posted
I just got this e-mail, and thought I'd share it with you......YIKES!!
GEORGE W. BUSH RESUME The White House, USA
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
I attacked and took over two countries.
I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the Treasury.
I shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I set an all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.
I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history.
In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.
I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president since the advent of TV.
I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other president in US history.
I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
I cut health care benefits for war veterans.
I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.
Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her).
I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.
I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
I have created the largest governmental department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
I set the all-time record for the biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history.
I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.
I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight, than any presidential administration in US history.
I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
I withdrew from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.
I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation). I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1).
I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
I took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
I am the first US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I set the all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history. In a little over two years I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US has seen since the civil war.
I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during a time of war. I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
PERSONAL REFERENCES: For personal references, please speak to my dad or uncle James Baker (They can be reached in their offices at the Carlyle Group where they are helping to divide up the spoils of the US-Iraq war and plan for the next one.)
President Bush Ranks Lowest IQ in 50 Years of US Presidents. In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four-month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others. There have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F.D. Roosevelt to G.W. Bush, who were rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors, which were then scored using the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.
The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points: In order by presidential term:
147.. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 ..Harry Truman (D)
122 ..Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 ..John F. Kennedy (D)
126 ..Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155..Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 ..Gerald Ford (R)
175 ..James E. Carter (D)
105 ..Ronald Reagan (R)
098 ..George Bush (R)
182 ..William J. Clinton (D)
091 ..George W. Bush (R)
In IQ order:
182.. William J. Clinton (D)
175 ..James E. Carter (D)
174 ..John F. Kennedy (D)
155 ..Richard M. Nixon (R)
147 ..Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 ..Harry Truman (D)
126 ..Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
122 ..Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
121 ..Gerald Ford (R)
105 ..Ronald Reagan (R)
098 ..George Bush (R)
091 ..George W. Bush (R)
The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President G.W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.
The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176. Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President GW Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis. The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis.
"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking." The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist.
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'm no Bush fan, a number of these "facts" that aren't dishonestly represented are simply incorrect. Avoid stridency when possible, please.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm no fan of Bush, and there are a bunch of things on there that I know are true, but there are also plenty of assertions that are probably a little over-dramatic. I'm sure that Bill Clinton has a record equally dissapointing (such as being the first president since 1975 or so to not raise fuel efficiency standards).
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem with a lot of the things is that they imply that Bush is responsible for them. Like the downturn in the economy. That was coming no matter what and 9/11 just made it worse.
It seems to be blaming 9/11 on Bush when he had very little to do with it and I feel there was very little he could have done to prevent it.
posted
Yeah, I hate Bush, but I don't like this. Some of it might be true (I've heard it before,) but other stuff I've never heard, or is written in such a way as to make it read in the worst possible light. A more balanced piece would be infinitely better. Also, sources would make it better. (You know how I love sources. )
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
M2, you know how I love to disagree with you. I am still of the opinion that the economy has much to do with consumer confidence. Consumer confidence was doing just fine till Bush came along and started predicting gloom and doom. It may as bad as the voodoo ecomonics of previous administrations, but it is my opinion.
However, many of the banking/corprate scandals were well underway before Bush took office, were they not? I don't think he was responsible for all of them, but then again, if he hadn't sunk the economy with the recession talk, it might not have come to light the way it did.
As to 9/11, it is rather hard for anyone to figure out if something could have been done, though some reports seem to suggest that the infrastructure had major problems (though inherited, one wonders why a person, on the job for six months, would take a month long vacation, especially knowing that, at the very least, they had the information that "someone" was planning on hijacking a plane an crashing it into a building/monument. After all, that is why John Ashcroft stopped flying commercially.) And where can I get a job where I get a month off after 6 months?
Has anyone been watching The West Wing on Bravo? They have these nifty little facts about presidents. Last night, they said that Reagan, when possible (implying as often as possible) worked 9-5 Monday - Friday, except for Wednesdays (which he took off) and Fridays (which he worked only in the morning.) I could use a job like that, too.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pod I think it mentions a drunk driving conviction. It also implies more by saying that his Texas driving record has been erased. Also that all his records as Governor have been erased. What is this, 1984? George is a non-person in Texas?
A bunch of unsupported crap mixed in with misleading crap surrounded by more crap.
This page is now highly ranked by Google and I've been getting quite a bit of mail on the topic. I'm taking the unusual step of modifying previously published content because the google link means that people are unlikely to read other parts of my weblog first.
