President Bush has some stiff competition from other post-war administrations that failed — those of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon.
Although George W. Bush is probably not the worst president in U.S. history (Woodrow Wilson may have that dubious honor), the President may be in contention for that title in the post-World War II era. Although he still has two and a half years to go in his term and could conceivably orchestrate a late inning rally, the way he has run his administration to date makes that doubtful. But President Bush does have some stiff competition from other post-war administrations that failed — those of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon.
Because of his charisma and because he died before his time, John F. Kennedy is still a pop icon more than forty years after his death. But most historians believe that the public overrates his presidency. JFK was meek on civil rights and approved the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion by Cuban exiles attempting to overthrow Castro’s regime — only to abandon them after they were under fire on Cuba’s beaches. But his most dangerous actions came before and during the Cuban missile crisis, after which he was praised by many for making Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev withdraw Soviet nuclear missiles from the island.
The Soviets began to install long-range missiles in Cuba, in part, because of fears of a full-blown U.S. invasion. Yet JFK and Robert McNamara, JFK’s Secretary of Defense, acknowledged privately that the Soviet missiles in Cuba didn’t alter the nuclear balance, which favored the United States. The missiles in Cuba reduced U.S. warning time for an attack, but the United States didn’t (and still doesn’t) have an effective defense against missile attacks. When rumors first surfaced of Soviet missiles being installed in Cuba, JFK admitted privately that if he hadn’t made tough public statements that this violated vital U.S. security interests, he could have done nothing about the missiles. And information has recently surfaced indicating that doing something about the long-range Soviet missiles created a greater risk of nuclear holocaust than even the widespread fears of the time imagined. Despite the earlier Bay of Pigs fiasco, JFK was considering the invasion of Cuba as an option (to remove the missiles), this time using U.S. forces. But unbeknownst to him and his advisors, the Soviets had installed short-range tactical nuclear weapons to deter or defend against any invasion aimed at taking out the long-range nuclear missiles being installed. If the United States had invaded, the crisis could have quickly escalated into a nuclear conflagration. Although the favorable U.S.-Soviet nuclear balance was not in danger of being compromised, JFK’s competitive nature caused him to risk incineration of the world in order to best Khrushchev.
Although Lyndon B. Johnson made many more breakthroughs on civil rights than JFK, he started a war in an unimportant backwater region of the world that he knew he was likely to lose (just after the French had been defeated there) because he feared criticism from the right about being soft on communism. The pointless war cost the lives of 58,000 U.S. troops and many more Vietnamese and destroyed the country in a failed attempt to save it from communism. The unpopular war caused widespread domestic unrest in the United States and, in response, prompted government surveillance of its own citizens. Among liberals, LBJ gets credit for the massive domestic spending of the “Great Society” program, but he knowingly threw money at social problems without a clear idea of how the government could be successful in solving them. These programs weren’t successful and most failed.
Despite Richard Nixon’s important diplomatic opening to China and détente with the Soviet Union, the massive corruption in his administration and the misuse of both the FBI and CIA condemn his record as president. Also, before ending the war in Indochina as he had promised, he invaded Cambodia, supported the invasion of Laos, and indiscriminately bombed Vietnam — actions that either violated the Constitution or could be deemed war crimes. In the end, Nixon obtained a diplomatic settlement — a fig leaf for U.S. withdrawal — that could have been obtained four years before, thus avoiding many war deaths.
But George W. Bush can compete with each one of these lesser lights of the presidency. Instead of using all the U.S. government’s national security resources to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, Bush invaded an unrelated country, has become bogged down in a quagmire and civil war, and has unintentionally provided a training ground for and fueled the hatred of a jihadist terrorist movement that will probably attack U.S. targets for decades. If he had been president at the beginning of World War II, Bush would have responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Nazi declaration of war on the United States by invading Romania. But surprisingly, this Iraq fiasco is not the most dangerous thing the president has done. He has used the never-ending war on terror to claim unlimited power for the president during wartime. For example, he has flouted the Constitution by detaining prisoners without trial, spied on Americans without the constitutionally required warrants, and blatantly said that he will follow a congressionally passed law against torture when he feels like it.
None of the other post-war presidents have claimed unlimited power during wartime or crises. This is a truly dangerous claim, especially when the war is perpetual. The individual liberties guaranteed to citizens — unique to the American system — could be threatened by even greater future executive authoritarianism. In the Constitution, in reaction to the despotic monarchs of Europe, the founders narrowly restricted the executive’s power. Bush’s arrogant power grab, which attempts to eviscerate the checks and balances that are at the heart of the U.S. Constitution, probably makes him the most dangerous — and therefore the worst — president in the post-World War II era.
Limited war does not work
Islam=Nazism
This gentlemen is obviously entitled to his opinion, but I believe he is way off base. We must confront the enemy (the radical muslims) in their place of business, not here on our shores. If the Damnocrats had been elected, the muslims would have attacked us even more right here. Witness the fact that we have not been attacked in the US since 9-11. Does that not mean anything?
