The war in Iraq. The single man most responsible for that war was Saddam. He had wmd in the past, acted like he did just before the war, could have avoided the war by simply allowing UN inspectors to do their job, was warned several times, stubbornly followed his own failed policies.

The 9/11 attack: President Bush actually started doing something to bring the terrorists to judgment, unlike Clinton, who when the twin towers were bombed the first time, fired a couple of ineffective cruise missiles, destroying an asprin factory.

The economy: President Bush led the way to serious tax cuts that allowed our economy to rebound in spite of it falling off when he took office and the additional massive economic burden of the 9/11 attack. The present inflation is the result of normal supply and demand which would have occurred no matter who the president is. If Democrats had gotten out of the way, maybe we would have more supply by now.

Security: We haven’t had another attack in our homeland since 9/11. (Maybe by the time you read this we will have had, but so far, so good.) I will agree that President Bush has been soft on border security, but which of his opponents for the presidency would have handled that issue any better?

SCOTUS: President Bush is responsible for the appointment of 2 judges who, so far, appear to be of the opinion that the Constitution means what is says, and we don’t need to look to foreign nations to decide what we will do here. I wonder if we would have affirmation of our right to bear arms if either Gore or Kerry had appointed those two judges?

President Bush has refused to sign on to KYOTO, and this is saving this country from a real nightmare. What would Gore have done?

President Bush is not perfect, who is? He certainly does not deserve the vile hatred that has come his way. That has gone far beyond disagreement with policy and descended into the personal realm and says FAR MORE ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF HIS DETRACTORS than it does about him.

I disagree totally with all of your "defenses" as you put it.

I guess you totally dismiss W's calling the Constitution "a goddam piece of paper"... and other things he did all by himself with no one else's help.

You forgot the skyrocketing gasoline prices... I guess being a former oilman had nothing to do with that either.

I don't know what Gore would have done to this country... but it sure would not have been of the same magnitude that W has accomplished all by himself (and his clever handlers).

Let me guess... you want W to run for another 4 years?

I haven't laughed so hard at anything today. I think you should have posted this under the Humor and Comedy section.

Twinkie - I agree with you. The only reason I don't want Bush impeached - and jailed, is that it would mean that other would be the Pres. Got to send Cheney away first and now there's no time.



-

I have said for some time that President Bush will leave like Truman with extremely unpopular polling and history will vindicate him on most of the issues you raise.
The Bush Doctrine will be the template that future Presidents will use to engage jihadistan much like the Truman Doctrine was the blueprint for the Cold War.
The economy is cyclical and Bush was in office during recovery from 2 economic downturns . The 1st was the tech-stock bubble collapse and the 2nd was the aftermath of 9-11. We went on to have one of the longest sustained expansions in history and I still think the slowdown will end sometime in the fall. I think you have seen peak prices in oil and other commodities like gold and silver... sell if you have them .

I just wish Bush had more time to appoint another SCOTUS oligarch . All he was able to really do was provide balance. The next President may replace as many as 3 judges .So you know what is at stake in this election.

Twinkie... please note that oil prices began to jump when Madame Mimi Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress.

The Goracle yesterday announced a 10 year plan to get us off fossile fuels . He gave no details but compared it to the Kennedy Challenge to go to the moon..
Uhhhhh... How did we get there ? With solar power ? I'm telling you ,Neil Armstrong left a huge carbon footprint on the moon!!

How did we get there ? With solar power ? I'm telling you ,Neil Armstrong left a huge carbon footprint on the moon!!!You think the Apollo rockets used oil? Saturn V - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Stages)

Thanks for the clarification I stand corrected .

Hello:

In my view, Bush will go down in hisory as the WORST president EVER.

excon

I disagree totally with all of your "defenses" as you put it.

I guess you totally dismiss W's calling the Constitution "a goddam piece of paper"...... and other things he did all by himself with no one else's help.

You have evidence of this?

...

The Goracle yesterday announced a 10 year plan to get us off fossile fuels . He gave no details but compared it to the Kennedy Challenge to go to the moon..

Let's see: Gore is one of those guys that lead by example, right? Don't do as I do, but do as I say.

Worse Presidents :James Buchanan (watched and did nothing as the Union disintegrated ),Andrew Johnson (vetoed civil rights legislations after civil war) among others . Herbert Hoover (turned an economic downturn into the Great Depression .Campaigned for and signed the Smoot-Hawley trade protection act and then passed the Revenue Tax Act of 1932 that raised income taxes, estate taxes and corporate taxes... plunging the country into the Great Depression), Jimmy Carter (for a number of reasons) . John Tyler was called "acting President" or "his accidency" .He was expelled from his own party while he was President. Franklin Pierce was so bad he is the only President not renominated by his own party. He signed to disastrous Kansas-Nebraska act ;killing the fragile balance achieved by the Missouri Compromise.

