Well, many years after LBJ [a very unpopular president in his hayday], history doesn't seem to favor him. I think it could be a fair classification to call Bush a bad president based on the past seven years.

Total 58,148
http://www.vhfcn.org/stats.htm


How about “wasted” – as in we sent them to war, tried to run the dam thing is a Tuesday meeting every week and then gave up? LBJ



Ok but certainly hated by the left Bush is no where near the top of this list unless you have some criteria I havn’t seen.

Yes, that is probably true. Unfortunately, very few of them have been Iraqis.

except of course the millions who voted.

Nice one liner.

You wouldn't happen to know how many (or percentage) of those Iraqis who voted are now dead?


You just have to be kidding Amlord. As National Security Advisor, Rice was the architect for Bush's foreign policy, if you dare call it that. I think you know that part of a president's legacy (or perhaps a businessman's success) depends on the people he chooses to put in high places.

Rice may be a tad bit better as Secretary of State than she was as National Security Advisor. I can add a few two word combibations to the list.

Karl Rove
Karen Hughes
Margaret Spellings

This poll surprisingly offered an opportunity to vote for two "worsts".

First, without any doubt, the above quote by Barnaby is the worst supposition or generalization I've read in a long while. FDR spread more democracy than George Bush could have spread without term limits, no Democrats to vote against him and with a moronic Republican electorate that was forced to listen to "Radio Rightyland and the FAUX "News" Channel as their only news sources.

George may wind up having spread NO democracy anywhere and may still account for another brutal religious theocracy being the eventual form of government in Iraq. At the very least, the deep-seeded resentment of how the U.S. handled the country's destruction and the ensuing occupation has a good chance of having caused even more unrest in the Middle East than before.

That said, here is my vote along with my reasons for nominating King George:

Bush IS theweakestlink! The worst President ever title is his for a number of reasons partially because he has had both the advantage and disadvantage of living in an age when his influence has been magnified by the largest and most capable reporting media in the history of the planet.

His gaffs and the posturing of those who defend them are absolutely the worst public relations nightmare the U.S. has ever had in world politics and opinion. Perhaps future presidents will have an even more invasive media but the rapidity and the redundancy with which his daily influence on the world is reported has yet to be equaled by any past collection of media sources.

That said, purely from a viewpoint of picking presidents who behaved like the scoundrels there could very well be unknown factors that would have revealed that we had far worse "rascals" sleeping in the White House than King George. However, since there are no copious amount of media footage and historical archives to prove that, Bush gets my vote for now.

First, his assault on the constitution surpassed even Lincoln's pretentious suspension of Habeas Corpus.

Second, his willingness to go beyond the already established and a fully ample F.I.S.A. Court's role of granting permission for wiretapping was egregious if for no other reason than Congress at that point would have ageeed to ANY extension of "free" spying and the deadline to eventually obtain a warrant.

Third, his abandonment of the hunt for Bin Laden in any meaningful way and his shift from Afghanistan to an unneeded and immoral war started on false pretenses in Iraq (from a humanitarian standpoint, this onerous action should probably rank as number one considering the needless waste of innocent human lives).

Fourth, his allowing Karl Rove to occupy a position that would permit Rove's ethically-challenged view of politics to affect policy was something that will never be surpassed in terms of a sheer disregard for the integrity of the office. Their "business-friendly" philosophies laid waste to sorely needed regulation of many of the most predatory corporations in U.S. history.

Fifth, his ability to avoid answering questions under oath coupled with his veto threat intimidation of Congress has allowed all of the 40 or 50 scandals to which he has been linked to go silently into the night.

Sixth, I don't have time to list all his crimes but I have been alive to witness U.S. image suffer from foreign Gulags, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, waterboarding, relaxing pollution and clean air deadlines and to most who are capable of constructing a sentence, his use of the word Nookular and his inability to speak as most of our past presidents have done - as a well-spoken dignitary, statesman and world leader.

Someday, I would like to see both Cheney and Bush serve prison time for the crimes anyone with a brain knows they committed but for now I'll just have to be satisfied with a cowardly Democratic Congress that is too scared to impeach him and this vote to enshrine him as the very worst President in this thread on America's Debate.



Why don't we have an OMG emoticon?