If President Bush has done anything wrong, he has fought the war on terror with less than what is required for a full victory. Our fighting men are not allowed to fight to win. They are fighting with one hand behind their backs. We can not fight wars with the media present to record every action and with the congress limiting our fighting abilities. We must use whatever force is required to defeat the muslim radicals AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
Absolutely incorrect. Thousands of terrorists trained in Iraq, under Saddam. Many, likely most, of them were not al Qaida. Saddam’s own documents show he was developing A in March, 1992. Roughly one-half the World’s terrorist acts are perpetrated by other than al Qaida! Saddam’s own documents show he was actively seeking yellow-cake in Niger.
It is American liberal media and liberal intellectual “Senior Fellows” who actively prohibit winning a war, and actively encourage our enemies against our own children.
A = Anthrax, sorry.
I am surprised that the preceding comments say nothing about the merits of Mr. Bush’s presidency. However, I would like to ask Bruce exactly whom he wants all that military force directed against. Yes, it is a good thing to defeat terrorists, so let’s go blow them up. Where are they? Can you supply us with coordinates? Or are you proposing a general policy of blowing up everything in the Middle East?
I’d like to ask Layer Seven how those evil liberals are actively prohibiting the winning of a war. Are they standing in front of our soldiers, preventing them from firing their weapons? Are they stealing the ammunition so our soldiers have nothing to shoot? Inasmuch as those nasty liberals control neither Congress nor the Presidency, where are they getting the power to do all this damage?
The media is one significant aspect but I do not think history will be too kind to our President, congress, the state dept. Army and Marine Generals when it comes to the strategy used in Iraq nor Afghanistan after our initial occupation. We never defeated the enemy just made them temporarily withdrawl from two pieces of real estate to fight another day. I wrote this awhile back, it would be the same as if we took Germany or Japan without a bombing campaign (no Dresden, Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, Nagasaki, or Hiroshima, etc) then maybe captured Hitler or Hirohito and a few top SS men and called the campaigns good to go and sat back with unnecessary casualties, attacks and further warfare for 50 years or more. Like korea, we will be fighting muslims for the next 50 or more years, constantly having to worry about terrorism and the spread of islam throughout the western world. Bush has left a huge problem for our grandkids to deal with.
The sheer stupidity of the supreme nitwits decision on Gitmo and its effects on this campaign and future wars our bravest will have to suffer from is a monumental blunder. Something to be expected from the less than average minds of half the court.
We truly need to move our seat of gov. from the east coast and its domain of backasswards inbred weed league leeches and maybe take it to the center of our country and start over. Both parties have put us and the world in such a mess it will be a miracle if we survive.
I don’t see our glorious thirty-ninth President listed anywhere in this article. I am no fan of JFK, LBJ or RMN (Republicans have initials too), but their administrations shine in comparison to Jimmy Carter’s. If you want some credibility mention the elephant standing in the corner. Maybe it is so obvious that it needs no mention. I will say it though. Jimmy Carter was an abysmal President.
George Bush isn’t perfect. I wish he were half as conservative as the media portrays him. I find many of his policy positions truly bewildering.
I think it is safe to say though, that no other President has ever received the media scrutiny GWB has, and there is no historical context to anything he does. Has every other President been MENSA material? Has every other President been quick on his feet in front of a camera? Has every other President been able to distill complex situations into coherent sound bites. Hardly.
Gregg, Mr. Bush is easy to make fun of because of his poor language skills and occasional mental lapses. But I do not judge him by these things; I judge him by those actions of his that have produced disastrous results.
A personal note: after posting my previous comment, I left my hotel room to get some dinner (I’m in Frankfurt on business). At the elevator two Islamic women were waiting, one in her twenties and the other in her 50s. The elder woman was in a wheelchair. Recognizing their cultural preferences, I studiously avoided looking in their direction. As they entered the elevator, some sort of fabric belt or sash slipped out of the elder woman’s wheelchair and fell to the floor. I retrieved it and handed it to the younger woman, thereby making eye contact — an uncomfortable event for a strict Muslim woman. She accepted it with graciousness and modesty, saying “Thank you” in heavily accented English. As we waited in the elevator, I thought, these are the people whom the conservatives hate so much. These are the people they want to kill. Oh, sure, the conservatives will pay lip service to the notion that we shouldn’t kill women and children — but in their blind hate they have no qualms about making them collateral damage.
The elevator doors opened and we all went our separate ways.
This is for Chris Crawford:
Perceptive. Liberals are standing in front of the weapons. Liberals are stealing ammunition. Liberals own media. Precisely on the nose, Chris. You do a lot of other constructive stuff, too, though. Don’t sell yourselves short!
Although I believe Mr. Bush has failed on border security, I absolutely agree that the fight must be taken to the terrorists. Reasonable can disagree on whether Iraq was a prudent action; however, there should be no argument that terrorism must be fought with military force.
I must admit I felt some trepidation when legal procedures were altered to widen surveillance of people’s actions for security measures. However, after observing how our government has handled this over the last several years, I must admit that the Bush adminstration has tried very hard to walk a fine line between preserving civil liberties and using procedures to monitor terrorist activity in this country and abroad.
Remember FDR? He imprisoned numbers of US citizens of Japanese descent after Peral Harbor. Bush has not done this with people of Middle Eastern descent. Funny how the Democrats get a pass on their actions. But then FDR was an aristocratic, liberal elitist.
