http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history?rnd=1145910812680&h as-player=true&version=6.0.8.1024

Quote:

---

.. . More than half the country now considers Bush dishonest and untrustworthy.. .

---

When Bush's lips are moving, he's lying to us, misleading us, or engaged in Orwellian doublespeak. The willfully blind citizens of this country play the part of Bush's useful idiots who lick his boots and devour the garbage that spews out of his mouth as if it were the "gospel." The spoiled and unworthy brat who is sitting in our beloved White House is fullfilling his boyhood dreams to be a war-president and a dictator. He maims and spills the blood of our sons and daughters to enrich his corporate cronies. In his self-aggrandized dream world, he believes he's above the law and ordained by God to rule.

If we don't impeach this war-mongering mad man and his cabal, then we are the fools. Don't you agree?

Actully you can get a quote like that for almost any president we ever had.

He is acting in our nations best interest and most Amerians still support mostof his national defense. He has lost some support over his weak immigration stand. If we don't support our soldiers in this way we will never be safe.

But if you want bad presidents,
Carter, Clinton

Your reply was based on partisanship rather than merit and falls into the willfully blind category.

Excellent Question

Quote:

---

Debra: Your reply was based on partisanship rather than merit and falls into the willfully blind category.

---

I agree with Debra.

Fr Chuck, your answer is "based on partisanship rather than merit and falls into the willfully blind category."

And Clinton was a great President.

That being said, to address Debra's original question:

I don't think you can tell yet. You need to wait some time after a President leaves office before judging him. There were a lot of people who did not like President Clinton near the end of his term, but 3 years later, his reputation rebounded and he was once again loved.

So I do not believe that any one can really say how history will remember President Bush.

In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau rebounded a few years after he left office. However, Prime Minister Mulroney who left office in 1993, has still not rebounded in terms of his reputation.

I agree with Debra. "Your reply was based on partisanship rather than merit and falls into the willfully blind category."

Let me see, our economy has been great, interest rates have been held down.

The war would have happened no matter who was in office at the time.

And what about Carter, come one

Of course Bush has been far to liberal for most in his party, signing almost every spending bill sent to him ( actually I think he signed all of them)

And honestly no president has ever did much, it is actually congress who either passes or not passes the laws and budgets.

And I don't see really much choice to Iraq right now, what can we do, pull out and let Saddam regiem take back over or perhaps have iran invade and take it over ( they are already staged at the border)

And now Iran, what should we do when they have several atomic bombs,

The trouble is making the hard choices is not popular, but doing nothing is even a worst over all choice.

My veiws exactly.. he is sent by the devil and I bet he causes a lot more disturbances before he leaves office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Let me see, our economy has been great, interest rates have been held down.

The war would have happened no matter who was in office at the time.

And what about Carter, come one

Of course Bush has been far to liberal for most in his party, signing almost every spending bill sent to him ( actually I think he signed all of them)

And honestly no president has ever did much, it is actually congress who either passes or not passes the laws and budgets.

And I don't see really much choice to Iraq right now, what can we do, pull out and let Saddam regiem take back over or perhaps have iran invade and take it over ( they are already staged at the border)

And now Iran, what should we do when they have several atomic bombs,

the trouble is making the hard choices is not popular, but doing nothing is even a worst over all choice.

---

As an independent who nearly always leaves the voting booth with his tongue bleeding (from biting it)... I'm generally unhappy with either party.

Last election I did not want to vote for bush, and I really thought kerry was a poll chaser. Election before that, didn't care a whole lot for bush, thought gore was a nutjob (only to be fully convinced of this later).

I really disagree that any president would have taken us to war with iraq. Afghanistan, I backed. Didn't like iraq from the start. Even if all of the data backing the war was true, I just didn't like the first strike idea. 911 warranted afghan invasion. 911 wasn't ever, in my mind, an iraq issue. Told my wife from the outset I didn't like it. Its only gotten worse than I imagined.

Even if bush believed all the data was true, I think he was more predisposed toward invasion that others would have been. Have you ever seen the tape of the bush vs bush "debate"... things he said as governor concerning nation building versus bush as president? Its alarming. And I'm not a bush basher generally speaking. He either had iraq on the mind or 911 shook him into an iraq mentality.

