The Worst President in History?

The link for the above article:
http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/bushstyle19.html

We certainly will have to wait and see, indeed. Now, it is obvious that if you are correct, Mr.Imposter, that the GOP will be wiped out in November 2006. Certainly, I am sure that you do not think( unless you are an elitist and I don't think you fall under that category) that the American Public will vote for legislators from the party headed by the Worst President In American History.

We shall see.

And, I await with great expectancy, the explanations of the left if the American Public does not,indeed, return the Senate and the House to the Democrats. You know, I am sure, that the great William Jefferson Clinton fumbled away the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in 1994 and that the Democrats have never gotten those majorities back.


Certainly, and I will repeat, the American voter is not so stupid as to elect legislators in Nov. 2006 who belong to the party of the worst president of the US in History!!!

President Bush AWOL? Not according to his superior officer.



Media failed to find facts behind Bush's service record

February 11, 2004

BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB

President Bush has had a rough 10 days, beginning with the Tim Russert "Meet the Press" interview on Feb. 1 of Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who charged Bush was "AWOL" and "never served in the military." Only a week later, Bush asked to appear on Russert's show in a clear attempt to stem the damage from these charges. For over a week they were endlessly repeated and never analyzed by the news media.

But the only basis for these charges was summarized by London's Sunday Telegraph on Feb. 8: "If the Vietnam veteran John Kerry becomes the next president, there will be one man to thank above all others: retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed."

It all started with a report by the Boston Globe during the 2000 presidential election questioning Bush's National Guard service. Walter Robinson cited retired Turnipseed, of the Alabama Air National Guard, as his source.

But in an interview , Turnipseed states that Robinson's reporting of their conversation was either distorted or based upon his misunderstanding of how the military functioned at the time of Bush's service. For Bush to be "AWOL" or "away without leave," he would have had to have been assigned to a unit and under its command.

Turnipseed states Bush was never ordered to report to the Alabama Air National Guard. He points out that Bush never transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama Air National Guard. He remained in the Texas Guard during his stay in Alabama. This was confirmed by the Texas Guard. And Turnipseed added that Bush was never under his command or any other officer in the Alabama Guard.

Turnipseed added that Bush was informed of the drill schedule of the Alabama Guard as a courtesy so he could get credit for drills while in Alabama for his service record in the Texas Guard. There was no compulsory attendance.This was also confirmed by the Texas Guard.

Sen. John Kerry got in on the act on Sunday, asking, "was he [Bush] present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be? I don't have the answer to that question." But as Turnipseed points out, Bush was never "supposed to be" anything in Alabama. And Kerry doesn't have "the answer" because he is taking advantage of a partisan political fantasy that has stayed aloft this long because of the lousy job done by the press in reporting on it.

Now, Robinson is beginning to have second thoughts. His latest column states: "President Bush received credit for attending Air National Guard drills in the fall of 1972 and spring of 1973 -- a period when his commanders have said he did not appear for duty at bases in Montgomery, Ala., and Houston -- according to two new documents obtained by the Globe." How could Robinson have gotten it so wrong?

The most charitable explanation for this distortion is the almost total ignorance the press of the realities of military service and its record-keeping. Yet Turnipseed has been repeatedly called by news organizations since the Globe reporting four years ago, and no one has chosen to correct the errors he has tried to point out or cover his denials.

The most startling aspect of this story is that the press has continually treated this affair as a political debate rather than a matter of fact.

An Air National Guard officer such as George Bush left an extensive paper trail of service. The vital summary sheet of a military record is a simple form called the DD214 or NGB 22. It covers all the basic questions being asked about Bush today. Every military veteran has one.

Kerry has one. On it are listed his dates of service, the nature of his discharge and the medals and service ribbons he has every reason to be proud of. It was filed away at the time of discharge and is almost impossible to alter.

Did a single member of the thousands in the press take the trouble to look up just one DD214 or NGB22 -- President Bush's?

Apparently not. And that is the saddest part of the story.

There was already an exhaustive look at Bush's National Guard records published and available on the Internet to any reporter who has written on this in the last week. None of whom bothered to look it up. It's title? "The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, But Not AWOL, Either." It was "the first full chronology" and concludes "he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge."

