So Long Worst President Ever; 10 Reasons History Will Hang You

Andrew Jackson is the worse president ever.

Bush is a bad guy, but he's not a genocidal maniac.

I ran Bush #2, for what it's worth.

reply to post by Leo Strauss


Hey Leo,

You boldly promised us 10 reasons and fell dramatically short at just 8. Are you sure you ain't a politician... over promising and under delivering?

I want my money back!

IRM

This thread is weak.

More anti-Bush wackos.

Obama will drive this country even further into the hole.

You - "Obama isn't even in office yet.."

Me - "Sure your right ... but im tired at looking at all the Obama merchandise.."

Don't you actually have to do something ... GREAT before you have all the Obama toys, underware, tissue paper, action figures, towels, blankets, coins, flags, CDs/DVDs and such?

Originally posted by Leo Strauss


Science: Global Warming, Refusal to sign Kyoto protocols, stem cell research etc etc

We're experiencing the coldest winter in history in many parts of the world, scientists who's names appeared on much of the 'evidence' surrounding man driven global warming have come out en masse stating they never signed anything nor agreed with anything surrounding the AlGore bunch's claims about the topic, scientific evidence has been provided connecting the more active solar cycle of the 90s to hotter temps on all planets in our solar system as well as the relative inactivity of the sun recently with our precipitous drop in temps... yet you still cling to Global Warming and Kyoto like a toddler holding its favorite comfort blanket? This comment may be off topic but so what? The time has now come for you global warming fear mongers to put away your incessant ignorance and whining over a flawed theory based on pseudo-science and lies and spend a little bit of time trying to manufacture your next scare tactic to use against humankind.

And for what it's worth (and directly related to the OP) I voted for GWB twice and would probably do the same if I had it to do over again.

Had 9/11 gone down under Gore's watch, we'd have bombed another aspirin factory and by now would probably be drafting legislation making Sharia law legitimate and acceptable in the US of A. Had John Forbes Kerry been elected 4 years ago, we'd still be staring down the barrel of a depression, only under him we'd be staring down a depression AND the only pathways out of it would be blocked thanks to ridiculous self imposed restrictions on our industrial and commercial growth. Not to mention the screaming, insane harpy we'd have standing next to him everytime he was shown on TV.

I'm not defending the man, nor am I saying he was a good president. I am, however saying that compared to the alternative he was the best man for the job WHO HAD A SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HELL OF WINNING. There are more than a few of us out there who believe that this economy was spiraling downward before Bush even entered office. Let's face a fact here, the Clinton economy was built on total smoke & mirrors, just like the Bush economy was. Hell, it could be argued that this country has been artificially propped up from this mega recession since Dick Nixon removed us from the gold standard and every president since him has attempted (with mixed success) to hide the mess under the rug in hopes it would miraculously fix itself. Carter obviously failed, Reagan run up the deficit, Bush 1 failed to turn the first Gulf War into the panacea it should have been for the economy by allowing Hussein to retain control of Iraq, Clinton shifted huge debts from the federal government off to the individual states while his administration encouraged the construction of an imaginary stock market boom based on 'cyber' businesses that never developed into real world wealth, and Bush freed up regulations on the housing market in order to try and build a boom industry and large development period probably in hopes of it sticking.

You can also blame the individual states & municipalities for the housing colapse. They were the entity that continually overestimated the value of all homes in their jurisdiction year after year with those huge property tax dollar signs in their eyes. Had home prices increased on a natural, non-property taxation driven curve, we'd almost certainly be in better shape right now.

As for the bailout, blame them all. The House dems were vigorously rubbing their chubby little hands together at the idea of "rescuing" America just as much as the GOP was. You wanna crucify Bush, fine, but you better damn well nail that female dog Nancy Pelosi and that troll Harry Ried to the crosses next to him while you're doing so.

The Iraq war is and always has been a non-issue to me. WMDs, no WMDs, doesn't matter. It was unfinsihed business and long past overdue for Hussein to be removed. I disagreed with the handling of the war, thought we had no reason to stop shelling their country and set ground troops in when we did and that lengthened the war significantly. The simple fact was, Iraq had more than enough chances to prevent that war and they crapped on each and every one, so I have no sympathy for them.

www.alternet.org...

Thanks to Bush, we know that conservatives are not fiscally responsible, they are not for small government, they don't stand up for moral values and they won't make Americans one bit safer. Conservatives aren't even true defenders of "free markets" -- having presided over the biggest market bailout in the world.

