George Bush the Worst President in 100 Years?

[Andrew]

"If Soldiers Came From Another Country And Did This To My Family, I Would Be An Insurgent Too” – War Vet Describes Iraq House Raid

Good article with soldier who fought in Iraq. Shows some of the horrors that occurred such as killing a mother and leaving her children on the side of the road. Or killing elderly people and leaving them on the road.

So basically they fire at any vehicle that is on the road. The sign on the military vehicle says stay away 100 feet, yet you can only make out the sign when your at 30 feet.

Or raiding houses that supposedly are terrorists but are not in the middle of the night.

Good job with the whole freedom thing.

Soldiers beating up civilians and shooting civilians video

watch a couple minutes of it.

[Andrew]

Marine testimony: All Iraqi men viewed as insurgents

"We were told to crank up the violence level," said Lopezromo, testifying for the defense.

When a juror asked for further explanation, Lopezromo said: "We beat people, sir."

Unable to find him, the Marines and corpsman dragged another man from his house, fatally shot him, and then planted an AK-47 assault rifle near the body to make it appear he had been killed in a shootout, according to court testimony.

I am not surprised at all.

If Marines entered a house where a man was wounded, instead of checking to see whether he needed medical aid, they shot him to make sure he was dead, he testified.

rofl. Shoot twice, don't ask questions because they are all dead.

Bush should be impeached.

[Andrew]

Bush just went around the Fifth Amendment.

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

Wiki link to Fifth Amendment

So if you protest the war, Bush can take all your assets.

Seems to be the #1 story on fark, digg, and slashdot websites.

Bush says dictatorship would make his work easier

If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.

-Bush

[Andrew]

After wiretapping victory, Bush says he wants more authority from Congress

Those Dems keep giving in to Bush's demands. I guess they must think they are going to win the next presidential election and get all the powers Bush created.

EDIT:

Was at family party, everyone was in agreement that Bush is a terrible president. :P (where's bin laden? in Iraq, ok!) Even though we are not from the states. I guess only non-americans can only see how terrible he is (although I think all new yorker tourists we get dislike him, I guess that is true since they don't vote republican).

[Andrew]

The Bush administration has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for states to extend health coverage to children in middle-income families

Those silly middle income children, expecting to get health care.

Bush appointed a federal mine safety head who had questionable safety practices at the mines he operated

This picture sums up the bush administration:

[Andrew]

Bush to invoke Vietnam in arguing against Iraq pullout

Umm, I'm pretty sure pulling out of vietnam was a the best thing to do. There were already 58,000 dead US soldiers. I guess only have 4000 or so dead soldiers in the Iraq war is not enough. And there have definitely have not been enough Iraqis killed.

Funny Bush was all for "Stay the Course", then last year he said he has not been staying the course, but now that he wants to stay in Iraq, that pretty much looks like staying the course.

[Andrew]

How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S. Treasury

A good long article about how the Iraq war is based upon American companies profiting from the US treasury (taxpayers) for doing no work at all.

[Andrew]

Today Bush held a press conference. Here is a 10 second video that makes Bush look like a dumbass that needs to be impeached.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/20/bush-econ101/

You know, you need to talk to economists. I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A, however, in keeping taxes low and being fiscally responsible with the people

[Sneakgab]

If bush really did get a B in any subject, then all that does is reinforce the point that good grades in schoolcollege do not have much to do with intel and/or even doing the job/subject well in real life. ;D ;D :P

The issue that this whoe Bush affair brings to mind to me is how much has to happend before people get angry and decide to do something, ANYTHING, about the governance. In my country (which also has ridiculous and blatant governance and problems) people look at me like I'm insane when I mention the fact that if things suck that much @ss due to bad decisions then somebody should take some kind of action. I suppose most think that nothing can be done, but if thats true it's only because the masses are too stupid as they are supposed to hold ultimate power over the goverment and not the other way around.

[Tatar Khan]

It is not that masses are stupid, it is more because people are too afraid to act because they have something to lose when they will act. However when that something will get smaller and smaller they will start becoming active. Also a good leader is needed to inspire also, they tend to arise around the same time conditions become unbearable.

[spazelord]

I was just wondering if any one's with or against Bush. He took out one of the worst dictator of our time Saddam; he is also after Ben Laden who is compared to Hitler

[Andrew]

Against Bush...

