The Worst President?

[Staz]

I found this over at Ampland and had to pass it on. For those of you that don't know, Ampland is a free porn website with a sometimes decent humor section, so there will be no direct link. I do not nkow the accuracy of anything in here, so don't blame me if it's wrong.

Originally Posted by Ampland

The Worst President?


Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it. They point out that
Iraq didn't attack the U.S. and we shouldn't have went to war
with them.
One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in
U.S. history.

Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic party.
Being an Independent I decided to take a look at history and see
if using that criteria who else could be called the "worst" president.

FDR ( a democrat) led us into World War II against Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Neither Germany or Italy ever attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
That's 1 Democratic President, 4 years and 450,000 American lives

Harry Truman (a democrat) 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.
That's 1 Democratic President, 3 years, and 55,000 American lives.

John F. Kennedy (a democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us.
Lyndon B. Johnson (a democrat) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975,
58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Finally in the 1970's
Richard Nixon (a republican) pulled us out of Vietnam.
That's 2 Democratic Presidents, 1 Republican President, 13 years, and 58,000
American lives.

Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia WITHOUT UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us.
The Clinton administration 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-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors
in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured Sadaam
Hussein, who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost about 600 soldiers, an average of 200 a year. Bush did all this
abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
That's 1 Republican President, 2 1/2 years, and about 600 American lives.

Then the Democrats complained about how long the war on terror is taking,
but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it TOOK JANET RENO TO TAKE THE
BRANCH DAVIDIAN C0MPOUND! THAT WAS A 51 DAY OPERATION!

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for LESS TIME THAN
IT TOOK HILLARY CLINTON TO LOCATE THE ROSE LAW FIRM RECORDS IN HER OWN OFFICE!

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
the Medina Republican Guard than it took TED KENNEDY TO CALL THE POLICE AND GIVE
HIMSELF UP AFTER HE HAD AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRUNK AND SANK HIS OLDSMOBILE IN
THE CHAPPAQUIDIK RIVER KILLING THE YOUNG LADY WHO WAS HIS PASSENGER!

And Finally...
IT TOOK LESS TIME FOR THE U.S. MILITARY TO TAKE IRAQ THAN IT DID TO COUNT THE
VOTES IN FLORIDA IN 2000!!!!

But for some reason the Democrats didn't complain about how long any of that took! Hmmm.....

The only things I have to say on the subject is that:

We should have gone into Afghanistan as soon as the Berlin Wall came down.

Nothing was mentioned about Somolia: we never should have tried to arrest Addid but when we were attacked we should have demonstrated the force of our military with no sympathy or restraint.

Any thoughts....

[Daniel ~]

This guy claims to be an independent? LOL

Motive and desired outcome don't seem to play much of a part in his thinking. Nor does some of the most outrageous and open corruption since Regan, the most indicted and convicted Admin of all time. To equate our intervention in WWII, when out very liberty was in the balance, with Bushes oil war and "Nation building"

Is simply very stupid or incredibly self serving. Bush and his cronies are looters pure and simple, looting IS there ONLY agenda.

Look at the way he's politically screwed his own party with this Medicare fiasco, now his own National security adviser is say he knew day ONE that the was ZERO connection to Terrorists and NO weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION.

In a democracy to lie like this and take your nation to war, is deserving of a public trial and an execution in my book.

[mookydooky]

Bush isn't the worse President, but he hasn't been the best. The liberals are attacking the wrong thing. Bush was handed the most robust economy ever in the history of the US, and his administration has somehow managed to mess it up.

[robbie]

Tell it like it is brother!!!

Only thing I EVER hear from the Demo's is "look how bad the other guy is doing is"
Rob

/robbie add's Staz to his buddy list

[Allan]

As a foreigner, I can tell you that Bush hasn't got/earned nearly as much respect outside the US as Clinton had...

[SteveI]

Originally Posted by mookydooky

Bush isn't the worse President, but he hasn't been the best. The liberals are attacking the wrong thing. Bush was handed the most robust economy ever in the history of the US, and his administration has somehow managed to mess it up.

Uh... Well, technically, didn't the tech bust occur in March 2001, 8 months before the election? Depending on how you look at it, the start of the recession can be debated. But the match that set it off was lit and on it's way to the fuel, long before anyone cast a vote.