My initial ranking puts President Bush smack in the middle of the pack . We do not know yet because a lot of his policies are still ongoing .But there is more he could've done in the area of illegal immigration control and entitlement reform .

Hello again, tom:

Another outright repudiation of the Bush Doctrine is being carried out as we speak.

You know all those terrible people that we WOULDN'T talk to, because you can't negotiate with terrorists?? You remember that?? I remember that stupid crap. It was like "bring 'em on". Stupid, STUPID crap.

Anyway, guess whose talking now? Yup, the dufus in chief. I guess he's trying to save what's left... Problem is, it's 7 1/2 years too late.

excon

The Bush Doctrine


We will direct every resource at our command--every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war--to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network...
President Bush (September 27, 2001, to a joint session of Congress)

Hello tom:

Well there you go. I'm wrong, and Bush is the Diplomacy President.

Jeeez, dude. I thought you paid attention instead of just carrying his water.

excon

Do you really think that there was no negotiations going on in the last 71/2 years ? Just because they are not held formally doesn't mean they haven't been happening .

do you really think that there was no negotiations going on in the last 71/2 years ? Just because they are not held formally doesn't mean they haven't been happening .
I guess if it isn't seen on TV, it didn't happen.

Hello again, tom:

I don't know if there was or not. All I know is our president said he's not going to talk with 'em.

If he WAS talking to 'em, why did he lie about it?? Does it make him look weak?? Actually, LYING makes him look weak - specially about something as stupid as this.

Nope, he's the WORST - by far!

excon

The war in Iraq. The single man most responsible for that war was Saddam. He had wmd in the past, acted like he did just before the war, could have avoided the war by simply allowing UN inspectors to do their job, was warned several times, stubbornly followed his own failed policies.
...
Security: We haven't had another attack in our homeland since 9/11. (Maybe by the time you read this we will have had, but so far, so good.) I will agree that President Bush has been soft on border security, but which of his opponents for the presidency would have handled that issue any better?
...

President Bush is not perfect, who is? He certainly does not deserve the vile hatred that has come his way. That has gone far beyond disagreement with policy and descended into the personal realm and says FAR MORE ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF HIS DETRACTORS than it does about him.
As I posted elsewhere, President Clinton laid out the rationale for offensive action against Iraq. So, we may reasonably conclude that the message was not, and is not, objectionable, it is the messenger. YouTube - President Clinton orders attack on Iraq (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc&feature=related)

Hello again, wingers:

I don't know. You guys are really stretchin... But, the patriot that I am, cannot let you get away with it... Try as you might to change reality, the dufus in chief really IS a dufus.

To ME, air strikes are a lot different than an invasion, occupation and a war that bogged us down for over 5 years, cost over a TRILLION $$'s, caused us take our eyes off the REAL enemy, and killed over 4,000 of our OWN people.

I guess to YOU, they're the same... DUDES!

excon

Why do you support the war in Afghanistan ? Because the Taliban attacked us ? Nope ;AQ did . So the reason then I can conclude is that you buy into the Bush doctrine which says that the U.S. would make no distinction between terrorists and the regimes that harbor them.

So lets then say for argument that Obama is our next President . What has he said about preemption ?

"The danger ... is that we are constantly fighting the last war, responding to the threats that have come to fruition, instead of staying one step ahead of the threats of the 21st century."

He thus endorses the principle of waging preventive war against non-immediate, but gathering threats to national security.And what else has he said that agrees with the Bush Doctrine ? "we cannot tolerate a sanctuary for terrorists who threaten America's homeland. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-level al-Qaida targets in Pakistan's border region, we must act if Pakistan will not or cannot."


And what do all the human rights people think is the proper solution to Zimbabwe ? You got it ; forcibly removing a brutal dictator,Robert Mugabe from power. And why do they argue we should intervene in Darfur ?

The Bush Doctrine will live on no matter who is President .

Obama = Bush Light Bwe he he!

I guess you totally dismiss W's calling the Constitution "a goddam piece of paper"......

Just an unsubstantiated rumor, of which factcheck.org says (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html) "the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero."

You think the Apollo rockets used oil? Saturn V - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Stages)


The Saturn V (pronounced 'Saturn Five', popularly known as the Moon Rocket) was a multistage liquid-fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V) expendable rocket... The Saturn V consisted of three stages — the S-IC first stage, S-II second stage and the S-IVB third stage — and the instrument unit. All three stages used liquid oxygen (LOX) as an oxidizer. The first stage used RP-1 for fuel, while the second and third stages used liquid hydrogen (LH2).


RP-1 (alternately, Rocket Propellant-1 or Refined Petroleum-1) is a highly refined form of kerosene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP-1) outwardly similar to jet fuel, used as a rocket fuel.