The article included the pasteup pay records just released by the White House. It also included the "two new documents obtained by the Globe" by Robinson.

It was published four years ago in George Magazine. Its publisher was that well-known GOP supporter -- the late John F. Kennedy, Jr.

Thomas H. Lipscomb

Homeland Security Turnover Hurts Morale, Officials Testify

By Stephen Barr
Friday, May 19, 2006; Page D04

It's no secret that morale is a problem at the Homeland Security Department, created three years ago in a mega-merger that pulled together 185,000 employees working in more than 220 occupations.

Bush administration officials have tried to play down turf battles and culture clashes as transitional woes that would fade after the rank and file had worked together for five to seven years, but complaints by employees continue and are starting to get to the ears of members of Congress.


At a hearing, Rep. Mike Rogers raised the issue of the many vacancies.
At a hearing, Rep. Mike Rogers raised the issue of the many vacancies. (Dave Martin - AP)
About This Column

* xml Sign Up for RSS Feed
* Federal Diary Archive
* How RSS Works

Save & Share

* Tag This Article


Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Byline
2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Blurb
3. Tag This Article

Yesterday, two senior department officials acknowledged that turnover in top management jobs there appears to be adversely affecting employee morale.

Answering questions at a House hearing, K. Gregg Prillaman , the department's chief human capital officer, and Dwight M. Williams , the department's chief security officer, suggested that the turnover rate at the top of the department spills downward into the ranks and influences morale.

Williams said senior leaders -- many are political appointees -- burn out because of long hours and then leave, creating gaps in the top management team. He said the department is more stable than it was 18 months ago but added, "We are not there yet."

The creation of the department, to some extent, was a "hostile takeover" and not something employees would have voted for, Prillaman said. Efforts are underway to train line managers how to better deal with employee issues, he said.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on management and oversight, raised the issue of vacant leadership posts at the outset of the hearing. His list included the undersecretary for science and technology, the commissioner for Customs and Border Protection, the chief financial officer, the assistant secretary for cyber security and the chief privacy officer.

The first three positions require Senate confirmation, and the department has nominees in various stages of the appointment process. But some jobs have been vacant for several months, and Rogers said "other key vacancies are expected soon.

"I am concerned this high turnover undermines the department's effectiveness," he said. "It could also very well weaken our efforts to integrate the department's many agencies and further erode employee morale."

Bush served honorably, did all his flying hours and more, his superiors were very happy with him. The fact is the aircraft he flew was not needed in Vietnam, and therefore there was no call for more service than what he fulfilled, which was complete and honorable. That was another story that went nowhere because it was nothing more than a hill of beans to start with, much like most of the so-called scandals about the administration dredged up by the media, and one that Dan Rather had to dig up some phony forged documents about. By the way, has any great investigative reporter yet found out who forged the documents to make a name for themselves in the pattern of Woodward and Bernstein? After all, it is a serious crime to try to alter a federal election with something like forged documents. The media does not care because it does not fit their preconceived template.

Guantanamo inmates attack guards
Inmates at the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have clashed with guards as they tried to prevent a fellow detainee from hanging himself.

The detainees struck with weapons crafted from fans and light fixtures, but the disturbance was quelled with minimum force, the US military said.

Earlier three inmates attempted to kill themselves using prescription drugs.

Details of Thursday's incident come after the United Nations urged the US to close down the camp.

The call was part of recommendations by the UN Committee against Torture that US detention facilities abroad should be closed.

Free association

The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says this is the first time that details have emerged of such an incident involving more than one inmate, although individuals regularly resist guards.

US military spokesman Cmdr Robert Durand said guards responded to an attempted suicide in Camp 4, a less restrictive part of the facility where detainees are allowed to associate freely as a reward for good behaviour.

"Minimum force was used to quell the disturbance and prevent the suicide," he said.

None of the detainees involved has been named.

The military says there have been 39 suicide attempts in the camp since 2002, and hunger strikes have been common as detainees protest against their continued detention without trial.

And your point is?.........