Congress and the senate do the heavy lifting (sort of), but lets not forget the power of the supreme court, which is a presidential prerogative (given approval)... and I'm not talking about the abortion issue. I don't elect the president of the nation for that issue alone. Let that be fought in the states. People tend to forget that the biggest presidential legacy anymore might be the years after the service, when the court is making its judgements.

Id love to go to the polls, just once, and be frustrated because I have to choose between two great candidates.

Impeach Bush? He hasn't done anything worth impeaching. So I think we should send a hooker over to the white house to give this guy a *** job. Only then will this country consider THAT an impeachable offense.

The insane thing is that you can have sex in the oval office and get impeached but if you kill 100's of thousands (of Iraqi's/Afgans), sacrifice over 2000 of our soldiers for oil, spy on your own citizens by setting up endless illegal wire-taps, force the passage of horrific draconian laws (Patriot Act I & II), Lie-Cheat-Repeat, Leak classified information, condemn those that whistle blow because they have a conscience, and are preparing for yet another war and seriously considering the use of Tactical Nuclear weapons, THAT is OK. Go figure.

Casey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Actully you can get a quote like that for almost any president we ever had.

He is acting in our nations best interest and most Amerians still support mostof his national defense. He has lost some support over his weak immigration stand. If we dont support our soldiers in this way we will never be safe.

But if you want bad presidents,
Carter, Clinton

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Let me see, our economy has been great, interest rates have been held down.

The war would have happened no matter who was in office at the time.

And what about Carter, come one

Of course Bush has been far to liberal for most in his party, signing almost every spending bill sent to him ( actually I think he signed all of them)

And honestly no president has ever did much, it is actually congress who either passes or not passes the laws and budgets.

And I don't see really much choice to Iraq right now, what can we do, pull out and let Saddam regiem take back over or perhaps have iran invade and take it over ( they are already staged at the border)

And now Iran, what should we do when they have several atomic bombs,

the trouble is making the hard choices is not popular, but doing nothing is even a worst over all choice.

---

These two have me scratching my head.

Bush acting in the nation's best interests? Give me a break! Bush is the most self interested president in history. He spoke yesterday about investigating gas price gouging. Why? Because he's getting hit at the polls about it. Where was he after the runup in prices after Katrina. Why did he wait so long to say something now? Does anyone real believe that his oil company ties is going to have him come down hard on these people?

Our economy has been great? Do you live in the same country? Our economy is barely holding its own! Interest rates have risen steadily since the low rates under Clinton.

And saying the Iraq war would have happened no matter who was president is ridiculous. Even if all the intelligence was true, there was still insufficient reason to start this war. Any president less indebted to oil interests or trying to insure his own re-election would not have started this debacle.

And what about Carter and Clinton? Carter was not a bad president, he was just ineffectual. His handling of the Iran hostage mess colored his whole presidency. Carter was one of the most decent men ever to occupy the oval office. But a decent person is not going to fare well in cutthroat DC. Clinton's presidency may wind up going down as one of the best. The budget was balanced, the economy stabilized and many other social strides were made. Sure Clinton was a lech who couldn't keep it in his pants. But that was a moral issue that didn't affect his ability as president.

Whether Bush will go down as the worst president in history is debatable. But I'm sure he will rank near the bottom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainForest

I don't think you can tell yet. You need to wait some time after a President leaves office before judging him. There were a lot of people who did not like President Clinton near the end of his term, but 3 years later, his reputation rebounded and he was once again loved.

So I do not believe that any one can really say how history will remember President Bush.

---

Right on.

Yes, I'm a Republican and yes, I think he's a stinker, but I don't think he'll be seen as the worst in history.

There's competition for that title:
William Henry Harrison, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Jimmy Carter.

