who is the worse president in our history?

[taxedout]

who is the worse president in our history?

Woodrow Wilson, for the establishment of the FEDERAL RESERVE.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Im going to make the same case I have made dozens of times. now, I want to premise this by saying I AM IN NO WAY TRYING TO CONNECT SADDAM TO 9-11. I want to make that PERFECTLY CLEAR because thats what liberals always claim I am doing when I make this point.

on 9-10 would you have claimed al queda, and mohammed atta were not a threat....period!!

I bet you would have.

PLEASE! Based on that logic we need to attack Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan TODAY! Why is it that Bush and his supporters have never learned the meaning of diplomacy?

its nice to make that statement after the fact. clearly, the quote I showed you from Clinton shows he acknowledged that Saddam was indeed a threat.

I agree that Clinton perceived Saddam as a threat. However he didn't invade Iraq and he didn't plan the invasion while his predecessor was in office like Bush did. I believe if Clinton had been President he would have invaded Afghanistan and stayed there to finish the mission. Bush, on the other hand CUT AND RAN from Afghanistan to chase a non-existent imminent threat in Saddam. Bush let Bin Laden get away and caught Saddam! Whoopdeedoo!

Do you realize there are fewer American troops in Afghanistan today than there are police officers in NYC?

oh, and BTW, we are fighting al queda in IRaq at this very moment.

PLEASE! They only went there after we attacked! It is FACT that Al Quaeda had no influence at all in Iraq Pre-Bush's war! How could you write this?

I absolutely believe America is more secure because we are killing Al Queda members in Iraq. as for the world, im not concerned with the world. Im concerned with America.

How is America safer? We have many more enemies today that want us dead than we did in 2003. We've lost the support of virtually every nation in the world and the support of the American public for the war.

Please save yourself the need to write that we've not been attacked since 9-11! That reply would be the reverse of what you just wrote:

on 9-10 would you have claimed al queda, and mohammed atta were not a threat....period!!

 

[Joby]

How is America safer? We have many more enemies today that want us dead than we did in 2003. We've lost the support of virtually every nation in the world and the support of the American public for the war.

Are we any less safe? How does losing every impotent friend hurt us? And all it's going to take to get public support is the death of ali-musab-al-caraqi-idont'-givea-ratsass

PLEASE! Based on that logic we need to attack Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan TODAY! Why is it that Bush and his supporters have never learned the meaning of diplomacy?

Notice how convenietly placed Iraq is around most of those other countries?

Do you realize there are fewer American troops in Afghanistan today than there are police officers in NYC?

Do you realize more people are killed in NY than soldiers in Afghanistan? And this is after Operation Mountain Kick-*** was launched.

In case you've forgotten Al Quaeda was / is our enemy. They're the ones who attacked us on 9-11. Iraq had ZERO to do with 9-11. The fact that Bush and his Flying Monkeys manipulated America into believing that somehow the two were related only proves how big a liar Bush is.

Why would he have lied? American oil companies aren't really benefitting form Iraq, so why do this?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Are we any less safe?

Yes we are less safe than MArch 2003. More enemies means more threats. We're not defeating our enemies we're growing them by our invasion of Iraq. We've accomplished the exact opposite of what Bush claimed was the purpose of our invasion.

How does losing every impotent friend hurt us?

I'm not prepared to give you a lesson in world history but in a nutshell I suggest that you study DIPLOMACY and it's effect on world peace.

Notice how convenietly placed Iraq is around most of those other countries?

I did notice how you completely avoided answering the imminent threat question.

Do you realize more people are killed in NY than soldiers in Afghanistan? And this is after Operation Mountain Kick-*** was launched.

292 American soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan out of a force of 20,000. That's 1 in 68 soldiers we've sent there.

In NYC last year less than 400 people were murdered, that's about 1 in 20,000 so you're attempt to compare crime in NYC with Afghanistan is absurd.