I'm going to have "Flip Flop" (in honor of Texas Homebuilder Bob Perry who chipped in $200K+ to help finance the "Swiftboat Veterans for Flotsam") in a winning effort to sink John Kerry's marginal campaign against a President who couldn't have won re-election against even Tom Cruise had it not been for a Flotilla (keeping with the boating theme) of fascists who paid to have him hacked and advertised into office for a second term of the Corporate edition of Wheel of Fortune - No Puzzle to Solve - No Other Contestants - You're Turn Again George.

I regret I must "waffle" and admit that the posts I read in getting up to speed on this thread did not include this one or another with skewed casualty reports that did not consider the fact that today's well-equipped and state-of-the art field hospitals save AT LEAST 75% of the wounded who would have died in the hospitals we had in Viet Nam. Those figures distort the true casualty figures in Iraq just as changes in the way unemployment figures are kept change them in comparison to thsoe kept 30 years ago.

First let me give a name to another new award I'm creating for use here. If no one else sees fit to use it, then I must assume they lack my sense of humor and my profound dedication to championing worthy and wrongfully-oppressed underdogs who are often chastised and don't adequately "growl" when their food bowl is approached by another alpha male that may only be armed with a hollow bark. In keeping with the dog theme, I'll christen that one the "Kibbles and Bits Award" to bestow upon the barkee, an award that symbolizes his rightful amount of food. I'll name the barkor's award "The Huffy" in honor of the big gust of hot air that accompanies his work to drive the other dog away from the food (in this case a well-sated case).

So without further ado, I am awarding myself the Bob Perry Memorial Flip Flop Award for voting too quickly on the worst post I had seen on America's Debate.

Next, I am awarding BoF the "Kibbles and Bits Award" for his thoughtful try at naming a few of the reasons George Bush deserves to be called the worst of all U.S. Presidents and IS theweakestlink. (Dutifully run-on in deference to the wretchedly curt British host of that overnight U.S. TV success with twice as quick a decline)

Next, Amlord gets the "Huffy" for his alpha male portrayal of Deputy Dawg in a Rin Tin Tin suit, gruffly barking hot-air level admonitions toward a dozing BoF.

With the Awards must come an adequate amount of praise and shaming for the various caregories.

Shame on you Amlord for trying to skewer a reasonable post that I must remind you Cruising Ram made fairly easy to answer by asking for opinions and didn't require the usual amount of justification or mandatory outside sourcing for those opinions. You get the "Huffy" (which you must pick up from Christopher Hitchens, the recipient for the last three years).

Of all the replies scolding anyone, yours, quoted above, "takes the cake" or as we used to say in Texas before Ann Richards taught us to think on our own, "Don't that jes blow yer dress up?"

I coughed sprite zero on my keyboard when I read "In my view, the worst Presidents are characterized by a lack of leadership, a lack of vision, or rampant corruption. None of these describe the present administration."

Huh?

Okay, barring the possibility that your off-screen name is Stevie Wonder and you really can't see and therefore have not "viewed" the train wreck that is the Bush Administration, I would ask if you don't see at least the rhetorical parallel between a "lack of leadership" and shackling the country to Bush's mistaken and (I fervently believe) dishonest beliefs and dragging them halfway across the world to stop Bin Laden who I'm sure Pat Robertson revealed was camping overnight in Saddam's Palace. Surely, connecting the two as both he and Cheney did in the ramp up to the war was poor leadership at BEST.

Sarcasm aside, Saddam had already allowed Blix to resume weapons inspections and King George actually had to order the inspectors home so he could start bombing Iraq because they weren't complying with the weapons inspections. Now if that didn't sound convoluted then and you don't see the sheer folly and lack of intelligence (subliminal two-word Condi Rice interjection inserted here), then I guess you'd be for term limit revocation and have the band start playing the Yellow Rose of Texas to practice for four more years of this excellent LEADERSHIP.

Next, let's look at a lack of vision. Tunnel vision is a true Bush quality. It is too bad that his tunnel vision didn't find Saddam's tunnel right off the bat and it is too bad he couldn't have taught it to the troops in Bora Bora so they could have tweaked it for caves and used it to find the real 9/11 perpetrators. It is also too bad that the excellent advice and reasoning Cheney gave when he was with Bush 41 wasn't also conjured up for re-hashing before this war even though the intelligence and strategic considerations were still almost identical when Cheney and Bush 41 decided not to go to Baghdad.

If you haven't seen the interview you need to because without knowing exactly what Cheney already knew, you can't make an intelligent decision about his reversal under Bush 43.

