George Bush the Worst President in 100 Years?

[Andrew]

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?

He should have been removed in the original gulf war when he invaded another country. But they didn't because according to

, it would have been a quagmire and a failure and destabilized the region.

Quite frankly the US has become the world superpower that will do anything that serves in its interest including invading countries that are a threat and interfering with other countries politically. Some examples of this would be The Bay of Pigs and The US invasion of Panama. Those are the two I know off the top of my head.

To think that "omg they're gonna nuke NYC" is people actually believing in the fear propaganda of the government which gives them a mandate to do whatever they want.

Remember him?

A USA born and raised citizen that orchestrated he biggest terrorist attack on US soil prior to 9/11.

Blackwater crushed car with three kids, old man to avoid traffic: former US official

"As we approached at typical breakneck speed, the Blackwater driver honked furiously and motioned to the side, as if they should pull over," she pens. "The kids in the back seat looked back in horror, mouths agape at the sight of the heavily armored Suburbans driven by large, armed men in dark sunglasses. The poor Iraqi driver frantically searched for a means of escape, but there was none. So the lead Blackwater vehicle smashed heedlessly into the car, pushing it into the barrier. We zoomed by too quickly to notice if anyone was hurt."

Yep, that will definitely win over Iraqis. 40,000 private contractors profiting from Iraq and are responsible to absolutely no one.

You have to admit that Iraq is being raped by western countries to serve their own interest. They're not there to help the Iraqis.

[spazelord]

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?

We are not talking about core problems; we are talking about war problems if you weren't aware now you are. I'm not defending USA I'm simply saying that irrational behaviors must come to an end weather it comes from our country or else where. In this case the focus was the religious extremists and some of the mistakes that the west has done in the past. We must look at what's extreme behavior and where is it coming from. Now if you think USA is responsible for the entire above, well you

[Andrew]

Would the US be extreme by invading two countries at the opposite side of the Earth within 2 years of each other?

Let's say Osama and extremists were responsible for 9/11 which killed 3000 people plus some other terrorist activities. Does that mean it is ok for US to invade 2 countries which leads to the death of 200,000-300,000 people? Do they think that this will somehow end terrorism? There are terrorists in every single country. Spending a trillion dollars to invade two countries will not solve terrorism. And if the US and other countries pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq within 3 years, who is to say that the governments will not be corrupt (actually they will be), or that the terrorists will still remain. Only there will be more terrorists since the countries infrastructure will be gone with a disgruntled population that will blame western society for destroying their country and responsible for killing their families.

I'm sure you could argue that dropping atomic bombs on Japan was for the greater good, even if it killed 200,000. But terrorism is not the same because you are not fighting state governments with borders, you are fighting an ideal.

How come the US hasn't invaded Africa with all those dictators and genocides? Is it because they are absolutely no threat to American security or interests, or they have no resources and can in no way benefit America?

Army-controlled Darfur town razed

Looks like extremism to me.

EDIT:

I'd just like to add this new article

US Embassy in Iraq to cost $736 million, not to mention it will have operational costs of 1.2 billion each year

Someone is getting rich off that no bid contract. That amount of money could almost build a 13 km bridge over ice covered waters.

Sad to see the US bankrupting itself.

[spazelord]

Would the US be extreme by invading two countries at the opposite side of the Earth within 2 years of each other?

Let's say Osama and extremists were responsible for 9/11 which killed 3000 people plus some other terrorist activities. Does that mean it is ok for US to invade 2 countries which leads to the death of 200,000-300,000 people? Do they think that this will somehow end terrorism? There are terrorists in every single country. Spending a trillion dollars to invade two countries will not solve terrorism. And if the US and other countries pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq within 3 years, who is to say that the governments will not be corrupt (actually they will be), or that the terrorists will still remain. Only there will be more terrorists since the countries infrastructure will be gone with a disgruntled population that will blame western society for destroying their country and responsible for killing their families.