The rise and fall of the economy really should be discussed within the Clinton Admin, both good and bad.

Bush inherited a mess, economically... Now if you want to argue about his handling of the mess he was given... ok.... that's a completely different matter.

[Staz]

Well right now the Iraqi people aren't handleing freedom to well. Those that see it's advantages use them to try to destroy freedom, and those who use to keep a low profile and do as told so as not to make waves would rather be safe than free - poor dumb bastards.

Saddam was a bad bad man. He should have been removed from power after the first Gulf War. The Arab entities in that alliance were adament that we had thier approval to only remove Iraqi forces from Kquweit and that we were not to invade Iraq itself. Bucsh seniors hands were tied. He had hoped that Iraqs people would rise up against thier dictator but he crushed them.

And weather or not WMD were found, the marines were ambushed by 600 egyptian and Sudanian terrorist that were training a a camp about 80 miles to the southeast of Baghdad. This was a war on terror? wasn't it?

And as for Afghanistan, like I said befor, it was long overdue. After the Soviets invaded we supplied the rebels with arms and advisiors the same way that they did the North Vietnamiese. But after the rebels secured a victory and the soviets pulled out, we abandon the people we were claiming to help. (Dan, you can blame this on Regan if you want) The country was thrown into a civil war and the worst possible outcome came, bringing with it some of the worst human rights violations against women ever seen. And yet we stood by and did nothing for years allowing a small splinter in the free world to grow in a festering wound that leached posion to the rest of the free world.

Also does anyone remember our Embassys being bombed? I do. I also remember Clinton doing nothing about it. Saudi Arabia and Sudan had told us where to find Osama but Clinton declined to act.

Lets face it, Clinton only did what he thought would look favoribly for him, and not what was right. Clinton was more worried about image than anything else.

Sometime doing the right thing isn't easy or popular or even easy to define, but it should be important.























I am still bitter that Colin Powell isn't at the reighns

[Daniel ~]

His own National security advice has published a book! Bush Ignored Afghanistan for a crucial period that allowed OSAMA to GO!

Catch OSAMA and there's no excuse or emotional reason among the populous to invade Iraq. These jerks were writing position paper before they STOLE the Presidency.

Iraq was slated for invasion NOT for human rights abuse, which Is why I supported the invasion in a half dozen debates. Bush could walk across dead babies to get what he wants. Look at his staff.

Chaney, a OIL CEO
Rumsfield a Pharmaceutical CEO

They awarded the FIRST unbidded contracts in the HISTORY of the US Government to A company (I forget which of these monsters it was use), to work for!!

There's already cries of fraud!

Everyone else has ALWAYS been content to have a crooked and HEAVILY bribed bidding process!

These guys can't even contain their greed to that extent! But there's Kerry! "I would never think to pass any laws that would "force" you to pay a higher rate than you wanted to on the taxes you don't pay!

I just wanted you to know that I could create good PR for you! You'd look good saying "OK. Some of us rich guys will volunteer to accept a higher tax on the taxes we don't pay... But only for as long as it helps the Country and of course only for as long as we don't pay them!

If anything goes SO TERRIBLY WRONG that we end up having to pay any taxes, then THAT deals right out the window!!

Let's Get real! 14 of the 16 terrorist were Saudis!! The money was SAUDI!!

Bush family oil connections ARE SAUDI!

So whose your Uncle when "Terrorists" AKA "SAUDIS!" Attack us, why our pals the SAUDIS!! They will help us STOP Terrorism!!

They "allow" us to attack Hussein! LOL

Look I'd shoot Hussein myself. I thank god that duty does not fall to me personally. But would sleep soundly once the shock of mortality wore off.

But I never entertain the possibility that these evils sons of Bitches were doing so for ANY reason but money.

Now I happen to be independent.

Kerry is a real Champ.

Who do you think he was talking to when he announced his tax plan alternative? LOL

A plan that calls for The Rich and the Super rich to, "Volunteer" to give back some of the Taxes they hired Bush to steal for them.

"What does this mean?"

It's Kerry saying "Fund me rich people! I won't stop you from looting the U.S treasury! My tongue has every bit of the insertion power of a Bush!! Let me be the puppet! Buy me! Buy Me!!"