I'd like to make something very clear:
I did not write this resume. As I clearly state below and in the title of this page, it was written by Kelly Kramer. I found her email address on the web and asked her for permission to repoost. She was kind enough to grant me permission.
Many people have asked for references or sources that can validate the assertions of the resume.
One person has proofed it and offered grammatical corrections.
Some people, while agreeing with anti-bush sentiment, have objected to the use of half-truths to make a point.
I welcome all feedback. I have asked Kelly for more information. If you doubt the validity of any particular part, why not find the counter proof and send it to me. I will update this page from time to time with new information.
And now the original content written by Kelly Kramer.
George W. Bush's Resume
By: Kelley Kramer - 04/25/03
I recently had an email exchange with a right-winger from my local newspaper, and of course the war with Iraq came up pretty quick. But he said something in defense of George Bush that really surprised me. In defense of the attack on Iraq he said 'between Hussein and Bush, Hussein is the bad guy'.
My first response was ... So your guy is better than a third world dictator, Wow! what an accomplishment! Does he put that on his resume?
And with that in mind, I started wondering ... what would a George W. Bush resume look like exactly? Listed below is what I came up with.
George W. Bush Resume
Past work experience:
Ran for congress and lost. Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie. Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox. With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas. Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history. Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.
From there, it appears to be what is already posted.
As to Bush's arrests. . .
The first arrest of George W. Bush was for theft at a hotel. The second arrest was for disorderly conduct at a football game. The third arrest, we've now learned, is for a very serious crime -- drunk driving.
I believe they are talking about the dui, however.
Sheesh, there are like 20 pages at google that have that same resume. 20 pages, not 20 sites. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I know your not so simple as to think that when the President goes to Texas that he does no work. Unlike the rest of us the President really has no vacation. He is on call all the time 24/7 and you know that.
About 9/11. There may have been rumors about something, even details like they were planning on flying planes into buildings, but no one has shown any where that any one had concrete evidence. Lets say that Bush did some how stop the planes from taking off. What would he have held the hijackers on? Liberals would have been screeming racist at him for daring to arrest 19 Arab Muslims, many of whom were students. Many people would have poo-pooed claims that they were going to fly planes into buildings. That is my problem with trying to stop terrorist attacks, unless you stop them driving to the place or with the bomb in the back of the truck, it does not seem like a large threat.
Can you see the head lines in an alternate history? Police arrest 19 Saudis. President claims that they were going to fly planes into the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House. What proof? Well they had suspected ties to Al-Quida and the took flying lessons with out learning how to land. That would surly get them life senteces.
My other claim is that 9/11 made the recession much worse than it would have otherwise. Most people know that we were heading in to recession before the election. Economic number show that that is true. It should have been a fairly mild recession. 9/11 changed all that. It devastated whole sections of our economy. We still have not recovered from it. I will grant that the Enron stuff and other corporate scandals also had thier part, but most of those scandals had their start under Clinton.
posted
Ok so they were arrest, but I do not see any mention of convictions. It mentions criminal record but if you are not convicted you do not have a criminal record. Misleading.
posted
If youre gonna cut and paste nine miles of garbage onto a forum, at least have some self respect about what youre gonna post. at least throw an issue of spy vs spy or a Calvin and Hobbes strip in there somewhere to add a bit of realism.
Oh yeah, typing '...than any other in history'at the end of a statement doesnt make it true. it just makes it sound like meaningless crap.
posted
You are very late posting this. I saw it several days ago, and unless you were trying to troll, others have pointed out its inadequacies. Actually, even if you were trying to troll, it is still inadequate.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, she's been here a couple of months and has over 200 posts. I don't think she was intentionally trolling. She got it as an e-mail and thought she'd share.
My complaint about Bush is that it would seem that his people knew about it and therefore had the choice as to whether or not to fly, but we, the people, didn't. Not that I think it would have been a good idea to tell the people, mind you.
Also, this malarkey that Ari Fleischer said about 9/11 "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility," is bull.
How they can actually put things out there like that is just beyond me. Aside from the fact that the original script for The Siege had nearly an identical plot, and the fact that Tom Clancy wrote a book where a jet was used (with a full load of fuel, so it would cause a large enough explosion, mind you) to crash into Congress (killing everyone except for the newly sworn in VP, Jack Ryan, of course ) the main reason they should have "envisioned" it is because of the report they had received. Granted, it was received on 9/11/99 and should have been taken care of under Clinton, but he was kinda busy with the impeachment and all.
quote: The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.