First of all, the author, Bernie Horn, confuses the words "conservative" and "Republican". To be fiscally conservative is to be, by definition, fiscally responsible. Conservatives also stand for limited government and are "true defenders of 'free markets'". While George W Bush supported TARP in its original form (which, by the way, was changed by Paulson/Bernanke as soon as congress approved it), actual conservative Republicans, such as Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, oppose them. Horn, apparently, is deliberately using the word "conservative" instead of "Republican" in order to undermine conservatism -- which has been, much to my dismay, in short supply lo these last few years.


1. The worst recession since the 1930s

Paradoxically, Horn begins by claiming that "conservatives" have not championed "free markets", then blames the current financial crisis on "conservative anti-regulatory policy". Well, which is it, Bernie?


2. The worst finacial crisis since the 1930s

The housing "market bubble", that Bush is being blamed for, was caused by banks handing out sub-prime mortgages to borrowers who could not afford to repay them. Under laws first put in place by President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s and expanded greatly by President Clinton in the '90s, banks were forced to offer mortgages to low-income borrowers. But, let's be fair and spread the blame around. Banks in this decade were handing out mortgages over and above the legal requirements knowing that the federal government, via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was bound by law to come to the rescue should they go into default.

This was not a "conservative" program. This was begun by Democrats in the '70s and sent into overdrive by Democrats like Andrew Cuomo in the '90s and defended vociferously by Democrats like Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, Charles Meeks, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters in this decade even after regulators had tried to warn them that, if nothing was done, a very hard rain was a-gonna fall.

George W Bush and, more notably John McCain, in fact, made a half-hearted effort to address the looming crisis about three years ago. Their concerns either fell on deaf ears or, worse, they were accused of racism.



3. The worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country.

Bernie Horn writes: "This pre-emptive war -- based on phony pretenses -- is now the second longest in our nation's history (after Vietnam)." I suppose that's arguably true, if we define "war" as any operation that needs specific funding from Congress in order to maintain it unlike, say, our occupation of Japan which is in its 63rd year. (The reason we are still in Japan is that, as a consequence of their surrender 1945, they have no military and so we are responsible for their defense.)

And even today, more than five years later, can anyone explain why Bush marched us into this quagmire?

Yes. As a result of Operation Desert Storm, Saddam's army was ejected from Kuwait. Even eight years after the war had "ended", and while patroling the Iraqi no-fly zones, our planes were repeatedly being shot at by Iraqi anti-aircraft fire. In the new War on Terror, Saddam was a target because he was a terrorist and a terrorist sympathizer. He used chemical WMD on the Kurds in northern Iraq; financially rewarded the families of terrorists in Palestine/Israel; harbored terrorists such as Abu Nidal and directly threatened the United States of America.

"If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you."
-- Saddam Hussein to ambassador April Glaspie, 25 July, 1990

"We make no distinction between those who carry out these evil acts and those who harbor them."
-- George W Bush, 20 Sept, 2001

Saddam had chemical WMD, had used them, and could not account for their full destruction per terms of the cease-fire in 1991. Regime change in Iraq had been U.S. policy since 1998 per order of Congress and President Bill Clinton.

But the more important and far-sighted reason for Operation Iraqi Freedom was the transformation of the Middle East from backward-looking, theocratic, ancient grudge-holding cradle of "terrorist networks of global reach" to forward-looking, peaceful, 21st century democracies. A difficult undertaking, for sure, but the ground has been laid and stability in place even though Bernie Horn writes as if it's still 2005.


4. Unprecedented rejection of human rights.

Horn's gift for hyperbole is on display in all it's splendor with this paragraph:

Recently, a Bush administration official finally admitted that the U.S. government engaged in torture at Guantanamo Bay detention center. Bush admitted that he personally authorized waterboarding. While these clear violations of the Geneva Conventions would have been unthinkable a few years ago, today we're not surprised. From Abu Ghraib and extraordinary rendition, to years-long detention of innocents and the unrestrained killing of civilians by U.S.-paid mercenaries, this administration has systematically squandered our nation's moral standing in the world, making us less able to protect Americans and American interests worldwide.

Firstly, the "admission" of torture comes from one Susan J Crawford, a retired judge who was assigned by the Bush Administration to review practices at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Regarding the treatment of one specific detainee, in an interview with The Washington Post she states:

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.

I'll presume that the ellipses, replace the appropriate words, "in my opinion", since that is what she is giving. Her issue is not with any specific tactic but, rather, with the "aggressive" and "persistent" way that they were applied to terrorists that she regards as "torture". Cry me a river.