AND He has to do it! The rich are very heavily invested in George, he did arrange for them to not only continue to pay no taxes, but the get a huge tax break on their taxes if anything were ever to go so terribly WRONG that they ended up having to pay some! eek!

Hey I love'em all! Let's pass laws that allow us to execute such men! They are the reason children starve. What more could I possibly say?

[mookydooky]

Originally Posted by SteveI

Uh... Well, technically, didn't the tech bust occur in March 2001, 8 months before the election?

Uh, that would be 5 months AFTER the election of 2000 and 2 months after his inauguration.

[Daniel ~]

I heard on one news cast or another that the Economy has suffered every time a Republican has taken the office for the last 30 or 50 years, can't remember which.. That they break the budget every time.

[SteveI]

Originally Posted by mookydooky

Uh, that would be 5 months AFTER the election of 2000 and 2 months after his inauguration.

Sorry I'm crossing up the dates, but I think the market tanked prior to the election and I got the year wrong... I'll doublecheck.

[SteveI]

Yes, I got the year wrong. Sorry for the confusion.... The Tech Bubble burst in the spring of 2000, many months before the election. But I got the meaning right... Bush did not cause the recession, he inherited it.

[mookydooky]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

I heard on one news cast or another that the Economy has suffered every time a Republican has taken the office for the last 30 or 50 years, can't remember which.. That they break the budget every time.

Something is wrong with that statement. When Reagan inherited the economy, he inherited it from Jimmy Carter who left it in a pretty big mess. Most people credit Reagan and Paul Volker as having revived the economy and also dramatically increasing the role of the Federal Reserve Chairman in the economy.

[SteveI]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

I heard on one news cast or another that the Economy has suffered every time a Republican has taken the office for the last 30 or 50 years, can't remember which.. That they break the budget every time.

The statements were obviously made by a democrat. Decisions made by presidents have ramifications what often take years to pan out. I keep referring to the market crash, and it is a good example. People look at the 90's with the boom that lasted most of that time. Many would credit Clinton... However, the market crashed in his last year of office. The layoffs and recession was under way, BEFORE Bush was elected. However, it seems most Democrats want to blame Bush for the economy. If you look at the chart I posted above, you can see how badly the nasdaq got pummelled, setting the stage. I think Bush is a bumbling idiot, but at the same time, it was the previous administration's mess that Bush was trying to clean up. While the S&P and Dow industrials obviously did not drop quite as precipitously, it was bad, and a lot of people lost their savings.... The real damage was to the economy tho.

As far as people losing money in the market.... TOUGH!!
When people start investing in mutual funds, thinking 20%-30% returns should be expected, and people who don't even understand basic investment principles think they are experts by virtue of gains in a market where everything is going up....... They DESERVE to lose everything (a sucker and his money....). The stock market is not easy money. As soon as you think it is, is when it is time to watch out. At it's best, it is investing. At it's worst, it is gambling.

EDIT: Back to the subject tho. Dan, I hope you can remember where you heard this... I'm dying to see the clown myself. Clinton was in the office 8 years. Since ww2, democrats have historically been the free spenders in the budget, with little regard for balancing it. It has primarily been republicans has have shown fiscal restraint. Clinton, as a moderate has surprised many in washington by showing restraint. But if you think about it, with an economy that is booming, and huge tax revenues, it is easy to look brilliant by doing nothing. Bush has the undesireable task of trying to kickstart the economy with borrowed money (the stimulus package). Unlike a business that is bleeding red, in a down economy, the gov't has to spend more and drive debt up to get the economy going. Remember, the government is the biggest employer and biggest consumer in the USA, unfortunately.

[Repo Man]

Perhaps Clinton could have done more against terrorism if he hadn't been facing non stop attacks from the Republicans.

Some of you may have seen this before. The Onion must have used a crystal ball when they wrote this one.

http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_37...tmare_3701.gif

WASHINGTON, DC—Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."
Above: President-elect Bush vows that "together, we can put the triumphs of the recent past behind us."

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

Wall Street responded strongly to the Bush speech, with the Dow Jones industrial fluctuating wildly before closing at an 18-month low. The NASDAQ composite index, rattled by a gloomy outlook for tech stocks in 2001, also fell sharply, losing 4.4 percent of its total value between 3 p.m. and the closing bell.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html

Remember, that was written prior to Bush's inauguration.