The Worst President in History?

D'artagnan wrote:

okie wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Bush doesn't believe in diplomatic ties with a host of countries that he doesn't like. This may be the reason for Iran and N. Korea developing nukes, and the growth of the conflicts between Israel and Hamas, as well as Hez.

.....

Opinions as this make me wonder if there is any hope. The sheer ignorance of history, the ignorance of reality, the lack of any common sense whatsoever...... I hope some of the opinions on this forum are more unusual in the general population. If they aren't, we are all in big trouble.

How about this opinion, okie? The leaders of N. Korea and Iran saw how easily the US disposed of Saddam, who had no nukes. By contrast, Bush is tiptoing delicately around N. Korea and Iran.

More sheer ignorance?

Iran and North Korea were developing nukes before Bush and regardless of Bush. And terrorists have been attacking Israel long before Bush. At least Bush isn't helping North Korea, as Clinton did, or as Clinton might do for Iran if he was still in office.

okie wrote:

D'artagnan wrote:

okie wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Bush doesn't believe in diplomatic ties with a host of countries that he doesn't like. This may be the reason for Iran and N. Korea developing nukes, and the growth of the conflicts between Israel and Hamas, as well as Hez.

.....

Opinions as this make me wonder if there is any hope. The sheer ignorance of history, the ignorance of reality, the lack of any common sense whatsoever...... I hope some of the opinions on this forum are more unusual in the general population. If they aren't, we are all in big trouble.

How about this opinion, okie? The leaders of N. Korea and Iran saw how easily the US disposed of Saddam, who had no nukes. By contrast, Bush is tiptoing delicately around N. Korea and Iran.

More sheer ignorance?

Iran and North Korea were developing nukes before Bush and regardless of Bush. And terrorists have been attacking Israel long before Bush. At least Bush isn't helping North Korea, as Clinton did, or as Clinton might do for Iran if he was still in office.

Bush invaded a country that neither had nukes nor attacked the U.S. Meanwhile, he took his eye off of N.K. as they continue to develop their nuclear program.

Blaming Clinton isn't going to score you any points here. The proof is in Bush's complete incompetence in dealing with foreign affairs. No wonder Condi Rice is furious with him right now; he's a complete incompetent moron, and Condi isn't much better. There's plenty of incompetence to go around. Meanwhile, Cheney seems to have completely disappeared off the radar screen.

The endless excuses for this pathetic administration continue unabated.

Ticomaya wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Bush doesn't believe in diplomatic ties with a host of countries that he doesn't like. This may be the reason for Iran and N. Korea developing nukes, and the growth of the conflicts between Israel and Hamas, as well as Hez.

In contrast, President Carter, following the 1971 conflict between Israel and Egypt, negotiated a peace between the two countries that still exists.

Bush is a dangerous failure who continues to damage our country.

President Carter severed diplomatic ties with Iran in 1980.

And what happened in Iran that forced Carter to do just that?

Ticomaya wrote:

President Carter severed diplomatic ties with Iran in 1980.

Smoke & mirrors. Tico's dog and pony show. Tico's stock in trade.

... in a stunning display of historical ignorance ...

Dookiestix wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Bush doesn't believe in diplomatic ties with a host of countries that he doesn't like. This may be the reason for Iran and N. Korea developing nukes, and the growth of the conflicts between Israel and Hamas, as well as Hez.

In contrast, President Carter, following the 1971 conflict between Israel and Egypt, negotiated a peace between the two countries that still exists.

Bush is a dangerous failure who continues to damage our country.

President Carter severed diplomatic ties with Iran in 1980.

And what happened in Iran that forced Carter to do just that?

Exactly! But that wasn't Advocate's point, was it?

His poing was to claim -- in a stunning display of historical ignorance -- that it is Bush's fault that Iran (and NK) is pursuing nukes because Bush "doesn't believe in diplomatic ties" with Iran.

Bush attacked a country run by a terrible dictator, which had some bioweapons, and plans to develop nukes and more bioweapons. Iraq had promised to verifiably destroy and dismantle such weapons and programs, but instead had lied and stalled for a dozen years. Had they furnished proof that they had destroyed such weapons and programs, sanctions would have been lifted.

Dookiestix wrote:

okie wrote:

D'artagnan wrote:

okie wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Bush doesn't believe in diplomatic ties with a host of countries that he doesn't like. This may be the reason for Iran and N. Korea developing nukes, and the growth of the conflicts between Israel and Hamas, as well as Hez.

.....

Opinions as this make me wonder if there is any hope. The sheer ignorance of history, the ignorance of reality, the lack of any common sense whatsoever...... I hope some of the opinions on this forum are more unusual in the general population. If they aren't, we are all in big trouble.