The amount of money spent in Iraq could have provided all Americans with universal healthcare.

Also the 100,000 dead Iraqis might prefer Saddam. They at least had electricity back when Saddam was in power.

They left Afghanistan way too early, the Taliban are back.

Iraq is a waste of time and money and lives.

Also look at the American Dollar, it has lost 40% of its value in 5 years. Americans have lost lots of their rights. I'm not sure what good things Bush has done.

[Andrew]

Bush rejected an offer from Saddam to leave voluntarily if he was allowed to keep $1 billion

Also says that Bush was going to invade in March no matter what the UN did.

In it, Bush spoke openly about pressuring countries who were members of the United Nations Security Council at the time to support a resolution authorizing force, but that, whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."

In March 2003, days before the war, the United Arab Emirates proposed to a summit of Arab leaders that Saddam and his top aides should step down and go into exile. It was the first time an Arab state had made an official call of this kind.

And of course Bush didn't care about that, he was ready to invade.

Oh and Spazelord, the US government supported Iraq, just like they did with the Taliban in the 1980's. They supplied weapons to them.

[Sneakgab]

Didn't know any of that, Andrew. A year or 2 ago I would have put many '' :O :O :O'' upon discovering such information but npw I'm not too blown away. Anyway, of course removing Saddam was a plus but it was not the Bush adminsistration's intention and the info (haven't read the doc, but is it really necessary to do so?) that Andrew just provided seems to prove it pretty well.

If Saddam had left the dictatorship would have ended without a damaging war (supposedly precision weapons prevented collateral damage but the cost of such weapons seems to have been so high that their price of usageproduction was equivalent to wiping out an entire (american in this case I suppose)uninhabited city it seems. Whether this was deemed acceptable to cover the PR (which would be stupid anyway) or was just stupid, you be the judge).

There are two possible reasons why Bush refused this (that I can think of)

1: He refused to let Saddam escape justice, and his foolishness thusly killed many and wasted much for no real reason.

2: He did not accept this so that he could maintain his WMD excuse for invading Iraq for it's oil, to create a contractor paradise, other possible corrupt reasons, e.t.c)

Once again: you be the judge.

Regardless of all, it is clear that if conditions in Iraq are indeed worse than during Saddam's reighn, then no good has come it.

[gunner154]

The oil argument is pretty clear-cut now, looking and what had remained of all the evidence. Prioritising oil fields in a war and panicking when they are burnt off does send many signals to the public about your priorities.

Precision weapons have been known to take out the wrong targets anyway. I think there was a commotion about this in 2003 or 2004. Not to mention the huge number of airstrikes they used then that just pretty much eliminated the supposed benefits of precision weapons by causing indiscriminate destruction.

[Andrew]

Yes, that precision missile aiming for a house with terrorists inside will not affect someone walking down the street next to it. ;)

[Andrew]

MacLeans is at it again.

How George Bush became the new Saddam

Damn liberal media.

COVER STORY: Its strategies shattered, a desperate Washington is reaching out to the late dictator's henchmen.

Very lengthy article about a reporter who was in Iraq.

[spazelord]

Against Bush...

The amount of money spent in Iraq could have provided all Americans with universal healthcare.

Also the 100,000 dead Iraqis might prefer Saddam. They at least had electricity back when Saddam was in power.

They left Afghanistan way too early, the Taliban are back.

Iraq is a waste of time and money and lives.

Also look at the American Dollar, it has lost 40% of its value in 5 years. Americans have lost lots of their rights. I'm not sure what good things Bush has done.

Now if a nuclear bomb wiped out New York City and devastated most of the east coast would you have still written that statement above? I don't think so. If you allow unpredictable dictators to grow, anything is possible. So why take that chance?

[Andrew]

You seem to be equating either Iraq was responsible for 9/11, or that Saddam had WMD and was going to bomb the US (and if those WMD did get sent to other countries before Iraq was invaded why didn't the US invade them?)

Invading Iraq only made more terrorists. I think that trillion dollars spent on the Iraq war could have been better spent protecting US borders.