"Waterboarding" has, voluntarily, been undergone by several journalists out of curiosity. Not to be too snarky, but if a journalist had volunteered to have his or her fingernails ripped out in the lofty pursuit of justice, I'd be impressed. Waterboarding is an effective interrogation tactic, not "torture", in my opinion.

Secondly, the Geneva Conventions don't apply because these were not uniformed soldiers, they were "unlawful combatants". "Unlawful combatants" is a long-winded euphemism for "terrorists". "Terrorists" is NOT a euphemism for "innocents". (The part about "unrestrained killing of civilians" is just too slanderous to warrant a polite response.)


5. Watergate-style abuses of power.

Horn cites a long pdf from John Conyers' Judiciary Committee and an artcle from The Boston Globe from 2006 and concludes that, "Bush claimed the authority to disobey hundreds of laws -- as if Richard Nixon were right when he famously said: 'When the president does it, that means it's not illegal.'"

What Bush and Nixon both refer to is the War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933. It's a long-standing -- and equally long-contraversial -- doctrine that every president since FDR has had the opportunity to take advantage of. Some interesting examination of it can be found at: www.sourcewatch.org...

Nixon was talking to David Frost who is a Brit, not an American journalist, and who obviously had no idea what the foundation of Nixon's argument was -- just as, apparently, most American's don't. Here is Nixon's response to Frost, beginning at 1:04 in the video.

www.youtube.com...

NIXON: An action's either going to be covert or not.
FROST: So, what, in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations...where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation, or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
FROST: By definition?
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If, for example, the president approves something, approves an action, because of the national security or, in this case, because of a threat to internal peace and order of a significant magnitude, then the president's decision, in that instance, is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating the law. Otherwise, they're in an impossible position.

To call any president's exercizing of authority under WEPA as an "abuse of presidential power" is to call WEPA an abuse in and of itself. An argument can certainly be made and I might even be interested in making it. But that's a topic for another day.


To be continued...





[edit on 17-1-2009 by Tuning Spork]

6. Unprecedented increases in inequality.

Horn links to an examination of economic numbers over the past eight years and claims that the performance is "because Bush policy was designed to increase economic inequality."

A broad, "flat" tax cut naturally results in higher-income earners receiving a greater total sum in real dollars (but an equal percentage) than lower-income earners. Giving everyone who pays taxes a tax-cut results in no "income inequality" that didn't exist beforehand. What it does do is put more money in the pockets of all who pay taxes on their earnings.

But, Bush's tax cuts were not "flat". The marginal rates were disproportionally adjusted as follows:

15% to 10%. (Those who paid 15% on their taxable income pay 10%.) This is a 33% reduction on taxable income.
28% to 15%. A reduction by 46%! (The exalted "middle-class tax-cut".)
31% to 25%. A 19.35% reduction.
36% to 33%. An 8.33% reduction on taxable income.

Yes, there was inequality in Bush's cuts, and it overwhelmingly favored the lower tax brackets, not the higher ones.


7. A culture of sleaze.

This one's a non-starter since every name mentioned by Horn was either a member of congress or, otherwise, not a part of the Bush Administration with the exception of "Scooter" Libby, who was the Vice-President's Chief of Staff. Though, it is interesting to note here that Horn, a self-proclaimed "liberal" I presume, refers to the Larry Craig incident as "sleaze" when it is liberals who claim to be tolerant of homosexuals and, likewise, claim that conservatives are not.


8. Blind rejection of science

Here Horn claims that the Bush Administration has "thumbed its nose at scientific evidence" regarding "global warming" when Bush has, in reality, been inexplicably welcoming of the idea of "global climate change", and at "toxic chemicals and consumer products that threaten the health of every American" without naming one instance of such.
(And if he's refering to the "arsenic" episode that Bill Clinton put in motion just as he was leaving the White House, then he's complaining that water utility companies weren't forced to spend millions and millions of their customers' dollars to reduce arsenic in tap water from one harmless level to an even lower harmless level.)

He also accuses Bush of "the virtual outlawing of stem cell research" when, in reality, Bush was the first president to fund it. The restrictions he put on the funding extend only to embryonic stem cell research which, to date, has shown no promise. (Adult stem cell research, on the other hand, goes forward and has shown great promise.)