The attitudes of most liberals is that going to war is never an option. This was illustrated by the words of former Senate majority leader George Mitchell on CNN two days ago. He stated that negotiation is the only action that will stop the violence between Israel and the terrorists in Lebanon. Nonsense. Negotiations always give the terrorists time to regroup; hence negotiations only help the terrorists. How many times has Israel given land away only to be attacked again and again once the transaction is complete? Negotiations with terorists fail. For the terrorist, breaking the accords of any negotiation is their Modus Operandi. The Israeli government and military has every right to defend their people against the terrorists. In fact, war is the only effective means of dealing with these people.
The liberals hate Bush and Israel because they have actually decided to use military force to attempt to stop the terrorists. Of course, this is a cardinal sin that offends liberal theology and philosophy. Hence the rabid, animal-like hatred of President Bush and Israel.
Also the complaint about the treatment of the Gitmo prisoners reveals a lot about our celebrated author. These are terrorists. They are not in a uniformed service of any country. They plied their trade of murder by blending in with the civilian populations. More often than not, their targets were the same civilian population they were hiding among. Yet, our liberal friends have adopted them for civil rights mascots. These terrorist are cruel, vicious scum and are treated much better than those who fall into the hands of al-Queda. Witness what happened to two of our servicemen who were caputured in June of this year. They were murdered; mutliated beyond recognition, tortured over a period of several days. In fact, they were taken apart, body piece by body piece. Yet, not even as much of a peep about the cruelty of their terrorist mascots from our good liberals.
The author of this article has done nothing more than reveal his own Bush-hating prejudice.
We have met the enemy, and they are the liberals among us.
Layer Seven, do you have any evidence of liberals standing in front of weapons? Any photographs or testimony from soldiers? Have you any evidence of liberals stealing ammunition?
In the absence of evidence, your claims seem farfetched.
What makes a President good, better, best or bad, worse, worst? We certainly need more of a baseline than the youthful, overrated JFK or the wily, overreaching LBJ, the error prone, RMN, or the confused and confusing Jimmy C. The main baseline Eland seems to be using to evaluate Presidents how they handled war or the threat of war (although he takes a pot shot or two at LBJ’s Great Society programs.) It seems to me that a President should be evaluated on the performance of his Constitutional duty. Number one is protecting the USA. In this area W gets good marks.
The military, the intelligence agencies, and Homeland Security are all stronger now than when W came into office. He undertook to make it so. After the 9/11 attack, Bush understood the reality that America is at war and he acted boldly and effectively to root out al Quida in Afghanistan. Although not everyone supports the war in Iraq, I believe W make the correct decision to depose Saddam, the leader of a terrorist regime, and he did so rather more quickly and easily than his critics had predicted. The many successes in Iraq are rarely reported in the MSM but they continue apace in spite of the relentless negativity spewing from the liberal media. One cannot help thinking that the self-loathing liberals will only end up biting their own tails like Skeesicks in an Uncle Wiggley tale.
The critics of W have been consistently wrong in evaluating both his intelligence and his performance. They can’t seem to decide whether he is an evil genius like Lex Luther or a bumbler like Jerry Lewis or Gomer Pyle. In fact just to keep the hate Bush machine going they want it both ways at once. Nothing like ambivalence to throw the body politic off balance.
Monday morning quarterbacks and armchair generals may criticize the counter insurgency effort in Iraq: one group wants to get out quickly; the other wants more extreme measures against the trouble makers. I favor the latter. Either way, Iraq is not a “quagmire.” That just a spin term repeated like a mantra to try to make something true by mumbling it over and over. Pathetic really.
In the end, what does Leland really have against W? That he has not killed Bin Laden? This is a difficult assignment. In my area of Western NY, great numbers of State Police have been searching for one prison escapee for almost four months. He continues to elude them in a twenty square mile area. They want him very much. And they will get him, eventually. Remember the ox is slow but the ground is patient. We will get Bin Laden. Be patient. Leland says there are more jihadists now, and that we are fueling their hatred. Sorry, but when you fight people they get mad. Has Leland counted the jihadists before the Iraq invasion? They are coming out of the woodwork now. They are more visible. Here again a critic like Leland, wants to make Bush the author of the evil. But this is wrong thinking. Bush is dealing with the evil not creating it. There is a difference. Does Leland have a better way to fight the war on terror? Let us hear it. Meanwhile, we have had an incredible amount of safety following 9/11 and for that I am grateful, without being lulled into apathy. The remaining criticisms of W are presented as fact when they are rather more opinions on matters upon which intelligent people may differ. I think Bush has been superbly Constitutional in detaining, holding, and interrogating prisoners. So belly up to the bar. The Congress, the Courts, and history will help to decide who is right, and eventually we will have more facts at our disposal. Perhaps when more is known even Leland will change his mind, if he is open to such a possibility.
My apologies. Wherever I wrote “Leland,” please substitute “Eland.”
Hey, I was just agreeing with your suggestions, Chris. Don’t you like your own ideas? Well, give us some better ones, if you please.
Layer Seven, you seem to be confused about how English sentences work. I wrote, “Are they standing in front of our soldiers, preventing them from firing their weapons?” Now, do you see that little symbol at the end of my sentence, the one that looks like this: ? It’s called a ‘question mark’, and it indicates that I am asking a question, not making a statement. I was asking you if a certain statement was true. I was not making a suggestion.
