President Bush is doing well.

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! =-----

On 2/21/04 11:40 AM, in article
, "Krztalizer"
wrote:

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.


I didn't say we know that they *will* use them. I said that we know that
Iraq *has* used them. Saddam Hussein had already opened the Pandora's box
on that one. In addition during the 12 years of OSW, he made many threats
against American pilots, had his pilots fly into the NFZ, had his gunners
and SAM operators shooting at Americans and Brits patrolling the skies over
there (using SAM's and AAA placed south of the 33rd parallel in violation of
the demarkation order post-Gulf War).

Not to mention Ansar Al Islam's presence in northeastern Iraq and their
links to terrorism.

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.


Of course, I respectfully disagree. We're the USA not the United Nations of
America. If our interests are threatened and we have probable cause to take
military action, we should take it... I realize that we differ on what
constitutes that probable cause.

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.


WMD was only ONE of the offenses in question. The press has picked it up as
the big ticket item because of their propensity to go Woodward and Bernstein
and emphasize controversy in every news story. Next time even your local
media presents a human interest piece look for the ... But... In the middle
of the story where the controversy is revealed.

There's no question really that Saddam HAD WMD and had USED WMD. As I
stated in the previous post the more appropriate questions are where did it
go and when did it go?

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

I can empathize, but I think that President Bush did, in effect, say that he
was flushin' the turd. Secretary Powell's pre-war presentation to the UN
made precisely the point that Hussein's conduct as well as the potential
possession of WMD was under fire.

I'm behind the Commander in Chief, the Senate, and the Congress on their
decision to go to war in this case. And as I said before--even if we were
incorrect about WMD, there were numerous other good reasons for invading
Iraq--many of which relate to the reasons that we went into the Balkans
under President Clinton.

Thanks for the discussion. We can agree to disagree, but frankly, I'm
terminating. I'd rather discuss Naval Aviation instead of this OT politics
stuff.

--Woody

Thanks for the discussion. We can agree to disagree, but frankly, I'm
terminating. I'd rather discuss Naval Aviation instead of this OT politics
stuff.

Sounds good to me. Now, back to the hook-skippin' tales of glory

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.

"Rick Folkers" wrote in message

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

Indeed.

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.

Ever hear the phrase "fog of war?" Could that phrase be relevant in this
instance?

To the Professional Bush Haters the answer is a resounding "NO!" To anyone
with some experience who considers it the answer must be, "Well, could be."

Those who say there were no WMDs are the liars. There was one. His name
was Saddam Hussein.

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.

So what do we do? Pass laws prohibiting the transfer of jobs offshore? The
people who are here unlawfully are generally doing work citizens won't do
(like hard physical labor in the landscape industry or demeaning jobs like
bussing tables and doing dishes elsewhere or stooped over in fields picking
stuff for your table). Should we round 'em all up and have an "illegal
alien drive"? If we do that who's gonna cut your grass or clean up after at
at Applebees or fill your larder with produce and mushrooms?

I don't know if he is the worst or not, but he is definitely in the bottom
5

Name that bottom five for us. It will give us some insight into your
evaluation criteria.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

Bill- The
people who are here unlawfully are generally doing work citizens won't do
(like hard physical labor in the landscape industry or demeaning jobs like
bussing tables and doing dishes elsewhere or stooped over in fields picking
stuff for your table). Should we round 'em all up and have an "illegal
alien drive"? BRBR

Yes, the operative word here is 'illegal'. What other laws are ok to break? If
the gent is doing a service for the city, county, etc, it's ok for them to
break the law??


Bill If we do that who's gonna cut your grass or clean up after at
at Applebees or fill your larder with produce and mushrooms? BRBR

The problem isn't citizens not wanting to do the work, it is employers who hire
these people breaking the law to save $, savings that are not passed on to you.
Plus the corrupt country that the individual chooses to leave(read-Mexico).

Our borders are a walk in the country to anybody that wants to come here. Money
should be allocated to protect our borders, period. Applebees will find
somebody to bus tables, believe me.

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

"Pechs1" wrote in message

Bill- The
people who are here unlawfully are generally doing work citizens won't do
(like hard physical labor in the landscape industry or demeaning jobs like
bussing tables and doing dishes elsewhere or stooped over in fields
picking
stuff for your table). Should we round 'em all up and have an "illegal
alien drive"? BRBR

Yes, the operative word here is 'illegal'. What other laws are ok to
break? If
the gent is doing a service for the city, county, etc, it's ok for them to
break the law??

No, not at all. Yet there are about 10-12 million of them. Or, as Lenin
once put it, "Quantity is a quality of its own."g

The only reason they are "illegal" is because a statute or regulation makes
them so. Crossing an artificial line is not a crime "malum in se." IMO
most of the these statutes and regulations are nothing more than an
expression of hostility towards little, brown men who don't speak English.
If our southern neighbor were Sweden or Germany and the illegals all looked
like Anita Ekberg or Ursula Andress (or maybe Rutger Hauer) then I don't
think we would be having this discussion. A brief walk through U.S.
immigration law (including its roots in the hostility towards such "inferior
races" as Irishmen, Dutchmen, etc.) might give you different perspective.

If figure anybody who wants to work should get a big, "COME ON DOWN!"

Bill If we do that who's gonna cut your grass or clean up after at
at Applebees or fill your larder with produce and mushrooms? BRBR

The problem isn't citizens not wanting to do the work, it is employers who
hire
these people breaking the law to save $, savings that are not passed on to
you.

Well, no.

Ever try to hire agricultural labor? I have offered as much as $15/hr. cash
and had no takers for such tasks as bucking hay, weedeating fencelines,
mucking stalls, etc. I can make a quick trip over to Lenoir City and hire a
crew for an 8 hour day at $50/head. And those sons of bitches will work
their butts off for that $50 (where if I hire 'Mericans I will have to do
constant "over the shoulder" supervision).

My friends in the industries noted tell me the similar stories.

Plus the corrupt country that the individual chooses to
leave(read-Mexico).

Indeed.

Our borders are a walk in the country to anybody that wants to come here.
Money
should be allocated to protect our borders, period. Applebees will find
somebody to bus tables, believe me.

I agree on a system of regularization. The idea that you can slam the door
shut and nail it tight is fantasy.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.