President Bush is doing well.

Subject: Our worst president?

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They
complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was
the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's clear up one point: America didn't start the war on terror. Try to
remember, it was started by terrorists on 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR sent our military into World War II in Europe..... Germany never
attacked us: ..........Japan did. From
1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and sent our military to Korea.... North Korea
never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of
18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy sent our military to the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were
lost, an average of 5,800 per year.



Clinton sent our military to war in Bosnia without UN or French
consent..... Bosnia never attacked us.... Clinton 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 a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost
600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not
allowing another terrorist attack at home.

...............................Worst president in history? Come on!

JD writes- Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They
complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was
the worst president in U.S. history. BRBR
Let's clear up one point: America didn't start the war on terror. Try to
remember, it was started by terrorists on 9/11. BRBR
Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR sent our military into World War II in Europe..... Germany never
attacked us: ..........Japan did. From
1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. BRBR


You aren't really this clueless are you?

If the US wants to 'fight terrorism' they ought to invade Saudi Arabia, not
Iraq.

And to equate the situation in the late 30's and early 40's, with Japan and
Germany bent on conquering all of the east and west, including the UK and
Australia to what's going on with the war in Iraq,
that is looney thinky.

Like somebody said and I paraphrase..'Bush is not FDR'...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

If the US wants to 'fight terrorism' they ought to invade Saudi Arabia,
not
Iraq.

Sorry to disagree with you, Pechs, but that would never do. Yes, I am with
you in the belief that the Saudis do foment terrorism FAR more than the
Iraqis, however an invasion of the Saudi soil can only happen in a full war
against the muslim world, a situation that is very far indeed from what we
have now. If you invaded their holly cities of Mecca and Medina, you would
have an imediate bona fide holly war in your hands, not some squirmishes -
however hard and brutal - with some radical screwballs. The you'd have
terrorism up the whazzoo.

It is a blasted situation. The strategy of using Iraq as a "virus" state to
corrode the radicals in the region might or might not work, but then again
what in hell is going to work there... a big chunk of space rock
obliterating Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem and leaving the rest of the world
alone. Better still, develop some real technologies that make oil obsolete,
and let them at each other's throats like they've been doing ever since
Moses.
_____________
José Herculano

Better still, develop some real technologies that make oil obsolete,
and let them at each other's throats like they've been doing ever since
Moses.

Jose, you nailed it right on the head. If we made oil a nearly worthless
commodity, suddenly everything from the mid east would be back page news.
Then, they can dicker over who is 'holier' and all return to the 1400s like
they wish. Of course, nothing will change as long as we are dependent upon
them for their one natural resource, but it sure will be fun to watch when we
no longer need it!

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

Jose- f the US wants to 'fight terrorism' they ought to invade Saudi Arabia,
not
Iraq.

Sorry to disagree with you, Pechs, but that would never do. Yes, I am with
you in the belief that the Saudis do foment terrorism FAR more than the
Iraqis, however an invasion of the Saudi soil can only happen in a full war
against the muslim world, BRBR


snipped, of course I agree with you. Just trying to make the point about pre
WWll and today, about 'fighting terrorism' and fighting the Nazis and the
Japanese.

Going to WWll does not make FDR a bad president and going to war in Iraq does
not make Bush a 'good' president.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

What a bunch of horse****. You don't rate presidents on one issue.

But let's clear one thing up. Iraq was not tied either to 9/11 or to
Al queda. And there were no WMD's . Bush lied.

But beyond his foreign policy, which except for his lies I mainly support,
the
son of a Bitch lied to start his war and then used the war to take away
freedoms
I fought to protect.; He then allowed foreign workers to take over American
jobs and is proposing more of the same. And for what? because his big
business
buddies don't want to play fair market with American workers. Big Business
decides
they don't like the wages they have to pay so they claim they cannot get
workers,
when the truth is they can't get wages for what they are paying. So the
Pres allows them
to bring in foreigners at lower rates. Then the Americans are laid off,
they can't buy,
and more American laborers are laid off.

I don't know if he is the worst or not, but he is definitely in the bottom 5
"JD" wrote in message
news:rNMYb.339336$I06.3543233@attbi_s01...
Subject: Our worst president?

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They
complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush
was
the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's clear up one point: America didn't start the war on terror. Try to
remember, it was started by terrorists on 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR sent our military into World War II in Europe..... Germany never
attacked us: ..........Japan did. From
1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and sent our military to Korea.... North Korea
never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of
18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy sent our military to the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam
never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were
lost, an average of 5,800 per year.



Clinton sent our military to war in Bosnia without UN or French
consent..... Bosnia never attacked us.... Clinton 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 a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost
600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while
not
allowing another terrorist attack at home.

...............................Worst president in history? Come on!

rick- But let's clear one thing up. Iraq was not tied either to 9/11 or to
Al queda. And there were no WMD's . Bush lied. BRBR

I don't think he lied, he just pretty clueless...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

I apologize in advance here, folks. I usually try not to respond to OT
posts but...

On 2/19/04 10:51 PM, in article
, "Rick Folkers"
wrote:

What a bunch of horse****. You don't rate presidents on one issue.

But let's clear one thing up. Iraq was not tied either to 9/11 or to
Al queda. And there were no WMD's . Bush lied.


President Bush did not necessarily lie. By stating that, you make a huge
assumption based on your own obvious predispositions.