 

[Joby]

Yes we are less safe than MArch 2003. More enemies means more threats. We're not defeating our enemies we're growing them by our invasion of Iraq. We've accomplished the exact opposite of what Bush claimed was the purpose of our invasion.

I don't care how many people hate us. The important thing is that they are obviously less capable of converting that hate into action against the US now than in 2001 or 2003.

I'm not prepared to give you a lesson in world history but in a nutshell I suggest that you study DIPLOMACY and it's effect on world peace.

Which effect are you refering to? The one that allows belligerents to arrange their armies while talks occurr?

I did notice how you completely avoided answering the imminent threat question.

I didn't notice the question, but my point has something to do with the fact that the US is building 4 Permanet "superbases" in Iraq, similiar to the ones in Germany, that will hopefully scare all these wanna-be countries. If not, we can take care of most of their (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia(inthe future?))millitary stregnth in about 2 hours from there. Search, Locate, Destroy.

292 American soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan out of a force of 20,000. That's 1 in 68 soldiers we've sent there.

In NYC last year less than 400 people were murdered, that's about 1 in 20,000 so you're attempt to compare crime in NYC with Afghanistan is absurd.

It takes more police to deal with 400 murders Per Year, or roughly 2000 people since 9-11 than 292(!?) deaths in Afghanistan. Anyway, I thought the death toll was in the thousands.

And remember, those 20,000 are mostly Rangers and Green Berets. Search, Locate, Destroy.

If Iraq is the testing ground for terrorists, Afghanistan is the training ground for or much better Special Forces.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I don't care how many people hate us. The important thing is that they are obviously less capable of converting that hate into action against the US now than in 2001 or 2003.

Obviously? C'mon! How can you write "obviously"? I would love to see concrete evidence that supports your "obviously" claim. Facts please, not rhetoric or Fox News Channel talking points. To me the only "obvious" thing is that the world, including the USA is less safe 3+ years after we invaded Iraq.

Which effect are you refering to? The one that allows belligerents to arrange their armies while talks occurr?

Good one! I guess you're right, Bush's methods of attack first have proven to be so successful that we should now attack all of our perceived enemies. Isn't that what totalitarianism is all about? Funny how you seem OK with the USA conquering the world to suit it's purposes, as if that would bring us peace and stability! :rofl

I didn't notice the question, but my point has something to do with the fact that the US is building 4 Permanet "superbases" in Iraq, similiar to the ones in Germany, that will hopefully scare all these wanna-be countries. If not, we can take care of most of their (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia(inthe future?))millitary stregnth in about 2 hours from there. Search, Locate, Destroy.

I see...you mean like how our bases in Japan and South Korea have deterred North Korea and China? Do you really, honestly believe that we're going to control Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon et al by building military bases? If you do then how about you and I discuss this great beach front property I have just outside of Kansas City?

If Iraq is the testing ground for terrorists, Afghanistan is the training ground for or much better Special Forces.

I do not understand this point? Are you suggesting that in the last 12 months that circumstances in Afghanistan have improved and become more stable than 12 months ago? :spin:

One thing we've done for the Afghanis is to make them the world's largest heroin dealer...that's our legacy so far in Afghanistan, and that is the effect of our cutting and running to start another war in Iraq.

Bush sucks, he's the worst president ever. He's a nightmare. He's destroying America.

 

[ProudAmerican]

PLEASE! Based on that logic we need to attack Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan TODAY! Why is it that Bush and his supporters have never learned the meaning of diplomacy?

you didnt answer my question. no one ever does.

I agree that Clinton perceived Saddam as a threat. However he didn't invade Iraq and he didn't plan the invasion while his predecessor was in office like Bush did.

which only hurts your case. It proves Clinton was a big talker with no backbone. he did what he thought he needed to do, and said what he needed to say, to get votes. screw doing the right thing.

Do you realize there are fewer American troops in Afghanistan today than there are police officers in NYC?

how many NYC officers are there?