Hi,
Well, well, well; will times change or what. I agree with the previous answers; couldn't have said it better myself! Referring to ScottGem's answers.
Clinton was a joke, and Bush is NOT in touch with reality. He might have been right after getting elected, but not now.
His speeches are more and more "political", not really following up on most anything he says nowadays.
The economy is Great? Come now; many, many Americans are working two jobs, married persons both working full-time, just to make ends meet. Families are being torn apart while the kids are in daycare, so Mom and Dad can work.
40 Million Americans have no Health Insurance, and the Fed. Gov't says the new Medicare Programs are working and site statistics, on their side, by including these unfornuate 40 Million! To make it look good! Lies or what.
Education is being cut back more and more. Homeless shelters have had monies cut back. Senior citizens (over 55) are now becoming a viable voting force, and watch out Administration and some in Congress; you won't be around anymore in the Fall.
Pres. Jimmie Carter has done more for this country in the last few years by building homes and helping others that most do in their lifetime. Whether he was ineffective as Pres.; don't really know.
Meantime, Congress will have hearings on the Gas "price gouging"; and we all know (or at least those who pay attention) that this is just a "public show" to constituents back home. The Administration and those in Congress are not about to do anything to Exxon-Mobile Corp. as they will lose their BIG money support! It's time for changes!
Bush has promised changes for America's Oil independence, or other methods of Energy; and we all know where that policy is... nothing to show for it!
Even the Ethynol (10% Ethynol-90% gas) mixture has run out at stations selling it; and the 85% Ethynol-15% gas mixture cannot be used in today's cars or trucks without modification to compression ratios in engines. Has this been done? Of course not... Bush isn't interested in "rattling" the chains of Auto makers.
Hopefully, Americans will wake up after gas hits $8.00 a gallon, and really start looking at this Administration. We only use 25% of the World's oil, and have really no say in OPEC price increases. But, we do have a say in what kind of energy our own country uses. Bush has done nothing about it. Only a crisis makes more political talk from Bush, and some in Congress.
My guess is that Bush will go down in History, as in the previous answer, as one of the worst Presidents this country ever had.

He may be a lousy president but all his rich friends got richer. Me and my friends got poorer.:cool: :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Let me see, our economy has been great, interest rates have been held down.

The war would have happened no matter who was in office at the time.

And what about Carter, come one

Of course Bush has been far to liberal for most in his party, signing almost every spending bill sent to him ( actually I think he signed all of them)

And honestly no president has ever did much, it is actually congress who either passes or not passes the laws and budgets.

And I don't see really much choice to Iraq right now, what can we do, pull out and let Saddam regiem take back over or perhaps have iran invade and take it over ( they are already staged at the border)

And now Iran, what should we do when they have several atomic bombs,

The trouble is making the hard choices is not popular, but doing nothing is even a worst over all choice.

---

Did you read the article? Check it out:

Quote:

---

.. . The heart of Bush's domestic policy has turned out to be nothing more than a series of massively regressive tax cuts -- a return, with a vengeance, to the discredited Reagan-era supply-side faith that Bush's father once ridiculed as "voodoo economics."

Bush crowed in triumph in February 2004, "We cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket." The claim is bogus for the majority of Americans, as are claims that tax cuts have led to impressive new private investment and job growth.

While wiping out the solid Clinton-era federal surplus and raising federal deficits to staggering record levels, Bush's tax policies have necessitated hikes in federal fees, state and local taxes, and co-payment charges to needy veterans and families who rely on Medicaid, along with cuts in loan programs to small businesses and college students, and in a wide range of state services.

The lion's share of benefits from the tax cuts has gone to the very richest Americans, while new business investment has increased at a historically sluggish rate since the peak of the last business cycle five years ago. Private-sector job growth since 2001 has been anemic compared to the Bush administration's original forecasts and is chiefly attributable not to the tax cuts but to increased federal spending, especially on defense.

Real wages for middle-income Americans have been dropping since the end of 2003: Last year, on average, nominal wages grew by only 2.4 percent, a meager gain that was completely erased by an average inflation rate of 3.4 percent.

The monster deficits, caused by increased federal spending combined with the reduction of revenue resulting from the tax cuts, have also placed Bush's administration in a historic class of its own with respect to government borrowing.

According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined.

Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever.. .

---

Bush is lining the pockets of his friends with sky-rocketing profits while he has plunged this country into debt like none we have ever seen in our history. He's raping and pillaging our nation. He has dug a hole so deep that our children and grandchildren may never be able to climb out of it.

I agree. Bush, as the head of his embellished "Unitary Executive Branch," decides what is best for us. Sex--Bad; War--Good.

Very good rebuttal, Debra. You present the salient facts that are irrefutable. How anyone can say "the economy has been great", when faced with those facts is beyond me. Yet we have a significant portion of this country that has yet to wake up to these facts. Thankfully, that portion seems to be diminishing daily. Its just unfortunate that they did not see what many of saw before affording Bush lame duck status. One of the best deterrants to abuse by an elected official is their need to be re-elected. Bush, now has no such deterrent.

We can tell NOW. Although some future revisionist historian might treat Bush kindly, most of us watching now know better than to sing his laurels. He has no redeeming qualities.