How about this opinion, okie? The leaders of N. Korea and Iran saw how easily the US disposed of Saddam, who had no nukes. By contrast, Bush is tiptoing delicately around N. Korea and Iran.

More sheer ignorance?

Iran and North Korea were developing nukes before Bush and regardless of Bush. And terrorists have been attacking Israel long before Bush. At least Bush isn't helping North Korea, as Clinton did, or as Clinton might do for Iran if he was still in office.

Bush invaded a country that neither had nukes nor attacked the U.S. Meanwhile, he took his eye off of N.K. as they continue to develop their nuclear program.

Blaming Clinton isn't going to score you any points here. The proof is in Bush's complete incompetence in dealing with foreign affairs. No wonder Condi Rice is furious with him right now; he's a complete incompetent moron, and Condi isn't much better. There's plenty of incompetence to go around. Meanwhile, Cheney seems to have completely disappeared off the radar screen.

The endless excuses for this pathetic administration continue unabated.

Bush attacked a country run by a terrible dictator, which had some bioweapons, and plans to develop nukes and more bioweapons. Iraq had promised to verifiably destroy and dismantle such weapons and programs, but instead had lied and stalled for a dozen years. Had they furnished proof that they had destroyed such weapons and programs, sanctions would have been lifted.

Ticomaya wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Bush doesn't believe in diplomatic ties with a host of countries that he doesn't like. This may be the reason for Iran and N. Korea developing nukes, and the growth of the conflicts between Israel and Hamas, as well as Hez.

In contrast, President Carter, following the 1971 conflict between Israel and Egypt, negotiated a peace between the two countries that still exists.

Bush is a dangerous failure who continues to damage our country.

President Carter severed diplomatic ties with Iran in 1980.

And what happened in Iran that forced Carter to do just that?

Exactly! But that wasn't Advocate's point, was it?

His poing was to claim -- in a stunning display of historical ignorance -- that it is Bush's fault that Iran (and NK) is pursuing nukes because Bush "doesn't believe in diplomatic ties" with Iran.

Because it IS Bush's fault for what's happening in Iran and the N.K. right now. It is also Bush's fault for what's happening in Iraq right now. I blame him for every single American casualty currently taking place in that country.

Boy, talk about a stunning display of historical ignorance.

Look what happened in Iran in 1980, then look at what is happening in Iran today, 26 years later. As if Iran hasn't changed one damn bit in a generation since the overthrow of the American placed Shah. Forget that fact that a new young generation of Iranians is more pro-American then the students who held Americans hostage during the revolution. Forget that fact that the current leadership is comprised of those who originally overthrew the American Shah, and whose policies aren't jibing well with the youth in that country right now.

Bush is a complete idiot and has absolutely no grasp whatsoever on foreign policy. He invaded a country that never attacked us by lying to us, and has turned it into a hell hole with our troops dying and billions of dollars wasted. Imagine if all that energy was invested in dealing with Iran and N.K.

You conservatives are desperately trying to name your strawdogs at a time when the conservative movement is vastly approaching it's demise and the neocon policies have only endangered this nation even more.

JTT called you on it; your smoke and mirrors is exactly that. It is intellectually dishonest and fails to look at the complete picture, which renders your selective sound bites completely irrelevant.

No, what's interesting is your evations when asked to provide any facts. Give an example, for instance, of any impeachable offense committed by George Bush. I know you can't and won't.

Because it IS Bush's fault for what's happening in Iran and the N.K. right now. It is also Bush's fault for what's happening in Iraq right now. I blame him for every single American casualty currently taking place in that country.

Boy, talk about a stunning display of historical ignorance.

Dookiestix wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Bush doesn't believe in diplomatic ties with a host of countries that he doesn't like. This may be the reason for Iran and N. Korea developing nukes, and the growth of the conflicts between Israel and Hamas, as well as Hez.

In contrast, President Carter, following the 1971 conflict between Israel and Egypt, negotiated a peace between the two countries that still exists.

Bush is a dangerous failure who continues to damage our country.

President Carter severed diplomatic ties with Iran in 1980.

And what happened in Iran that forced Carter to do just that?

Exactly! But that wasn't Advocate's point, was it?

His poing was to claim -- in a stunning display of historical ignorance -- that it is Bush's fault that Iran (and NK) is pursuing nukes because Bush "doesn't believe in diplomatic ties" with Iran.

Because it IS Bush's fault for what's happening in Iran and the N.K. right now. It is also Bush's fault for what's happening in Iraq right now. I blame him for every single American casualty currently taking place in that country.

Boy, talk about a stunning display of historical ignorance.

