joe-pro-photographer joe-pro-photographer

Why Bush will go down as the Worst President Ever

▼

Why Bush will go down as the Worst President Ever

My first posting seems to have disappeared....

from JoeUser Forums
]"The reasons why we went to war in Iraq don't matter any more, we are there and that mission is accomplished."

That's a quote from a fellow blogger, buried under 99 other responses. Of course, I think he's wrong. The reasons we went to war in Iraq are central to our mission, and those reasons are changed and manipulated at the whim of this administration.

Measures of success, in a similar fashion, are "evolved".

Today, Bush cites the lower death tolls and levels of violence as his barometer of success. Never mind these numbers, when they were bad, were classified by this administration and kept from the American people. Never mind that photos of our soldiers, those who were killed in the ultimate sacrafice for our country, were hidden from view (and the photographers vilified.) Never mind that we seem to prop up the least likely leaders in a country whose termoil reaches back to about 400 ad, if not beyond. Never mind Bush seeks the advice of the Saudis (since before Bush was even elected)to shape his form policy. (wording is deliberate).

The reasons we went to war in Iraq are key. Those reasons set the framework of what our goals -- and measures of success -- should be. By losing view of those reasons, we muddle around in waters that should be crystal clear. Perhaps it is this lack of vision which leads to scandals like Abu Grab. Perhaps it is because we are blinded by confusion we can't see the forest for the trees. When our truest beliefs -- that freedom and justice and a certain moral action -- are shoved aside in the name of security is counter-American.

That's why I believe this administration, no matter what the outcome of the Iraq war, will be viewed as one of the worse in our more than 200 year history. I believe this Administration is unamerican.

Response? None will be deleted. That, also, is UnAmerican.
38,678 views 106 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
(American and non-American)based on faulty intelligence (that was pretty obviously faulty),



if it was obviously faulty to you then why didnt you speak up. if your an american it is your duty to bring such matters to the public. as long as it is the truth.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have a talent for writing,


of course he/she/it has a talent for writing. he/she/it is a professional.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
What about the troops who think we shouldn't be in Iraq?


a couple of years ago i got to talk to one of our returning troops. his comment was that the majority of the Iraqis was happy that we were there.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is also an argument unique to this Administration in scope: if you are against us,you are against our troops and unamerican. That reasoning is perhaps the single biggest example of how this President thinks outside the lines of the Constitution and is perhaps the worst in history.

See that is spin.  Bush was not talking about Democrats or political opponents, nor did the administration ever accuse them of that.  He was talking about and to Terror states (specifically North Korea, Iran and Iraq).  But yes, it will be taken out of context, screeched about at demigoging speeches (ala Shillary) and made to look like George Bush is trying to be George Orwell.

Bush is no Abe.

Being new, you have not seen some of the issues some here at JU have with Abe.  But suffice it to say, that I am glad Bush is not Abe.  For all the feigned pain of the Patriot Act, and allegations (false as they are) of Constitution being circumvented, are nothing in comparison to what Lincoln (or for that matter Wilson and FDR as well) did to the laws and Constitution of this land during their wars. If Bush had even tried one step in the direction Lincoln took, there would be no calls for impeachment by the loonatic fringe - he would have already been impeached 4 years ago.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
if it was obviously faulty to you then why didnt you speak up. if your an american it is your duty to bring such matters to the public. as long as it is the truth.


hmmm. Daniel, tone down the nasty. Obviously, it is after the fact this knowledge became declassified. I am not the Secretary of Defense. I am a photographer. Which brings me to my next point: read my other postings. I am not a writer, I am a he, and while you may not agree with what I say you will respect my right to say it. And, I hope, evaluate your standing opinions (as I do) based on new info. As for when and where Bush sidestepped the constitution, I'll leave that up to the Supreme Court and the various cases. Many of which the court has already ruled Bush overstepped his bounds. That's why we have courts, and a press, and checks and balances. That's why we have the system we do, and thank God for it.

Even Republicans view signing statements with skepticism. And, when we are in a position arguing over if something is torture or not, it hurts American credibility no matter which side of the water board you stand.

I have to run. Best wishes,
M
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
By voicing their opinions when they return (they aren't permitted to when they serve), are they not supporting themselves?


Funny, I seem to recall expressing myself quite regularly even from within a combat zone.

Additionally our re-up rate was far larger in Iraq than when we were in garrison. Soldiers didn't (and don't) want to sit on their asses in the States, they would rather be in Iraq or Afghanistan.

If they would have let me stay in Iraq, I never would have left the Army.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
this is double talk good double talk but double talk.


Thanks, but no, it's not. I think Bush was right on the surge. I think he was right when he doubled the funding for NIH. I think he was right to attack Afghanistan. I think he reacted well (after 1 fish two fish) immediately after 9/11 and showed great courage. I think he was smart on Alito. I think he's made some errors that will go down as some of the poorest decisions in American history.

Gotta run and actually work,
M
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
At the risk of sounding like I applaud sidestepping the U.S. Constitution... if you look back at how history has treated our presidents, all of the ones considered "great" took their turn at ignoring the Constitution. On the other hand, the ones that nobody can remember without help from Wikipedia, usually stayed well within their Constitutional authorities.

I'm not sure exactly what to make of that, but it is an interesting little tidbit. ;~D
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
hmmm. Daniel, tone down the nasty. Obviously, it is after the fact this knowledge became declassified. I am not the Secretary of Defense. I am a photographer. Which brings me to my next point: read my other postings. I am not a writer, I am a he, and while you may not agree with what I say you will respect my right to say it. And, I hope, evaluate your standing opinions (as I do) based on new info. As for when and where Bush sidestepped the constitution, I'll leave that up to the Supreme Court and the various cases. Many of which the court has already ruled Bush overstepped his bounds. That's why we have courts, and a press, and checks and balances. That's why we have the system we do, and thank God for it.




the only one i can think of is the wire tapping. and what did the democrats do. they proposed and passed a law making it legal for him to do that which the supreme court said was unconstitutional. and this was a court with his judges in it.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
If they would have let me stay in Iraq, I never would have left the Army.


sorry but the army is correct in making troops come home and recoup for a while from combat.


even in the bible after combat the troops that had killed had to stay away from everyone for three days.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Funny, I seem to recall expressing myself quite regularly even from within a combat zone.Additionally our re-up rate was far larger in Iraq than when we were in garrison. Soldiers didn't (and don't) want to sit on their asses in the States, they would rather be in Iraq or Afghanistan.If they would have let me stay in Iraq, I never would have left the Army.


Good god, I gotta get some work done. But, yes, this is also my experience in my interactions with vets, including those who are now quads. Wanting to reenlist, though, may or may not mean they support the overall mission in Iraq. My experience is soldiers want to go back to support their buddies, their unit. The idea that friends are fighting and dying while they sit stateside is horrible.

I've had plenty of soldiers tell me directly that they don't support the war, or perhaps they don't know if they support the war, but are desperate to get back to their post. I don't think reup rates tell you what soldiers feel.

My mother-in-law has 5 kids serving in Iraq. 5! She is NOT a Bush supporter, and that's putting it nicely. My point: she sure as hell supports her kids, many of which have multiple tours.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's why we have courts, and a press, and checks and balances. That's why we have the system we do, and thank God for it.


i agree with this but i don't think it was pointed at bush.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not sure exactly what to make of that, but it is an interesting little tidbit.


And potentially a dangerous one. Everyone remembers Hitler. But I'm grandstanding, I know what you mean. And I don't necessarily disagree. Gotta run! M
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
read my other postings. I am not a writer, I am a he, and while you may not agree with what I say you will respect my right to say it.


and according to your tone unless i agree with you. i have to give up my right to say what i believe.


you have stated in the past that you are/were a reporter. a reporter is a professional writer. if you are only a photographer as you name implies. you can still be a semi professional writer.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
and you libs keep forgetting one thing


the congress had the same info that the president had. congress declared war. i will accept genes argument that the congress only wanted the president to talk tuff. you don't declare war just to talk tuff.

the British had the same info that the president had. in fact they collected some of it.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
For me the bottom line is are we less likely to be attacked in the future because of our invasion of Iraq? HELL NO. We have increased our efforts to STOP attacks by the terrorists. However the Bush argument that we should fight them over there rather then over here is a false argument because our invasion of Iraq has not reduced the danger from future attacks over here.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, that sure worked through the 90s, idiot!

Hey Gene, do you have any original thoughts? Or do you just rehash the same tired lines you found on a MoveOn.org website 8 years ago? I'd really like to know if there is an original thought in your head.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
and according to your tone unless i agree with you. i have to give up my right to say what i believe.


you have stated in the past that you are/were a reporter. a reporter is a professional writer. if you are only a photographer as you name implies. you can still be a semi professional writer.


my tone replies to the "he/she/it" comment. No, I am a photographer, have almost always been a photographer, and leave the writing to others. I did, however, take writing in college. My sister teaches English, and my dad was in the media. That, however, isn't me.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
congress had the same info that the president had.


not according to members of congress. I defer to them. And, by members, I mean those on both sides of the aisle. Congress DOES NOT have the same top secret evidence available to the white house. And, infact, not all members have access to the same info. Those on the Intelligence Committee, for example, have a wider security clearance than those on Finance. So, unless the rules have drastically changed, your argument falls short on the facts.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Again, and I know this is just a waste of my effort, this discussion is not on whether we should have invaded Iraq. This discussion is on whether Bush is one of the worst presidents in history. You may think those two things are tied together, and in a way they are. But what bothers me more than our efforts in Iraq is the, yes, State Of Denial the administration seems to live in and the liberties they they take with our liberties.

Back to work! (photographing)(that's what I am, a photographer) (that's why I have the cameras) (that's why I don't write articles, 'cause, um, I'm a photographer)

M
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we had the Liberals in power in 1860 the civil war would not have happened, or if it did happen after the first serious battle where 7 or 8 thousand troops were killed it would have been called off, slavery would still be here in America if one President did not void certain constitutional rights {honest Abe} Yet today Abe is considered one of the greatest presidents we have ever had, History will place Bush where he belongs. not us!
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)ParaTed2kNovember 20, 2007 11:26:48Reply #42
Yeah, that sure worked through the 90s, idiot!

Hey Gene, do you have any original thoughts? Or do you just rehash the same tired lines you found on a MoveOn.org website 8 years ago? I'd really like to know if there is an original thought in your head.


Compared with the Bush/GOP thoughts my ideas are light-years ahead of their thoughts or yours!

Many of my ideas are basic concepts that Bush and his minions IGNORE like to balance the Budget. That concept may not be NEW but it surely is needed!
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
the liberties they they take with our liberties.


i have to agree here.

the last people i know of that had a so called home land security was Germany world war 2, the soviet union. and neither of them cared about anyones rights either. except of course for the leaders.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
History will place Bush where he belongs. not us


Very, very well said.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daniel,
I admit my add kicks in on a regular basis, but I'm not finding your quote (the liberties they take with our liberties). It's well said, though, if I'm lucky it's one of mine but probably not. And I agree with our elongation of the point. I get worried when people tell us stuff is for our own good. I get nervous with a governmet that pokes it's nose in where it really doesn't belong (my bedroom). I get nervous when governments tell us they are better stewards of our money than we are. (the current crazy tax system). On those fronts, I'm pretty conservative. But, I get the most nervous when people (far left and far right) suggest not speaking is better than speaking.

Gene: you are very original, I think. Thanks for your participation here.
Ted's comment, however, was kinda funny. The Move On part. Forgive me, I'm still pissed over the General Betrayus ad.

Last, history will be the judge of Bush, not us. That's true. History is judging Reagan better than I ever dreamed possible. So, perhaps I'm off here. But if I was Bush's defense attorney, I'd be looking to buy a juror or two.