** it up and turn much of the world against us in a few short year. INcredible. (yeah, I'd take Gore or just about ANYONE ELSE [including many other Republicans or Democrats] over Bush in a millisecond. You've bought into this nonsense myth of tough cowboy Bush the protector. Bullshit. 9/11 was on HIS watch, and he's created more terrorists than he's killed. Excellent, excellent job)