PLEASE! They only went there after we attacked! It is FACT that Al Quaeda had no influence at all in Iraq Pre-Bush's war! How could you write this?

I wrote it because its a fact. hard for you to swallow I know. but its a fact none the less.

How is America safer? We have many more enemies today that want us dead than we did in 2003. We've lost the support of virtually every nation in the world and the support of the American public for the war.

everytime a zar qawi dies, or any other lower level terrorist, the world, and America, become more safe.

Please save yourself the need to write that we've not been attacked since 9-11! That reply would be the reverse of what you just wrote:

wouldnt think of it.....even though it is another FACT.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Bush sucks, he's the worst president ever. He's a nightmare. He's destroying America.

all anyone needs to see to realize you are incapable of debating anything that has happened during his presidency with any reasonable level of intelligence.

I think Bill Clinton was a lying, spineless leader......but I am open minded enough to give him credit on the things he did right.

 

[Hoot]

Are we any less safe?

I would also like to add that we are less safe because of the skyrocketing debt under the Bush administration. We are borrowing from foreign creditors, who now hold much of the wealth and stocks of this nation.

 

[zymurgy]

I would also like to add that we are less safe because of the skyrocketing debt under the Bush administration. We are borrowing from foreign creditors, who now hold much of the wealth and stocks of this nation.

bingo.

8+ trillion dollars in debt.

The threat of our dollar collapsing is the greatest risk we face.

 

[Joby]

Obviously? C'mon! How can you write "obviously"? I would love to see concrete evidence that supports your "obviously" claim. Facts please, not rhetoric or Fox News Channel talking points. To me the only "obvious" thing is that the world, including the USA is less safe 3+ years after we invaded Iraq.

We are less safe for unrelated issues. I'll give you that.

Anyway, you correctly pointed out that more people hate us. I pointed out that obviously, if more people hate us but less attacks are occurring, something is going right.

Good one! I guess you're right, Bush's methods of attack first have proven to be so successful that we should now attack all of our perceived enemies. Isn't that what totalitarianism is all about?

All right Mr. Chamberlin, whatever you say. That Hitler's not really a bad guy if we just give him what he wants.
Diplomacy only occurs on any level when the sides are equal, like the Cold War, one has control over something the other wants, like OPEC, or the cost would be too high at the Moment to warrant armed conflict. This is what happened in World War II, Korea, Desert Storm, and Iraqi Freedom. It may happen now in Iran or North Korea, who knows.

Funny how you seem OK with the USA conquering the world to suit it's purposes, as if that would bring us peace and stability

Um, yeah.

I see...you mean like how our bases in Japan and South Korea have deterred North Korea and China?

Until North Korea crosses that line in the sand we drew, our troops have done an excellent job deterring them. Ditto with the bases in Germany against the Soviet Union. Ditto with our new bases in Iraq.

Don't worry. Our millitary leaders have experience with this type of thing.

Do you really, honestly believe that we're going to control Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon et al by building military bases? If you do then how about you and I discuss this great beach front property I have just outside of Kansas City?

Conventionally, yes. Do you believe Saddam would have invaded Kuwait if he knew US counterattacks would be immediate?

As for unconventionally, that's why we have you take your shoes of at the airport.

I do not understand this point? Are you suggesting that in the last 12 months that circumstances in Afghanistan have improved and become more stable than 12 months ago?

I'm suggesting that our leaders decided that Afghanistan would be a perfect testing ground for special forces, and decided this would be a learning campaign if you will.

One thing we've done for the Afghanis is to make them the world's largest heroin dealer...that's our legacy so far in Afghanistan, and that is the effect of our cutting and running to start another war in Iraq.

You mean "producer", not dealer. Funny thing is, we allow nations to determine their own laws that don't affect us. Unless you think some of those opiates are on a boat coming here, I don't see the relevency in this post.

I would also like to add that we are less safe because of the skyrocketing debt under the Bush administration. We are borrowing from foreign creditors, who now hold much of the wealth and stocks of this nation.

That's my only real concern. Although, many, many people were equally worried in the 80s, and what happened then?

And when it comes to dumping the dollar, I don't believe China would piss away that money. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait won't, because that money is held by the King and Emir, and neither one will lose money just to screw the US.

 

[26 X World Champs]

all anyone needs to see to realize you are incapable of debating anything that has happened during his presidency with any reasonable level of intelligence.

I think Bill Clinton was a lying, spineless leader......but I am open minded enough to give him credit on the things he did right.

What do you mean? I think Bush did right trying to figure out a way to get undocumented aliens documented. I think he did right by attacking Afghanistan....otherwise I think he's an evil, murderermaking machine...

 

[26 X World Champs]

which only hurts your case. It proves Clinton was a big talker with no backbone. he did what he thought he needed to do, and said what he needed to say, to get votes. screw doing the right thing.

:spin: :spin: HAH! A strong majority of Americans believe that the Iraq war is a huge mistake and that Bush has been directly responsible for the war. This crosses all political persuasions. Everyday more and more Americans wake up against this nightmare war.

how many NYC officers are there?

In June of 2005 there were 35,000.

everytime a zar qawi dies, or any other lower level terrorist, the world, and America, become more safe.

Your writing an untruth doesn't make it true. When we kill one infamous terrorist we inspire countless more. It would be incredibly naive to believe that by killing one terrorist the world is safer. The TRUTH is that there are many more terrorists who hate America in June 2006 than there were on 9-11-2001 and the singular person who deserves the credit for this disgusting fact is the worst president ever, George W. Bush.

 

[ProudAmerican]

HAH! A strong majority of Americans believe that the Iraq war is a huge mistake and that Bush has been directly responsible for the war. This crosses all political persuasions. Everyday more and more Americans wake up against this nightmare war.

unfounded nonsense.

its a wonder he got re elected.

In June of 2005 there were 35,000.

so there arent enough troops in afghanistan, but there are too many in Iraq, where we are now fighting al queda? are you bi polar?

Your writing an untruth doesn't make it true.

pot / kettle

 

[26 X World Champs]

unfounded nonsense.

Are you not able to access mainstream media where you live? How about a poll from USA Today, hardly a "radical" publication.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the following?
2006 Jun 9-11 (sorted by “approve”)

The situation in Iraq 36% - Approve 60% - Disapprove

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2006-06-12-poll.htm

Only 36% of Americans approve of the Iraq War, that is REALITY and TRUTH. Denial is not going to change the truth.

so there arent enough troops in afghanistan, but there are too many in Iraq, where we are now fighting al queda? are you bi polar?

There aren't enough troops in either country which is why we can't make any progress in either country. That's why there's less electricity and gasoline 3.5 years after Bush declared the war over than there was under Saddam.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Are you not able to access mainstream media where you live? How about a poll from USA Today, hardly a "radical" publication.

A "poll" of a thousand people hardly outweighs an election. and with people like Dan Rather providing us with "unbiased information" why would anyone be surprised a poll would be negative?

Only 36% of Americans approve of the Iraq War, that is REALITY and TRUTH. Denial is not going to change the truth.

36% of what number? 1500, 2000. sorry, no dice.
and your "Poll" proves my point. over time (the time it has taken for the biased mainstream media to get its lies out) approval for the war has fallen.

There aren't enough troops in either country which is why we can't make any progress in either country. That's why there's less electricity and gasoline 3.5 years after Bush declared the war over than there was under Saddam.

youre all over the place. typical liberal tactic. change the topic multiple times so you cant get pinned down on anything.

how long do you think it should take to rebuild a countries infrastructure? and where did you get the information that there is less electricity and gas today?

place some blame where it belongs. how about giving the terrorists from al queda some credit on that electricity and gas thing?