Now that we’ve cleared up that little bit of English grammar, I’d like to repeat myself. I asked you some questions. Would you care to answer them?
Bill, this BBS is strange. Your original posting did not appear when I visited a while ago, but your second post did. Now the original is visible. Odd.
You state that a President should be judged on how well he carries out his Constitutional duty. That sounds good to me. The question is, what’s his Constitutional duty? Is it whatever political agenda you have? Let’s look at his oath of office:
“I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The main specific here is that he must preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. By that standard, Mr. Bush is probably the worst president in all of US history! How many Presidents have broken the law so frequently or seriously? How many have been slapped down by the Supreme Court as often? How many have had the legality of their actions challenged by Congress — controlled by their own party — as often? How many have flatly declared over 750 times that they refuse to obey the law? (I refer to the notorious presidential signing statements.)
You maintain that Mr. Bush has increased the safety of this nation. I disagree. I think that we are less safe now than we were before Mr. Bush came into office. I believe that because Mr. Bush has bred thousands or tens of thousands of new terrorists. People who had not taken up arms against us before are taking up arms against us now. That makes us less safe. Even worse, Mr. Bush has destroyed the diplomatic power we need to get things done in the world. To fight terrorism, you need everybody’s cooperation, but by telling the rest of the world to go jump in the lake, Mr. Bush has insured that they are less willing to cooperate with us on anti-terrorism measures. Russia used to be an active partner in our anti-terrorism efforts; now they will barely speak to us. Europe, which has suffered greatly from terrorism, was an eager partner before we invaded Iraq; now Italy has indicted our CIA agents, and the EU is creating legislation to forbid cooperation with us on extraordinary renditions. The list goes on and on. Diplomatically, Mr. Bush has squandered the diplomatic ‘juice’ that previous Administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, so carefully nurtured.
Safer? Far from it. We’ll be fighting terrorists for decades, when with the right moves we could have pretty much eliminated terrorism as a serious threat.
Diplomatic juice from previous administrations? Its the previous admin. under billy the hick Clinton that allowed 911 in the first place. His admin. were the ones who allowed Bin Laden to escape not once but twice while our forces literally had him in their crosshairs. Not only that, Clinton fostered relations with terrrorists countries allowing intel. trading and technology to go to such rogue nations. Clinton ignored the border as much as Bush which is a constitutional crime not to mention lying to the american public and getting our troops killed in Somalia. We won’t go into Carter’s ridiculous foreign preschool policy which is the true beginning of the large terrorists states. FDR , Kennedy, LBJ with their big government enslavement of the american taxpayer count as some the worst crimes in our history.
Bush’s only crime was not dealing harshly enough with the arab/muslim world which is now our primary threat. Diplomacy and feel good diplomacy is what got us into the mess with the muslims and will not get us out. The nitwits who think diplomacy solves anything and everything are the same ones who have no real world experience in the middle east.
Jimmy Carter is easily the worst president ever.
Jimmy Carter gets my vote. And let’s not forget Bill Clinton and his boldface lies.’I did not have sexual relations with that woman’.
I really find it unimportant how anyone personally feels regarding President Bush or terrorism at this point. We’ve had to listen to everyone’s opinion from here to kingdom come for 6 years. Who cares if you think Bush is a bad president, who cares if you think we shouldnt be in Iraq, who cares if you think we’ve created more terrorists? Your opinions have nothing to do with the truth of any of these matters, they are just your expressed opinons based mostly upon your politics and nothing more. Might people strive to be a partt of the solutions to what ails our world or will you continue to be a part of the problems and stay fixated upon and incessantly repeating your opinons ? Arent your thought patterns capable of going beyond your own opinions to something more productive and positive ?
I don’t believe that some one could write about the worst president since WWII and not even mention Carter and Clinton.
Kim, if you don’t like reading my comments, then don’t read them. I am curious to learn the reasoning behind your belief that I am part of the problem. Is it because I disagree with you? If I were writing material that you found agreeable, would you consider me part of the solution? Are your own opinions productive and positive, while my opinions are neither productive nor positive?
He is way off base, Clinton and Carter were by far the worst presidents post WWII,
they appeased the enemy, which is why we are in the situation we are with the radical islamic world.
If Carter and Clinton would have stood up to radical islam then Iran would not have nuclear
capability and Osama would have been captured. This guy is in a liberal illusion.
Chris, your suggestions form no basis for a useful debate. They are fundamentally dishonest.
Now, give us something to start with. Can you imagine one reasonable way in which American liberals have interfered with winning wars, since Korea?
Just say you cannot. We can go from there.
The legacy of the WORST president in history, Franklin D. Roosevelt:
“The U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt,” he writes, “insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds.”
Prof. Laurence Kotlikoff
Chris -
I like the way you casually attribute the desire to kill innocent women and children to conservatives. It is amusing. I can see that constructive debate on virtually any issue is impossible. Facts? Logic? Principles? They don’t matter much if you assume your adversary just wants to kill innocent women and children.
