If you'll notice, I asked two questions. How is that presumptuous? Who knows the mix of the protestors? Since the war was escalated in troop numbers between 1962 and 1968 by two Democratic presidents, who can say? Are you counting the SDS as Democrats?
Originally posted by MacBeth Oh, absolutely. <b>Get your britches out of a know MacBeth. I've been covered up with five kids since before dinner. I can't speak for anyone else.</b> Couple of minor points; Germany did attack us, subsequent to declaring war. Have mentioned this, oh, 50 times or more. Operation Drumroll. Serious, repetetive attacks on our naval forces military and merchant, ranging from NY harbour to the Gulf of Mexico. That coupled with the declaration of war by the world's foremost military power might, in some minds, engender a greater threat than Saddam's mythical test tubes... <b>I acknowledged this fact by "daring" to change the text as it arrived in my box. I stated the fact that Germany did declare war and, in fact, gave you "credit." I thought that would be sufficient. I could have erased that line. Should have. I have to ask this question, though... was it worthwhile. All of Europe, except the British Government, hates the US. What the hell kind of thanks is that?</b> NK attacked our allies, as did NV. Since the first GW, Saddam has attacked exactly no one. That might qualify as a worse action. For excample, you could attack Canada tomorrow, and lose less than Johnson did against Vietnam...Make it a better action, or a better President? <b>Wasn't Kuwait our "allie?" Can't an argument be made that this is still the First Gulf War? Why are all of these arguments so reductionist? The piece never makes the argument that fewer deaths equals a greater president. The piece just shows a light on the discrepancy between the harsh criticism aimed at President regarding the human cost of this war compared to other wars. As I said, it is a defensive ploy. It's overly broad and simplistic but I don't think that makes it erroneous.</b> The two worst Presidents before Bush, were, IMO, Kennedy and Nixon, and I could outline why Bush has surpassed them...but unlike giddy's post, mine would be weighed down by examining the shortcomings of President's in two parties, as opposed to the clear mindedness of only looking at one... <b>Again, why try to discredit this for its lack of comprehensiveness. It's a raindance offered up in the midst of a season of lightning storms. This is not the Magna Carta, nor does it have to be.</b>
Originally posted by SamFisher Why do you want to draw attention to them? Answer: because they are the measure by which both you and this e-mail seek to answer the queston whether or not Bush is thw "worst president". <b>The piece doesn't attempt to answer that question. It asks that question of the reader.</b> It is so stated. It's the FREAKING TITLE OF THE FREAKING THREAD. If you or the writer had an alternative purpose, which again, was meant to be sent by telepathy or some form of non-written communique, please state it now. <b>The freaking title of the thread is a question. Do you know what a question is. You should... you seem to have all the answers... </b> It does this by equating combat deaths with the sole variable by which we should measure the validity of criticism. If you can't see this, you are illiterate. <b>Where does it say that? What is that equation? Where is it stated that that is the sole variable? Indeed it focuses on that variable, but that doesn't mean that the author would exclude other variables. Does the author say that. We read a lot of posts here about Steve Francis' poor decision making. Do you really think the people that author those pieces are completely blind to his fantastic athleticism and hustle? You really do think everyone else is stupid, don't you. That is sad.</b> This is not clearly articulated at all and is not found in the piece. This is your own post hoc spin; random allusions to "Iraq junk"in general do not help you here. As you well know, criticissms of the war in Iraq extend far, far, far, beyond the simple number of combat deaths. <b>This is a simplistic piece. We are all guilty of doing some spinning, but I would assert this difference. Your spin is to weigh it down with things it clearly does NOT say via your reductions. My spin is to throw off that dead weight.</b>
giddyup, what you don't seem to understand is that Europeans, reflected by their governments, don't hate the United States... they "hate" our government. There is a big difference. I spent over 6 months in 1971 traveling across Western Europe (and Yugoslavia a bit), during the Vietnam War. Believe me, I got to talk to a large cross-section of people. There was far more anger at the US then... sometimes very large demonstrations in several countries, because of the war, that the present climate couldn't come close to. And they didn't "hate" the United States, they "hated" it's government. The main difference was the attitude of their own governments, faced with the threat of the Soviet Union and having 350,000+ US troops on their soil or in the area, seemed far more friendly to this country. The perception here is exasperated by the policies of the Bush Administration. Our President openly speaks with distain of our allies. His Defense Secretary scornfully refers to "Old Europe". Bush prepares for and invades Iraq with contempt for the majority of European governments who disagree with his actions. And they can disagree... they don't face a Soviet Union and East Bloc armed to the teeth and needing our goodwill. They can think for themselves and now openly express it. 30 years ago, if they disagreed they kept it to themselves and talked behind the scenes with their concerns about Vietnam. And they had plenty of concerns. And none of us would want things to be as they were during the Cold War. Would we? Just so our allies would be forced to walk in lock-step with us? Bush could have gone about this far differently. There was no crisis that required such urgent action regarding Iraq as was justified with the war with Afghanistan, which was widely supported. Bush brought the vast majority of world opinion, not just European opinion, in an amazingly short time, from open, deeply felt support and sympathy for the United States, to anger and fear of what they see as a reckless, out of control foreign policy. Not anger and fear at the American people, but of the government of George W. Bush. Can't you see the difference?