And even if embryonic stem cell research had shown promise, the benefits of that research would not have been available for years -- possibly decades -- to come. The Bush policy of stem cell funding has not, as Horn hysterically claims, caused "immeasurable suffering and loss of life"


9. Utter refusal to protect the health, safety and legal rights of Americans.

I skimmed through the lengthy links on that one, and what it pretty much boils down to is the DOJ clearing a merger of Whirlpool and Maytag, and the protection from lawsuits of companies that are in compliance of federal regulations.

For instance, if the fed requires only four (4) seat belts in a car -- two in front and two in back -- then an auto manufacturer can not be sued for not providing a third backseat belt if there are five (5) occupants and the fifth is injured in an accident for lack of a seatbelt.

Horn's concern, then, is not with the federal requirement of only four seatbelts and, thus, the actual health and safety of passengers at all. His concern is with Americans' "right" to sue once their health and safety have been effected by their own choices. Par, meet course.


10. Presiding over our nation's worst natural disaster, and not caring.

When Katrina ripped through Mississippi and Louisiana and inflicted nearly $100 billion in damages in New Orleans to become the costliest hurricane in U.S. history, FEMA was unprepared to help, and thousands of Americans suffered the consequences.

Well, let's recall that little episode shall we?

Hurricane Katrina is hurdling toward the Gulf coast and Bush asks Governor Kathleen Blanco if FEMA can come set up relief stations since the federal government cannot enter a soveriegn State without permission. Blanco says that Louisiana can handle it. Katrina rips up Mississippi from Biloxi on up. New Orleans looks like it may escape major damage until the rising water compromises the levees.

No call to FEMA comes through from Blanco and she wonders where the Fed is. "No one told me I had to make a call," she said a few days later. (Let's not even get started on Mayor Ray Nagin.) Finally FEMA arrives and things begin to get sorted out. But, political partisans and the scandal-hungry media decided to blame Bush for the delay, and it stuck.

Rediculously, some even blamed Bush for Katrina, itself, claiming that the hurricane was a result of so-called "global warming"... of which, they even more rediculously claim, he is in denial.
But, what the hey. It's Bush-bashing time so let's just say that he was "presiding over our nation's worst natural disaster and not caring."

I have been disappointed in Bush, too. But for very different reasons than has Bernie Horn. On many issues, Bush is not a conservative -- and he is certainly not (nor did he ever claim to be) a fiscal conservative.

But, truly, the best part of Obama taking office will be that we wont have to put up with Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) anymore. I hope.





[edit on 17-1-2009 by Tuning Spork]

George W. Bush, not an articulate or cultured person, as President, did not make every single decision as far as economic or foreign policy goes, 2001-8.

A US President these days has far less autonomy and final word. Multinational Corporations and lobbyists have far more influence than ever before.

Bush will remain the visible iconic scapegoat but the reasons a lot of American activities worldwide and domestically failed are complex and cannot be attributed to his administrative decisions.

My opinion, just conversationally, the Texas big oil money stealing the election in 2000 and installing the idiot son of a billionasire family trying unsuccessfully to establish a dynasty created a lot of bad karma.

The pretense of even a facade of justice, equality, fairness was finally dropped. The big money and power grab was on, accelerated by 9/11 and the sense of a new world.

Before the 21st Century the super-rich knew enough to leave the common people just enough to get by on, maybe even live modestly comfortably.
But a free pass was given to the financial people to grab it all and even sell the mortgage to the future for quick cash today.

Has Al Gore been Prez these past 8 years, who knows how different things wold have been. Maybe much better, maybe much worse.

At half-time Americans had a chance to vote Bush out of office. Kerry could have won, but given the vote result fixing, a landslide was necessary.

People grumbled and moaned on blogs and in their local bar, then went and turned on their TV sets.

I blame the American people for voting in this clown twice, not asking enough questions, not protesting on issues, not getting involved in the political process.

American citizens handed George Bush the license to do whatever he wanted.


Mike F

reply to post by Dorian Soran


Sorry, You counter opinion with opinion.

You ask for proof and yet provide none.

Never mind. Tuning Spork did the job on page 2.

Nicely presented TS.

regards....kk

Originally posted by Vitchilo

having presided over the biggest market bailout in the world.

And was pushed and supported by Obama. Without him and Paulson making threats, it wouldn't have passed.

Thank you Lord Obama for giving the money to our gods, the banks.