And Okie has the insensitivity to ask:



Perhaps, Okie, the point is that the detainees are human beings who are imprisoned and isolated far away from their loved ones----day after day, week after week, month after month, and now YEAR after YEAR without any resolution to their plight. The direness of their situation has caused several of them to desire self-inflicted death rather than endless despair.

You sit in the comfort of your own home and you don't care one iota about their suffering. Your inhumanity is showing.

To call this moron "the worst president in US history" is to pay him too much respect.

The ascendancy of American conservatism is one of the most cataclysmic calamities ever to befall our country and the world. American conservatism is, at its core, a fraud. But the events and people who moved this pathetic, incompetent individual to the Oval Office pale even that.

We'll survive.

We are resilient.

But it is too bad that a country founded by such principled people with such high expectations have to have their efforts and bravery spat upon by our present generation in this way.

You must assume they all got there for no reason whatsoever and are totally innocent. They've already released many that were not under the most sure evidence and suspicion, and even of some of those, some have shown up again on the battlefield or in circumstances of terrorist acts again attempting to kill us again. Surely you must not believe we should give the remaining ones a trial as if they come under the civil laws of this country? What a fiasco that would be. What do you advocate then, turn them all loose?

Instead of constant criticisms, I would like to hear some actual viable solutions advocated.

0kie--As brilliant as Debra LAW is, and she is one of the most well-informed legal minds in the country, she may have forgotten two things.

l. The Geneva Convention which gives the rules under which those fighting against the US can be held in wartime.

2. And I am really surprised at this, she forgot that, ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States can rule on the status of the prisoners at Gitmo and the procedures that the Administration must adopt in dealing with those prisoners.

I am sure that Debra LAW will agree that we are a nations of LAWS!!!

When the Supreme Court ignores all the law-breaking by this administration and does nothing, they are part of the problem. They are also responsible to ensure the entigrity of the Constitution and Bill of Rights - which they are failing to do. Same with our congress; the house needs to forward an impeachment of this president for starting a war on questionable information they used to go forwrard with the preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that was not responsible for 9-11, WMDs, or connection to al Qaida.

Your post is most interesting, Mr. Imposter. I am unaware that the Supreme Court, as you put it, "ignored" , as you put it, the "law breaking" by this administration.

Are you sure that they have "ignored" the alleged "law breaking" by this administration?


I follow the Supreme Court's calendar rather closely and I am unaware of any instance in which it could be said that they "ignored" any alleged "law-breaking" of this administration.

Certainly, they cannot "ignore" bona-fide cases referred to them by Appelate Courts.

Do you have some specific "ignoring"in mind? And more important, can you prove they "ignored" law breaking by this administration?

I am very much afraid, Mr.Imposter, that the Supreme Court's deliberation as to what is "law breaking" and what is not "law breaking" is final since it is the highest court of the land.

Again, some proof please?

Thank you, sir!

BR, It's because you ignore all the evidence "out there" for normal people to see. Go look them up for yourself; I stopped going on wild goose chases for the likes of dummies like you who fail to see what's put in front ofyour eyes.

The other aspect of this, BernardR, am I correct to have understood in all of this mess that the rights of prisoners of war are only protected when those prisoners represent a country, so the agreement does not apply. Terrorists have placed themselves in limbo by committing acts of war while not wearing a uniform or representing any country whatsoever. They actually deserve no rights whatsoever. Any kindness or fairness accorded them by us is only out of pure benevolence, which we have done, not because of any obligation to any treaty or Geneva Convention. It should be pointed out that we did not ask to be attacked. It is not our fault there are terrorists out there doing what they do. It is their fault the suspects have to be rounded up and held. It is a thorny problem in terms of how to handle the mess, because many wars have an ending, and the country gives up or signs a treaty, but this war may not have any foreseeable end. But again, we should not be blamed for that. We are only attempting to solve the problem, thats all, and for people like Debra Law to sit there and lay blame onto us is downright ridiculous. This is precisely why many people have concluded there is what we call the "blame America first crowd."

Great article, cicerone... thank you!