Continuing with Bush's LACK of vision, he certainly helped us with gross negligence during Katrina since he was all over Brownie's excellent management of the worst disaster in U.S. history. Moving on, his vision accepted the lunatic ravings of Lush Rimbaugh and put climate change on not even a back burner but on a forgotten camp stove in some national park he's leased to a wolf-killing rancher. He has allowed automakers, coal plants and other serial polluters to not just AVOID the clean air deadlines but to actually be allowed to adverstise on TV, Radio and the print media that these giant corporations were "achieving clean air standards BEFORE the federal deadlines". Really, how dishonestly dangerous is that to at least acknowledging the very real possibility that we could soon be near a "tipping point" in climate change - one that puts us past the point where we will ever be able to stop catastrophic events from being set into action SIMPLY due to our INACTION?

Come on! do you actually think that allowing these polluters to say they are achieving clean air standards BEFORE the government deadlines is a truthful way for Bush's EPA appointee to allow them to paint the picture? Why would you think moving the finish line and then lying to Americans by telling them we are "ahead of schedule" would be visionary or even the slightest bit above the lowest ethical decision a President could make?

Bush's vision (or lack thereof) continued. He certainly did not have enough vision to even heed the assassination-coveting Pat Robertson when he told Bush there would be many casualties in Iraq. Bush ignored him and for an administration full of oil and energy company veteran executives, not a single one of them foresaw Iraq War's length as a lasting effect that would eventually drive high oil prices to eat away at every single part of the economy like it has.

Neither did he see that the continuation of outsourcing, cheap imports and tax breaks that were disproportionately weak for the middle class would cause the only two things in the economy to be healthy to be the stock market and the employment rate.

Now that we realize that the employment rate can be skewed if the biggest "apply here" work sector happens to be for Wal-Mart greeters and that stock market profits NEVER trickle back down into the middle class with any great regularity, how is his vision on being "Business Friendly" categorized as being visionary or providing great leadership? In fact, why aren't you classifying them as the absolute failures they are?

And did I hear you bring up corruption? Where is the extra large OMG emoticon when I really need it?

From stealing elections with dirty tricks to the special favors and secret dealings with "Kenny Boy" Lay, I can't think of a single administration in modern history that has had more money shoved its way in return for legislative and regulatory influence than the Bush Administration has been able to reap from K street.

From Lay to Delay and from the Saudis to Abramoff, Bush has sold the country to the highest bidder. His dealings make Clinton's Chinese connection look like a constituent buying a politician's lunch in hopes that he will listen to his hard luck story about some bureaucratic SNAFU.

From the Auto-makers to the Mining barons, from the Drug companies to the Televangelists, from the defense Contractors to Blackwater, from Insurance companies to oil magnates, from Telecom companies to Utilities, from outsourcers to off-shore dummy companies, from the Natalie Plame's destruction to the Cheney, Rove and Libby lies under oath, from NAFTA to CAFTA, from defying the constitution to killing government funding of stem cell research, from economic figures adjusted for inflation to casualty figures skewed by life-saving field hospitals that bring home severely-maimed victims of a needless war that will cost them a fortune to live with any dignity, there is a heavy air of dishonesty and misinformation surrounding this President that makes Richard Nixon look like a choir boy.

Amlord, that was perhaps the most infuriating statement of false opinion I have read in long, long time.

The "Kibbles and Bits Award" goes to BoF for putting up with it with just a few obligatory protesting "ruffs".

To me, reading something like that assumes that I, as its reader, am blind and deaf to what Bush has done as a very poor President. I, too, believe it will take at least 25 years to judge him completely but that said, there will be no upward ascent of his final evaluation when all is said and done.

Sadly, we will only find out things that will lower him even more to spot where no one on today's political landscape will ever pass his ineptitude and dishonesty.

I have a friend who was a history major and he actually swears by Nixon, citing opening relations with China, and getting us out of Vietnam. I wonder if the China thing was necessarily a good thing on account of all those leaden toys.

How did I miss this post?

I will nominate it for best use of run-on sentences and being a general run-on post, so congratulations!!



If you define leadership as coming up with a goal and leading others towards it, how can you deny that Bush is better at it than a "govern by polls" President like Bill Clinton. I'm sorry if I think that leadership does not involve taking a poll and then saying "this is what we'll do". A robot or polling organization could provide that kind of leadership.