 

[ProudAmerican]

One thing we've done for the Afghanis is to make them the world's largest heroin dealer...that's our legacy so far in Afghanistan, and that is the effect of our cutting and running to start another war in Iraq.

we didnt leave afghanistan, but you want us to leave Iraq.

yep, im pretty sure my Bi Polar diagnosis is dead on.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I would also like to point out that your apples to oranges comparison between the NYC police dept and the troops deployed in Afghanistan is ridiculous.

Do you count satelites? Drones? the machines in theater that today can do the work of countless troops?

 

[26 X World Champs]

A "poll" of a thousand people hardly outweighs an election. and with people like Dan Rather providing us with "unbiased information" why would anyone be surprised a poll would be negative?

I'm enjoying your scientific conclusion to actual facts. Remember in my last post when I wrote that being in denial does not alter the truth? Your comment here is a perfect example of denial.

36% of what number? 1500, 2000. sorry, no dice.

Look, if you need a lesson in polling then this is a useless debate. Are you anti-science or something?

youre all over the place. typical liberal tactic. change the topic multiple times so you cant get pinned down on anything.

What are you talking about? You're replies are not making any sense. I clearly wrote that we have too few troops in both wars and that has caused a majority of the problems..this is a fact that is supported by virtually everyone but Rumsfeld and his flying monkeys. Are you saying that Colin Powell is wrong and Rumsfeld is right and that Rumsfeld has done a "heckuva job Rummy"?

place some blame where it belongs. how about giving the terrorists from al queda some credit on that electricity and gas thing?

It's tough to debate someone who either is ignorant of the facts or is in such deep denial that they are unable to acknowledge the truth. "Terrorists" as you call them make up less than 5% of the incidents in Iraq. The insurgents are Iraqis, not Al Quaeda. The violence preventing electricity and gasoline 3.5 years after we "won" the war is from secterian attacks, not terrorists. If I'm wrong how about backing up your statements with some verifiable facts? I posted a poll from USA Today. Why don't you post something from somewhere that shows that terrorists and Al Quaeda are mostly responsible for the infrastructure issues in Iraq? It's time to write facts not bluster, please?

As far as calling me bi-polar does that make you feel smarter to name call? Try debating with facts. If you dispute my posts do so with proof not calling me bi-polar!

 

[ProudAmerican]

I'm enjoying your scientific conclusion to actual facts. Remember in my last post when I wrote that being in denial does not alter the truth? Your comment here is a perfect example of denial.

and your scientific conclusion involves freakin polls, that can be politically charged to elicit a specific result.

denial certainly aint just a river in egypt.

Look, if you need a lesson in polling then this is a useless debate. Are you anti-science or something?

nope. just anti ignorance.

What are you talking about? You're replies are not making any sense. I clearly wrote that we have too few troops in both wars and that has caused a majority of the problems..this is a fact that is supported by virtually everyone but Rumsfeld and his flying monkeys. Are you saying that Colin Powell is wrong and Rumsfeld is right and that Rumsfeld has done a "heckuva job Rummy"?

lets narrow this down and try to be more specific. are there too many troops in Iraq, or too few?

It's tough to debate someone who either is ignorant of the facts or is in such deep denial that they are unable to acknowledge the truth.

I couldnt agree more. and we all know media based "polls" are completely truthful and factual.

"Terrorists" as you call them make up less than 5% of the incidents in Iraq. The insurgents are Iraqis, not Al Quaeda. The violence preventing electricity and gasoline 3.5 years after we "won" the war is from secterian attacks, not terrorist

i suppose you got this information from a poll?

If I'm wrong how about backing up your statements with some verifiable facts? I posted a poll from USA Today

well yippeeee***indoo. YOU POSTED A POLL. bestill my heart.

Why don't you post something from somewhere that shows that terrorists and Al Quaeda are mostly responsible for the infrastructure issues in Iraq? It's time to write facts not bluster, please?

one reason is because I never said terrrorists and al queda are mostly responsible for jack. I simply asked you why you dont give those terrorists some of the credit for the problems we are having there.

and then you go on a rant claiming I said something I never said. nice debate tactic.