See, if someone in the government had realized what they had, they could have called the airlines together and told them this information. The public might have even been warned. Pilots are trained to deal with hijackers in a certain way. They should have been trained to do something completely different, given the information we had at the time. If the public had known that it was a possibility and that pilots were being trained to handle certain types of hijackings differently, then there wouldn't have been all the confusion on 9/11 from the "let's roll" passengers. They wouldn't have spent an hour or two debating what to do. Pilots of the flights that crashed into the WTC (unlikely, given the doubt that the pilots probably would have had, but possible) might have crashed the planes much earlier, into fields like the PA flight did. At least "the people" wouldn't have felt as betrayed and unprotected as some did after 9/11. Bush could have said, "this is why we trained the pilots to handle this situation like this." Or, even if the airlines, or "the people" threw a hissy fit and refused to allow pilots to train to intentionally crash their planes before a larger target could be struck, Bush still could have said, "I told you so."
Not that Bush seems to give a flying fig what "the people" want and/or care about. He seems perfectly content with doing what he wants, how he wants to do it, so I don't see how public opinion on new pilot training, or even mass middle east descent arrests would have mattered to him.
The big problem is that the government thinks in terms of a specific threat, which I think is a mistake. Apparently, we wait until we hear about a plan to take an airplane from a specific airport and crash it into a specific building before ever doing anything about it. It doesn't seem like a good idea to me. To me, a better plan would be to think of all the sick and horrible things people will do to each other and figure out a way to thwart it. Do it on likelihood/cost/damage ratio if they want. Yeah, someone smuggling a dirty bomb into the country is likely. However, the cost of trying to fix the problem (at this point and time) is too much. However, when we are thinking about changes that will need to occur over the next few decades, this kind of thing should be taken into account. Kind of like city planning. Once you realize you screwed something up, the only thing to do is to fix it with later improvements. Like highways. Those are always planned wrong, but since they are always in the process of rebuilding them, you can try and work new solutions into the mix as you go. Therefore, even though there is nothing we can do about ports and inspections and dirty bombs right now, it should be held as a possibility and worked into future upgrade plans. They knew flying planes into buildings was a possibility. Yet, they did nothing to adjust for that information. I still think a simple call to the airlines, telling them to let the pilots know that there was talk, would have been enough. For me, anyway. Just a basic acknowledgment that they were listening and cared.
Also, none of that is Bush's fault. At least not solely.
And. . .
Dubya pled guilty to a misdemeanor DUI charge. Although he likes to call it a "youthful indiscretion," he was 30 at the time and didn't quit drinking for another decade.
However, it's not like he pled guilty to a felony, though it's frightening to realize that a convicted felon could run for and be President of the United States.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know your not so simple as to think that when the President goes to Texas that he does no work. Unlike the rest of us the President really has no vacation. He is on call all the time 24/7 and you know that.
And I know you're not as naive to think that someone can actually run for, and win, the Presidency of the United States and think that it is anything less than a full-time, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year commitment. Do I have a problem with any President taking a vacation? Yeah, a bit. I mean, yeah, the President should have some time off, but not a month in Texas. Not a month anywhere. It's not like he doesn't get to go gallivanting around the world just doing his job. I remember Clinton taking Chelsea on overseas trips and using some of that time for sightseeing, and I don't have a problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with these guys who think the job is 9-5 with a month off in the summer. Where does he think he is, France? This is the most important job in America. No one can "cover" for the President. If he didn't want the job, he shouldn't have tried to get elected.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it was pretty pathetic on our hegemon's part to hide when 9/11 was going on. What? Does he think he's worth assassinating? Right...sure Mr. Bush. The only kind of person who'd try to kill him would be someone with a hit-list based on annoying people.
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down"
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know your not so simple as to think that when the President goes to Texas that he does no work. Unlike the rest of us the President really has no vacation. He is on call all the time 24/7 and you know that.
Come on! Many, many of us are responsible all day and all night. When the call comes, we go. Doctors, firemen, custodians, principals, national guard...on and on.
Give me a break. I wish I had his health insurance.
That is bunk. In normal situations ever one you listed is allowed to take time where they are not availble to be called. In an emergency they are called, but they all get vacations and regular time off. There are times where they are on call, which means that they don't have to be at thier normal place, but have to be available.
I really don't think that Bush's month was a month of doing nothing but relaxing. Didn't he have the leaders of other countries visiting him?