I'm sure you could argue that dropping atomic bombs on Japan was for the greater good, even if it killed 200,000. But terrorism is not the same because you are not fighting state governments with borders, you are fighting an ideal.

How come the US hasn't invaded Africa with all those dictators and genocides? Is it because they are absolutely no threat to American security or interests, or they have no resources and can in no way benefit America?

Army-controlled Darfur town razed

Looks like extremism to me.

EDIT:

I'd just like to add this new article

US Embassy in Iraq to cost $736 million, not to mention it will have operational costs of 1.2 billion each year

Someone is getting rich off that no bid contract. That amount of money could almost build a 13 km bridge over ice covered waters.

Sad to see the US bankrupting itself.

It

[Dante]

An attacked party has a right to defend itself, true. But in order to do so it should first have an accurate idea about who the enemy is, and what they can do to combat it.

That is assuming there even is an enemy. A bit of clever thinking and diplomacy can turn enemies into friends in only slightly more time than it takes a bomb to turn friends into enemies.

[spazelord]

An attacked party has a right to defend itself, true. But in order to do so it should first have an accurate idea about who the enemy is, and what they can do to combat it.

That is assuming there even is an enemy. A bit of clever thinking and diplomacy can turn enemies into friends in only slightly more time than it takes a bomb to turn friends into enemies.

I agree...

[Andrew]

Pres. Carter: US tortures prisoners, 'I know it'

Carter: Cheney is

[spazelord]

Pres. Carter: US tortures prisoners, 'I know it'

Carter: Cheney is

[Andrew]

He is a traitor for going against Bush.

There is no torture and cheney has been great for the US.

/sarcasm. :)

[spazelord]

He is a traitor for going against Bush.

There is no torture and cheney has been great for the US.

/sarcasm. :)

You need some mental/emotional attention; I could see that it's argent.

[Andrew]

Department of Justice Official Experienced Waterboarding, Told White House it is Illegal and was

[Andrew]

Cheney Tried to Stifle Dissent in Iran National Intelligence Estimate

The intelligence community does what it is supposed to do and collect info, but when it doesn't support what the Bush admin wants, they try to change it, delay its release until it is cleaned up to look the way they want, and they fire some people they don't like, replacing them with people who have similar views as the admin.

[Edric O]

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?

Most of the world has been ruled by dictators for most of the time from the invention of nuclear weapons until the present day. In fact, there are less one-man dictatorships (but more oligarchies) today than at any point during the Cold War. Dictators did not randomly decide to nuke New York City in the past, even though there were more of them and they were better armed than they are today. So what makes you think that there is any more danger of a nuclear attack today than in the past?

Don't get me wrong, I hate dictatorships, but the idea that dictators are crazy and unpredictable is simply wrong. In fact, most of them - including the crazy ones - are very predictable.

[Andrew]

US says it has right to kidnap British citizens

That scares me. And it is not just terrorists that they will kidnap, an example is bankers who commit fraud who can be kidnapped.

39-year-old Egyptian man kidnapped in Italy by the CIA and sent to Egypt to be tortured for a year

Then when they finally released him and he phoned home to explain where and what happened to him, Egyptian authorities had wiretapped his phone and upon hearing this arrested him again and tortured him again...

[Andrew]

CIA videos interrogations in 2002, destroys the tapes in 2005

The CIA videotaped its interrogations of terror suspects in 2002 and destroyed the tapes three years later out of fear they would leak to the public and compromise the identities of U.S. questioners, the director of the agency told employees Thursday.

Sure. Or maybe you didn't want more torture evidence being released? Oh look they say they are trying to protect the people who did the torturing. Since when they care about secret CIA people? Valerie Plame was outed for political reasons, you don't see a bunch of people in jail for that.

Same thing with Iran now. Bush was saying they are a huge threat and the other day the US gov released info saying Iran stopped work on nuclear technology back in 2003.

US reversal on Iran intel reflects breaking of the ranks: analysts

Bush was told of this several months ago but kept trying to convince the people that Iran was a threat. Even after this went public Bush went on about Iran being a threat.

