W is the Best President in History

I have been convinced I am wrong (last in a three part series)

I repent! I am on my knees! (Mind out of the gutter). I have been convinced. I see the light! I have sinned! Forgive me, please, forgive me!

Bush is a great man. He is the finest example of a leader I've ever seen. Let's start from the start, even before W was elected. He knew he was incompetent on foreign policy, so he enlisted the help of a top, unbiased expert in the field: the ambassador of Saudi Arabia. Yes, he got private tutoring sessions from the Ambassador, and was quickly brought up to speed on all things international. No, I really don't think this has anything to do with the climbing gas prices. That's because of Hurricane Katrina! Boy, are you wacked.

Then, after elected, 9/11 changed the face of the earth. We were attacked, so Bush went after the terrorists (well, at first, anyway). Then he did something very brave, indeed, he waged a TWO FRONT WAR. Afghanistan and Iraq. How ballsy is that? Yeee Ha! Then, just to be extra smart, he put Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary. Now, I know, Rummy has gotten a lot of flack for his snowflakes, but still. He whipped the DOD right into shape, didn't he? Let's hear it for "small, tactical forces" instead of "overwhelming victory". And who needs the Joint Chief of Staffs as an independent voice, anyway? They're just a bunch of old generals. Rummy's approach to them was a stroke of genius.

Oh, I know, Powell (that little wimp) wanted a full -fledge, drown them with guns so they can't pop up again, assault. But that dissenter soon got his come-upance. Yup, Bush fired his no good ass and replaced him with Rice. She's really an independent thinker, now, isn't she!

Then, just for good measure, he told the American People we must invade Iraq because SH was going to bomb us at any minute! WE MUST FIGHT THEM THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM HERE. THEY HAVE YELLOW CAKE! DOOM IS IMMINENT! That nasty SH, I know, let's have a policy of debathication so we don't have any leaders at all left in Iraq and we'll have exhiles run the country -- even though they have no support of the population. That's true forward thinking. That's thinking outside the box.

So then the war is over, and Bush declared victory. "Mission Accomplished". Wow, in short order, too. I'm really glad he kept the casualty numbers (of Iraq civilians) top secret, we don't need to know that stuff, same with the ever rising number of violent incidents in the following months (and years). I wanted to hear about Terri Schaivo and that murdering husband who tried to snuff her drooling head out a long time ago. Or, about the Homosexuals who are about to change the face of marriage as we know it. But I digress.

And when Bush surrounded himself with "yes men" so he had no alternate opinion (and thus thought WMDs were a 'slam dunk') that was BRILLIANT. That's just what they've done at the big mortgage corporations like Countrywide. See, Bush is a great business leader, too. Maybe he'll manage my 401 K?

Outing Plame: anothe stroke of genius. The wire tapping program: get those terrorists! Keeping people in prison with no hope of a trial: THEY ARE TERRORISTS not people! Hello! Dunking them so they think they are drowning -- I call that 'information seeking' and "shower". Pansies.

Oh, and let's not forget the care we give our vets when they return home (if they are not shipped right back out again). ("You wanna kill yourself? No? Good, on the plane you go, good luck to ya!) It was only ONE building at Walter Reed that had rats, bugs and mold. Geeze. Suck it up. Waiting list for medical benefits? Only half year or so, not bad, not bad. We treat our vets RIGHT.

I could go on, but we all know Bush is the dude we want to have a beer with. Yeah, that's gonna happen! Just the other day, I had a call on my answering machine that was an "unavailable" number! It was W, I know it, calling me for that beer.

I'm COMMIN' GW, I'm COMMIN! Don't eat all the burgers!

(This is the last in a three part series. I just couldn't help myself. And, for all those of you who say "Bush hater, sooo 2007" I wrote this installment. It's dedicated to you, enjoy!)"
24,865 views 50 replies
Reply #1 Top
Well, that's Bush done. Let's forget the anni horribilis and look to 2008.
Reply #2 Top
should auld dictators be forgot and never brought to mind...

