Or maybe, they can actually think for themselves and not let their opinions be based on whatever forwarded e-mail they received that morning. There's a huge difference in WWII and Iraq. A more appropriate comparison would be WWII and Afghanistan, which, as you may recall, there wasn't a lot of protest about that war, was there? The only protest given was when our leader basically abandoned that war to go after Saddam. We understand that there have been some people on our side of the political fence that put us in some bad situation like Vietnam. We can accept that. The other side can't. See Trader_Jorge's response to my initial post for exhibit A to that.
Giddyup, while I'm flattered that you have specifically addressed this to me, I don't quite know why. I'm not sure that I've ever called GWB the worst president in history. He may very well be the worst of my lifetime, though that we will not know until the fruits of his policies are manifested over the long term. However, am I correct in assuming that the reasoning that you endorse with this post, and its bolded points of emphasis, (that was wholeheartedly seconded by basso and Trader_Jorge) is that the goodness/badness of a President is directly measured by the volume of American combat casualties? In that case, I am present you with who is likely America's worst president ever: Mr. Abraham Lincoln. Is this the point you are trying to make? or is there a hidden subtext that I have failed to grasp? Tell me now so that we can avoid a repeat of the "BUSH COVERED IT" fiasco FWIW, I took very little pleasure in tearing that apart.
in another thread i posted my personal rankings of presidents since FDR- still think it's way to early to make any definitive statement about W, but, for the sake of arguement, here goes. note, this isn't a list of which was the most controversial: 1- Truman 2- Reagan 3- LBJ 4- Ike 5- GWB 6- JFK 7- Nixon 8- Clinton 9- GHWB 10- Ford 11- Carter
We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. I don't think any Bush hatas here have ever equated the total number of troup deaths with the final judgement of any president. BTW, the anthrax letters and the DC sniper don't count as terrorist attacks???
This was my first thought when I read this, although I admire you for plugging away for your guy, giddyup. I think Bush is the worst President in my lifetime, a close second to Nixon (who I got to vote against), but for a wide range of reasons... not just his policy regarding the Iraqi Invasion and subsequent occupation. I think I've given my reasons in numerous posts, so I'll wait and see if it turns out to be worthwhile repeating it all here. Again, at least you keep trying to justify Bush's Presidency, instead of just having a comic routine like T_J. I applaud that.
ron413. If Saddam fails to comply, we can still take action, but not have a invasion contrary to the wishes of the body Saddam is failing to comply with. 'Taking action' doesn't only mean invading. That's the problem when people act the alternative to invasion was to do nothing, or call it appeasement. If those are the only solutions people can think of to a problem, then perhaps running a government is the wrong line of work for them.
Come now Giddy, you can't have us believe that you actually think all of this is factually correct and relevant. OK, I'll play along for awhile... FDR did not lead us into WWII. We were attacked by Japan, attacked by Germany, and our allies were on the verge of collapse. There were less than 15 democracies in the world at the time and the forces allied against us were intent on reducing that number further. If you think WWII and the Iraq War are somehow similar, you are an idiot (classic Greek defintion). The whole thing lacks something called "context." it mentions the number of deaths in battle and tries to imply that this is the only measure of a "worst president." It's simplistic drivel. It equates 9/11 with Iraq when there is no significant link between Saddam and Al-Q, much less Saddam and 9-11. The Sudan myth is just that. Find some source not funded by Scaife and learn something about lies and how they are spread. We haven't come close to "liberating" two countries. We've merely removed bad folks who were in charge and then admitted that we don't have the will to make things better and in fact, the future may be worse. In terms of the wars mentioned, go educate yourself or con MacBeth into teaching History 101.
sorry to call you on this, but the former assertion is just not true, no matter how many times you make it. unless you get clintonian and try to redefine the meaning of the word "significant."
Yeah! On that DC sniper deal, we should have invaded Kansas and kicking the crap out of the Bahamas would really teach that anthrax guy a thing or two.
Actually, it is your assertion that is not true, unless you get clintonian and try to redefine the meaning of the word "link."
Basso, there wasn't a connection. There was ansar al islam in the autonomous region of Iraq not controlled by Saddam. There may be both groups their post Saddam, there is hint at attempted contact from some documents, but nothing else that proves a connection. Oh yeah... There's one Iraqi who said he was an 'ambassador' to Al Qaeda, but nothing to corroborate his story. And we've seen how reliable it is when we listen to Iraqis telling us what we want to hear without looking for a second source(Chalabi).