Uh, McCain quit the campaign trail to get this passed. McCain made attack ads attacking Obama for not supporting it. Ron Paul however was against this from the very start! But no one notices him... Anyways, as in the Masters of Horror movie Homecoming, "He makes stupid people feel they are as smart as the President." Because they are.

reply to post by Tuning Spork


TS thanks for taking the time to reply. But as you can imagine I am going to disagree with a few of the points you mentioned. The Republicans call themselves "conservatives" then we have their apologists step forward to say he is not really a conservative!

Paradoxically, Horn begins by claiming that "conservatives" have not championed "free markets", then blames the current financial crisis on "conservative anti-regulatory policy". Well, which is it, Bernie?

That is a straw man argument meant to obfuscate the real issue of deregulation of the financial markets. Don't get hung up on words like conservative or Republican TS. The fact is lack of regulation and the enforcement of those regulations led to the worst financial collapse in our nations history! The same type of scenario preceded the first Republican Great Depression of 1929.

George W Bush and, more notably John McCain, in fact, made a half-hearted effort to address the looming crisis about three years ago. Their concerns either fell on deaf ears or, worse, they were accused of racism.

Do you mean the John McCain that was part of the Keating 5 S&L scandal resulting in his censure and public apology in order to save his political neck?? That John McCain who accepted bribes to ignore regulations? Point being this is the same scam run twice for good measure. Seems to me it really began after Fannie and Freddie were "privatized".

Bernie Horn writes: "This pre-emptive war -- based on phony pretenses -- is now the second longest in our nation's history (after Vietnam)." I suppose that's arguably true, if we define "war" as any operation that needs specific funding from Congress in order to maintain it unlike, say, our occupation of Japan which is in its 63rd year. (The reason we are still in Japan is that, as a consequence of their surrender 1945, they have no military and so we are responsible for their defense.)...

But the more important and far-sighted reason for Operation Iraqi Freedom was the transformation of the Middle East from backward-looking, theocratic, ancient grudge-holding cradle of "terrorist networks of global reach" to forward-looking, peaceful, 21st century democracies. A difficult undertaking, for sure, but the ground has been laid and stability in place even though Bernie Horn writes as if it's still 2005.

TS whatever you do don't mention that 3 letter word OIL. "Transformation of the Middle East to forward looking"...I think I just threw up a little in my mouth "Preemptive War" gotta love the lawyer that came up with that one! All we have to do is keep printing money and we can stay there as long as we like!

Firstly, the "admission" of torture comes from one Susan J Crawford, a retired judge who was assigned by the Bush Administration to review practices at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Regarding the treatment of one specific detainee, in an interview with The Washington Post she states:

TS you should watch the news. Dick Cheney and George Bush have both admitted torture on National TV no less! The US tried and convicted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American troops.

What about being held without charges. Do you acknowledge that some of these "detainees" have been released when the case was finally allowed due process. 5 or 6 years in jail being tortured without due process. Is this your vision for America TS? Maybe you don't care about civil rights???

If the President makes a signing statement it is not against the law! Do you want Obama to have that power??

Anyway I am going to take a break and continue later.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Leo Strauss]

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Leo Strauss]

GOOD BYE, AND THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES. ALL OF THEM BAD.

I have nothing further to say.

Thw mess that the US is in has nothing to do with Bush and rarely to do with any president. Its the perps that run the show who has caused this to come about not a Bufoon of the first water.
The US has been turned in to Fascist state and its not over yet. Anyone who thinks POTUS is resposnsible is merely delluding themselves.

What will happen under Obama will more a continuance of what happened under Bush and it wont be Obam's fault either as he will just do what he is told same as Bush and all the others.

If the American people want to blame anyone for what has happened then go and stand in front of a mirror and you will see the culprit. While Americans have been fed a diet of crap food, crap TV, state controlled media the sloth of the American people has allowed the perps to continue with their plans.

Even now facing all the problems that they face the American public are in a self induced sleep walk and by the time they wake up it will be too late. Whats worse,is that they know 9/11 was an inside job, they know elections were rigged they know people were murdered after Katrina and what has this well armed populace done. A big fat NOTHING, nothing at all, they have allowed themselves to be dupped and the process continues. Just what will it take for Americans to grow some backbone. Your forebears fought the English over far less and you won your country freedom and liberty.

Now all that has been lost for a fat ass living, indiference and a could not care less attitude has allowed the perps to take a strong and powerful nation and turn it into a sewer. More Americans are locked up in prisons and mental institutions than anywhere else, more Americans die every year at the hands of their fellow citizens and far more killed in any war or by terrorism. Health care and education standards are falling and all the rest of it.