Layer Seven, perhaps your problem here is a misunderstanding of the notion of war. You talk about “winning” a war — that’s a juvenile notion, fine for little boys with toy soldiers but dangerous in the real world. Read “On War” by von Clausewitz. It’s terribly dull and full of Germanic sentences that stretch out to the horizon, but the single most important idea, endlessly quoted, should be stamped in the brain of every citizen: ‘War is the extension of policy to other means.’ War is not a football game with cheerleaders and teams and winning and losing. War is a transaction: you expend a certain amount of blood and treasure and you hope to achieve some result that’s worth the expenditure. In the majority of cases, the party discovers that the result was not worth the expenditure.
Let’s take the case of the recent war in Iraq. A sensible leader, before he starts a war, decides two things: a) what he wants to accomplish; and b) whether the costs of achieving this are acceptable. He should then formulate a plan that accomplishes this goal, and execute it. Mr. Bush established that his goal was to remove Saddam from power, and that his military forces were adequate to accomplish that goal with acceptable results. And in fact this part of the transaction went well. The problem is, Mr. Bush did not think beyond the fall of Saddam. As Mr. Powell warned him, ‘once you break it, it’s yours.’ Under international law, we were required to stabilize the country before our departure. (Besides, it is absolutely in our own interest to stabilize Iraq before departing). This is where Mr. Bush blundered catastrophically. He thought that the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, that they would instantly don straw hats and have political conventions with balloons falling from the ceiling whilst brass bands played, and they would create a miniature version of American democracy in the Middle East. In this, Mr. Bush proved to be horribly mistaken. The cost of toppling Saddam was minimal, but the true cost of the entire war — including the cost of stabilizing Iraq — has proven to be much higher than Mr. Bush realized and higher than most Americans are willing to pay.
There were some Americans who saw that Mr. Bush’s war would cost more than it was worth. I was among them. Not all were liberals, and not all liberals disagreed with Mr. Bush’s policy. The opponents of the war proved to be correct in their assessment of the likely outcome. The American people have recognized that the war was a catastrophic error and have turned against it. But the damage that Mr. Bush has done with this war will not be easily or quickly repaired.
And that is one reason why Mr. Bush is the worst President in American history: he started a needless war, wasted American lives and American money, and made matters worse by doing so.
I agree with Kim’s premise of no one cares what the peanut gallery (left or right of the aisle) thinks. And the “Bush is Evil” mantra has run its say-it-often-enough-and-people-will-start-to-believe-it course (anyone who’d be swayed by such a simple thoughts has long since joined The Cause) and has crossed into arena that, when I hear some variant of it, I assume the speaker is simply a dullard lemming who has either not the capacity or not the true motivation to venture into original thought and analysis. Honest credit where credit’s due, though: I’ve noticed that many folks here tend to make a effort to go beyond reciting the mantra when they hold a contrary view.
Chris: Your anecdote involving the Muslim women in the elevator is touching. *sniffle* If you don’t already, you should consider writing hard news for one of the major media outlets. See, you’re 100% incorrect, but successfully tug at the compassion strings — a trait highly prized by the media. Conservatives do *not* want to kill little old ladies in wheelchairs and well-mannered young women, Muslim or not. But, just as if you were a professional journalist, that’s the slant your anecdote takes. If the story had read like this, you’d be absolutely correct…
“The elder woman was in a wheelchair. Recognizing their cultural preferences, I studiously avoided looking in their direction. As they entered the elevator, some sort of fabric belt or sash slipped out of the elder woman’s wheelchair and fell to the floor revealing a belt of rectangular-shaped bricks, connected by electrical wires and ultimately to a manual switch of some sort, strapped about her waist. I retrieved the droppes sash and handed it to the younger woman, thereby making eye contact — an uncomfortable event for a strict Muslim woman. She accepted it with graciousness and modesty, saying “Thank you” in heavily accented English. As we waited in the elevator, I thought, these are the people whom the conservatives hate so much. These are the people they want to kill.”
If *that* was how your story read, Chris, I’d say your were spot on. As is, though, it is simply a deplorable appeal to the reader’s emotion. A shameful, but sadly very common and effective, tactic employed by those whose goal is less about reporting the truth and more molding opinion to mirror the author’s or the company’s opinion.
Wayne: Carter and Clinton standing up to radical Islamists would have changed absolutely nothing. The infidel-must-die teaching goes back far beyond any of our presidents. Its humorous to see intelligent people claiming — and apparently, honestly believing — that a single president could have “cured” things. As charismatic as your two examples are, charisma won’t change fundamental religious ideaology. In fact, had Carter or Clinton engaged “the problem” back then, I feel the only difference would be that today’s mess would’ve happened then, and the conservatives would have been the one’s calling the president an evil war-monger who must be dethrone. Same story, different roles for the actors.
Bush just happened to be the one sitting in the chair when it all went down. It could’ve just as easily happened when a Democrat was sitting.
As it happens sometimes the comments are way better than the article.
Don’t you just love it when a liberal complains about a Republican cleaning up the mess left behind by Democrat. Liberals don’t take responsiblity for anything they screw up.