Kerosene, sometimes spelled kerosine in scientific and industrial usage,[1] is a combustible hydrocarbon liquid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene)... Kerosene is a thin, clear liquid formed from hydrocarbons, with density of 0.78-0.81g/cm3. Kerosene is obtained from the fractional distillation of petroleum between 150 °C and 275 °C, resulting in a mixture of carbon chains containing 12 to 15 carbon atoms..

I'd say most definitely, Apollo rockets used oil.

Just an unsubstantiated rumor, of which factcheck.org says (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html) "the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero."
Thanks for the follow-up; how about it, twinkie?

Hello George:

I'm much more interested in the fact that he DID tear up the Constitution. Not whether he SAID he would.

excon

Steve ;maybe for the Mars project we can use one of T Boone's windmills

Excon - I'm with you. Whether W the jerk actually said it is irrelevant - the fact he has made a royal mess out of our country and tore up the Constitution is relevant.

George - I'm a registered Democrat. But who cares who's running this year as the Americans really don't have a choice in the say so anyway as to who is going to be President. I figured this out many, many years ago.

GW Bush is by far the worst president we've ever had. He even makes Tricky Nixon look good and Slick Willy even better. I have read biographies of each of the presidents (some presidents several books each) and their first ladies. It seems that Jr. is nothing like daddy Bush one iota. The only way W got anywhere in this lifetime is by the toadying up to his daddy by daddy's rich friends giving W some choice jobs. W is an out and out con man who deserves the black eye that history will deservedly give him.

Interestingly enough, I had to wade through 3 pages of Google search to find the disclaimer about the quote on the "piece of paper".

Excon - I'm with you. Whether W the jerk actually said it is irrelevant - the fact he has made a royal mess out of our country and tore up the Constitution is relevant.

George - I'm a registered Democrat. But who cares who's running this year as the Americans really don't have a choice in the say so anyway as to who is going to be President. I figured this out many, many years ago.

GW Bush is by far the worst president we've ever had. He even makes Tricky Nixon look good and Slick Willy even better. I have read biographies of each of the presidents (some presidents several books each) and their first ladies. It seems that Jr. is nothing like daddy Bush one iota. The only way W got anywhere in this lifetime is by the toadying up to his daddy by daddy's rich friends giving W some choice jobs. W is an out and out con man who deserves the black eye that history will deservedly give him.
Thanks, twinkie.

Twinkie ;you read books on former Presidents and think Bush is worse than the ones I mentioned ? Even Buchanan who oversaw the collapse of the union ? Or Hoover who's policies led to an economic collapse like you've never seen and we will never see again ?

Steve ;maybe for the Mars project we can use one of T Boone's windmills

Tom, He blows enough hot air he could furnish the propulsion himself. T. Boone made his money right here in Amarillo with Mesa Petroleum, then he cut out, moved to Dallas and has been trying to buy our water to ship it downstate ever since. I can pretty well guarantee whatever he's getting himself into - including his Pickens Plan - is a plan to fill his coffers.

Of course it is . He has divested of oil and is hevily invested in windmills. With all your wide open space and winds His plan of putting up 200,000 windmills 150' high could indeed power up Dallas (so long as you pay the infrastructure to build the transmission lines) . But how is it supposed to work on a national level ? I guarantee it will be the enviro-wackos who complain the loudest about the windmills.

Al Gore is insane . He envisions thousand acres of land with windmills and solor panels .
Imagine this in your back yard and as far as the eye can see.

http://www.terragalleria.com/images/us-ca/usca9769.jpeg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/eastmidlands/series11/images/week4/archive-_donkey449.jpg

Whether W the jerk actually said it is irrelevant ...Interestingly enough, I had to wade through 3 pages of Google search to find the disclaimer about the quote on the "piece of paper".

The truth is entirely relevant - at least that's what all these Obama supporters here claim. If it's no longer relevant then let's get Mr. Obama to take down his Fight the Smears website and stop using FactCheck.org as I did to smash your irresponsible rumor.

Al Gore is insane . He envisions thousand acres of land with windmills and solor panels... Imagine this in your back yard and as far as the eye can see.
Yeah, and it won't be in the Gore, Kennedy, et al, backyard.

NK what does your pix take up ? About 20 yards of space ? I guarantee it will generate more energy then the acres of windmills I posted .

Here is the US they are opposing drilling in ANWR . They show thousands of acres of pristine land in their propaganda but fail to mention that the area they are interested in is about the size of an International Airport.