Just don't vote for Hillary this year and we'll be doing fine!
Reply #3 Top

Taking a step back as history will look at it:

1) No new terrorist attacks against the US since 9/11

2) The Taliban in Afghanistan removed and a democratic government put in its place with a trivial # of casualties.

3) Saddam Hussein removed and a democratic government put in its place with less than 5,000 total combat deaths.

4) US economy has improved dramatically since 9/11

I don't like Bush but it doesn't take a thorough knowledge of history to have enough perspective that the accomplishments of the pat 7 years are pretty significant.  Most of what you mention is minutia that nobody will care about in 20 years (I mean seriously, you're hyped up about Plame? That just screams ideologue to me).

Reply #4 Top
November 23, 2007 15:02:43Reply #3
Taking a step back as history will look at it:
1) No new terrorist attacks against the US since 9/11.That has NOTHING to do with our invasion of Iraq

2) The Taliban in Afghanistan removed and a democratic government put in its place with a trivial # of casualties. We now have fighting in Afghanistan at the same level as just after 9/11. The poppy problem is worse then ever and Bin Laden is still free.

3) Saddam Hussein removed and a democratic government put in its place with less than 5,000 total combat deaths. That does not count about 100,000 Iraq dead and 3 million who have fled the country and the 28,000 injured American Troops.. We have a new government in Iraq that can not govern! GREAT JOB!!!


[/B]4) US economy has improved dramatically since 9/11. Middle income wages after inflation down. Millions of manufacturing jobs lost. Millions of people in danger of loosing their homes. Real Estate market in the toilet. Stock market down about 1,000 points. National Debt over $9 Trillion. The jobs being crated pay less then a living wage with few if any benefits. Only the wealthy are doing well. GREAT economy!

I don't like Bush but it doesn't take a thorough knowledge of history to have enough perspective that the accomplishments of the pat 7 years are pretty significant. Most of what you mention is minutia that nobody will care about in 20 years (I mean seriously, you're hyped up about Plame? That just screams ideologue to me).


Reply #5 Top
(I mean seriously, you're hyped up about Plame? That just screams ideologue to me).


Me, no. But I couldn't resist putting her in. Frankly, I don't care at all about Plame. But when listing my favorite Bush faux pa's, it's a political foot in mouth and fun to torment with.

Your reasons are just more fodder about the Great job Bush is doing. He truely is a stellar leader. I think I'll launch a line of W trading cards.
M
Reply #6 Top
) No new terrorist attacks against the US since 9/11


there have been 6. non have succeeded
Reply #7 Top
Gene, I feel pretty satisfied that the points I made are relevant to people who aren't kooks.  So I guess what I'm saying is that my comment was directed towards people who matter. Your responses are merely redirects that have nothing to do with the points I made.
Reply #8 Top
Your responses are merely redirects that have nothing to do with the points I made.


I usually don't take sides with Col Gene, he is right about 1 thing. So are you.

There has been no further attack on America since 9/11. Somehow, professionnal work made by our goverments (but mostly the USA) managed to cripple Al-Qaeda very hard. Terrorists has a hard time striking the USA outside of Iraq or Afganistan.


I want to ask you one specific question to you, Draginol, and have an honnest question.

Do you agree that, while the Iraqi invasion bringed some good out of something, either in America or in the Middle-East, the USA are less able to control Iran about it's nuclear project than they could have been, minus the Iraqi invasion?

And now, what do you think would have been the largest treath? A non-invaded Iraq under Saddam Hussein, or an Ayatolla-controled one that many country, at the time, agreed that it was developping the Atomic Bomb, as opposed to Iraq)
Reply #9 Top
No, I really don't think this has anything to do with the climbing gas prices.


So, despite the fact that we didn't really use Iraqi oil, or that the situation during the wars Iraqi oil production wise has been more or less stable (no, I didn't say it was any good, I said stable.) we're blaming the oil prices on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan again?

And you're right. Katrina had no influence on oil prices, nor did the downtime on a large portion of the refinery industry. Surely.

Of course, it might have something to do with insane financial penalties on domesticly produced oil, (gotta keep up the reserves) artificial inflation by the industry, or even one of the highest rates of private speculation, especially by small time investors (thank you internet trade) remniscent of the economically classic example of the Tulip Craze......I'm sorry, I fell asleep. Stupid economics. Erm....no blood for oil?

And as for vets? Please don't help us anymore. I'm not sure I could take any more help from liberal media. (except for you Colbert, when I'm a conservative president, you can lampoon me at a national press dinner any day. )

That said, nice rant. Angry. Nice bit of rage, just the right tone of sarcasm. Could have used a wee bit more funny name calling, but that's really a personal choice. Your politics of course are whack job, but I admire you as a glorious opponent and I salute you. Tongue in cheek of course, but I salute you nonetheless.
Next time GADGET!!!!!! NEXT TIME!!!!!!
Reply #10 Top
Your politics of course are whack job,


Sigh. And here I present a nice, point by point argument and get a Rush Limbaugh response, oh well. If three tretise on this subject don't make a dent, 300 more won't either.

As for oil, I am no economist. But I know this: it is in W's interest (and the lobbyists who support him) to keep price up. He is strangely silent on the issue and has shown no leadership. It's bad when Venezuela can out manuever him politically on this issue.

I'm kind of tired of trying to rationally debate, point by point. No wonder people resort to "I'm tired of help by the liberal meadia" in their responses. Sigh. If I were you, I'd take all the help I can get -- I've sat in many, many defense forums looking at this problem (veteran health care). The problem is real and needs real solutions. I'm a big believer in not cutting off those who might have solutions, no matter which side of the aisle they sit on.
Reply #11 Top
Oh, and one more thing regarding "no terrorists attacks since 9/11". For the 100th time, I'm not sure attacking Iraq was a bad thing. The execution and planning sucked. I think afghanistan was the right approach. I also think we are smarter than the terrorists, and have figured out they attack with box cutters while we attack with guts, nerve, and an few high powered weapons. We've kept 'em busy and distracted, no doubt. But nut cases are strange: they never quite go away. And, eventually, out will come the box cutters or worse. Until then, I'm not going to live in fear or give up my rights.

"Just like a ****, bringing a knife to a gun fight".

Of course, we know what happened to him.

I'll remind this group: I covered the crash of the world trade center at ground zero. I know what a few box cutters and two jets can do. We better be prepared for a different type of attack in the future. There are no shortage of weapons or people in poor countries willing to die for a cause. We can attack every sh*t hole in the world, and we still face very real danger. One I hope to never photograph again, but probably will.
M
Reply #12 Top
the last president that tried to help with oil prices. caused the problem we have now.
Reply #13 Top
Really? Who would that be, Carter? Clinton? I think American's (and China's) glutony caused the current oil prices. What do you drive? A hybred? An SUV? A 8 mpg Hummer? DEMAND is what is causing our current problems. What is it detroit has been churning out? Why is it Detroit has to purchase hybred techology from Honda and Toyota?

Where is our leadership on this?
Reply #14 Top
, Carter?


he tried to make the gas companies lower prices. ended up with them going over seas for their oil.
Reply #15 Top
Stretching back a little ways, then, aren't we? You don't think our (and I mean the WORLD here,not just bad 'ol USA) gobbling up of oil has anything to do with it? What about supply and demand?
Reply #16 Top
Really? Who would that be, Carter? Clinton? I think American's (and China's) glutony caused the current oil prices. What do you drive? A hybred? An SUV? A 8 mpg Hummer? DEMAND is what is causing our current problems. What is it detroit has been churning out?


It's not about WHAT you drive, joe-pro, but HOW you drive. We drive a 99 Suburban because, well, they have yet to make an affordable hybrid that can carry 8 passengers. Our Suburban gets 20MPG, however, and it is our only vehicle (besides a gas guzzling hauling truck on which we've literally clocked about 100 miles in the last 6 months). We live 15 miles outside of town, and I rarely top 55mph to maximize fuel effiency. Compare that with a dual income family commuting 22 miles (which is about the average commute) and driving 2 40MPG vehicles, and our usage works out about the same.