They can't even keep millions of illegal Mexicans out of America, how are they going to keep a single terrorist out? (P.S. USA has gotten so bad that Mexicans are fleeing US and coming to Canada, link)

Also, did you know that most of the 9/11 high jackers were from Saudi Arabia? And that none were from Iraq?

[spazelord]

You seem to be equating either Iraq was responsible for 9/11, or that Saddam had WMD and was going to bomb the US (and if those WMD did get sent to other countries before Iraq was invaded why didn't the US invade them?)

Invading Iraq only made more terrorists. I think that trillion dollars spent on the Iraq war could have been better spent protecting US borders.

They can't even keep millions of illegal Mexicans out of America, how are they going to keep a single terrorist out? (P.S. USA has gotten so bad that Mexicans are fleeing US and coming to Canada, link)

Also, did you know that most of the 9/11 high jackers were from Saudi Arabia? And that none were from Iraq?

You know there is a thing called HEZB OLLAH and many other terrorist organizations like that. These guys are from all of these countries including Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Jordan, Palestine, Afghan and many more. Do you know who funds this people? Iraqi government, Iranian Government, Saudi's including Ben Laden himself and all the extreme Islamic countries that exist around the world. Please don't list all this crap about Saddam being incent of terrorism. The guy is eviler than evil or was and so are a lot of those extremists that exist. Instead of fighting our system how about showing some support and thank those who

[spazelord]

link)

Also, did you know that most of the 9/11 high jackers were from Saudi Arabia? And that none were from Iraq?

Also, did you know most of the solders fighting terrorism are from USA? And not from the UK. Does that mean the English are not responsible for saving people

[Andrew]

I'm also guessing foreign aid funds these terrorist organizations through government corruption.

Also the US government supplies the terrorists with weapons, so US is responsible for arming them.

Report: U.S. May Have Lost Weapons in Iraq

And it was 190,000 weapons...

Yes I know most soldiers fighting "terrorism" are from the USA, and that is because they started the Iraq War (duh). Canada has a similar amount of soldiers in Afghanistan as USA. And oddly enough the Taliban are back. And residents in Afghanistan actually prefer the Taliban to the Afghanistan police. So it looks like USA failed in Afghanistan to eliminate terrorists.

Dick Cheney admitted in early 1990's that invading Iraq would turn into a quagmire. But that didn't stop them. And it turned out he was correct.

[spazelord]

I'm also guessing foreign aid funds these terrorist organizations through government corruption.

Also the US government supplies the terrorists with weapons, so US is responsible for arming them.

Report: U.S. May Have Lost Weapons in Iraq

And it was 190,000 weapons...

Yes I know most soldiers fighting "terrorism" are from the USA, and that is because they started the Iraq War (duh). Canada has a similar amount of soldiers in Afghanistan as USA. And oddly enough the Taliban are back. And residents in Afghanistan actually prefer the Taliban to the Afghanistan police. So it looks like USA failed in Afghanistan to eliminate terrorists.

Dick Cheney admitted in early 1990's that invading Iraq would turn into a quagmire. But that didn't stop them. And it turned out he was correct.

Yes USA sales weapons to foreign counties I'm not proud of that, I hate war and weapons and anything that's related to killing humanity. Lot

[Andrew]

Obviously some of the counties were unable to use the weapons responsibly.

Or maybe they did use them for exactly the reasons the US wanted, such as fighting the soviets. But once the cold war ended, America had no use for Afghanistan or Iraq, so they invaded the countries they once supported.

Religious extremists like Ben laden and other dictators that exist must calm down and change the way they think or we are not going to reach that synchronization.

The US encouraged Bin Laden to attack the soviets in the 1980s.

I also remember during the first gulf war the US encouraged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam and that the US would support them. But then the US did not support them and Saddam killed them.

[The_Sadukar]

Now if a nuclear bomb wiped out New York City and devastated most of the east coast would you have still written that statement above? I don't think so. If you allow unpredictable dictators to grow, anything is possible. So why take that chance?

Normally I do not post in the PRP (Normally, infact, I do not post at all. I am retired to lurking), but this here qouted post has promted to do so. In particular the "If you allow unpredictable dicatators to grow" part. In regards to the late Saddam Hussein, he was infact allowed to "grow". He took power in 1979, and ruled until 2003. Now, if the core of the problem was that one should not allow unpredictable dictators to be in power, why was he then, not removed before?