That’s the argument most would want to get into..is it because I disagree with you. Which you or anyone else disagreeing has nothing to do with it. You disagree about the US being in Iraq..well big deal. We’re in Iraq arent we? S o how does your incessant disagreeing and pointing out that opinion day in and day out change anything? Same with the president, so you dont like him..again big deal. Your personal feelings dont change the fact Bush is president. If all your doing is disagreeing and not dealing with the realities in a manner which produces positive results and change then yes Chris you are a part of the problem. I’ve also heard similar comments as yours..”if you dont like my comments dont read them.” Rather childish dont you think? While so many are stuck in the mindset that their opinions is all there is..life has and does go on. There are real issues that need solutions and opinions really dont solve much. All I can say is get over yourself and your opinions.
Mike, ridiculous. Carter and Clinton are enemies of America.
Clinton wimped out in Mogadishu, making US a permanent target.
Clinton had bin Laden’s head, on a platter, but he could not find the fork (cigars were handy though)! Carter was far worse.
On the other hand, maybe your point is that Islamicists need to be deleted. If so, couldn’t agree more.
Kim, you are EXACTLY right on!
Chris, you waste valuable bandwith.
Amen, Kim. Whining doesn’t change a thing.
Septistratus: You give Carter and Clinton *far* too much credit. The U.S. and every other homeland of infidels was a target long (long, long, long) before their presidencies, and will remain a target centuries after you, me, and Bush are dead, rotted, and forgotten. As for bin Laden, if it wasn’t him (as in, if Clinton had taken him out) it would be another. Just as with Carter and Clinton, you seem to attribute undue influence to this single individual. And, “deleting” Islam: if ever there was a way to wipe the earth clean of humans of all faiths, following that path is as close as any I’ve heard. Think your position through next time, please… no sane thinking person can possibly see such an action as a feasible option.
Chris, on the subjet of global warming you stated that science was not a mathmatical equation therefore there was no irrefutable proof for your position on the science of man-made global warming. You then went on to challenge that I could not provide irrefutable proof to the contrary.As to your remarks at 5 and 11, were is your evidece to the contrary.
On the surface you appear to be an intelligent person, but one just has to follow your trail to find that you are just another of the useful idiots.
Your intelligence is limited to your own beliefs and fellings.
This comment relates to Chris’s comment # 16.
Broad inherent executive powers are implied powers necessary to carry out enumerated powers of the Presidency. This is especially true during this war, a war by the way sanctioned by Congress. Bush is behaving as a strong executive should in wartime.
Chris, you allege that President Bush has broken the law. What is your evidence? Have any of your allegations been proven in any duly constituted court? Easy to rail more difficult to demonstrate.
Now, Chris, you say “Bush has bred thousands or tens of thousands of new terrorists.” You attribute even more superpowers to that mysterious Bush. He not only creates evil, he procreates evil people. So active that Bush, and so fertile.
To support your claim you say, “People who had not taken up arms against us before are taking up arms against us now.” This statement is just an commonplace observation on what happens in war, and this is easily shown when we make substitutions. For example, you could say that in the current Israeli war, “People who had not taken up arms against us [Israel] before are taking up arms against us [Israel] now. Those fighters would be the terrorists. Israel must be breeding them, too. And after 9/11, “People who had not taken up arms against us [al Quida] before are taking up arms against us [al Quida] now.” That would be the USA defending itself against loathsome terrorists. Are the terrorists now breeding us? Let us be serious. Taking up arms is what happens in war. When we are attacked, we take up arms (or at least now that we have a serious commander, we do). And when the enemy is attacked in turn, he attempts to fight back. He takes up arms. If we are strong and wise. We defeat him. Supporting our troops means we want our troops to win and we intend to do what it takes to win. Winning means the enemy accepts our terms and lives in peace or else he will be killed. In short, the idea that Bush is breeding terrorists is pure poppycock.
Chris, you say we are squandering our influence with European allies. Let us face it. Europe is weak militarily. All these European nations have is “diplomacy.” Russia has always been in bed with its fellow socialists, Saddam and his socialist party, the Baathists. Furthermore, both Russia and China are playing a dangerous game by supporting Iran. The socialists in Europe and here at home will continue to rant and rave against Bush. Caving into them does not an American friendly policy make. No, Bush is actually making the “right moves“; he is protecting his country as he has sworn to do. For this, he gets high marks from this grateful American.
Chris: You must’ve been typing your post as I typed mine… for whatever resaon, I didn’t notice until now. A thoughtful and thought-provoking post it was, by the way. I’d have to say the same as I did to 7layer about Carter and Clinton, though: you’re giving an undeserved amount of credit/blame to a single man. He a cog in a huge machine. A big, important cog, admittedly, but only a component in a large machinery nonetheless. He is not King Bush or Emperor or Pharoah. He cannot order the country about at simply at his word and whim. He did not (cannot) simply pick up the phone one night and say, “Hey Donnie, I was just thinkin’ and here’s what I want you to do: send the military over there and invade Eye-rack.”
There were many high level folks — many whom the American people elected to represent them in government — who were involved in the decision to invade Iraq. If anything, if one feels the war in Iraq was a mistake, one can blame oneself for electing a person to speak on his or her behalf in matters of such magnitude without making sure that representative would accurately represent him or her.