Here's the original as it appeared in the ABQ Journal (though with this stuff, one can't be sure of the original unless you have access to the Bush/Cheney Committee's work product)... Note how Giddy conveniently left out the first two paragraphs which absolutely equate 9-11 and Iraq? The second paragraph also undercuts the FDR paragraph... You silly Republicans, FDR didn't lead us into WWII, Japan started it with an attack on Pearl Harbor. Ridiculous. _______________ LIBERALS CLAIM President Bush shouldn't have started the Iraq war. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point— we didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists on 9-11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims: Franklin D. Roosevelt led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us. Japan did. From 1941-1945, 405,000 lives were lost, an average of 81,000 a year. Harry S Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, some 54,000 lives were lost, an average of 13,500 a year. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Lyndon B. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, about 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 a year. Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia without United Nations or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. In the two years since terrorists attacked us, Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida. There have been nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot. We have captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? Come on! ________________ Here's one from a Florida Newspaper... Some claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One person recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let’s clear up one point: We didn’t start the war on terror. Try to remember. It was started by terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001. Let’s look at the “worst” president and mismanagement claims. Franklin D. Roosevelt led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without U.N. or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden’s head three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? Come on. ______________ Here's one from a blog (differences bolded)... Some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One person recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember. It was started by terrorists on 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and the mismanagement claims. Franklin D. Roosevelt led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us...Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Harry S. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Lyndon B. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. William J. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. Clinton went to war in Somalia without UN or French consent. Somalia never attacked us. He bombed an aspirin factory without UN or French consent. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaeda, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We have lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. George W. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. I, for one, prefer it that way. You want the worst president? Look at all those liberal swine mentioned above. Not only did they enter us into devastating wars, but they also spent money like drunken sailors. And George W. Bush is the worst president? Hahaha, that's pretty funny. Take your pick of the Dems above. W in '04 If only all decisions were this black and white. ______________ Here's another from a different blog (additions bolded)... Some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One person recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember. It was started by terrorists on 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and the mismanagement claims. Franklin D. Roosevelt led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us...Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Harry S. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Lyndon B. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. William J. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. Clinton went to war in Somalia without UN or French consent. Somalia never attacked us. He bombed an aspirin factory without UN or French consent. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaeda, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We Have lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. George W. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. I, for one, prefer it that way. By the way! Have you heard yet that John Kerry is a war hero? If I hear Kerry tell me one more time that he is a Vietnam veteran, I'll e-mail him another look at the inside of Saddam's mouth. "Speaking" of John Kerry - from his comments and voting record, John Kerry is probably suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. It's likely that he would never go to war no matter what the consequences. I fear what will happen to the United States if such a man became our commander in chief.
I think it is very telling when the best argument the right can come up with is manufactured letters to the editor filled with half truths. That sure helps justify a war of choice, out of control budget and the job losses.
Why is it that all these Republican mass e-mail/letter campaigns started by Republicans end up getting shown as the false inaccurate bunk that they are. Why do they keep putting out this swill, and acting like it's fact. Is a party who does this kind of campaigning really a party of integrity family values etc? Not that I believed them before, but this is further proof. At least part of the strategy to reelect the president revolves around mas mailings of bogus information, much of it attack oriented.
No, no, no. 9/11 change everything!!! We need to invade Iraq to punish the sender of the anthrax letters and the DC sniper. Don't you have the moral clarity to see that?
The point of this is that this is a small-scale war which has delivered pretty good results. That is the point of contrasting the numbers of deaths. My citing of SamFisher and Mulder is to disable their snopesification of this. It's a piece with ideas: some good, some bad. Please discuss. You don't even need to hypothesize about the source. Why bother? rimrocker: I am awaiting your apology. The version I got didn't have those two lines. I made only the changes I cited: the parenthetical remark about Germany and the verb change from "started" to "escalated." Is this typical of reckless Democratic criticism? Another thing, didn't the British become our "allies" once we entered the war? Until such time, we were just friendly. Isn't allie strictly militaristic jargon? Seems to me like most of your criticism of this piece are minor. I won't say petty but I'll stick with minor.
Apparently they dont' count as terrorism to Republicans as this is a Republican mailing. JFK didn't say that they were just crimes. He said that we should use intel, and police as major weapons against terrorism. Since he used the word terrorism I guess he actually does believe they are terrorism. This is a perfect example to illustrate how Kerry's policy ideas on the issue are good ones. How is the military going to be more effective at finding the anthrax attacker, than intel organizations and police?