Bush is packing the courts with religion-based neo-conservatives who despise liberty and embrace oppression.

Bush is INDEED the most self interested president in history.

Every president has bad marks againist him.
It is just this one is a little more noticeable then most.

As I said... give me two good choices at the voting booth and I'll be thrilled.

The only thing more frustrating to me than the right's inability to support a good, moderate is the left's inability to find someone, anyone to challenge such mediocrity.

The last election was the very worst one I've ever voted in.

In response to this comment on my first post:

Comments on this post
Debra agrees: Bush is packing the courts with religion-based neo-conservatives who despise liberty and embrace oppression.

*******************************************

While I agree bush is placing justices that have leaned his way on the bench prior to sup. ct. position... ummm... that is his prerogative. The senate only has the task to see if they are fit for the bench from a professional standing. This ideological crap is out of line, whether the nominee is liberal or conservative. It has become such a pathetic grandstanding event. Makes me sad.

Second, as a religious person who tends to try to live and let live... I'm sick of people acting like "God" is a four letter word. People can use religion as an excuse to do terrible things. People can use any excuse to do terrible things. I use religion to ground me, to do social work, to develop spiritually and morally. I'm guessing the people in my congregation have done more good social work in the name of God than an equal number of athiests. I am not bashing athiests... I'm bashing the crap I hear every week about how terrible it is to have God in your life. So, so sad.

I think ones position on abortion, for example, regardless of the stance, does not make one a hater of liberty and one who favors oppression. I'm personally uncomfortable with abortion, but do little about it politically. Ill never vote for a person because of that position. That, I guess, makes me a target for both the far left and right.

It is these extreme left/right views that drive me mad.

You can be against a war and still love your country and support your troops. You can be against federal funding for abortions and still be willing to let the states fight it out for themselves. You can find middle ground on immigration.

This view that conservatives are evil, heartless, freedom haters is as moronic as the view that liberals are wishy-washy panderers without a backbone.

As concerning the justices... remember, only time will tell about their leanings. Once on the bench, they might surprise you with their positions. The positions they held as attorneys early in their career is not the same task as trying to determine the constitutionality of a law.

There. Guess being an independent means you are always frustrated with BOTH sides.

kp2171: Your objection is without merit. Cry about it; deny it. But the truth is self-evident: It is the religion-based neoconservatives who insist upon using the power of the state to impose their morals on others. That's oppression.

My objection is without merit because it isn't your position.

Debra: Religion on its own is not the problem. The problem is all of those self proclaimed religious people who do evil things in the name of religion regardless of what religion they follow. Bush and the like are not Christian even if they go to church 7 days a week for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. So we can't really believe for a second that when they mention God that they really know who God is. If they had an once of true faith, they wouldn't be using God's name in vain. On the contrary, they are fanatics and they are no different than the evil they are seeking to destroy.

What happened to the idea that this nation was a union of states?

If I live in a state where the people decide the laws and I don't agree, I'm happy to move. That's self rule!

Want to live in a state where there's legalized gambling? Take your pick! Prostitution? Go ahead! I'm not against las vegas... but I won't live there.

Ungh. "cry about it. deny it."

This is exactly why I go mad at the voting booth. Call me a guy who generally wants to vote slightly on the conservative side, cannot stand the far right, and insulted by the left bashing my faith.

This extreme crap is maddening. Put the far left and far right in a room and let them go at each other. In the meantime the moderate of both sides could have this country running wonderfully.

Ok, folks, lets not get away from the real issue in this thread. Yes Bush is trying to pack the court with judges who's agenda seems to be to curtail freedom. Whatever their religious affiliation or leanings is not as important as their secular agenda.

and if clinton had appointed two justices the right would be whiny like the left about it. I know.

so the left is the only party that cares about freedom and the right oppresses it.

the POINT was that it was a presidential prerogative to choose the justices. So if choosing only liberal justices makes a good president, then I think that sheds light on the angle of this post.

liberal = freedom = good president
conservative = oppression = bad president

every time I think there is no way I'm going to vote (R) something like this happens and screws it all up.