I am sure he can do almost as much from his ranch in Texas as he can from Washington. Congress is out of session so there is nothing going on there. I think this is too harsh on the guy.
First of all, I don't believe all of this. I just thought it was an interesting point of view, and thought that I'd share it with you to see what you thought about it.(mistake)
Second: I'm not "trolling" anything (whatever that means).
Third: I don't appreciate being slandered by people just for putting this up here. I'm not saying that these are my beliefs. I only posted it because I thought hatrackers would be interested.
Fourth: Thank you Kayla for being the only one nice to me on this thread, backing me up, but not the e-mail. I appreciate it very much.
I found quite a few things in the e-mail outrageous, but didn't post them. I'm sorry if I offended any of you. That was not my intent.
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's very easy to criticize the administration about September 11 with our 20/20 hindsight. Sure, there were indications and ideas that terrorists might use planes as missiles. There were also thousands upon thousands of other totally unrelated warning signs about totally different threats available at the same time. Exactly what criteria should the administration (EITHER administration) have used to determine exactly which one would be used, to devastating effect, in 2001, and therefore, which one deserved the drastic attention it would have taken to thwart the attack? Come on.
And the whole deal about "hiding" during the attack. Yes, the gallant thing to do is to stand up and show the American people that you're not afraid. But there is also a comprehensive machinery in place to protect the life of the president, and when you are in the midst of an attack, and you have NO IDEA how extensive the attack is going to be, or what the enemy might know, or what they might do next, it makes a LOT of sense to trust the tried-and-true methods and reflexes of the Secret Service until you are in a better position to assess the situation. On the large scale of war, Bush's temporary disappearance was less than a flinch in the face of a sudden, unexpected attack.
Remember in elementary school, when that annoying kid would swing a fist at your face, stopping an inch from you eye? Naturally, your reflexes would cause you to flinch, since you had no way of knowing if the attack was real or not, and your nervous system is geared up to automatically evade certain types of assaults. But then that stupid kid would point and laugh, mocking you for being "afraid". You weren't afraid, you simply had a working nervous system with automatic defenses.
Similarly, the President is part of a well-oiled machine with defenses that are designed to automatically keep the upper echelon of our government intact in the face of disaster. It worked. Had an attack been planned on the president immediately after the plane crashes, it certainly would have been thwarted by our government's reflexes. Now we know there wasn't one. Does that make our government's reflexes a BAD thing? Does that mean that our president should be reckless with his life in the face of the unknowable?
I just think Bush's enemies want to shame him into getting himself assassinated next time around
My own pet peeve about that resume? The part about Bush being the most-protested leader in history. Puts his critics in perspective, doesn't it? If that statistic is true, then Bush is more loudly detested than Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Hussein, or Milosevic. A little petty, don't you think, for such anger to be directed at someone so relatively benign? Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, of course he's the most loudly protested of that bunch. If you spoke against Stalin of some of those others, you got a bullet to the head in your prison cell.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
So G.W.B. is not the best president, but a lot of it is circumstances, and bad luck. An abler man might have been able to carry off difficulties with ease, but G.W.B. doesn't have that talent.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, they should weigh the cost. Just like the car manufacturers do before a recall. How much will it cost if it happens per person, how many people will it happen to, how much will it cost to fix the problem. It 1 x 2 is less than 3, nothing happens. How much would it have cost to give a heads up to the airlines that it might be possible and they should warn their pilots and consider bullet proof doors?
quote: "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.
The report noted that an al Qaeda-linked terrorist first arrested in the Philippines in 1995 and later convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had suggested such a suicide jetliner mission.
"Ramzi Yousef had planned to do this against the CIA headquarters," author Rex Hudson wrote in a report prepared for the National Intelligence Council and shared with other federal agencies.
It seems like they knew it was a possiblity. You can't tell me that the group that was tenacious enough to bomb the WTC twice wasn't considered a threat.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually history will be kinder to Bush than say Harding. Harding had the good (or bad)luck of dying right when his administration went down the tubes. He was voted the worst President in history, even worse than William Henry Harrison (who governed 30 days)
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is, we havn't had a great president in a long time. Where did they all go? I want a great president, and I'm afraid I'll die (I'm 19, by the way) before I see one. The next presidential election looks kinda grim. I don't want Bush, I think he's dangerous, but Dean, Kerry, and the lot seem kinda unfit to be president.
Evie, thanks for posting the thread. I always enjoy watching political debates. The more I see,the more I realize that nobody is right, and how okay that is.