Bush has championed and stuck with some very unpopular policies, or has he?. Somehow, despite these same policies, he was re-elected in 2004, picking up 12 million more voters than in 2000, one additional state, and 15 more electoral votes in the process.




No one has presented convincing evidence that Bush could have done anything else. Yes, Katrina was not handled in the best possible manner. It was, however, handled in the way that past hurricanes had been handled: local officials were the point and FEMA provided supplemental supplies and assistance. I will not apologize for my preference for a decentralized government and nobody can blame Bush for the local incompetence.

Pollution is simply not an issue on my radar and the jury is still out on "global warming". This past winter was very cold hereabouts (Ohio) despite rising CO2 levels.





When, exactly, did we become a command economy? The President has absolutely no control over these areas.




Stealing elections? Partisan gobbledegook.

Kenny Boy? The guy was convicted by this administration and died before he could go to jail. I guess they should have drawn and quartered him.



Delay was a Congressman. Not under Bush's command. The Saudis? Come again? Tin foil hat must have fallen over your eyes there. Abramoff was largely a Congressional scandal, not a White House one. A few White House officials were convicted of obstruction.




Is this an infomercial? NAFTA is Bush's fault? Is it even a bad thing? Some of your gripes here are policy positions (stem cells), some are baseless, anti-business accusations.

By those standards, Hitler was a "great leader" too. He had a few goals, and he led Germany head first into those goals. Good thing he didn't let any polls get in his way. {YES! Another apropos Hitler reference strikes home!}

There is more to being a leader than getting people to do what you want. That's just being a manipulator. A leader, for example, would not be too stubborn to admit he made a huge mistake, then try to lead his people out of trouble.

____________________________________

Here is a transcript of a Bush v. Gore debate in 2000. Interesting reading, as it sheds some light on Bush's stated goals:


I was actually looking for the debate (which The Daily Show found) where Bush said something like, "I don't believe the U.S. should be telling other countries what to do. It's not our place." Couldn't find it, but I know it exists somewhere... Anyway, that link has transcripts of all the debates, and they are all hilarious reading, 8 years later.

More stuff from 02/16/2000:



Sounds to me like he had already made up his mind on Iraq, way back before 9/11.

I doubt any serious examiner would dispute that Hitler was a great leader--he certainly got people to do what he wanted them to do.

He was also evil incarnate, which is why Godwin's law was formulated. Being an effective leader is not enough to make a good President (or Chancellor).


Leadership does involve getting input from others. But leaders make decisions by definition.

An elected leader, such as Bush, is ultimately accountable for their decisions via elections. The Republicans are being punished for their lack of fiscal responsibility (my biggest beef, by far, with the Bush administration). How long does it take to realize you've made a mistake? How long are you allowed to correct it? In the White House, I guess the cycle is very short.

I'd have to admit that if you look at pure "leadership" standards, maybe WBush is a "good leader." I actually admire his "sticktoitiveness" and the fact that he has convictions and follows them. That doesn't make them right, though, which is the major point. He doesn't care that Iraq War is unpopular because he feels it's the right thing to do. If I were in favor of the Iraq War, I might view him as a great president, despite the economy sucking, and the high oil prices, and ignoring of Global Warming, and corporate-friendly... sorry what was I saying?

I will not say great, however "worst" is simply lacking in substantive examination.

The main beefs with Bush are:

-Iraq War. Popular at one time, now not so popular. The justifications are thought to be dubious by many people. To Bush, of course, they are not dubious. Casualties have been historically low and expeditures, although continually railed against, have also been historically low for defense spending during wartime. Defense spending was 9.5% of GDP during Vietnam and around 15% during Korea. Ours is currently about 4.1% of GDP.

-Economy. The economy mess is being driven by the mortgage "crunch" brought on by the federal government well before Bush ran for President. Bank regulators loosened lending criteria, forcing banks to lend money to those that had previously been deemed un-creditworthy. Who needs such outdated measures of credit worthiness such as income to debt ratios or minimum down payments or even (gasp) income verification? These devices were simply ways to keep minorities out of home ownership. Out they went and so a slew of new loans to those with shakey finances leads to us to: foreclosures! I can't imagine how we could have predicted this.