Hussein *did* have WMD prior to the Gulf War. It is a fact. It was
reasonable for the president to conclude that Iraq *still* had WMD (despite
his statements to the contrary) given Saddam Hussein's

-- Poor record on truth-telling in the past
-- Posturing and unwillingness to allow U.N. Inspectors access to verify his
lack of WMD.
-- His willingness to use WMD in the past, his support of terrorism, his
hatred of the U.S.

and

-- The intelligence that suggested Iraq was attempting to build up a program

Remember, that intel was flawed partially because it was restricted on the
sources it could use for HUMINT.

The question isn't: "Did Saddam Hussein possess WMD?"

He did. In fact, he used it.

The question is: "Where did the WMD go?" and perhaps "When did they go?"
Given the quagmire in post-war Iraq, we may never find out the real truth.

The majority of the country supported the war in Iraq before the war.
Secretary Powell made a good case for war in front of the U.N., but even in
the worst case, if Iraq's WMD program was, in fact, impotent, the end
justifies the means because,

-- Yet another evil dictator has been removed from power.
-- The U.S. has a means to remove itself from the Operation Southern Watch
quagmire that it had been involved in for 12 years.
-- Libya has decided to follow suit and come clean.

The real mistake was for the previous President Bush to fail to go into Iraq
in 1991 to remove Saddam Hussein from power when it would have been more
justifiable in the court of public opinion. To leave Saddam Hussein in
power for an additional 12 years thinking we could contain him or that he
would change was naïve.

Let's also not forget the president's (GWB's) leadership immediately after
9/11, his success in Afghanistan, his tax cut program, his prescription drug
program, and his ability to turn the post 9/11 economy around.

But beyond his foreign policy, which except for his lies I mainly support,
the son of a Bitch lied to start his war and then used the war to take away
freedoms I fought to protect.;

What freedoms? The constitution and its amendments have not been changed.

He then allowed foreign workers to take over American
jobs and is proposing more of the same. And for what? because his big
business buddies don't want to play fair market with American workers.
Big Business decides
they don't like the wages they have to pay so they claim they cannot get
workers, when the truth is they can't get wages for what they are paying.

Why do they *have* to pay those wages? We have a free market economy.
What's a fair market economy? Sounds like socialism.

So the Pres allows them
to bring in foreigners at lower rates. Then the Americans are laid off,
they can't buy, and more American laborers are laid off.


You're making no sense here. Jobless rates are declining. The economy is
on the turnaround, and the likely alternative to President Bush in the
coming election will be John Kerry (as Rob Schneider put it: "He's Ted
Kennedy without the booze and hookers.")

--Woody

Woody, by that rationale, we need to sortie our invasion forces immediately to
attack Iran and North Korea at a minimum. We know they have WMD, we know
they'll use them. Ergo, we go to war immediately, without anyone agreeing with
us.

No matter how frustrating it is to deal with the UN, we either use them as the
'oversight committee' for the world, or we take on the role of Big Brother for
the rest of humanity. Given that we turned out to be wrong in this case, I
imagine it will only be one or two more such incidents before we have sanctions
placed upon us, for the very reason that we put them on others.

George Bush declared Saddam would be gone. Two presidential cycles later, his
son took power and completed his father's tasking; WMD was an excuse to give
his 'change of regime' plan some validity.

As for the well-known and often mentioned chem attack on the Kurdish village -
the CIA released information that the chemicals used did not match the
fingerprint of Iraqi stocks, but did match the gas in Iranian inventory. But
since that CIA report two, three years ago, it seems to have been forgotten and
Saddam gets the blame. Did he use agents in combat? With surity - but not in
that case that seems to be ritually used to prove Bush's case against him.

I think if Bush had come right out and said, "This turd needs to get flushed
but instead of using a flimsy excuse that 80% of the world will not agree with,
I am going to finish the job my dad started," folks would have had less trouble
with his decision to unilaterally invade another country.

v/r
Gordon

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...
Woody, by that rationale, we need to sortie our invasion forces
immediately to
attack Iran and North Korea at a minimum. We know they have WMD, we know
they'll use them. Ergo, we go to war immediately, without anyone agreeing
with
us.

No matter how frustrating it is to deal with the UN, we either use them as
the
'oversight committee' for the world, or we take on the role of Big Brother
for
the rest of humanity. Given that we turned out to be wrong in this case,
I
imagine it will only be one or two more such incidents before we have
sanctions
placed upon us, for the very reason that we put them on others.

George Bush declared Saddam would be gone. Two presidential cycles later,
his
son took power and completed his father's tasking; WMD was an excuse to
give
his 'change of regime' plan some validity.

As for the well-known and often mentioned chem attack on the Kurdish
village -
the CIA released information that the chemicals used did not match the
fingerprint of Iraqi stocks, but did match the gas in Iranian inventory.
But
since that CIA report two, three years ago, it seems to have been
forgotten and
Saddam gets the blame. Did he use agents in combat? With surity - but
not in
that case that seems to be ritually used to prove Bush's case against him.

I think if Bush had come right out and said, "This turd needs to get
flushed
but instead of using a flimsy excuse that 80% of the world will not agree
with,
I am going to finish the job my dad started," folks would have had less
trouble
with his decision to unilaterally invade another country.

v/r
Gordon

Isn't it amazing how we ignore/revise history when politically convenient?
The Iraqi Liberation Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of
360 to 38; the Senate vote was unanimous. Please note the content of the
Act, and, most especially, its date:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/i...bact103198.pdf

Where are all those big Congressional boosters today? Are they buried in a
trench somewhere above or below the WMD?

Also, the date that the House of Representatives formally commenced
investigation of a potential impeachment may be more than just a
coincidence.

Just a bit of bipartisan musing over a couple of the many "October
Surprises" in our political history...

Rick





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----