However, it does not stop there. In three years at this address, our electricity bill has never topped $65 (and is usually in the $25-40 range), and our gas and water bills usually average about $100.

We're doing our part to conserve, and, contrary to what the pundits would have you believe, the type of car you drive is one SMALL part of being environmentally responsible.
Reply #17 Top
Oh, I agree with you. I really do. And while I talk a good game, I drive all over creation for work between three cities. So our carbon footprint is probably -- well, I don't know.

But my point remains. Higher demand for oil creates higher prices. BTW, read my latest post "Come all ye faithful"...I think you of all people will like it.

I gotta run (getting the evil eye) but I'll catch you later.
M
Reply #18 Top
Also, I GET PERSONAL EMAILS FROM AL GORE. I bet you don't. nah nah nah nah boo boo.
(ok, not personal, but they do say "Dear (insert first name)...)
Reply #19 Top
Also, I GET PERSONAL EMAILS FROM AL GORE. I bet you don't. nah nah nah nah boo boo.
(ok, not personal, but they do say "Dear (insert first name)...)


No, I just get personal emails from Ron Paul!

LOL!
Reply #20 Top
I GET PERSONAL EMAILS FROM AL GORE. I


No, I just get personal emails from Ron Paul!


so
Reply #21 Top
so


Get over it. He was joking, and I simply joked back.
Reply #22 Top
Get over it. He was joking, and I simply joked back.


and i wasn't
Reply #24 Top

Do you agree that, while the Iraqi invasion bringed some good out of something, either in America or in the Middle-East, the USA are less able to control Iran about it's nuclear project than they could have been, minus the Iraqi invasion?

And now, what do you think would have been the largest treath? A non-invaded Iraq under Saddam Hussein, or an Ayatolla-controled one that many country, at the time, agreed that it was developping the Atomic Bomb, as opposed to Iraq)

If Saddam hadn't been removed, there woul be no possibility of putting pressure on Iran.

There is a map of the middle east.

How exactly would the US put pressure on Iran in a scenario where Saddam is still there?

So removing Saddam has been a big positive for the United States.  If you remove the emotions from the equation and look at it in pure, cold, geopolitical realities, the Iraq invasion has been extremely successful.

Whether one AGREES that we should have gone into Iraq or not on moral, ethical, or legal grounds or not is a totally different discussion. 

A non-invaded Iraq would have meant that Iran would have a totally free hand because nobody could, logistically, do anything to them and we would still have Iraq there as well.

Now, personally, I don't consider Iran our problem. If the EU and such aren't willing to step up, then that's their problem. I don't see any rationale for the US to do anything -- precisely because the US already has a very good position in the region -- Iraq.

If we didn't have Iraq, then my opinion would be more like "we're screwed in the long run" and by we, I mean the human race.

Reply #25 Top

Stretching back a little ways, then, aren't we? You don't think our (and I mean the WORLD here,not just bad 'ol USA) gobbling up of oil has anything to do with it? What about supply and demand?

The reason oil prices are going up is not a mystery. China's imports of oil have skyrocketed.  It is, as you say, a matter of supply and demand.  There is only so much oil on the market and the demand has risen. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

The debate on oil prices is a good one because it's really an excellent opportunity to know who actually has a clue on the issue and who are the idiots.

Anyone who thinks that oil prices are being significantly affected by Iraq or Afghanistan is an idiot. But that is a good thing because I know I can ignore their opinions as I'll be able to just see their name on the comments section and say "Ah, idiot" and skip to the next comment.

10 years ago, China consumed hardly any oil.  Now, it consumes over 6 MILLION bbl's per day! And the US's consumption has continued to climb as well.  It's going to get much worse. By 2020, it is expected that China will use as much as the US.  The days of cheap gas are over.