-Corporate malfeasance. This little gem is a laugher. The scandals involving Enron and Worldcom did not originate with the GWB era, they simply were discovered then. They originated in the dot-com boom days of the 1990s. Oversight of public companies and fuller disclosure is now the law of the land (Sarbanes-Oxley Act). Many argue that this law costs us trillions of dollars as it makes leaving the country more appealing. Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

-Loss of civil liberties. The discussion of this as the nightly news broadcasts lampoon the Presdient daily and praise his opponents is simply another laugher. We remain as free as ever, provided you aren't a terrorist. Gitmo is not full of people picked up off the streets of Dallas, Texas. It is populated by illegal enemy combatants. What are we supposed to do with these people?

The "domestic wiretapping" issue has also been blown way out of proportion. The FISA rules require warrants in some cases for two people, both of whom are overseas and neither of which is a US national. Idiotic. Bush has not been convincing enough on this issue, using broad language instead of specific, although I believe he has the correct position.

Alan Greenspan in his book "The Age of Turbulence" had an odd criticism of Bush: he felt that he should honor his campaign promises. Greenspan (who has been in Washington since the Ford administration but was also familiar with the Nixon administration) states that when new Presidents come in, they often adjust their positions from those they took on the campaign trail because of the reality of Washington politics. Bush didn't take this approach, insisting on following through on what he promised (especially tax cuts). Greenspan is very critical of the spending habits during the Bush administration, the abandoning of pay-go rules in the Congress, and the loss of fiscal discipline. Greenspan also bemoans the increased partisanship, but he ascribes the cause to the flight of conservative Democrats to the GOP, leaving the two parties in a liberal vs. conservative face off.

Anyway, it is way too soon to say how good or how bad a current administration may or may not be. The fruits (or rotten eggs, as the case may be) have not been realized yet.

Amlord- if you recall- the FBI has been found out to be GROSSLY abusing the FISA law- in fact, all your posts about them "not spying on domestic citizens without a warrant' - has been proven to be 100% false- we are talking THOUSANDS of unauthorized and inappropriate invasions of privacy now that have come out due to a whistleblower- in fact, they sent "letters" to the company AFTER the judge denied them a warrant based on no evidence, abuse of the need for a warrant etc.

The abuses of the constitution may be his BIGGEST failing as a president- he is possibly the worst since Nixon, probably equal, of abuse of power over innocent civilians.

Not to mention condoining and aiding and abbetting of torture of innocent civilians in "renditions".

That statement is 100% false Amlord, and you should know enough at this point to retract it.

The point is debateable. Yes, there is a balance between security and liberty (spare me any Franklin quotes, please).

However, to point to this and say "See!! see!! Worst ever!" ignores the McCarthy's, the J. Edgar Hoover's, the FBI Filegates of past eras. Heck, Lincoln is not rated anywhere near the bottom and he unilaterally suspended habeus corpus. FDR is considered among the top tier and he actually interred thousands of citizens in detention camps.

Seriously, let's get a sense of what's been done in the past before going spastic.

I think president Bush is a great president! I think the two things I disagree with him on is immigration and Medicare, other than that I would have done nothing different than he has.

I think he should be harder on congress, use his Constitutional authority to dismiss them when they can't work together like this recent legislation on FISA. Either dismiss them or call a joint session of congress every morning at 5:00AM just before he goes for his morning run. I simply worship the ground he walks on with the exceptions stated and I think history will be kind to him.

Imagine yourself as a soldier with this commander in chief, what a wonderful commander in chief, steadfast with no wet fingers in the breeze to make your sacrifice for nothing. He is great and the world is wrong about the actions he has taken to protect America.

Taking us to war under false pretenses, despite objection from the world community*, without any type of planning, ignoring reccomendations from people with actual military experience. Sending troops to war prematurely without any type of plan, proper equipment, keeping us there indefinitely, spending trillions in the process while underfunding domestic programs such as the idiotic "No Child Left Behind."

Ignoring problems such as global warming, mismanagement of the economy.

* Foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum. The same people who talk about a "global economy" want to ignore the rest of the world when they don't say what we want to hear. "We're going to attack Iraq whether you like it or not and if you don't agree with us then you're with the enemy."
That's not how you lead a country!

So if that's your idea of a great president...