Look what happened in Iran in 1980, then look at what is happening in Iran today, 26 years later. As if Iran hasn't changed one damn bit in a generation since the overthrow of the American placed Shah. Forget that fact that a new young generation of Iranians is more pro-American then the students who held Americans hostage during the revolution. Forget that fact that the current leadership is comprised of those who originally overthrew the American Shah, and whose policies aren't jibing well with the youth in that country right now.

Bush is a complete idiot and has absolutely no grasp whatsoever on foreign policy. He invaded a country that never attacked us by lying to us, and has turned it into a hell hole with our troops dying and billions of dollars wasted. Imagine if all that energy was invested in dealing with Iran and N.K.

You conservatives are desperately trying to name your strawdogs at a time when the conservative movement is vastly approaching it's demise and the neocon policies have only endangered this nation even more.

JTT called you on it; your smoke and mirrors is exactly that. It is intellectually dishonest and fails to look at the complete picture, which renders your selective sound bites completely irrelevant.

Expand a bit on your "smoke and mirrors" claim. After all, you assert that it is I who is being "intellectually dishonest and failing to look at the complete picture," yet it was Advocate who -- in a post you apparently support -- claimed that Bush "doesn't believe in diplomatic ties with a host of countries that he doesn't like," and then suggests that may be the reason Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Besides the obvious fact that okie was right on the money when he referred to "sheer ignorance of history, the ignorance of reality, the lack of any common sense," Advocate's post is flat out wrong -- or misleading at best, intentionally or otherwise -- in the sense that Bush did not sever diplomatic ties with Iran ... President Carter did in 1980. It was that fact that I pointed out, to correct Advocate's post.

So what about that do you consider to be "smoke and mirrors"?

in the sense that Bush did not sever diplomatic ties with Iran

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bush attacked a country run by a terrible dictator, which had some bioweapons, and plans to develop nukes and more bioweapons. Iraq had promised to verifiably destroy and dismantle such weapons and programs, but instead had lied and stalled for a dozen years. Had they furnished proof that they had destroyed such weapons and programs, sanctions would have been lifted.

Oohhhhh, a country was run by a terrible dictator. Well, so have many other countries. For some reason, they escaped attack.

Oohhhh, they had som bioweapons and plans to make nukes and even more bioweapons. At the same time they were promising to destroy and dismantle the weapons and stalled for a dozen years. For some reason over those years, they escaped attack.

Oohhhh, sanctions would have been lifted. For some reason, sanctions were ignored and they did not escape attack.

Suspicion of having something, in no way, condones attacking a country. Nothing was proved and an act of aggression was administered by the Bush administration.

Yup, you have all the proof you need.

Brandon9000 wrote:

No, what's interesting is your evations when asked to provide any facts. Give an example, for instance, of any impeachable offense committed by George Bush. I know you can't and won't.

You'll forgive me, Brandon, for not wanting to get into the intricacies of constitutional law with such a renowned expert.

Ticomaya wrote:

Expand a bit on your "smoke and mirrors" claim. After all, you assert that it is I who is being "intellectually dishonest and failing to look at the complete picture," yet it was Advocate who -- in a post you apparently support -- claimed that Bush "doesn't believe in diplomatic ties with a host of countries that he doesn't like," and then suggests that may be the reason Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Besides the obvious fact that okie was right on the money when he referred to "sheer ignorance of history, the ignorance of reality, the lack of any common sense," Advocate's post is flat out wrong -- or misleading at best, intentionally or otherwise -- in the sense that Bush did not sever diplomatic ties with Iran ... President Carter did in 1980. It was that fact that I pointed out, to correct Advocate's post.

So what about that do you consider to be "smoke and mirrors"?

You pose black and white answers in response to complicated matters of foreign diplomacy with no context to a timeline whatsoever. Your sound bite responses are a testament to that, as well as your sad attempts at rebutting through extreme generalizations.

Iran was included in Bush's labeling along with N.K. and Iraq as the Axis of Evil. Not sure how that would improve diplomatic relations with a country that you're subsequently calling "evil." Perhaps you can enlighten us on this.

Also, Iran was overthrown by a revolutionary process, overthrowing an American puppet regime in 1980. Therefore, any President with half a brain would most likely sever diplomatic relations, as Iran made it's sentiments towards America abundantly clear.

Advocate never said that Bush "severed" diplomatic relations with Iran, but you have suggested that he said exactly that:

Ticomaya wrote:

in the sense that Bush did not sever diplomatic ties with Iran

Therefore, your smoke and mirror approach is abundantly clear. It's obvious that by labeling Iran, along with the N.K. and Iraq as the "Axis of Evil," Bush effectively gave up on any diplomatic solutions, and used this ridiculous phrase as a political propogandist tool for his conservative base.