I doubt anyone in the upper echelons of power went into this blindly. They knew it’d be a long, drawn-out campaign. But I also don’t think any of them took into account how much we Americans are an instant-gratification people and support would wane quickly. And perhaps some of them even thought the spike in patriotic fervor would last longer. Whatever the reason, the decision to engage Iraq was reached by many people, not by Bush alone.
You write, “[t]he opponents of the war proved to be correct in their assessment of the likely outcome. The American people have recognized that the war was a catastrophic error and have turned against it.” I disagree. The opponents of the war believe they have been proved correct, just as supporters believe they have been (or will be) proved correct. And the American people, as a singulararity, have not “turned against it”. That implies “more and more people have come around to our way of thinking”, which is simply untrue. There is a growing population — I believe these are the folks you are referring to — that feels we’ve done what we can and now it’s time to begin looking for an opportunity to exit. That is not the same thing as turning against the war. And it *certainly* not the same thing as jumping fence to the doom-n-gloom-all-is-lost-so-let’s-cut-and-run-and-oh-by-the-way-the-chimp-is-the-devil-and-pass-the-bowl camp.
Historically, I think Bush will go down as the president that the huddled masses *felt at the time* was the worst president. And the one under whose watch the country became most polarized along political lines. However, as with Clinton, if historians can strip out the public opinion of the times and look objectively at his measureable successes and failures, I doubt he’ll rank among the worst.
BTW, in case the thought ever occurs, I’ll always attach my last name to my opinions, not just a “Mike”.
Hey, President Bush, are you and the rest of our new royalty gonna take care of the 30,000 plus wounded soldiers, amputees and their wives and children now? Are you and America’s elite gonna help put their kids through college or at least make sure they have a way of making a decent living despite loss of arms and legs and paralysis or brain damage fighting for the Islamic Nazis living in Iraq?
Its nice to know they gave up their arms and legs for those Nazis of Islam. Way to go sir! You continue to call it “one of the world’s great religions.”
Quagmire? Enough with the 'quagmire' already… A four year old could deduce that having Saddam ousted was/ is a good thing and the fact that there is turmoil in the midst of an entirely new government being formed; how ELSE might on
imagine such changes would or could occur? Our own Declaration of Independence wasn't followed by the signing of our own constitution for 13 years! Care to discuss the turmoil surrounding The Revolutionary period? Was THAT a good move or during the time George Washington was rallying troops to stay-on past there original term of enlistment might he have been accused of 'getting us involved in a quagmire'?
As far as Vietnam goes, well that one can/ will be argued until the Second Coming, but consider that the absolute slaughter that occured after we pulled out? Cambodia? Laos? The whole area during that time…. Can you say Pol Pot?
If we'd only done a better job of 'negotiating' with any of those adversarial personalities of the time,right?
Let me ask you one other question; Can you say 'Unconditional Surrender'? Liberals don't like 'quagmires' but lack the courage to execute total war and accomplish such destruction of the enemy but that he has no choice but to give-up. Completely.
I don't here anyone complaining about the 'nation building' that resulted in our now cooperative, friendly, docile, Elvis -lojving
Japanese allies, and while Germany has been a reluctant/ fair-weather friend to say the least, you don't see any Mercedes or Volvo-driving professor from the left wing complaining about how his/ her Blaupunkt stereo works do you?
Does anyone- even the knucle-heads of the bunch (commenters- you know who you mare…) recognize the difference between current status of countries defeated absolutely, and those whose conflict participation ended by means of more 'humane' proportions? Take a minute and think that over. Even go back to Guadalupe Hidalgo (you may need tolook up what war that was…), try the same test.
Shut-up with the 'quagmire'. Get honest about what it's really like.
Mr. Chris Crawford wrote:
“As we waited in the elevator, I thought, these are the people whom the conservatives hate so much. These are the people they want to kill. Oh, sure, the conservatives will pay lip service to the notion that we shouldn’t kill women and children — but in their blind hate they have no qualms about making them collateral damage.”
This is a perfect example of the deranged mental hatred liberals have towards anyone who holds a different political view from them. While Islamic terrorists are deliberately targeting civilian women, men, children, the elderly, etc., Mr. Crawford lays such grotesqueness at the feet of American conservatives.
Chris, you have lost it. You have no shred of credibility left. The blind hate is originating from your own bigotry towards people who dare to disagree with you.
Mike Morgan, you rightly point out that Mr. Bush was not the sole decision-maker in the invasion of Iraq. I agree; Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld played important roles, as did all the neocons in this Administration. And it is true that Congress had plenty of hawks and authorized the use of military force. Nevertheless, when we evaluate a presidency as a whole, we attribute the large directions in which it goes to the president. I don't blame Mr. Bush for 9/11, but I certainly think he deserves all the blame for the invasion of Iraq. He was the final decision-maker; the buck stops at his desk.
I disagree with your assessment that the Administration knew that the invasion of Iraq would be a long drawn-out campaign. Mr Rumsfeld in particular was at odds with the Joint Chiefs over the number of troops required to do the job; he repeatedly declared that, after a quick and furious blitzkrieg, the Iraqis would collapse and we would need minimal troop levels. In this, he turned out to be horribly wrong.
You disagree that the American people have turned against the war. I can only cite the poll results. For example, consider this report from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html
It finds that "52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States" and that "Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting — in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam"
That's pretty clear, isn't it?
