The Worst President in History?

cjh, Go crawl back into your cave where you belong.

Not until I can sell you a clue.

Who said they should? Death is death.

What is actually usually alleged is that terrorism is serious and that we need to prepare. Terrorism has the following characteristics which make it very serious, and an important thing to plan for:

1. Since it is an instance of people in the world trying to kill us or seriously harm our country/countries, it can and should be prepared for.
2. There are some really awful possible scenarios. Terrorists may get hold of a WMD someday, and not in the unimaginably distant future either. As technology marches onward, the technology comes within the reach of less and less wealthy and sophisticated entities, just as PCs were once both more expensive and less powerful than they are today. We must take strong measures to prevent this technology from becoming available to people who would do terrible things in the world with it.
3. The goal of some of the terrorists out there is to effect a fundamental change in our country, specifically to force their way of life on us. See Osama bin Laden's manifesto published in American newspapers shortly after 9/11. They seek a form of conquest.

All of these considerations make it well worthwhile to actively prepare to fight terrorism.

I think okie is correct, from a republican perspective, they are stupid questions....or at the very least, they are irrelevent.
A few republicans have responded in the initial thread, but these are questions that are largely ignored by the current administration, therefore, they are likely stupid and irrelevent. This attitude has only been inherited by their minions

Glad to see the republican perception of some very important issues disregarded as "stupid".

That the current administration ignores these important questions tell us more about the incompetence of this administration than anything they can say or do. They've ignored all the expert advise from start to finish, and "stay the course" was never the right one. We know, becuase problems have increased every year.

The Great Divider

The New York TimesPublished: November 2, 2006




As President George W. Bush throws himself into the final days of a particularly nasty campaign season, he's settled into a familiar pattern of ugly behavior. Since he can't defend the real world created by his policies and his decisions, Bush is inventing a fantasy world in which to campaign on phony issues against fake enemies.

In Bush's world, America is making real progress in Iraq. In the real world, as Michael Gordon reported in Wednesday's New York Times, the index that generals use to track developments shows an inexorable slide toward chaos. In Bush's world, his administration is marching arm in arm with Iraqi officials committed to democracy and to staving off civil war. In the real world, the prime minister of Iraq orders the removal of American checkpoints in Baghdad and abets the sectarian militias that are slicing and dicing their country.

In Bush's world, there are only two kinds of Americans: Those who are against terrorism, and those who somehow are all right with it. Some Americans want to win in Iraq and some don't. There are Americans who support the troops and Americans who don't support the troops. And at the root of it all is the hideously damaging fantasy that there is a gulf between Americans who love their country and those who question his leadership.

Bush has been pushing these divisive themes all over the nation, offering up the ludicrous notion the other day that if Democrats manage to control even one house of Congress, America will lose and the terrorists will win.



It's not the least bit surprising or objectionable that Bush would hit the trail hard at this point, trying to salvage his party's control of Congress and, by extension, his last two years in office. And we're not naïve enough to believe that either party has been running a positive campaign that focuses on the issues.

But when the president of the United States gleefully bathes in the muck to divide Americans into those who love their country and those who don't, it is destructive to the fabric of the nation he is supposed to be leading.

This is hardly the first time that Bush has played the politics of fear, anger and division; if he's ever missed a chance to wave the bloody flag of 9/11, we can't think of when. But Bush's latest outbursts go way beyond that.

au, With all the evidence of the Bush doctrine to divide, it's more bothersome to me that so many Americans who gather around Bush's speech continue to support this psycho.

What I want to know is this. How can W and Cheney justify stumping for locals when there's two wars and a semi-sour economy to handle? Who's driving this train?

Reports coming out of government departments are also highly questionable. One of the news title today is "Unemployment rate lowest in nearly 5-1/2 years."

They just forgot to mention two important facts for our voting public: 1) Bush's job creation is the worst since H Hoover, and 2) wages are not keeping up with inflation when health insurance and college tuitions have increased by double-digits.

An Administration Ally Goes Off-MessageBy Al Kamen
Wednesday, November 1, 2006; A19

Sensing GOP vulnerability, the Democrats' campaign ads focus on voter unhappiness with the Iraq war. The Republicans, in turn, prefer to talk about keeping us safe from terrorism.

So eyebrows popped up last week when none other than Richard Perle , former Reagan assistant secretary of defense, former Bush brain-truster on the Defense Policy Board, and a key promoter of the war to find Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, blistered the administration as "dysfunctional" when it comes to stopping someone from bringing "a nuclear weapon or even nuclear material into the United States."

"Knowing that there are people who wish to do that," Perle said, "knowing they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, you would think that we would have put in place a system or at least be working assiduously in the development of a system that would allow us to detect nuclear material entering the New York Harbor or Boston Harbor or what have you.

"But we haven't done that," he said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies gathering. "And the reason we haven't done that is hopeless bureaucratic obstruction. Somebody needs to shake that loose." Perle added that while some have tried to overcome the bureaucracy, no one has succeeded.

"I think we have an administration today that is dysfunctional," Perle said. "And if it can't get itself together to organize a serious program for finding nuclear material on its way to the United States, then it ought to be replaced by an administration that can."

buncha crap

No more than you. Challenge the statements, not the messenger.

Don't give up America. Vote. Libertarian, Green, Republican, just not Demoncreep. They wanna give it up.

Once again, the unabiding truthfulness of the title of this thread is reaffirmed.

You quote VF and expect anyone to care? Why not quote Jane Fonda while you're at it?

cjhsa it would seem is like the little boy who put his finger in the dike to hold out the water. Only in cjhsa's case he keeps his fingers in his ears to hold back the truth. The truth is that the war that should never have been has been tragically mismanaged. And people are dieing because of it. Now after the contiuing screwups by this administration can we believe they have the answer. Based upon their history what answer could those cretans possibly have but continuing down the same bloody and failed path.?

cjh just can't fanthom Bush's little word plays from "stay the course" to "we're not chaing our policy." cjh was never good at his snides, because he never understood the problems to begin with. He's like fly that won't go away. SHOOO!

So tell us when the last perfectly managed war occurred?
Judging by this statement of yours,if there are dasualties and deaths the war wasnt managed perfectly.

So,when was the last perfectly managed war and who fought it?

mm wrote: Judging by this statement of yours,if there are dasualties and deaths the war wasnt managed perfectly.

This guy is definitely an imbecile.

quote="mysteryman"]

So tell us when the last perfectly managed war occurred?
Judging by this statement of yours,if there are dasualties and deaths the war wasnt managed perfectly.

So,when was the last perfectly managed war and who fought it?[/quote]

No one is asking for perfection. However, this fiasco has been missmanaged by a bunch of fools and guided by the fool of fools occupying space in the oval office.