Advocate's post is flat out wrong -- or misleading at best, intentionally or otherwise -- in the sense that Bush did not sever diplomatic ties with Iran."

Oh, and how's that war going in Iraq?

A new poll has ominous signs for Republicans
There are several noteworthy aspects to the new Washington Post/ABC News poll released today. Almost all of them are ominous signs for Republicans:

1) A majority of voters now disapprove of the way the president is handling every issue they were asked about, including the "U.S. campaign against terrorism" (by a 47 to 50 percent margin). The percent approving of the president's approach to terrorism is the lowest since this poll began asking the question in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

2) A plurality of voters (46-38) trust Democrats more than Republicans to "do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism." That is the largest advantage, by far, that Democrats have enjoyed on this issue. In fact, Republicans have had a huge advantage in this category ever since the 9/11 attacks (the GOP advantage in October 2002, for instance, was 61 to 26 in October 2002; the following month, Democrats lost control of the Senate), and the first Democratic advantage on terrorism ever (at least for this poll) was in April 2006, when it was one point. The gap has now grown to eight points.

3) An overwhelming majority of Americans continue to disapprove of the way the President is handling Iraq (36-62). And the unpopularity of the Iraq war itself is staggering. By a margin of 59 to 39 percent, Americans answer "no" to this question: "All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?" Not only are "antiwar" sentiments the solidly mainstream position, but those who believe that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do are part of an ever-shrinking minority.

4) There is a surprising evenhandedness about the Israel-Hezbollah war. Forty-six percent say that Israel and Hezbollah bear equal blame for the war (while 7 percent say Israel bears more blame, and 39 percent blame Hezbollah). And a plurality (48-47) say that Israel "is not justified in bombing Hezbollah targets located in areas where civilians may be killed or wounded" even though the question advises that "Israel says it has been bombing rocket launchers and other Hezbollah targets located in civilian areas."

Only 38 percent believe that "Israel is doing all it reasonably can do to try to avoid civilian casualties in Lebanon," while 54 percent believe it should do more. By contrast, 58 percent believe the U.S. is doing all it can to avoid civilian casualties in Iraq. Perhaps most important, even those Americans who favor the deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon overwhelmingly oppose (38-59) the inclusion of U.S. troops in such a force.

(5) Reflecting what I believe is the principal hurdle Democrats must overcome, a plurality (48-47) of Americans believe that "the Democrats ... are not offering the country a clear direction that's different from the Republicans." Given how unpopular the Republicans are, it is just inexcusable that Democrats are not aggressively distinguishing themselves from GOP policies.

This failure is primarily due to the fact that Democrats inexplicably continue to follow the chronically wrong and hopelessly fear-driven advice of their Beltway consultants -- echoed by the baseless warnings issued in the last couple of days by Marty Peretz and Cokie Roberts -- which instructs Democrats to avoid any decisive opposition to Republican policies (especially foreign policies) lest they alienate mainstream Americans (who, as this poll conclusively demonstrates, themselves have decisively rejected those very GOP policies).

(6) Finally, here is the ideological breakdown of the respondents to this poll: Only 18 percent described themselves as "liberal," while 42 percent self-identified as "moderate" and 38 percent as "conservative." It is, therefore, quite difficult to argue (or at least it ought to be) that opposition to the war in Iraq or strong disapproval of President Bush is confined to "liberal" corners.

The war has been over for some time now.

What does "in the sense" mean to you exactly, because it seems to have been thoroughly distorted for your own, self-serving reasons?

Again, Advocate effectively ...

...points out how Bush deals with these countries who are developing nukes. In other words, he doesn't. Meanwhile, both N.K. and Iran are actively developing their nuclear capabilities with no end in sight.

Bush also didn't do a damn thing when Israel and Hezbollah first started bombing the **** out of each other.

What part of that inaction boggles your mind?

What part of Advocate NOT saying that Bush servered diplomatic ties with Iran makes you feel that he "in a sense" was suggesting that Bush DID sever ties with Iran?

President Carter did effectively work on resolving the conflicts between Israel and Egypt. That is a fact.

What isn't a fact is Bush severing ties with Iran, which you suggested Advocate was implying. Once again, anyone with half a brain would understand what Advocate was talking about.

Except you, of course. I consider you to be nothing BUT smoke and mirrors at this point. 60% of the American people would agree with me, ...

... and the world would certainly laugh at the absurd notion that the war was over in Iraq.

Really, since your party is so in the doghouse right now, what the hell could you possibly suggest that would save them from almost certain doom, no thanx to the war in Iraq that presumably is over?