Al Gore is insane . He envisions thousand acres of land with windmills and solor panels . Imagine this in your back yard and as far as the eye can see.

http://www.terragalleria.com/images/us-ca/usca9769.jpeg

Yes, nothing in that scenario would be harmful to our ecosystems would it? What's funny is today al-AP ran a story on deporting endangered species threatened by climate change (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j1tItx0C6dx_9PyT82Qzj_j6tmAgD91VPI983). With the Goracle and Boone's plan scientists won't have to decide between saving unique species or the common sparrow, after trying to dodge all those 150' food processor blades there won't be any more sparrows. On the other hand, using all that land for wind and solar power will be another reason to justify throwing the depopulation bomb. :D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/eastmidlands/series11/images/week4/archive-_donkey449.jpg

Ahhh, reminds me of the good ol' days.

The war in Iraq. The single man most responsible for that war was Saddam. He had wmd in the past, acted like he did just before the war, could have avoided the war by simply allowing UN inspectors to do their job, was warned several times, stubbornly followed his own failed policies.


I don't think many would disagree with the war in Afghanistan. I do support Dubya's decision on Afghanistan and always have. I would had been sorely disappointed with our drugstore cowboy president had he sat on his hands. Going after OBL was justifiable to not only Americans, but the world. Iraq is a whole other ball game though. The idea that constant defiance is a trigger mechanism in many cases is valid. Unfortunately though that was nothing new for Saddam. Hell we were in Iraq just a decade earlier. We all know that Hussein was a tyrant and a murderer. He committed crimes against humanity and earned the death penalty he so deserved. Dubya's big mistake was troop deployment. If he would had just bombed the hillsides, government buildings, and military installations, most would had been satisfied to let the Iraqis figure out what to do with their tyrant government. Iraq is not going to become the 51st state of the United States, one year from now or a hundred: National/Iraq War Debt Clock (http://www.sec-world.com/id24.html).



The 9/11 attack: President Bush actually started doing something to bring the terrorists to judgment...

Yes. Like taking threats seriously after the fact, and using the tools that for the most part were already available prior to 9/11. It would had helped cut down on the opportunities and likelihood. Between Bill Clinton's extracurricular activity with women, and G. Dubya's dumbfounded surprised look the day he was interrupted telling children's stories, neither were doing their jobs.



The economy: President Bush led the way to serious tax cuts that allowed our economy to rebound in spite of it falling off when he took office and the additional massive economic burden of the 9/11 attack. The present inflation is the result of normal supply and demand which would have occurred no matter who the president is. If Democrats had gotten out of the way, maybe we would have more supply by now.

One of the few good pro-active things Dubya did when he first took office was encourage technology onto the big three manufacturers to make vehicles that use less gas consumption. Gore, for all his shade tree scientific community endeavors and speeches, has promoted the same views. BTW trickle down economic works well for corporation executives, and the upper, and upper-middle class.



Security: We haven't had another attack in our homeland since 9/11. (Maybe by the time you read this we will have had, but so far, so good.) I will agree that President Bush has been soft on border security, but which of his opponents for the presidency would have handled that issue any better?

Department of Homeland Security | Preserving our Freedoms, Protecting America (http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm) an umbrella for numerous agencies in cooperation w/international agencies, that already existed before, are now drinking their coffee, staying awake, taking matters seriously, and more likely on the same page. People should know that at one time the FBI and CIA didn't even want to share information between each other. Since the 9/11 attack our paid employees have "uncovered and thwarted at least 16 terrorist conspiracies in the United States and helped disrupt major plots aimed at America or U.S. persons in Canada, Britain, and, most recently, Germany."



SCOTUS: President Bush is responsible for the appointment of 2 judges who, so far, appear to be of the opinion that the Constitution means what is says, and we don't need to look to foreign nations to decide what we will do here. I wonder if we would have affirmation of our right to bear arms if either Gore or Kerry had appointed those two judges?

I hear you. But we bore arms through the Clinton administration. Usually it's the abortion issue getting most of the attention when a judge is replaced. I do agree in that judges are opinionated and can reflect the views of those that appointed them.



President Bush has refused to sign on to KYOTO, and this is saving this country from a real nightmare. What would Gore have done?

I live in Nevada and our laws are fairly similar to California. Every year we have our vehicles smog checked which means passing criteria standards or be repaired. As a side note, I have no problem with that. I like breathing as clean as air as possible. The fact is Bush is stubborn about a lot of the things. I'll give Dubya a pass on the KYOTO protocol, greenhouse emissions and ozone holes, because In my opinion we need more research evaluation before signing or making anything mandatory by commitment. The moment we are represented or even give our word, the world expects us to live up to it. And understandably so.


President Bush is not perfect, who is? He certainly does not deserve the vile hatred that has come his way. That has gone far beyond disagreement with policy and descended into the personal realm and says FAR MORE ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF HIS DETRACTORS than it does about him.

That's why I have a wife that keeps me humble. :) Generally speaking though I hear the same about all politicians on the big stage. Just look no further than the current campaign. Personally I really don't care how vile the rants are or how many silly anonymous multiple user names a person has, as long it's accompanied by explanation and coherent reasoning.