Yeah, let's go there .... I am 48, I voted for Bush twice, and now in retrospect, he is the WORST President in my lifetime ..... and looking back on history (of which I am a serious student of), he will probably go down as the worst of all time.

Reagan was all smoke and mirrors.

interesting....only this week they were saying on TV (can't remember which newsperson) that Bush would go down as a pretty good President when all is said and done. Maybe after Obama gets in, we get attacked again, will it come to be accepted.

I think we have to wait on time for this to play out right now.

Hi, Grambo_Bastille -

I have to agree with you. Took a record budget surplus and ran it into a staggeringly high deficit in only eight years, through both domestic and foreign policy disasters. Launched what most of the world views as an illegal war of aggression on a country that was never shown to be a military threat to us (or anyone else, according to Condi Rice and Colin Powell in 2001), and paid for the war with borrowed money, making him the first pres in history who did not raise taxes to pay for a war. His administration included the most successful terrorist attack on the U.S. in history (followed by a total stonewalling of, and an attempt to prevent, any meaningful investigation), the most epically inept disaster-response in modern times, and a long series of attacks on the Consititution (some of which have been reversed by the Supreme Court, thank God)and the Hatch Act. Tolerated the outing of an active CIA agent and didn't discipline or fire anyone responsible. Has presided over the dollars decline (it has lost 1/3 of its value against major foreign currencies), and created nowhere nearly as many jobs as the loathed-by-Republicans President Clinton did. The ethical and governmental scandals and botched PR stunts in his administration are almost too many to keep track of (Walter Reed, Pat Tillman, "Mission Accomplished", lying about wiretapping without a warrant, and so many more), and he showed his character and courage by not even meeting with Cindy Sheehan to tell her why her son had died. His stop-loss policy is well on the way to destroying the fighting capability of the United States Armed Forces. All this from a commander-in-chief who still owes approximately one year of service on his own National Guard Service, from which he went AWOL. I'm still waiting for any of the folks who like him here to explain to me how having sold us into hock to China, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Dubai, is good for the country (I have a feeling I'll wait a long time, too.).

My guess is that the newscaster who thinks he's pretty good is on FOX.

I don't get Fox. It was either on GMA or one of the nighly newscasts NBC, CBS, or ABC.

He didn't? You mean a second time right?

What about this?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/cindy-told-bush-make-my-son-count

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082001046.html

Sorry, KFC, that was my carelessness. Yes, that is exactly what I mean. After she had had a chance to get over her grief and ask herself exactly what her son had died for. She couldn't come up with an answer, and apparently neither could he.

I think it reflects badly on President Bush that he could not, or would not, look one angry mother in the eye and tell her what her son had died for, particularly when his own service record is so tarnished and no member of his immediate family is serving.

But I don't imagine he'd meet with Pat Tillman's mom either, do you?

I'll let Bill Maher (Favorite Comedian) make all points necessary for Ronald Reagan:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWGcFddzf9A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCCqpu2RE9g

The Doctors who diagnosed it. Granted they may be engaged in a coverup, but at this point in time, with the powers of all mighty god withheld from us, who are we to beleive. The doctors taking care of him? Or rumors that others would like to be the truth, yet have no clue since they were not privy to his medical records (and in most cases, an educated opinion)?



IN contrast to the Sandinistas bloody abuses of human rights, murder, torture, mutiliation, rape, arson, etc.... Tough to grant saint hood to one with bloody hands.



Eh, no. He was perhaps the last fiscal conservative. However, as we all know, the president proposes, the congress disposes (Dead on Arrival anyone?).

Got you by a handful of years, but the same track record. What Bush has to do with Reagan is the letter behind their names, and little else. However, Carter (since I could vote for him and you could not) remains the worst bar none. ON par with Harding and Grant I would say.

We have to be careful. We are not the part of the decision making process here. There are reasons I'm sure, and as was mentioned in one of those articles I gave above, as to why he didn't meet with her. She was demanding to meet with him and I'm not so sure that was the right way to go about things do you? We don't have all the details that went on between him and her the first time or even after. If he gave in to her demands shouldn't he for others? Where would it end?

The thing is he did meet with her and did for her what he did all the rest of the families and I hate to assume as to why he didn't meet with her when I don't have all the facts.

For instance, I have a large church family back home. We had an instance back awhile when something had to be taken care of before things got way out of hand. Some people didn't understand why it was handled in such a manner. In order to protect all around the majority of the people were only given information they needed to have so as not to hurt others. Most understood and trusted the decision based on the integrity of the people behind the decision making. It was a hard issue to deal with. Just like the one you're referring to I'm sure.

Some did nothing but complain and whine saying it wasn't right. The problem was they did not have all the facts nor did they need to know all the facts. It really was none of their business. Had they been in the know, then they would have had no choice but to agree with the decision. But they didn't need to know.

That's how I feel about some of these types of things. Sometimes we have to leave it between the parties involved and let them handle it and butt out. We don't have all the facts and correspondence here between the two parties. We only know what the media knows and/or chooses to pass on to us. It's second hand information.

Hi, "Kickin'" -

I freely admit that you make a good point, and I have no disagreement with your view.

I'll make my own, just for the sake of discussion. The first time he met with Mrs. Sheehan was on a day when he met, I believe, with either 16 or 17 other families. It was formal, completely stage-managed, and would have had all of the dignity and pomp that the United States military can bring to such an occasion. I grew up in the Air Force and saw my father, a bird colonel, buried with full honors at Arlington. In 2005 my mother, in a much smaller, but just as formal a ceremony, joined him. So, I'm not being negative in any way about the military approach to grieving families. Mrs. Sheehan's grief was still fresh - her entire family was there - other families were close by - my guess is that the sheer weight of the occasion would have been somewhat inhibiting.

Later, when she and her supporters camped near Bush's farm in Crawford, his motorcade drove by them a number of times. If Bush was really secure in his belief in the rightness of this war and that it was being fought to the utmost, it strikes me (and others, but I'm only speaking for myself here) that he could have stopped and given her five minutes of his time. He then could have used the opportunity to make a similar statement over the airwaves to all families who had lost loved ones. But he didn't, and to me that made him look small.

My view of Bush and the military is not limited by this one issue. As I pointed out, his own service record is tarnished and dishonorable. His administration has been caught out in a number of false statements and narratives about this war - Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman are two people who come to mind. I think the fact that he kept the entire crew of the USS Lincoln steaming around in circles when they were literally in sight of home so he could strut around in a flight suit and wrongly declare that "major combat operations in Iraq" had ended, was just shameful. Throw in the Walter Reed fiasco and his administration's reaction to it, the stop-loss policy (by the way, you never told me what you think of that), Guantanomo, extraordinary rendition, Abu Graib, and his stated indifference about finding Osama Bin Laden (since changed back to "Get 'im"), and I'm pretty fed up with him. Last, but not least, I find his indifference to the Nuremberg Principles to be really alarming. No one on your side seems concerned with that though, and that surprises me, as the Republican Party has prided itself on upholding the law (or says it does). Barry Goldwater's running mate in 1964 was a man named Miller, who had served as one of our Nuremberg prosecutors. I don't really think that either Goldwater or Miller would be happy with President Bush.

Probably because he is no Goldwater conservative, not because of his prosecution of a war started by Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

As for his refusal to meet a second time with Sheehan, why not? She was no longer looking for an audience at that time, but had decided to go on a personal vendetta against him for her own reasons (and those of her handlers that just as quickly threw her under the bus). There are many reasons to not like Bush and you have enumerated several of your own. But while you mention Sheehan and his treatment of her, you dont seem to hold the democrat candidates in the same contempt for doing essentially the exact same thing (although they were not POTUS, and decidedly had more time on their hands to at least talk to her - which they all refused to do). I dont hold that against any of the major democrat candidates simply because Sheehan had stopped being a grieving mother, and instead was using her dead son as a campaign poster for her own agenda. Hardly a noble endeavor.

I don't see pursuing a political agenda and being a grieving mother as being mutually exclusive. As you are fond of saying to me, that's your opinion.

Sometimes this President's conduct has been so shameful that grieving people decided it was necessary to pursue a political agenda. The "Jersey Girls" come to mind. Do you know who they are and what they did?

I did not say it was mutually exclusive, only that her using him as a her campaign poster was in poor taste to say the best, and reprehensible to be more accurate. Say what you mean and mean what you say, dont put your words in other people's mouths.



Yes, do you? DO you realize they represent less than 1% of the victims of 9-11? And do you also realize how ghoulish they are? And yet, if a republican were to try the same stunt, the media, and of course democrats, would be all over them like ugly on the beast.

Get one thing straight. This is a free country and you are free to say anything you want. I for one am not going to stop you. But I dont have to endorse or condone what you say, or for that matter listen to you. This is true of both you and I, and the President (as he is a citizen too) as well.

And I don't condemn yours either really. As a mother of three boys and one in the AF who is chomping at the bit to go over to Iraq, I can very easily be Cindy myself. But I do know that my son is in the military because he chose to be there. He would hate it if I did what this other mother was doing. I can see my son now saying "what are you doing?"

Nobody forced this woman's son to join so comparing her son to Bush's daughters or other family member is not even worth discussing. No force was involved here.

The mom really, in my opinion, lost it. Totally. I'm sure there's a story behind the story there but since I don't have all the facts I leave it to these two (Bush and Sheenan) to figure it out. It's not my business.



and if you can name me one perfect administration with no tarnish you'd be going somewhere but you can't. They're all crooked. The whole lot of them. I guess it's just the business.

There's no way a good clean guy could make it thru all the crap and not get some on himself.

Hi, Dr. Guy -

One of my points is that our country is becoming less free because of Bush's attacks on the Constitution. As of now, I can say what I want, but let's not forget that after 9/11 it was a Republican who said that Americans needed to be careful what they say.

I apparently misinterpreted something you said. When you said that Cindy Sheehan had "stopped being a grieving mother" and was just using her son, I thought you meant that the two were not compatible. I believe that she was, and still is, a grieving mother. By the way, how do you know she stopped being a grieving mother? Did you ask her, or is that simply your opinion stated as fact? Is it a fact that the Jersey Girls are ghoulish, or simply your opinion stated as fact?

I think it's interesting that people like the Jersey Girls, who pressed this never-accountable-for-anything-bad administration for answers, are attacked by you on the wrong. This genuinely mystifies me. If a Democratic President were stuck with Bush's record, I think you'd be howling for his impeachment. But because its Bush, you treat him like he's some kind of Down Syndrome President and that his presidency was a sort of Special Olympics where he should get a prize just for showing up.

Hi, "Kickin'" -

It's true that no one forced Cindy Sheehan's son to join, but I'd like to throw in a couple of points. Many people joined in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, thinking they were going to go after OBL and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. A number of them became disenchanted after being sent to Iraq, and would have left after their first tour of duty was up and their time-in over. Instead, they were held prisoner by the stop-loss program, which made it impossible to leave. By the way, what do you think of the stop-loss program as the mother of a serviceman?

As one who grew up in the military and honors servicepeople, here is what I think. There should be a draft all the time. No one should be exempt from service, and there should be no loopholes for getting out of combat or active duty based on connections. There should be a Constitutional Amendment passed that would insure an automatic tax-increase whenever the country goes to war, with corporations paying fifty percent of the increase. In time of war, all offshore tax-exemptions should cease to exist. And, for the deployment of more than 5,000 servicepeople to a given theater, a declaration of war should be required.

Whether you agree with my thoughts or not, if they, or something like them were in place, do you think we'd be in Iraq? I don't.

By the way, "Kickin'", I absolutely agree with your last point about the political process in this country having gotten really, really dirty, to the point at which no one can win the presidency and remain clean. How do you think we got to this point, and how do you think we should go about fixing it? This is not some kind of "debate-trap" - I'm really interested.

I agree, Reagan is the best. He's a hero to me, a type of crusader against Communism.  He called Soviet Russia the "Evil Empire" and will forever be known for saying, "Tear down this wall."

It was during the cold war in the late 1940s, under Truman's administration, that Reagan was president of the Screen Actors guild and started battling against Communism.  Congress was rooting out government Communist spies and the investigation went to Hollywood.

Reagan's anti-Communist crusade went through his year as governor in the 60s and 70s and then into his presidency.  When the Soviet Union fell apart, and Reagan saw the victory, he said, "Not my success but a team effort by DIvine Providence".

 

 

 

 

 

DRGuy POsts:

Cindy Sheehan became a limelight tool for the Leftists.

I dont know if she is grieving, rejoicing, or moaning. What I was referring to was her actions. I dont know what her mindset is, but her actions indicate what I have opined about. And she is free (thank god) to do just that. But I dont have to like her using her son like a piece of meat, or a trophy to be used to club the opposition. When you bring your wounds into the open and use them to make a point, you lose the right to complain about others who would debate and criticize your use of them. She is doing that with Casey. If she is still grieving, she sure does not show it much. Instead, she is now just another loony politician with an agenda, and one of her assets (she thinks) is her son's death.



Attacked? Expressing my disgust about politicizing the death of their loved ones is an attack? You have a strange mindset. I defended their right to do it, I also said it sickens me that they would (just as Sheehan does). Sorry, but I am not going to play that PC game - the same one that Sheehan and the Jersey Girls are trying to play. THEY brought their ghoulish game to the table, not I. And in so doing, then their actions (and indeed their chips - although you will note I have not attacked their loss at all, just indicated my disgust with their use of it) have put it in play, not me.

Dont try that protectionist crap here. it will not fly. You want to mourn the loss of your loved ones? Great, and I will even protect your right to not have a camera stuck in your face with an idiot reporter asking you stupid questions. But when you seek out that camera, dont tell me I cant criticize your politicization of your loss. For then it is no longer a "loss", but an asset you are using for your own gain, not the memory of the one that was lost.

Down Syndrome? Do you realize how crass and insensitive that is, and you are for using those differently abled to bash Bush? Do you even care that you just politicized a group of people that only want to live their life in peace, and instead you trash them because of a genetic defect?

You really dont think before you write.

Dr. Guy -

As you pointed out, you don't have to listen to me, or talk to me either.

So, please, do neither. We are mutual annoyances to each other. Why don't we pretend we're in a bar and just sit at separate tables on opposite sides of the room. You need to lower your blood pressure and I need to not be so reminded of seventh-grade tantrums.

We should have some grown-ups back in charge next January, and then America can begin the long task of cleaning up the monumental mess made by Bush, his cronies, and his supporters.

My blood pressure is fine. Your constant reference to 12 years olds is worrisome. You need to get out more and see that not everyone is a wide eyed child listening attentively to your gospel.

Let's see, Reagan was a great President because:

- he "called" the Soviet Union the Evil Empire .... talk, not action
- he "said" Tear Down This Wall ..... talk, not action.
- he was involved in the greatest witch hunt of the 20th century, helping to blacklist countless innocent people because they were suspected of being Communist .... which, by the way, is a belief system like any other that was prosecuted in a country which values freedom for all, unless you don't think like the government .... same as the innocent Japanese-Americans interned during WWII and the prisoners illegally imprisoned in Gitmo and on warships.

Reagan was a "B" list actor, a questionable California Governor and again, a smoke and mirrors President. His only saving grace was that he was surrounded by sneaky .... I mean, polished advisors who did a better job of covering up his inadequacies unlike old GW. Reagan happened to be sitting in the Oval Office when the Wall came down, but it was old Gorby and his regime in the Soviet Union that made things happen. But I'm sure Ronnie had a good conversation or two with Gorby .... he was a good "talker" after all.

And yes, I voted for Reagan the second time around ..... like every other election since I have been old enough to vote, I have yet to vote FOR a candidate but instead what I believe to be the lesser of two evils at the time. If I could only get a time machine and go back to those fateful November days in 2000 and 2004 .... not that my vote mattered since I am from Massachusetts, a state who would put Charles Manson in the White House if he had a "D" after his name ......

Oh, I forgot .... if it's on TV, then it must be true .....

The only way history will remotely look at him in the positive is if he personally went to Afghanistan, hunted down Osama by himself, and kills him with his bare hands.

Better rethink that one - he was dead set against those witch hunts. That is documented. his stint as the SAG president saw him fighting the mcCarthyites. besides, that was before he was president.

As for your other 2 points, yes, that was talk. But guess what? The evil empire is gone thanks to his words and deeds. The wall is gone. Ditto. You point to his words. His admirers point to the results. Hard to beat results with empty promises and hot air (you know - how some "feel your pain" and "the intentions were good - dont look at the results")