I hope I wasn't one of the ones that came off as a slanderer. If so, I didn't mean it.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I don't approve of some this being posted at all such as
"I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)."
"I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community."
"I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government."
Then a lot of that first and only stuff is ridiculous. If you deleted any of it then I can't possibly comprehend why you didn't delete some of this other stuff. Either leave all of it or remove all of the offending material. At some point it comes across as an endorsement when you post something like this without a disclaimer.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK this is gonna get all the righties and maybe even some other people mad at me but hey i just wanted to share. A while ago, (i cant remember when), there was a book in France that claimed that the US government was responsible for 9/11. In fact, if I remember correctly it was the best selling book in France for easily 3 months. I guess my point is that with all the stuff you guys are talking about, if I were French everything WOULD be Bush's fault. I think thats one of the reasons that France did what it did at the UN.
To me, this is the most apparent reason that President Bush should lose that title in just over a year. As much as he sides with business over the environment, secrecy over openess, and war over peace, the main reason I will not vote for him in 2004 is the simple fact that he has turned good will into pure hatred from most of the world. He has been, without question, the most antagonistic president ive ever lived under and it can only hurt the US to be alienated from the rest of the world. Remember, history repeats itself, and every great civilization in history has fallen. We could be next.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
History won't be kind to bush. His administration will eventually be known for dropping more balls than anyone was aware of now. The seeds of far too many things are being sown by this rendition of the US government. So the republicans got to have things their way. We'll get to see how it pans out in 10-20 years.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok jerry, fair enough. how would you have handled 9-11 and protected the US from further attack?
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, of course someday the American civilization will be destroyed. That doesn't mean that it will happen under Bush or even that it will be America's fault. It could be because China's technology catches up with its population and size and they simply overwhelm us. Or a madman may finally manage to send us into a truly nuclear war. As long as Bush continues to do the right thing I will support him.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: ok jerry, fair enough. how would you have handled 9-11 and protected the US from further attack?
I think the argument that states, could anyone else have done better, is simply a waste of time. I can say though, that we would be safer if other countries worked with us and helped in the war on terror, instead of blocking every piece of resolution in the UN for instance. I can say, without hesitation, that we should enjoy the friends that stand with us and do everything we can to see if others will too. By alienating the world, the terrorist becomes a more potent weapon, able to recruit more and more people to its cause, and undetered by MOABS or predator droans. We are swatting at flies and the rest of the world has our bug spray.
quote:lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA
Yeah, those Harvard MBA's are just a freakin' cake walk.
The biggest cake walk in HISTORY!!!!!
Of course, you're being ridiculous. Bush has been a miserable failure both in and out of school -- I wonder how he got into Harvard Business school in the first place, considering that Bush, technically speaking, didn't even graduate Yale. I believe he graduated with a "gentleman's C," which means he failed miserably but was too rich to flunk.
Which brings to mind, if Bush's academic achievements are as great as everyone insists, why won't he release his SAT scores? I mean, after all, surely he earned his way into college. Surely he wouldn't have taken the place of someone else who deserved the spot far more than the CIA Director's son.
Or if he was truly worthy of the quality education he received, why has he run every business he's touched into the ground? I mean, after all, as you said, he was trained by Harvard.
Teshi,
quote:History will be not kind.
So G.W.B. is not the best president, but a lot of it is circumstances, and bad luck. An abler man might have been able to carry off difficulties with ease, but G.W.B. doesn't have that talent.
Bad luck? September 11 has been Bush's greatest gift. September 11 gave Bush the opportunity to declare "dissenters" (defined as those who opposed him) as "unpatriotic" -- or is your short-term memory so bad that you don't remember the year, two years immediately following that tragedy?
Though I'm sure Bush quashed criticism because he had no need to fear it. Of course he's been a wild success in every other aspect of the presidency. Can you name one?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh boy lalo did you open up the forum now. I wouldnt be surprised if Ann Coulter even drops by now!
Posts: 107 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its ridiculous to say Bush has squashed criticism when you're still talking now. Let's say theoretically he is an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that he was justified in both military actions he has undertaken so far or that his cabinet has proven more than competent. It disgusts me that you would consider 9/11 to be good luck for anyone except for Al-Queda. As far as I and many other Americans are concerned Bush has been successful in his presidency especially concerning foreign policy.