Taking us to war under false pretenses: Apparently you haven't read this: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm Hum, Saddam gave the UN a list of WMD's that contained 250 tons of chemical-biological weapons that never got destroyed IAW UN guidelines. Following 9-11 several ounces of similar wmd's killed several postal workers and shut down the US Senate. President Bush practically begged Saddam to send the scientist that Saddam claimed destroyed the missing wmd's out of the country to be interviewed. Saddam said I'd rather go to war than send them out against their will. Read the report at the link above.

Every conflict in history can find a group of military experts with better or differing ideas and the Iraq War was no different. Proper equipment: We used the same equipment we used in the Gulf War and that President Clinton used in all of his military endeavors.

Keeping us there indefinitely: War is a failure of diplomacy and the war is over and our nation is now aiding the nation defeated to defend for itself, and yes we should stay there as long as it takes and spend as much as it takes.

No child left behind is discretionary spending and war is mandatory spending. The primary purpose of the federal government is to provide security for America and not social programs. Social programs are state issues that the federal government elbows itself into with money handouts and then threatens to take away money if you don't follow federal guidelines.

Global warming is a myth not supported by scientific study. As long as some scientist are willing to sue Al Gore and the UN for fraud it remains a myth.

If you want a fast cheap war then let's just nuke the Mid East and be done with it. It worked with Japan so perhaps we should use the military doctrine based on historical success that would cause Islam to strap on cameras and visit Disney world? What would the world think? Oh, let's not give America a reason to nuke us.

I haven't participated much in this thread but I wanted to link this jewel.


(History News Network Poll)

The complete article follows the above summary.

The idea that Bush is the worst president is based on the Iraq War in my opinion but the current evaluation is based on ideology. When you take a closer look twenty or thirty years from now it will look quite differently. The actual authority for war was that voted on for the Gulf War, the situation was a ceasefire and the violation of that ceasefire that met justification for a re-start of hostilities. The president and his administration addressed the nation
as to why he felt the intransigence of the Iraqi government was creating a threat to the ME and the US population. The president had authority to re-start hostilities and didn't require congresses authority to re-start hostilities... he needed money to fund the effort that he deemed necessary and that was why congress met and gave speeches and voted in support of the re-start of hostilities... it was a vote of CONFIDENCE, the congress was stating through their vote that they were confident that there was justification to re-start hostilities... it was up to congress and a decision was theirs as to support funding or not support funding. The congress could have voted in support of re-starting hostilities for one simple violation of the ceasefire agreement but they were offered numerous sources of reasons to support the president from domestic and foreign agencies alike.

I remember clearly Senator Byrd asking the senators of both parties to re-think their decision to support the re-start of hostilities, he asked that they walk to the Vietnam Memorial and reflect... All refused, they were confident in their minds that the action should be supported without further discussion or investigation.

Think about how everything went down as history will remember it, for example an exchange leading up to the vote of confidence

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080246/

Senator Kerry had given this speech on the floor of the senate that contained an almost equal for and against position on the war. His speech was not unlike almost every other Democratic senator that voted for the war. http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/kerryspeech.asp

When tens of thousands of US soldiers weren't gassed during the invasion those on the left lost their confidence in their decision and looked for a political way to come out smelling like a rose. It would appear to me that those who voted for the war were quite sure of their vote, think about it they were voting on sending tens of thousands of US servicemen and women into a NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical environment). How will history judge these senators for suddenly adjusting their logic for voting in confidence and blame the War on Bush?

The president has no funds to go to war, he has the authority given by the Gulf War that was placed on hold pending the satisfactory completion of a ceasefire agreement. Congress had the funds and only congress so how can the President be held responsible for America's Gulf War and the re-start of hostilities now known as the Iraq War?

The problem is that Mr. Bush intentionally misled Congress and the nation with misleading information about the facts and the reasons going to war. The senators involved realized this mistake and called for the war to be pulled back. There comes a time when you have to realize that things are not on the right course and your plans have to be adjusted. Bush has stubbornly failed to realize that fact.