[Andrew]

U.S. Seeks Silence on CIA Prisons: Court Is Asked to Bar Detainees From Talking About Interrogations

That's great. Torture them, then prevent them from talking about how they were tortured. And not everyone who is kidnapped and tortured is a terrorist as shown by Maher Arar and many other people.

[Andrew]

U.S. deficit estimated at $250 Billion

LOL.

And that is not counting the $100 billion Bush aid package.

Last year it was $163 billion deficit.

The White House is set to release its 2009 budget on Feb. 4, and Bush has promised a plan that would erase the deficit by 2012 if his policies are followed.

Yeah... My guess is this magical policy would be to not spend $100 billion a year in Iraq?

[Andrew]

Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms

So basically all that illegal wiretapping on American citizens since 9/11 is now legal.

President Bush has promised to veto any new surveillance bill that does not protect the companies that helped the government in its warrantless wiretapping program, arguing that it is essential if the private sector is to give the government the help it needs.

The US has lost so many rights its not funny anymore.

Your all criminals in the eyes of the government.

The question:

To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government.

Hillary Clinton did not vote. So basically she does not care about American citizens rights. She's too busy campaigning to do what people elected her to do.

McCain voted No

Obama voted Yes

So Obama is the only one out the the main presidential candidates that cares about American rights. McCain wants to give telcos immunity (which did happen).

So I guess Americans should vote for Obama. A lot of democrats skipped the vote which makes them a bunch of spineless douchebags who were given a mandate when they took control of congress for change. Instead they skip votes.

official vote list

EDIT:

Apparently there was a final vote afterwards, and both clinton and Obama skipped the vote. WTF?

[Andrew]

Commerce Dept docs: Cheney and oil execs decided to take Iraq's oil in spring 2001

Sigh.

[gunner154]

Adding insult to the injury. Niiiiiice :P

[Andrew]

GOP Halts Effort to Retrieve White House E-Mails

After promising last year to search its computers for tens of thousands of e-mails sent by White House officials, the Republican National Committee has informed a House committee that it no longer plans to retrieve the communications by restoring computer backup tapes, the panel's chairman said yesterday.

Remember those tens of thousands of emails that disappeared? Well they can retrieve them, but the GOP does not want to do that. So they are not going to.

Nice to know the government can remove their own emails.

[Sneakgab]

So, if they communicate solely through e-mails they can just remove them at their leisure? Since video tapes and the like seem to already be comftorably in the hands of the CIA, it pretty much seems that there is now zero transparency.

You can't lay charges about things you don't know about, so that doesn't that pretty much mean that sufficiently high ranking members of the white house can now do virtually anything they want to without consequence? Not much of a change I suppose.

[gunner154]

Meanwhile they know everything that you email about? Now that's really symmetrical transparency.

[Andrew]

President Bush is going to hold a news conference to press Congress to pass an intelligence bill making it easier for the government to conduct domestic eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails in connection with terrorism investigations.

More Abu Ghraib torture photos

10 somewhat new torture pictures. They are disturbing. The link here is fine, but the link they link to is NSFW. I think I'll be sick.

Interestingly the really bad ones and videos were never released. Because it would be unpatriotic to know the truth.

2005 Nobel Prize winning economist says Iraq war will cost $3 trillion

Mission Accomplished for ruining the USA yet?

EDIT:

I know I've posted this picture before, but it fits the topic so well I thought I'd post it again.

http://i5.tinypic.com/4e1fnzr.jpg

[Sneakgab]

Isn't torture supposed to be the illegal in the USA by ANYONE'S hands. Or is this another one of those ''the CIA/Govt is above the law and can do whatever it wants'' kind of things. Perhaps they ''haven't found'' the culprits yes.... hmmm... yes it can awfully hard to ''find the culprits'' when it is obvious many of them are you're agents working under you're orders. Though, some of this torture talk makes it sound like it is actually committed mostly by rascist guards.