Conversly you have illegal wars costing trillions, obscene amounts of money spent on the military, corruption in every layer of Government a police force out of control yet the people still do nothing.

On top of all this you have rumours of camps, secret, cities, and bases, all manner of rumours on the wind. A very bleak picture indeed and one that will not change until the people do something about it.

Hey, Leo. Just a quick response before I hit the hay.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
That is a straw man argument meant to obfuscate the real issue of deregulation of the financial markets. Don't get hung up on words like conservative or Republican TS.

Addressing point #1, I mentioned that free-market/deregulation schism and then wrote what I realized was a response to point #2. I left it as is and hoped nobody would notice.

I got "hung up" the conservative/Republican distinction because Bernie Horn chose to used the term "conservative" in his opening salvo.

Thanks to Bush, we know that conservatives are not fiscally responsible, they are not for small government, they don't stand up for moral values and they won't make Americans one bit safer. Conservatives aren't even true defenders of "free markets" -- having presided over the biggest market bailout in the world.

My point is that you cannot assume that Bush speaks for conservatives because, on a great many issues, he does not. And I contend that Horn is attempting to equate "Bushism" with "conservatism" in order to unfairly impugn conservatism.

Do you mean the John McCain that was part of the Keating 5 S&L scandal resulting in his censure and public apology in order to save his political neck?? That John McCain who accepted bribes to ignore regulations?

None of the Keating Five were ever censured. In fact, McCain and John Glenn were completely cleared of any wrongdoing, though they were scolded for "exercizing bad judgment" in their professional relationships. Your statement above dangerously close to libel, Leo. tsk tsk. **shakes finger**

TS whatever you do don't mention that 3 letter word OIL.

If we went there for the oil then why don't we have it? And, if it was just to keep the oil flowing, the oil was flowing just fine before 2003. Don't you remember the U.N.'s good ol' Oil for Food for Bribes Program? But I wanted to stick to the point made in the article.

The US tried and convicted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American troops.

Exactly. Troops, not terrorists.

What about being held without charges.

These weren't people who were picked randomly off the street, LS. They were captured in armed combat at terrorist training camps.

Do you acknowledge that some of these "detainees" have been released when the case was finally allowed due process. 5 or 6 years in jail being tortured without due process.

Maybe I missed it, but I'm not aware of any detainees standing trial and being acquitted.

If the President makes a signing statement it is not against the law! Do you want Obama to have that power??

He will have that power as of noon on January 20th whether I want him to have it or not. If he is suspected of abusing that power by using it in a situation where it unwarranted then he can and should be hauled before Congress.

Aw, shoot. Now I'm sleepy.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Tuning Spork]

Please explain how he did any less with the power given to him than any other president - my health and safety is pretty much the same as it was under Clinton - except clinton caved to the terrorists on too many occasions so I guess I am now safer

Clinton did not allow terrorists to bring down the twin towers. Nor did his personal associates and supporters become hundreds of billions of dollars richer by sending American men and women to die for the almighty dollar.

Bush was all about using the office of the president to enrich his buddies and supporters to the utter detriment of the country at large. No, it was to the utter detriment of the WORLD at large.

None of the Keating Five were ever censured. In fact, McCain and John Glenn were completely cleared of any wrongdoing, though they were scolded for "exercizing bad judgment" in their professional relationships. Your statement above dangerously close to libel, Leo. tsk tsk.

The fact that they were not censured by the good old boys they work with DOES NOT MAKE THEM INNOCENT. Some of us hold ourselves, our progeny, and our lawmakers to higher standards than the liars, sodomites, and thieves who occupy the hallowed halls of the house and senate.




One hand washes the other.

Never argue with a liberal, he'll just dumb you down.

The 10....errrrr....8....errr maybe 1 legitimate reason History will hang Bush.....

Bush will go down in history as a leader who ignored the Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers, the hate America first crowd, the ultra-leftists, and decided to do the best things to keep America safe, and he succeeded inspite of the hate.

Bush also has the advantage of being followed by the most inexperienced, most liberal, and most unprepared President in our history. Lord Obama will look so bad to historians, that Bush will get great marks by comparison.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by RRconservative]

Obama = Jimmy Carter cubed.

For those of you who voted for Obama, that's Jimmy Carter X Jimmy Carter X Jimmy Carter.

Still confused?

1 times 1 times 1 equals

Anyone who thinks Bush is the "worst" President ever has never picked up a History book. He was bad but far from the worst.