The bottom line is that no WMDs were ever found. There has never been any proven link between Saddam and Al-Quaeda, which was the very reason we were given for going there! You say the equipment we have over there is the same as in the first Gulf War? Well if it is, then maybe that's the problem. The fact is, it's not enough for THIS war. Soldiers are getting blown up because their vehicles lack proper armor. That's unacceptable. We cannot afford to be kept there indefinitely - we're trying to build up Iraq while the U.S goes to seed. The bottom line is that we were rushed into the war without adequate reason, had no plans on how to rebuild after hostilities ended, which resulted in utter chaos after our bungling led to the insurgency. There were military officials who said we needed more troops to secure the country, needed more armor, questioned rushing into the war so quickly, and they got shut up and dismissed. Bush & Co had their eyes on Iraq from the moment the planes hit the towers. It was a tunnel vision where they were going to look for any reason to attack Saddam. WMDs, revenge, it didn't matter. Iraq was their target from the very beginning, no matter what the world community or their own advisors had to say.
And No Child Left Behind IS mandatory spending because it's a mandatory program. No one would be happier than me if the program was abolished, but the president makes empty promises about improving education in the U.S., makes a mandatory program that doesn't even work, then underfunds it. If it's so discretionary, then cancel it.

I have a challenge for you to address your first statement, I posted a link to Senator Kerry's speech leading up to his "Yea" vote of confidence, please identify in his speech what parts of his speech were based on lies that you claim the president or his administration made. List with reference the alleged lies that president Bush administration presented and then link them to supporting statements Kerry made. Do the same for any other congressperson or senator that voted in support of the administration. The link to Senator Kerry's speech will allow you to research each speech given in the Senate and the House of Representatives. While you are doing your research check out a few of the speeches of those senators and representatives that voted "Nay" and see if they, in fact made statements that validated their "Nay" votes that match the alleged lies. Apply logic and reason when comparing the statements of the "Yea's and Nay's" regardless of party affiliation and ask yourself this question... if those who identified doubt voting nay identified valid facts then why did the others that voted yea not do further investigation on the most important vote of their life?

Here is a link that explains federal government budgeting http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/glossary.html Now go read the US Constitution and identify the important functions of the federal government. Clearly based on the liability of the US government to mandatory spending all programs not directly related to mandatory spending and defence should be immediately closed or taxes should be tripled. The federal government has no responsibility to keep the states from going to seed but to protect the nation from enemies foreign and domestic.

The historical facts will read that the US congress voted to support the re-start of hostilities with Iraq for cause, the violation of the ceasefire agreement. Intelligence proved to be wrong that indicated the threat to the US and neighbors of Iraq. The government of Iraq was overthrown, there was a period of instability that ended resulting in a stable ally to the US. America is beyond failure in Iraq and as a result due to the resolve of president Bush stability in the Mid East was the result. History will show that had it not been for president Bush's resolve in the face of opposition of the Democratic Party and some from his own party the ME would have spiraled into chaos. He will be remembered as a great president and those who opposed will be blamed for delaying the ultimate peace in the ME region.

Back to my challenge, the Democratic Party gained a majority in 2006 but chose not to impeach president Bush, please explain, if in fact you prove the alleged lies why this Democratic Party majority didn't do their constitutional duty? I think you will answer your own question when you complete the challenge, they, the Democratic Party invented "Bush lied" for political expediency.

Your question is so simple in it's answer that I have to quote the last guy to actually go with an impeachment- Newt Gingrich- "Impeachment is more about political will than case law"- we all know the impeachment against Clinton was needless, stupid and a waste of time. It was nothing more than a political witch hunt, and it cost those that led it thier jobs and power, and demarked where the Zenith of the Neo-con power crested. After that, it really highlighted the failure of the entire "neo-con" ideology- and GW put a cap on it by screwing up a wet dream- pretty hard to take the entire global reaction of sympathy of support and empathy to the world thinking we are the most dangerous imperialistic power since hitler- incompetance that makes it look like Terry Schiavo could do a better job running the country- AFTER she was laid to rest.

Basically- why run an impeachment on GW, when the political cost is so high, and he is a lame duck already- he will cost the republican party thier complete lock on power they use to have- they will lose the presidency, already lost both houses of the legislative branch, and, if Obama wins for 8 years- he will probably move the supreme court back to center.

After his speech, his popularity is at a new low of 28%.

With numbers like this- why would dems need to impeach now?

Even better, get a majority in both houses, plus a new prez- no stonewalling of the investigation- might be able to even get him on treason charges- or better yet, just arrest his butt and frog walk him into the hague- that would be the best scenario yet-

but I doubt that will happen- GW is the best campaign tool the dems have- why would they want to get rid of that symbol?

I mean, all they have to do is run against GW, as a symbol of the failure of the republican party?

Personally- I don't think most of the US really holds the senate and house responsible for voting for the hostilities against Iraq- simply because GW outright lied to congress- if someone lies to you, and you make a judgement based on that lie- then you are absolved of the negative responsibilites of those decisions.