As far as calling me bi-polar does that make you feel smarter to name call? Try debating with facts. If you dispute my posts do so with proof not calling me bi-polar!

so, we have too few troops in afghanistan.......yet you want to reduce troops in Iraq?

do I have it right yet?

 

[26 X World Champs]

do I have it right yet?

No you do not! You do seem to have a problem comprehending my simple words. Let's try just one more time to see if it sticks this time, shall we? This is what I wrote in my last post and you even quoted me for God's sake:

I clearly wrote that we have too few troops in both wars and that has caused a majority of the problems.

Do you see the words that I highlighted? Are they unclear to you?

As far as the rest of your reply goes your refusal to debate me speaks volumes for your point of view. Anyone who has no basis in science and cannot post one source to back up anything he writes is not debating so therefore from now on you're going to have to debate yourself since there's no point in trying to discuss issues with you that you are unable to prove. I've never seen you post one source that has ever backed up anything you've written.

Ta Ta!

 

[ProudAmerican]

As far as the rest of your reply goes your refusal to debate me speaks volumes for your point of view.

like when you make up things I said that I didnt really say?

your point of view is pretty clear as well.

good day!

tell ya what, I will make this easier for you than you ever thought possible. I will add you to my ignore list.....now you dont have to worry about having any exhanges with me again.

I like debating people that actually want to debate.....and the "bush sucks" crowd has never struck me as very intelligent.

 

[Hoot]

Anyway, you correctly pointed out that more people hate us. I pointed out that obviously, if more people hate us but less attacks are occurring, something is going right.

C'mon, Joby...any search will show you that attacks in Iraq against coalition troops increased 29% in 2005. Less attacks?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-01-22-iraq-statistics_x.htm

 

[26 X World Champs]

C'mon, Joby...any search will show you that attacks in Iraq against coalition troops increased 29% in 2005. Less attacks?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-01-22-iraq-statistics_x.htm

I think you'll hear the old double speak reply to this one, IMHO. On the one hand a typical pro-Bush reply is that there haven't been any further attacks on US soil since 9-11 "proving" that America is safer...

On the other hand you'll hear that the world is not a safe place and we have to fight "them" in Iraq so that we are safe over here....of course the fact that IRaq never threatened us is moot. Then finally their argument includes how we're fighting Al Quaeda in Iraq which is proof that the war is worthy...completely ignoring that Al Quaeda only infiltrated Iraq after we invaded!

 

[Joby]

I think you'll hear the old double speak reply to this one, IMHO. On the one hand a typical pro-Bush reply is that there haven't been any further attacks on US soil since 9-11 "proving" that America is safer...

On the other hand you'll hear that the world is not a safe place and we have to fight "them" in Iraq so that we are safe over here....of course the fact that IRaq never threatened us is moot. Then finally their argument includes how we're fighting Al Quaeda in Iraq which is proof that the war is worthy...completely ignoring that Al Quaeda only infiltrated Iraq after we invaded!

To the first part, yes.

To the second, the fact remains that Saddam Hussein was a threat and continued to be so until his capture. Al Qaeda is, as both of you pointed out, a relatively small piece of the puzzle in Iraq. However, I'm honestly not that worried about any terrorist group as they have only inflicted roughly 2550 casualties on American Troops after 3 years.

Off topic, but let me ask a question-- Why does the liberal community complain that we're still over there and complain when we use overwhelming force?

If you really wanted to get out of there, without leaving a country in anarchy, you'd suport things like Fallujah, not cut it down. In fact, if I was in charge, Fallujah would have resmbled a large basketball court, and Abu Ghraib would be were convicted inmates talked or died. I'd give the PM and government the security to know that someone can oppose the govt all they want, but the minute they take up arms they're toast.