Paul Carver recommends us the "total war" paradigm. He is appropriately coy about what he means by total war. He does not say whether he would have us nuke Baghdad or simply start shooting anybody who isn't wearing an American uniform. That's because the 'total victory' paradigm that he offers us falls apart the instant you ask exactly what it means.
50,000 and counting innocent people dead. bush is a war criminal. you will have to face that at some point.
Q.E.D. It is American liberal media and liberal intellectual “Senior Fellows” who actively prohibit winning a war, and actively encourage our enemies against our own children.
Layer Seven, would you mind explaining how you come up with your claim that liberals are actively prohibiting the winning of the war? I have asked you this several times now and you have evaded answering my question.
An interesting tidbit from a book I read a few years ago which has stayed with me is this: the author is asking if Hitler went to hell for killing one million Jews. The reply he recieved was: Which was worse, that Hitler killed one million Jews or that it took one million Jews being killed before the world did anything about Hilter? I tend to view the Iraq situation in the same light. Robert I wouldnt be so quick to be judge and jury towards Bush. Havent you sat back knowing what was going on in Iraq under Saddam and didnt give a flying fig? Arent you still sitting there hoping for failure in Iraq simply due to your politics? So how pray tell are your hands clean?
I cannot figure out why our own people want us to lose this war…..maybe after one of these peaceful islamic nations smuggle a dirty bomb or worse yet a nuke over here and set it off killing hundreds of thousands of people our people will reunite again, such as after 911……well at least for a couple of months then the left can go on playing this game that we are not in any danger from the peaceful freedom fighters (as the left-wingers would have you believe) I know that its asking alot to take the side of your own country seeing as how you would have to support the man you hate sooo much chris,and robertO but stop letting your ignorant hate of bush from taking the side of your own countrymen!!! And another thing, bush has not killed nearly as many as he is investing in our childrens futures….that is if people like you dont cut and run to bury you heads in the sand and pretend that these problems dont exist with islam thus, undoing all the work and sacifice on BOTH sides of this conflict.
Forgive the nitpicking, but Hitler killed 7 million Jews, not one million, and he killed another 3 million in the death camps, and he's also directly responsible for the 40 million who died in WWII. But you present the case that the invasion of Iraq was justified by the barbarities Saddam inflicted upon his own people. If you really believe that, then surely you want us to invade Sudan, where even worse atrocities are underway; surely you supported Mr. Clinton's policy in Yugoslavia, because of the atrocities there. Is this true?
Ricky, I do not hate Mr. Bush. I judge him the worst President in American history, but I do not have any personal animus against him. If I met him, I would smile and be gentlemanly with him, and if given the opportunity to politely do so, I would explain my differences with him. But hatred has nothing to do with my assessment of Mr. Bush's performance. It's all rationalism.
Nor am I against this country. Indeed, I am very much interested in seeing America turn out better than it is now. As part of this, I think it my duty to help Americans understand those courses of action that are in their own best interest, and those courses of action that are hurtful to America's long-term interests, such as the war in Iraq.
Bosnia was a war we didn't need. Every argument you make for Bosnia, Saddam eclipses every one of Milosevic's atrocities. Saddam broke the Gulf War treaty. We promised we would roll into Baghdad if he did not keep his word. Clinton cowered to Saddam. Bush should have said the U.S. needed to go into Iraq to show the world we mean what we say. Even if Iraq was not at all involved in terrorism (a specious proposition at best), we needed to show the world, in the wake of 9/11, we meant business. Every intelligence agency on earth thought the same as we did. Believe that if Russia, China, or France (Saddam's paramours) could have released anything to stop the U.S. from destroying their bedfellow, they would have. We could have been more piecemeal about Saddam's deposing. Air strikes, blockades, etc.. or we could have invoked the Powell Doctrine and gone in with 250,000 instead of 130,00 and instead of putting on a made-for-tv drama done what was necessary, and rather messy, to secure the country. Bosnia was a charade to deflect attention away from Clinton allowing nuclear technology to be sold to China as the Cox Report was going to show. If China hits the west coast with a nuke it's all on Clinton. When Newt and the GOP won congress in 1994 for the first time in 50 years, Clinton's DNC began accepting huge donations from Chinese nationals. The Bush administration, for all intents and purposes, Clinton-light, popular characterizations notwithstanding, could have prosecuted the Clinton and company, but chose not to. It's no wonder the elder Bush and Clinton get along so marvelously. The only thing that seperated Clinton and his succesor is the latter's stomach for doing what's right as opposed to what's self-serving. "W" is what he is. Clinton, ever the charlatan, wants to be everything to everyone, and winds up a joke as a result. The Clinton administration is the worst administration of the last 50 years. The neo-cons of "W", Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon Johnson were all true believers. Dead wrong, mind you, but sincere. Bubba? Another white-trash huckster with a penchant for deceit masquerading as charm.
Well Chris the world can continue to sit back knowing any diplomatic measures thus far have failed in Sudan and do nothing more about it or send in troops. To continue to screech about Sudan and the atrocities going on there but not insist on effective measures that actually work, well then you are no more of useful benefit than is the U.N. in this matter.