Personally, I don't give a damn about alienating the world when not doing so comes at the expense of doing an incredibly important thing such as liberating a people oppressed in a most horrific fashion and ending an attempted genocide.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing that is going wrong is George W. Bush's fault.
Everything that is going right should be credited to him.
It's all clinton's fault and anyone who tells you different is a commie-loving-fag sucking-liberal who wants to kill you and throw your babies in the river!
Give Total Worship to George W. Bush!
THE GREATEST MIND IN AMERICA!
Suck it you turds!
[ September 04, 2003, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: The Silverblue Sun ]
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its ridiculous to say Bush has squashed criticism when you're still talking now.... It disgusts me that you would consider 9/11 to be good luck for anyone except for Al-Queda.
If you mean that Bush hasn't set up a secret police to break down our doors, then yes technicall you are correct. But surely Lalo was referring to the fact that Bush has leveraged 9/11 to silence the Democrats on many issues. I do not blame Bush for this though. It was an expected political move. I'm more pissed at the Democrats for not fighting back.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
At worst Democrats silenced themselves. It was a political move on their part to show that they were with the president in fighting terrorism. There have been no McCarthy hearings or any real threats to make liberals be quiet on any issues.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
newfoundlogic- I have two words for you. "Dixie Chicks"
Even without hearings, there are many things which made liberals be quiet especially about the war. Along with the news media, the republicans did a FANTASTIC job when they equated anti-war with anti-troop. Instantly, anyone who was opposed to the war in Iraq also wanted to see young American soldiers killed and defeated by Iraqi forces. OF course, this made it political suicide to come out against the war. They also did a great job of convincing you that in a democracy, suppressing the opposition is a great thing.
posted
yeah, that famously right-wing news media did it...
Why is it that nobody faults the Dixie Chicks for biting the hand that fed them? A bunch of people have said their comments were out-of-line, but hell, I make out-of-line comments all the time. A lot of people have said that they have been unjustly persecuted (though I think this is the first time I've heard someone suggest they were censored by the government).
What I have heard almost no one say is how mind-bogglingly STUPID and ungrateful those comments were. The Chicks' careers were MADE in Texas by the very people that elected him governor twice and voted both him and his father into office at every opportunity. Added to that, their hit single at the time was a sympathetic ditty about a soldier killed in action. It stands to reason that their fan base at the time was largely supportive of Bush and the military and they chose to spit in those people's faces-- "we don't care what you spend on us, we're smarter than you yokels that buy our patriotic songs!"
I am much more appalled at their ingracious lack of humility than at *any* political implications to their statement.
So while I am not actively boycotting them, I don't particularly pity them either... and I can't really fathom anyone who does.
[ September 04, 2003, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally, I don't give a damn about alienating the world when not doing so comes at the expense of doing an incredibly important thing such as liberating a people oppressed in a most horrific fashion and ending an attempted genocide.
Umm...the US typically doesn't give a rat's ass when it comes to either liberating opressed people or ending attempted genocide. The Iraqi people were opressed for quite a long time before we went in and acted. We barely stepped in during the genocide in Rwanda. We do what is politically expedient. We acted because we could, and because the Bush administration felt it could profit (both financially and politically) from such an attack.
What we all think we should do, as a noble and honorable nation, is entirely different. But we don't typically do that.
Cheney profited because his old company Haliburton was given a ONE BILLION DOLLAR PLUS contract to help restore the Iraqi oil fields (and then, believe it or not, to SELL THE OIL AND PROFIT FROM THAT, TOO!). Oh, and the contract was awarded without any competitive bidding whatsoever. You can feel free to make your own connections to G.W/V. Bush.
There are articles on PBS (yes, that God-forsaken liberal mouthpiece) which illustrate how both the old and new Bush administrations were waiting for a watershed event (like Pearl Harbor was for WWII) to justify an overthrow of the Iraqi regime (Saddam Hussein). September 11th was that event. So, yes, it made the Repubicans happy.
Oh, that PBS article actually makes a better political case for our attack on Iraq than GWB or the Republican party and its supporters ever did. But when you listen to Bush's rhetoric, you discover that's not why we attacked them.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
TAK, it's worth pointing out that the Chicks never said they were ashamed of Texans. In fact, they said that they were ashamed that Bush was FROM Texas -- in other words, that they felt the state of Texas was too good for the guy, and that he brought it down a peg or two.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you mean that Bush hasn't set up a secret police to break down our doors
I'd just like to point out that, technically, bush has done that (well okay, simply given the current police the right to do that). It's called the Patriot Act.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