Hilarious again! Giddyup: your reasoning is hilarious too, but in a different way, sort of like watching a fat man riding a tricycle on a tightrope with no safety net; at this point it is so dumb it really doesn't justify a response. But anyway, yeah I will respond to one thing: I definitely think that you are stupider than me, much much dumber in fact. You don't seem to be able to communicate your ideas in writing very well or to perform basic first grade level syllogisms, if in fact you believe what you write here. For example, you create a post that is supposed to examine how history will judge a president as x, then the facts you cite in support of this premise deal solely with the measure of y which you bolded for emphasis, necessarily creating a causative link between the two, then you deny that y is the sole factor according to which x is to be judged in the context of your own syllogism Is this the way you act in your daily life? If so, I am worried about your family. Example: do you tell your children to be good for Santa Claus, then not give them any presents, and deny that you had drawn any correlation between being good and getting presients? Poor little guys.
Sam, you are so full of crap. You can't understand anything that doesn't support your viewpoint. Or is that don't choose to understand... The piece doesn't have the grandiose mission that you've assigned it. The post is an overstatement, but it makes a valid point. I've said that several times. Only the dim-witted or the insecure would take it so literally. Which are you? I'll go with insecure because you are obviously not stupid. God, how I hate admitting that. Go ahead, insult me again. I'm used to it.... In a way, I wish you would take it literally. Instead you extrapolate it or reduce it as it suits your purpose of distortion. Get some kind of honest imagination, please.
Deckard, that was a very good summary of world opinion. Sometimes I think that it's the "holier than thou" attitude that determines this administration's policy. I guess we're the modern-day British Monarchy...you know? Royalty, piety, elitism, entitlement, the aristocracy...you know...all that fluff.
Gee, silly me for believing that a post that is entitled "Worst President in History" was purporting to examine the question of who was the worst president in history. Must be my insecurity kicking in to have made that radical leap in logic. But anyway, so that the record is clear and that you can try to redeem yourself: please announce the what valid point this post was making, using only materials from the original post in the thread. That way, we can be ultra clear as to what you were saying.
I've only read a few posts here so fogive me for not following this lengthy discussion and if this has already been posted. Under the terms used to determine the worst President in US history in the first posts I would have to say Lincoln was the worst President ever. Under his watch more Americans died in battle than in almost all other wars America has been in combined. Not only that under his deliberate leadership large parts of the US were destroyed by American soldiers, habeaus corpus and other primary rights were suspended. Vast sections of the country was put under martial law and the Constitution outrightly flaunted. While the war may have started from an act of violent civil protest the response to it was certainly greatly disproportionate to that act and peaceful means of avoiding conflict ignored. Not to forget that even unforgivably his side lost more troops in the war than the side that was defeated. Certainly under Giddyups reasoning Abraham Lincoln has to rank as the worst and bloodiest President and should be relagated to the Mount Rushmore of shame that he has erected for the likes of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and William Clinton.
Don't stop asking questions. That's exactly what they want. And also, the rhetorical value of the questions is not lost on everyone. Sometimes answers come in the form of a question and need no response.
The piece in no way attempts to answer the question of who was the worst president in US history. In no place is that queston asked-- except as a rhetorical question. In no place is that queston answered in the piece. The piece undermines the criticisms that GWB's war in Iraq qualifies him for being the worst US president in history. If you can't see that you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself and us.
What you seem to be ignoring is a point that has been made by several posters in this thread, namely that it is a wide variety of things that qualify GWB for the short list of the worst presidents in history. Your "evidence" talks about combat deaths, but GWB is one of the worst in history as a result of his unjustified war IN ADDITION to his curtailing of American rights, horrible environmental policies, the fact that he has been paid for by special interests, his horrific borrow and spend record, his manipulation of scientific data for political purposes, and his willingness to look the other way when it comes to the Plame affair and the 9/11 commission. GWB has done far more than start an unjust war with faulty "intelligence" to make him the worst president in my lifetime. That sin is simply the most egregious.
<b>andymoon</b>: As I said on at least one occasion here: OF COURSE there is room for other discourse and argument. My complaint is that people have taken the thread off in those other directions and then blamed the original piece for being misleading. The attempt to connect those legitimate complaints with this narrowly-focused piece is, in fact, what is misleading. <b>MacBeth</b>: Sometime retorts are called for and sometime responses are called for. Retorts come much easier. When posting I'm usually on and off the phone and/or email responding in the afternoon. I tend to make retorts first to things that are more quickly answered or secondly to comments which trend toward insulting (SamFisher). A little ire there. Motivaton. When I got back in here after the kids were gone, I saw that you felt your questions weren't answered, so I attempted to answer your concerns.
I'm getting the kids ready for school. I'll try and get to it this morning, but I have several things to accomplish which pay me. I'm a man on commission, so I do have to prioritize.