JustonOB, Isn't it ironic that the Bush apologists can't see the "real" Bush? He's against "affirmative action," but denies everybody else the entrance to other universities based on "affirmative action." Talk about the height of hypocrisy.

The problem, it appears, is that you and others like you don't understand the difference between "acts of war" and crime.

The war on terrorism is a euphemism just like the war on drugs and the war on poverty are euphemisms.

Humberto Alyarez-Machain is a citizen and resident of Mexico. In our "war on drugs," U.S. government agents arranged for Alyarez-Machain to be forcibly taken from Mexico and had him flown to Texas where he was arrested for violations of the criminal law of the United States. He was required to stand trial for his alleged crimes in our nation's criminal justice system. Our government did not whisk him off to some secret prison and detain him indefinitely until the conclusion of the euphemistic "war on drugs."

It is insane to argue that foreign nationals have "placed themselves in limbo by committing acts of war while not wearing a uniform or representing any country whatsoever." Terrorism is a crime. If the government has probable cause to believe the detainees have engaged in terrorism or conspired to engage in acts of terrorism in violation of our criminal laws, let's bring them to justice in our courts of law.

Dear Daily Reckoning Reader,

"What Empire of Debt did for me," writes fellow DR traveler, Mike Doyle,
"is confirm many of my own beliefs. It is very well written... and entertaining. But I am convinced that sending copies to Washington, D.C., was a waste of time and money. The town is full of blooming idiots. They're too busy screwing up the country to read a book that might actually teach them something."

Hmmmm... If sending the books down there was a waste of time, wait 'til this afternoon. We're sending a documentary crew to the capitol. We want to find out if anyone -- ANYONE -- in Washington is concerned with the deficit, the debt... the dollar. (If you haven't purchased your copy, we urge you to read more below.)

We'll keep you posted...

Addison Wiggin,
The Daily Reckoning

P.S. "The only solution to the problem is to vote AGAINST every incumbent," Mr. Doyle continues, "good or bad, to break up the two clubs in Washington, D.C., to the point where those that are left finally get the message that the American public is sick and tired of paying them to screw up our country.

"Unfortunately, this will take a few years, but I have no other answer. If
I knew how to start impeachment proceedings against politicians who totally disregard their campaign promises once they get elected and make really stupid decisions, I would do it. At least while they are trying to cover their own asses, they won't do any damage. Sad commentary, isn't it?"

Oh, dear me. Debra LAW does not read the Supreme Court Cases?
Quote
April 03, 2006
Supreme Court Rejects Enemy Combatant's Appeal
Today a divided Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of American citizen Jose Padilla, who has been in custody for nearly four years.


Initially designated an enemy combatant after his arrest in 2002, Padilla had challenged his continued detention at a naval brig in South Carolina without access to American courts. In 2004 the high court threw the case out on a technicality -- that Padilla had filed the matter in the wrong court.


Padilla's lawyers re-filed the case, and it returned to the Supreme Court again with Padilla asking the court to declare his continued detention illegal. Thereafter, the government filed federal criminal charges against the former gang member and transferred him from the naval brig to a detention center in Florida. The government then contended that Padilla's present appeal to the Supreme Court was rendered moot in light of the pending criminal charges.


Justice Kennedy, with the Chief Justice and Justice Stevens joining in, said the court would not get involved as criminal charges are pending, and any defense claims that Padilla might be "returned to military custody would be hypothetical." Justice Kennedy warned, however, that the court would keep a close eye on the case, and any change in Padilla's detentions status could "be addressed if the necessity arises."


Justice Ginsburg -- jointed by Justices Souter and Breyer -- dissented, calling Padilla's plight a case of "profound importance to the Nation." She said that when first given the opportunity in 2004, the court should have decided whether President Bush has the authority to "imprison indefinitely a United States citizen," based on the government's characterization of Padilla as an enemy combatant.

end of quote
Here is an AMERICAN CITIZEN, who had to wait nearly four years before his case was handled by the USSC.

If the people in Gitmo can't wait for the USSC, they should appeal to go elsewhere to get justice.

The Islamo-fascists are not hindered by any "rule of law." They get right to the point and behead their adversaries--without a trial.