Kerry, Clinton and others that "voted for the war in Iraq"- did so because GW lied about the evidence.

Why should they bare any responsibility for thier vote based on that fact?

The dems are lucky that the ruinous policies of the economy came home to roost BEFORE the election- that was what worried me most- that the dems would get blamed for GWs screwing up of the economy too.

Okay- let's go down GWs failures and incompetence and lies:

1) Biggest spender in US history

2) Lied about reasons for Iraq war- which wouldn't have been so bad had he a real plan for winning it- this double whammy alone puts him in the top 5 worst presidents in US history

3) Total domestic incompetance- I mean, you have to go to other countries that are "kleptocracy" based to get as much incompetance and stupidity.

4) Lied about the cost of the medicaid drug bill

5) NCLB was based on the "texas miracle" which is , in fact "a texas lie"

6) Gave away state secrets just to go after political enemies, and when they were convicted- "commuted" thier sentance.

Corruption, incompetance and outright treasonous behavior- yeah, that puts him right up there.

Separating the "substance" (if you can call it that) from the rants:


1. False charge. Spending on a GDP basis is not at a high point. Neither is deficit spending. Sure, in absolute dollars these things are right, but the US government spends more per day than the government spent in the first 50 years of existence.

2. Spin and opinion. The "lies" used to "sell" the war were believed and repeated by many, many people on both sides of the aisle, including Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller and many others.

3. Blanket statement with no substance whatsoever.

4. Do you mean Medicare? Sure this is a sign of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and his desire to work with Democrats to pass idiotic entitlements. A bipartisan bill is not grounds for "Worst President" honors.

5. Opinion. Many educators actually like NCLB.

6. Is this an obscure reference to Plame/Libby? If it is, it is wildly inaccurate.

Just for the record, I voted for the second option. I don’t think historians will be kind to Bush, but we are three decades or so from objective assessment.

Now on to dispute one of Amlord’s statements.


Yeah, you are probably right. There are also people who worship "Satan." But how many educators (what percentage) like NCLB as it has been implemented. Thanks for labeling this as opinion, but what informs your opinion?

Here are some words from educators who do not like NCLB.


http://www.nea.org/esea/nclbstories/nclbnd02.html


http://www.nea.org/esea/nclbstories/nclbvt01.html


http://www.nea.org/esea/nclbstories/nclbhi07.html


http://www.nea.org/esea/nclbstories/nclbmn03.html


http://www.nea.org/esea/nclbstories/nclbid02.html

Here’s a link to some other educator opinions about NCLB and its implementation.

http://www.nea.org/esea/nclbstories/video1.html

BTW: Before you label this as a biased union opinions, remember, Amlord, you provided zilch to support yours.

Okay, for the record, this IS simple union opinion. And garbage at that. As in, the members of these unions do not support what the union jabberjaws say.

http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/PRArt...aspx?NewsID=184



CR's original post was a drive by with no substance so why should I respond in detail to each "point"? One fact, verifiable, was enough to refute his rant.

This, Amlord, is the opinion of a Republican House member, Howard McKeon, who most likely voted for NCLB, and has a vested interest in seeing that it continues, regardless of how poorly it has been implemented.

This guy does not qualify as one of those "many" educators you spoke of. For god's sake, he's a politician.

BTW: You are no longer debating CR, but a retired educator with 34 years experience, so consider yourself obligated to make specific posts and back them up with something credible.

I quoted the relevant survey. Who cares where it was posted. It is the CONTENT that matters.



According to the non-partisan ETS's survey of educators and administrators, 75% of those in the education profession support the renewal of NCLB.

Educational testing service is not primarily a polling organization, but a test publisher.

Non-partisan, rather than non-profit, might be a better qualification. In looking at an editorial by Kurt M. Landgraf, President & CEO, ETS, it seems they are partisan. In fact, it seems logical that a testing firm might skew “research” in the direction of a program that employs heavy testing.


http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuite...00022f95190RCRD

BTW: With the exception of a few for profit Teacher unions, like United Educators Association in Fort Worth, teacher unions are also non-profit. What's your point.

I'm really biting my lip here to try to keep my Moderator-ship...

The survey says that NCLB is supported by teachers. Many people have questioned why teachers support it.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding.

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/achi...rt-card2007.pdf