The Worst President in History?

I am indeed aware of the fact that the Congress gave President Bush the full authority to invade Iraq on October 10th and 11th.

I referenced that date twice. Once on this thread and the other time on the thread

I am very sorry but the quotation from Mr. Clinton is necessary in this discussion since it shows Mr. Clinton( on Dec. 18th, 1998) giving orders to bomb Iraq unilaterally. This could be viewed as a precedent.

It was also necessary to quote Mr. Clinton's view with regard to the fact that he felt that the Iraqi government should be changed by working with Iraqi opposition forces because this is the same position offered in Mr.Hingehead's quote about the Jan. 2001 meeting---"It was about what we can do to change this regime". It appears to me that the objectives in both instances( Clinton's 1998 speech and the Jan. 2001 meeting were quite similar.

My point was, that far from embellishing Ash's statements, you make a mockery of them because:

YOU GOT THE YEAR WRONG!!!!

But it's impossible for you to admit a mistake, you just drag some point up to answer an argument that's in your head that no-one else is involved.

Take a good look at yourself.

And which year is that, Mr. Hingehead?

You said:



Congress didn't give Bush approval to invade Iraq until October 2002.

ergo

You got the year wrong.

Now this is the point where you say something completely unrelated to my point and don't acknowledge the error. - ie obfuscate. Your serve.

Oh, no sir, I will acknowledge the error, I wrote 2001 instead of 2002. You are quite correct. That was my error. But I do think that the most important part of that Congressional statement ON OCTOBER 2002, AND NOT ON OCTOBER 2001( as I erroneously typed) was the fact that as Bob Woodward wrote in his "Bush at War"--- P. 351-

"The House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to grant the president FULL AUTHORITY to attack Iraq Unilaterally...The Congress gave Bush the full go ahead to USE THE MILITARY AS HE DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO DEFEND AGAINST THE THREAT OF IRAQ.

You are correct, Hingehead, I typed the wrong date. but you will note, I hope that the President received full authority to attack Iraq and authority to do what he thought was necessary and appropriate.

Therefore, if the liberals want to "blame" someone for the war, they must include the Congress who gave Bush the authority.

Thank you for pointing out my error. I think you will find that my quote from Woodward is not in error!

I think you will find that I never said that it was. Thanks for arguing against a point I hadn't made. Again.

No, You did not make the point, but I will AGAIN, since it is such a vital point.

Here again is the quote from Woodward--P. 351'

THE HOUSE AND SENATE O V E R W H E L M I N G L Y voted to grant the President FULL AUTHORITY to attack Iraq UNILATERALLY. The vote in the House was 296 to 133 and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the full go-ahead to use the military 'AS HE DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE' to defend against the threat of Iraq.

The reason, Mr. Hingehead, why this quote is so IMPORTANT is because it puts the lie to the people who say --Why did Bush go into Iraq with a pre-emptive strike?

He didn't. Unlike Bill Clinton, who bombed Baghdad on Dec. 16th 1998, Bush was given authority by the Congress.

If the Congress, the representatives of the people, gave the President the Authority to attack Iraq, it is obvious that those who feel that the attack on Iraq was a mistake should call the House and Senate to account.

I think it was a mistake. And I call the president and the house and congress to account.

Of course the decision was based on intelligence provided by the administration. Intelligence largely fabricated to present a justification for the Bush administration's desire to attack Iraq - a desire it expressed well before before 911.

I am very much afraid, Mr. Hingehead, that you are in error when you state that the "Intelligence was largely fabricated". I do not know that. Do you have any evidence that the "Intelligence" was fabricated? Fabricated by whom? Why? What proof is there that it was fabricated?

I have proof that it was not "fabricated". Would you please be so good as to rebut the following evidence?

**********************************************************

Another fallback charge is that Bush, operating mainly through Cheney, somehow forced the CIA into telling him what he wanted to hear. Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it

did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.

The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding

no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . . [A]nalysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.

**********************************************************

If you will access the 2005 report of the BIPARTISAN Robb-Silberman Report as referenced above or the BIPARTISAN Senate Intelligence Committee as referenced above. Mr. Hingehead, you will find that there was NO EVIDENCE OF POLITICAL PRESSURE EXERTED ON ANALYISTS TO CHANGE TO EITHER CHANGE OR SKEW THEIR JUDGMENTS."

The charge, in the light of the above Bi Partisan Congressional Reports, that anyone "fabricated anything" is bogus!!!

Hey dingbat - do you remember spruiking some time back that you always give sources?

Haven't even bothered to read - why should I waste my time when I can't verify.

You are so dull.

And still the repuglican delusionists continue in their fantasy world.

Mr. JTT is apparently unaware that some media do not agree that the election of 2000 was STOLEN. Indeed, the good gray lady--the most important paper, in terms of influence, in the United States-THE NEW YORK TIMES- did not agree that the election was STOLEN.

We took Saddam out of power for the same reason we put him in power and gave him chemical weapons. For the oil.

We only made Saddam a bad guy when he nationalized the oil which was not in our interest. Before that, when he was a bad guy working for us, it was fine.

It's called "The boomerang effect". We find a bad guy that is willing to do our dirty work in a country for our interest and put hin in power. But then later the bad guy turns on us. Thats the "Boomerang effect". It's an intelligence term like "blowback".

These terms are not very popular to the average American citizen because the true nature of our foreign policy is not promoting democracy of freedom but securing corporate interest by any means possible.

Democracy must be corrupted for these interest to continue at home and everywhere so that Bush and his gang can secure there interest. He has no country or loyalties except to his own interest. Thats why he didn't fight in Nam with Kerry.

Amigo-sir- Your idea concerning Saddam reveals that you are not well acquainted with the concept of Realpolitik. That means--You make alliances when it is to your nation's interests/

When was Saddam a "good guy"?

When did he become a "bad guy"?

Good Guys become bad guys very very quickly.

Case in point----In 1945, the Soviet Union was our "friend". We poured Billions of dollars of aid and war materials in to them since they were fighting our enemy-Nazi Germany.

THREE SHORT YEARS LATER- in 1948, the Soviets threw up the Berlin Blockade and the COLD WAR officially started.

I would respectfully suggest <Mr. Amigo, that you do more reading in History. You will learn how quickly alliances change!!!

The "case in point," BernardR is the simple fact that Bush never learned that lesson about trying to make Iraq a "friendly country."

When you've got your nose buried in George Dumbya Bush's ass...I guess you cannot wake up and smell the coffee!

For you Bush haters that live or die by polls, and form your opinions based on what other people think, bad news for you. Bush's job approval ratings back to around 40%.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199668,00.html

Back to 40%? WOW! Doesn't that still mean his disapproval is still above 50%?