I'm more than willing to say that this presidency could well prove to be among the worst. The real truth of it will continue to develop for years, as the actions of this administration will be felt for some time to come, regardless of whether you agree with its actions or not.

as for the nominations... ANY president, liberal or conservative, has the RIGHT to nominate justices, regardless of their political views, to the court as long as they are deemed qualified for the bench. And qualified does NOT mean liberal and not conservative leaning, nor the reverse. Ignorant to call the president a failure for this reason.

many, many other reasons to potentially call this administration failed, but the appointments are in line with what the constitution demands.

as for the deficits... it is my understanding that the deficit to gdp ratio isn't so out of line as it was in reagans era (I could very well be wrong here)... my understanding is that the bigger threat is the amount of foreign holdings in us stocks and us land.

Hi,
This thread isn't the only one where the "original question" gets lost. Many have their meanings changed along the way!
Bush's latest "ploy" at better Poll numbers is to stop the Gov't from stockpiling Gas for now in America. His thinking seems to be that less demand will bring down gas prices in the US. It's just another "speech" to try at better ratings. Guess time will tell, but personally, I can't really see gas prices coming down just because the Fed. Gov't isn't stocking it's gas stockpiles!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kp2171

im guessing the people in my congregation have done more good social work in the name of God than an equal number of athiests.

---

Well logically your congregation would mention doing their social work in the name of God versus the atheists. I do quite a bit of social/volunteer work and have no need to profess that I'm doing it in the name of any god, I just like helping people and giving back to my community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Well logically your congregation would mention doing their social work in the name of God versus the atheists. I do quite a bit of social/volunteer work and have no need to profess that I'm doing it in the name of any god, I just like helping people and giving back to my community.

---

My point was not the mentioning of God to the people we help vs the athiests mentioning God. Thatd be a silly comparison.

And you missed the point, or I said it wrong about the "in the name of God" reference

When we do much of our service (work we do personally because we believe we are charged with the task morally by God - what I mean by "in the name of") there is actually no evangilism outside the fact that we are from a church and we do some of the programs physically in a church. The inner city kids who get a weekly meal and school tutoring never hear us mention faith. The food service program puts us behind the counter helping feed the poor, but again, there is no bible thumping. In many of the interchurch programs there are steps taken to be careful about how the faith is presented... more lead by example than lead with a sermon

My point, which was poorly stated, was that I'm tired of hearing how those with faith are for oppressing liberty. How being religious, which shapes your views, is a blight upon freedom.

Religious people, just like some agnostics and athiests, do grunt work every month, week, and day to make the world a better place. Ever read about the christian aid workers who are kidnapped in iraq? The same people in our congregation who spend summers building houses for the poor in mexico are often also involved in local building like habitat for humanity.

My point was never to sit and brag about this... it is to say these things are happening, everyday around you. The mistakes of a political leader who has faith should not be laid upon others who also believe in God. And simply being a person of faith should not bar you from public service, as in the case of the supreme court. A person can have faith and can still determine whether laws are written in the spirit of the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kp2171

my point, which was poorly stated, was that im tired of hearing how those with faith are for oppressing liberty. how being religious, which shapes your views, is a blight upon freedom.

---

Oh OK, then it was poorly stated. I really don't see a whole lot of people who believe that "those with faith are for oppressing liberty" or "being religious is a blight upon freedom". I must be hanging with a better crowd. :)

I wish someone would give him a BJ so we could impeach him! That seems to be the only way to impeach a prisident these days.

Willfully blind.

There are two different Gods. It just depends on who you are asking.

The fact remains, the spoiled brat kid was left in charge of the candy store and he IS stuffing his pockets full. We can all agree that he has lied to us... that's a fact. There are two kinds of people I hate with a passion, liars and thiefs. Our president is both. That pains me to come to that conclusion, let alone say it in public but that is a fact. We are being cheated at the gas pump and my small business suffers from it... as so many do. We are being cheated at the grocery store and everywhere else we buy anything to survive. The truckers that haul it there are being cheated so we pay for that. All the while, being hearded into a less free and self reliant society in which we are completely reliant upon "them." Go try to start your own gas and oil company. HA HA HA, you will never do it. Try to make it at farming. Corporate America farm conglomerations have that in the bag. If you control the food supply, you control the world! They are going to put micro chips in small farm chickens and other animals so you can't raise you own food! The cost will be prohibitive. Did you know that the Department of Agriculture has their own satilites? The Avian flu is the reason. A flu strain that has been mutated in laboratories with a particular intrest in such things! It is just beginning folks. You isn't seen nothing yet. It is to late. They have complete control over your life and it will only get tighter. The master plan is in motion and while you were standing in line to buy the next high tech gadget, they were stealing everything. Your argument here shows that you have rights. The right to speak your mind. SO WHAT! You have no right to change the terrible path you are heading down. That has been set for you. So keep babbling about how you don't like this or that. If you get to loud and rowdy, remember, they have tanks, bombs and jets that will level your hideout in 7 minutes. You have lost your power to do anything about it because you woke up too late. You woke up when, and only when, it affected your own pocket book and your comfey little life. That makes you no better than them. That makes you deserving of the tribulation you WILL experience soon. :mad:

Thanks for clearing that up . I thought for sure we were already going through tribulation! Oh no YOU mean it gets worse?:cool: :eek:

An article is agree with!

Bush: Worst President Ever?

By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real. Posted May 20, 2005.


Herbert Hoover may have triggered the Great Depression, but he didn't invade another nation on false pretenses, authorize torture of prisoners, or try to stack the courts.

For the record, I don't like George Bush. And I don't like most of the people who work for George Bush. So, diehard Republicans can just brush aside my remarks as so much partisan blather.

But by now I suppose very few diehard Republicans ever read what I write. So do me a favor -- e-mail this to the diehards in your family and circle of friends. Ask them to tell me why I am wrong about this:

George Bush is the worst president of the United States of America, ever. Hands down.

And here are just a few reasons I believe that statement is true.

America the Disgraced

President Bush's actions and policies have destroyed America's image as a nation that adheres to a set of core values, such as the rule of law, humane treatment of prisoners, presumed innocence, trial by jury and respect for international laws.

How do I know this? Because the world is telling us so, whenever we care enough to ask.


Positive views of the U.S. in Russia have risen 11 points in the past year. But U.S. favorability ratings in France and Germany are somewhat lower than last year and there has been a larger decline in Great Britain (58 percent now, 70 percent last year). Young people in Great Britain, France, and Germany have more negative views of America than do people in other age groups. An important factor in world opinion about America is the perception that the U.S. acts internationally without taking account of the interests of other nations. Large majorities in every nation surveyed believe that America pays little or no attention to their country's interests in making its foreign policy decisions. This opinion is most prevalent in France (84 percent), Turkey (79 percent) and Jordan (77 percent), but even in Great Britain 61 percent say the U.S. pays little or no attention to British interests.

Nice going George. Even Richard Nixon couldn't tarnish America's image that much.

George's Vietnam

Then there's the war that is largely responsible for that drop in our international image. President Bush really screwed this one up. First, everyone not drinking the neocon Kool-Aid tried to warn George not to pull that trigger. Then Army chief of staff, Gen. Shinseki, warned Bush that a war in Iraq would not be the "cake walk" his neocon Rasputin, Paul Wolfowitz, promised. Instead, he warned, we would need a lot of troops in Iraq for long time. For that piece of advice he was first publicly embarrassed by his boss then shown the door, according to The New York Times:


At a Pentagon news conference neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz mentioned Gen. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, by name. But both men were clearly irritated at the general's suggestion that a post-war Iraq might require many more forces than the 100,000 American troops and the tens of thousands of allied forces that are also expected to join a reconstruction effort. "The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

That was 2003. Here's a story from today's paper.


BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 19 - American military commanders in Baghdad and Washington gave a sobering new assessment on Wednesday of the war in Iraq.. . In interviews and briefings this week, some of the generals pulled back from recent suggestions, some by the same officers, that positive trends in Iraq could allow a major draw-down in the 138,000 American troops late this year or early in 2006. One officer suggested Wednesday that American military involvement could last "many years."

Gee. Who saw that coming?

So, thanks to George W. Bush and the handful of Neocon nuts you listen to. Now we are stuck in another Vietnam-type war thousands of miles from home. All the Vietnam trappings are here for anyone who cares to notice -- indigenous insurgents, driven by a fanatical ideology, supported and supplied by "spoiler" nation-states with their own anti-U.S. agendas, thousands of dead civilians, American soldiers dying by the gross week in and week out, with no end in sight.

Nice going, George. Maybe because you skipped out on the Vietnam War you didn't know this could happen. Or maybe you really are as dumb as common road gravel.


link to; posting:
AlterNet: Bush: Worst President Ever?

He can't be too dumb since he has made billions of dollars disappear/appear into the pockets of his associates and friends.:cool: :mad: