Discussions
Who is the Worst American President of All Times?
Posted by Jeunelle • 5/03/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Tags: american history, presidential candidates, presidents
Who goes down in your book as the worst American President of all times and why?
User Comments
-
if its of all times does it include the future, in which case the question cant be answered-
That answer gets my vote, now can we move onto something more interesting... -
WOOHOO, the brit wins the award for best answer! -
crkian, carlgalloway and ender the questions are being answer down below. Duhhhhhh
Carlgalloway who asked you anything? irrelevant
crkian if you dont give a gnats ass get out -
What an idiot, you ask a question, I give an answer, then you have a go at me for giving my answer...
-
I thought they were being answered
Im British so I dont give a gnats ass to be honest -
Isn't it a rats ass? -
Not where im from
-
-
There's this guy at the White House right now... -
Do you have to ask? I thought this one is in the record books already. George Jr.-
hahaha I have to agree but I am waiting to see what others have to say.
Truman, Lincoln, Nixon, Clinton whatever.
So does this mean that everyone hear agrees that Bush is the worst? If that's the case how the heck did he make it in the White House to begin with if you didn't vote for him or maybe you did but now it's too late to take it back? -
Bush is only considered the worst because of the bad hand of cards he was dealt (9/11) and the bad way he handled it. Yeah, he's terrible but I think the media exaggerates his stupidity.
Take it this way, if mainstream media continues to grow its influence on people. If a president 50 years in the future made just as many mistakes as Bush, he will be hated even more because that president would get even more media exposure. -
bad hand he was dealt LOL that is great. -
9/11 actually has very little to do with my negative impressions of our current "leader"
-
-
I sure didn't vote for him.
-
Jefferson Davis -
Why Jefferson Davis kdawg68?
-
*snicker*
-
He was the President of the failed Confederacy. For a more in depth analysis:
-he was never able to bring the southern states together - each operated with their own agenda, if you will, to the deteriment of the war effort.
-he was unable to see the faults in his commanders on the Western front (Mississippi River area). One by one his States were occupied after Albert Sydney Johnson went down at Shiloh. Joseph E. Johnston (whom Lee replaced in Virginia), Braxton Bragg, and later John Bell Hood were horrific commanders. Hood essentially sacrifices what's left of the Army of Tennessee at Franklin and Nashville in a series of senseless frontal assaults.
- He was adamantly pro-slavery. In fact, one of the options tha could've replaced Hood in the West, Pat Cleburne, the so-called "Stonewall of the West" was essentially blocked from promotion and then literrally sacrificed in the aforementioned frontal assaults because he had the nerve to write Davis and suggest that the Confederacy should free the slaves and arm them against the Union.
- He is widely regarded as having been extremely anal and totally O.C.D. He was also a control freak. He even kept Lee, clearly his strategic superior, confined by his own wishes. Lee operated best when he had full reign (except for that whole Gettysburg campaign. cough. cough).
-His obsession on organization led to awful casualties for small localities. He insisted that southern regiments be organized into brigades of regiments from the same state. Where possible, he demanded state specific divisions. This meant that when a particular brigade got chewed up, individual towns lost huge percentages of their fighting aged men. Clarksville, TN is perhaps the best example of this. The regiment left town in 1861 with over 1,000 officers and men. By the end of the 3rd day's fighting at Gettysburg in July of 1863, there were only 3 remaining. We're talking fearful casualties. The worst "Americans" have ever suffered.
I could go on and on.
Perhaps most importantly, his country was destroyed under his watch. It ceased to exist while he was President.
-
-
Wow glad he's not the President today.
Sounds like another control freak. -
Bush is nowhere near the worst. Most historians place him ahead of Bill Clinton and somewhere in the middle.
It is easily Jimmy Carter!
He cut of Iran and let the Islamic fundamentalists take over. Remember the hostages and the military failures that followed?
He led us into a recession. Inflation was 10 times what it is today and unemployment was 2-3 times as high. Terrible President!-
Good point there mikesilvia
Inflation 10 times more and unenjoyment 2-3 times more.
wow and we think we have it bad now. -
"Most Historians"?
I'm not sure I believe that one. Maybe a "majority" of them might, but not "most" of them. Or, maybe historians have a tendency to rate "being wrong about everything" as a virtue. That could be possible, I guess. -
carter will probably be rated as one of the better presidents when history truly looks at him in another 50-100 years.
-
Historically, Nixon rates well considering accomplishments. He was just a rat concerning Watergate. He handled the oil crisis well, ended the Vietnam War, and started trade with China.
Carter's only well known accomplishment was the "Christmas Present" for the Jews and Palestinians of "Peace in the Middle East"
-
-
Herbert Hoover. He fueld trade wars and the depression, along with banking crooks like JD Rockefeller and the Senate Banking Committee.
But then there's LBJ and going way back, Buchanan. It's a toss-up.-
LBJ wasn't so bad - he inherited a real mess made by JFK - who was 50/60 at best on his decisons. I cannot figure why anyone ever refers to him as a "good" president.
-
-
Good points there tps.
I still can't believe Lincoln didn't bother to sign the Slavery Bill. Talk about negligence.-
Don't believe everything you read in a blog! Abe Lincoln consistently ranks #1 or #2 of all time.
-
Fact is he didn't sign it mikesilvia. I still liked him as a President but he failed to sign the bill. Where is his signature on the bill?
-
May I ask what "slave bill" where talking about? He's the one that issued the Emancipation Proclomation and then he fought for passage of the 13th Ammendmant - the one that outlawed human slavery officially - in congress.
Lord knows what more he would've done if not assasinated. -
mikesilvia and kdawg68 my correction.
Lincoln took a long time to sign the bill and in fact he started to sign it and then walked away from it and then signs it 13-14 days later.
What took him so long to sign the Emancipation Proclamation?
Hesitant but he did finally sign the bill.
Lots of other American Presidents admited in their dairies that slavery was wrong
but still kept many slaves and made no attempt to change history.
At least Lincoln did change history by signing the bill, even if he also referred to blacks as inferior races. -
Okay, historical context is necessary here.
Lincoln was waiting for a Union victory on the battlefield so that the E.P. had some weight behind it. The thing would've been totally worthless to put forth considering the way Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet where whipping the dog piss out McLellan, Pope,etc. in the East. In the west, the spring of 1862 might well be considered the high tide of the south.
In the fall of '62, Lincoln got what he needed when Little Mac blunted the rebel invasion of Maryland at the battle of Antietam. It's the bloodiest single day in our history. Something like 28,000 casualties. Techincally the tactical battle was a draw, and might even have been more in Lee's favor considering he (Lee) was backed up against the Potomac and outnumbered perhaps 3-1. Lee was forced to retreat and abort the invasion.
Lincoln then moves in and issues the Emancipattion Proclamation and urges McLellan to pursue and destroy the Army of N.Virginia. Lil' Mac sits around and waits, prompting Lincoln to replace him, searching for "someone, anyone who will fight!"
Also, don't forget that by issuing the E.P., he nearly lost the support of several Northern States who did not want the war to be about slavery. It was a bold move. -
Yes I can see your point it was a bold move, one not too many people liked, including those who's wealth depended on slave labor. Excellent kdawg68.
-
I still like Lincoln but he was pretty negligent, he wasn't perfect but some good things came out of him.
-
-
Worst President of all time? I would have to go with Herbert Hoover, but their are many other worthy candidates.-
Herbert Hoover, I don't know too much about him but from what I heard he didn't accomplish too much as President.
-
-
I guess since this is only an opinion question, it really doesn't matter what some folks say (I did like crkian's reply..lol). They are allowed to have an opinion.
However, usually opinions have at least some facts or some data to support the opinion.
For the ones who are just jumping on the "Bash Bush" bandwagon and saying he is the worst President of all times only shows their lack on knowledge on the subject of US History and Presidents.-
Says who? You like who you like.
The man doesn't even speak English.
Can you understand the words that come out of his mouth?
Cause I sure can't and I am sure the rest of the world doesn't understand him when he speaks either. He is a terrible Spokesperson for the USA and for any hopes of peace globally. -
Jenunelle, Did I say I liked Bush or any other President? Maybe you have a problem "reading" English.
You state "The man doesn't even speak English." Although he may not be a great speaker, like Kennedy or Reagan, he dose speak English. This does not make him the worst President of all times.
Unless you can present unbiased criteria and facts that prove Bush is the worst President of all times, all you have is a media driven, uneducated opinion. -
AmmoBob I really wasn't listening to anything you said.
I still think he is a pretty bad President.
"he dose speak English", you say.
I assure you he does not.
As far as media opinion, I am stating my opinion and I can't stand him
or to even looking at him, he is despicable. -
Jeunelle,
So what is your point? You don't like Bush? We got that. It was very clear that was where you were going when you started this thread.
However, unless you can present some specific facts or reasons as to why you hate him or why you think he is the worst President of all times, you just sound like a little kid on the play ground.. -
AmmoBob thank you but that's your opinion.
The other members didn't have to give a reason and I don't have to either.
The members responded and I am not going to fight them over their opinion but maybe you would like to. -
Jeunelle,
Most of the others did provide a reason. In some cases, they provided you with very good information as to why they had their opinion.
You on the other hand, started the discussion, and never once offered up your own evidence or reasons for thinking Bush was the worst. You just went down the line agreeing with what others said. In one case you even mentioned and I quote
"Inflation 10 times more and unenjoyment 2-3 times more.
wow and we think we have it bad now."
This statement seems to contradict your thoughts about Bush.
Asking for information or a reason why you feel you can't look at the President of the United States and why you find him "despicable" is not fighting. It was an attempt to understand your opinion.
However it is clear to me, your opinion has nothing to do with rational thought and appears more to be crowed induced...
And that is my opinion based on this thread. -
AmmoBob so sue me. You would still get none.
-
Jeunelle,
I was only asking you to provide reasoning or support for your opinion. Most of the folks here provided reason to support their opinion.
Instead, you provide another incoherent response, much like your opinion - spouted out with no sign of intelligent thought.
Have a nice day ;-) -
Still AmmoBob nobody here care what you think. IRRELEVENT
-
Ah jeunelle you're wrong there, I actually do care what AmmoBob thinks, and I actually agree with everything he stated. You on the other hand annoy me, you ask a lot of questions, you don't give reasoned replies, and I'm not the only person who feels this way, in fact I can think of at least half a dozen members here who would be happy to side with AmmoBob on this point.
-
carlgalloway,
Thanks, You hit the nail on the head.... -
Whatever and they could very well side with AmmoBob but do I really care who they side with? NO
I still don't like Bush and I still won't give a reason why, so deal with it. -
AmmoBob, I disagree with Jeunelle's suggestion that no one cares what you think, but I think that your assessment that no one who is educated about U.S. history and politics could possibly think Bush is the worst is highly subjective and frankly out of line. Disagreeing with you about the weighing of various factors and impacts isn't necessarily a sign of ignorance.
-
-
Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) and Herbert Hoover (Republican) get my votes as worst ever. They were terrible.
-
I like your choices DeadRooster, they were pretty bad.
-
-
Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush-
Kinda disagree with one, Daniel: I think Reagan was actually a pretty good president, especially considering the Cold War stuff and the lower inflation and unemployment rate.
Iagree with ya about Wilson and Bush... both pretty bad, but not worst.
But I'm no history buff. -
Reagan was an authoritarian, anti-union, imperialistic, reactionary piece of sh*t.
-
(said as a "righty" and in my best Jeffrey Lebowski voice)
"yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.'
-
Reagan, I think, was only as good or as bad as the people around him in any given moment.
-
-
I don't know for sure who the worst was. But I do know for sure that Jimmy Carter has to be on the top 10 worst list.
Great Man
Horrid President -
A good place to do some research
www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/
I haven't lived through all of them, and I don't trust the concept of Historians, living by second hand news and gossip.
So I have to say the bushs 1 and 2. just look at the body counts these two have complied while in any office.-
Yes exactly Rozie818 and it doesn't seem like they even care about it either.
-
Lincoln had a higher body count.
Roosevelt had a higher body count.
Washington had a higher body count.
Johnson had a higher body count.
Nixon had a higher body count.
Ask the Native Americans for a list of presidents that had higher body counts.
If you are basing your opinion on body count then Bush 1 and 2 look pretty good.
I'm not sure too many people can give an accurate accounting of how they have come up with their "worst" pick.
It is easy just to type a name and jump on the bandwagon. -
Want to talk Body count? How about the 50 people that the William Jefferson Clinton personally knew and had business dealings with or looked to them as an advisor - that all had "mysterious deaths" More cold blooded than any mafia known in the US
-
-
I think we all know the answer to this one. Plus, he's on record as having the lowest approval ratings of any President in history. It's all over CNN. Please Lord let the rest of this year fly by so we can get someone smarter than a rock in there. -
Is that a trick question? BABY BUSH! -
hahahaha oh God I hope not. That would be a Tragedy
The Devils child. I hope he don't name it Damien.
-
-
Is this a trick question? -
I would have to say any president that we can't easily recite off their name. Obviously they didn't do much to make a difference with their opportunity and position.
So my answer is ______________________________ you know that guy I can't remember?-
But there have been many people that we can recite their names and they have been atrocious
-
-
Possibly Lincoln.
His early hand-picked generals were atrocious bunglers.
His later and better generals were often engaged in direct and horrible attacks on southern civilians. (Like Sherman's march to the sea.)
He suspended habeas corpus, arrested hundreds of citizens without due process, and even issued an arrest warrant for the then Chief Justice (later rescinded.)
He sent Union troops to various states to encourage 'correct' voting during his re-election campaign.
He was most decidedly a racist, referring to Blacks and Hispanics as inferior races.
He was perfectly willing to maintain slavery, as his only real concern was stopping the break-away Southern States from seceding.
He placed a bounty of $25 dollars on Sioux scalps after a rebellion by that tribe over broken treaties.
There is a lot more. But his popularity was definitely on the wain when he was assassinated. Had he not died, his level of popularity might be quite different today.-
Yup that's what I thought too, negligent.
-
couple of thoughts:
-besides Grant - what General would you have picked? It's widely regarded that the best of the officer corps was in grey. He tried to get Lee. Burnside, Pope, and Hooker were boobs, but they were promptly replaced. He wanted someone, anyone, besides McLellan, but what was available? As soon as Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, etc had distinguished themselves, they were promoted. Also hard to argue that he when he needed it most, he found a guy in Meade that wouldn' lose the penultimate battle (Gettysburg). As Lee said "General Meade will make no mistakes..." - apart from not corralling Sickles when he marched the 3rd corps out to the Peach Orchard - he didn't really make any mistakes.
-Shermans march may have been inhumane from the attack on civilian standpoint, but would it have been more humane to let the war drag on indefinitely? I think that's debatable. What's not debatable is the effect that Sherman's March had on the South. Note Lee, Hood, and other's constantly complaining about how desertion was depleting all of the South's manpower. It broke the south's back.
-the suspension of habeus corpus helped keep states like Maryland from seceeding. I, for one, am glad he did it.
-"racist" is a tricky term - by our present day standards nearly every person alive was a racist. Rather than thumb our noses at the man for not being as progressive as us today, why not celebrate that he saw that human slavery was wrong? That put him in a decided minorty of opinions here in the U.S. at the time.
I just don't get how we can label Lincoln the worst? There wouldn't be a united nation if it weren't for him. The copperheads (his opponents) would've let the South sue for peace. -
Totally agree Don!
-
I think secession is a basic human right, kdawg. I wish Maryland had left the US.
-
I actually agree that any State freely joined to the union should be allowed to freely leave (I am Alabamian - they baptize us in "secesh")-but I also accept that the existence of two rival republics rather than the union that Lincoln held together was beneficial overall for the country. In that sense, as he held the nation together while it was being torn assunder, he accomplished what perhaps no one else could have.
-
"overall"? perhaps, but a right is a right or it aint.
-
Sorry I'm so late in getting back to this. kdawg68, all of your points are quite reasonable. My only point, and it's a killer for me personally, is that Lincoln broke the law, the law he had sworn to uphold. And he did it repeatedly. He may have felt he had no choice, but that's the same excuse used by many in history. The South no longer wished to be a part of the Union. Lincoln decided that they would not have that choice. I fault him for that, same as I fault other President's for violating the law. But over 600,000 dead. To maintain a political entity.
-
-
BUSH!!!!! HE IS REALLY HORRIBLE!!! -
Who was the guy years ago that had a battlion of his own men shot, blamed the Mexicans and started the war with Mexico?
He'd get the award, although there are some others that have done at least the equivalent-
there are some others that have done at least the equivalent
Yup like Bush -
That was T Roosevelt. And Bush didnt have his own troops shot
-
No but more and more are coming home in body bags and the Vet's are committing suicide and there is a huge cover up that was recently exposed on this Topic.
Officials knew about it and covered it up and removed evidence that the Veterans
are committing suicide in huge numbers.
The Government sure knows how to use you and spit you out when they no longer need you. These Vet's should be respected and given Free psychological testing to be admitted back into society with risk to them. The are shell shocked. -
correction with less risk to them.
Psychologically they are not prepared when they return back to society and cannot handle the pressures of being shell shocked and what they went through over in the Middle East defending our country. The pressure is too great for them and they are showing this by committing suicide and nothing is done by our Government to save them.
-
-
There has never been a perfect president but to be elected president of the U.S.A. is quite an accomplishment and all the U.S.A. presidents were great men in at least that regard alone...
This question is difficult to answer much like comparing athletes of different time eras...
Most people around the world do not favor the policies of george w. bush...
How do you compare his performance in office to Bill Clinton's ?
george w. bush had to deal with the 911 attack of the twin towers etc. while Clinton only had to deal with his personal sexual promiscuity...
Since many presidents had totally different historical circumstances to deal with it is hard to pick the best or worst president of the U.S.A.-
Well said. The environment they went through differed greatly, therefore an objective selection will always be near impossible.
"george w. bush had to deal with the 911 attack of the twin towers etc. while Clinton only had to deal with his personal sexual promiscuity..."
Haha.
-
-
The current president-
Thank you everyone these responses are all good.
-
-
REAGAN~BUSH!
UGH -
since Hiroshima no one got even close to the stupidity of George w Bush -
(In the interests of pouring oil on troubled fires):
I see that Ulysses S. Grant has been mentioned in passing.
Although Lincoln should be held accountable for retaining his services as a general, I think that Ulysses S. Grant deserves some credit of his own.
President Grant may be, if not the worst, possibly the most clueless of the American presidents - north or south.
Maybe he was too much of a nice guy (?!) - my recollection is that President Grant quite nicely put members of his family, and close friends, in positions of influence and power.
And, again if my memory serves, carpetbaggers were rather active during his administration.
However, in his defense, it should be noted that he had a rather serious drinking problem - and the booze may have clouded his judgment. -
John Quincy Adams, the nepotee son on our 2nd President, John Adams. Jr. had no respect, no recognition for any talent whatsoever. Nobody listened to him, and he ended up an abortive one-term pressident who accomplished nothing. -
is there really any good president America ever had?-
William Henry Harrison was pretty good. Made very few errors in his time in office.
-
-
1. Worst president in my lifetime would have to be Jimmy Carter. Hands down he was the most ineffective president we have ever had.
2. Most embarrassing president in my lifetime (to date) would have to be Bill Clinton.
3. Potentially worst president if elected would have been Al Gore. -
Easy question.... the bumbling, stupid, moronic, egomaniacal, idiot currently in the White House. -
Thank you blebarron, well said
What is also obvious to me and other members is if someone doesn't like this discussion you simply remove yourself from the discussion. Very simple.
This comment is for a few repeat loud mouths up above.-
As much as I hate to post another comment in this stupid discussion thread, I feel the need to respond to your comment about "repeat loud months".
I know I'm not alone when I say you are the one who is a "repeat loud mouth". Instead of explaining your opinion or providing some rational for your childish comments, you go to verbal attacks and name calling.
Have a nice day...
-
-
As much as I dislike Bush, I cannot say with certainty that he is the worst President of all times. He's certainly the worst in modern history in my opinion, but there may have been others just as bad if not worse as pointed out in a few threads above.
In any event, I've got to agree with AmmoBob that an explanation to back an opinion goes way further than a stated opinion followed by name calling. Most BC members who cover politics have been able to conduct reasoned discussions even when we don't all agree. Anok wrote a good piece recently about our little world that's worth a read:
blog.blogcatalog.com/guest-blogger/what-its-all-about-anyway/-
Aw leave her alone, Jeunelle is obviously a bit simple and is just having some fun.
-
-
Still I can't stand Bush and still don't need to give a reason, so sue me.
I see that other members left comments that they didn't like Bush
and did not give reasons why they didn't like Bush and that is just fine with me.
I am glad to see that I am not the only one who doesn't like Bush.
So the comment box will remain open for other members to freely respond
and leave their comments, no matter who doesn't like their comment
and how they commented about Bush and whether or not they gave a reason why they don't like Bush.
I will like to thank those who said they don't like Bush and did not give a reason why they didn't like Bush. There is no written BC law that states how a discussion should be covered.
We are all not cookie cutter so some of us will cover a discussion differently to other discussions
and some will comment differently to other members comments.
I hope to see this discussion thread get longer.
I will pop in to visit whenever I feel like it and I may not bother to pop in to visit.
I may or may not leave a comment, as I do as I like. Thank you. -
For me, first is Truman, and second is Bush jr.
Thank you. Happy surfing!
Best Regards,
kwksdvmsl.blogspot.com
makingmoneysurfingweb.ning.com -
George Bush hands down over Warren G Harding, Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. -
This week Bush was seen teary eyed watching his daughter get married.
At least he can see his daughter get married. I think about all the other American Soldiers
returning in body bags that will never get to get married
or to see their wives and children again. A war he started based on a lie.
Look at how many people are dying in this war and how many more will die.
No weapons of mass destruction found and the invasion of a nation based on a lie.
Those in power will always abuse power. Amazing.-
As of April 23, 2008, 4046 Americans have given their lives in the Iraq war, that's about 809 soldiers per year. As of 2006, on average 12 people per day are murdered by illegal immigrants and 13 people a day are killed by illegal immigrants driving while drunk and uninsured. Over a one year period this amounts to 9125 Americans killed by illegal immigrants. These numbers do not also include terrorist attacks on US soil that were committed by illegal immigrants." media.www.chicagoflame.com/media/storage/paper519/news/2008/04/28/Opinions/...
Where is the outrage on this? What, it don't fit into media driven opinions? What are you going to do when Bush is gone? You need to really to get a clue and move on. -
@Jeunelle
"A war he started based on a lie."
Ironically it is quite possible the real lies actually started after the war started...
It was highly probable that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destructions...
Saddam Hussein was armed and financed by the U.S.A, and other countries and supplied arms by u.s.a., european and multinational companies to go to war with Iran and the Ayatollah Khomeini...Saddam Hussein used Chemical Weapons on the Iranians and Iraq's own citizens...His Nuclear warfare ambitions were taken out by the Israelies...Saddam Hussein financed terrorists and the families of suicide terrorists...
Perhaps the lie is that the U.S.A. army did locate weapons of mass destruction and is not telling the global public because the origin or partial origin of these weapons was in fact the U.S.A...
@AmmoBob
"Illegal Immigrants"
I find it ironic that you call Mexicans whose ancestors roamed and lived throughout North and South America for thousands of years before the establishment of the U.S.A. "Illegal Immigrants"... -
@ Gerry,
Where did I say "Illegal Immigrants" or Mexican? I posted a quote. Besides, how do you know they're not my ancestors?
And what is your point about them roaming all over North and South America for thousands of years? The Romans did to, are we going to go back to the Roman Empire and start reclaiming land?
Bottom line, you enter the US illegally, your "Illegal" We need to stop the Politically Correct BS and call it what it is... -
And to both of you... Saddam had WMDs.. Just ask the Iranians, the Kurds, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Congress and most of the world.
You guys watch too many cartoons.. -
Your mug shot looks like a cartoon. lmao
-
Bob, I question the numbers of so called murders and crimes by illegall immigrants that are being thrown around lately.
For a couple of reasons:
1) The numbers started popping up miraculously as soon ad pundits needed someone else to blame for anything. (it's also routine practice to blame the immigrants, we've been doing it for centuries)
2) If the perpetrators of these crimes are illegal immigrants, why haven't they been deported upon being charged with a crime? One reason I can think of is because they haven't been caught, in which case, how do we know they are illegal?
3) The crimes being committed by any person - legal or otherwise are already illegal acts. This isn't a matter of being concerned about policy, this is a matter of having policy enforced.
And, just so this is out there - what Saddam had was not "WMD's" but had biological and chemical weapons for short range use, that also have a shelf life that were also gone and done away with some time ago (confirmed by the UN inspections prior to Saddam's refusal to allow them in).
That, by the way, we sold to him and allowed him to USE.
The WMD's that were used as an excuse to go into Iraq never existed, and even the government or certain officials have admitted taht the information they were "given" was false.
No long range nuclear or biological WMD's existed, and indeed, they never even found any evidence of WMD's of any kind. -
Anok,
As for the "Illegal Immigrants" numbers, I consider them just about as accurate as some of the other BS being slung around here. I really only posted that to see if Jeunelle could dispute it with any facts, but she responded just as I knew she would. What a piece of work...
And as far as WMDs go, lets just say I'm not going to get into a discussion here about what was or was not found or what was or was not reported. Some topics are not worth discussing. -
@ammobob
"Where did I say "Illegal Immigrants" or Mexican? I posted a quote. Besides, how do you know they're not my ancestors?"
I just find the term "illegal immigrants" ironic and did not mean to suggest that you personally invented that term...
"And what is your point about them roaming all over North and South America for thousands of years? The Romans did to, are we going to go back to the Roman Empire and start reclaiming land?"
I'm not sure I understand your point as to the best of my knowledge the Romans did not conquer or live in North & South America for thousands of years prior to the establishment of the U.S.A. like the ancestors of the Mexicans... -
Actually, Bush really did bungle Iraq. Not by going to war, but afterwards. He listened to the "experts" like General Wesley Clark, who proposed the "Kosovo Model" after the war - which meant disbanding the army and police forces, and taking all in authority out of power. We should have used the Germany Model, or Japan Model, not that we still don't have a presence in both of those countries. Also appointing Paul Bremmer was an obvious mistake.
As for the illegal immigration problem - he really has screwed that one up too, an no current presidential candidate has a clue how to deal with that issue.
The one thing you have o say about Bush is - he does what he says he will do, whether or not you agree with his policies, that is a big change from most presidents we have had.
Is he the worst in modern times?- I will say let's ask that question in 3 years, and see if we still believe that. Besides, I agree that Carter was worse. -
And Bob, I agree with you - with certain exceptions to legalities and other such things - what was and wasn't found or reported no longer seems to matter, as what was done is done.
It's really more a point of contention when talking about how policy was used, and when talking about "the beginning" and other such debate points. It won't change what is happening now.
Of course, I did do a whole long post about that some time ago
-
-
Is the answer Bart Simpson?-
Yes if you believe it's Bart Simpson, it is. lmao
-
-
George W. Arnold...
No...
Benedict Bush....
No...
I can't remember the guys name -
Yes like I said a war started based on lie and no proof.
Where are the weapons of mass destructions that Bush claimed Saddam had?
Seems to me because terrorist almost killed Bush's father this war started
because his son wanted revenge. That is my opinion, take it or leave it.
As far as "13 people a day are killed by illegal immigrants driving while drunk and uninsured",
I am not speaking about deaths in the Usa based on drunk driving and citizen negligence,
I am speaking about Bush and his Lie.
In fact his father too is a liar. I clearly remember the "read my lips, no new taxes" statement
that his father gave before he went into office and as soon as he got into office he raised taxes.
Like father like son, both Liars. Excuse me for having an opinion but I still don't like Bush
or his clan and I find him to be a poor excuse of a man.
Futher more any nation that claims to be Righteous and is busy arming and financing terrorist like the U.S.A, and other countries and supplied arms by u.s.a., european and multinational companies are in bad company and they should be held responsible for funding these terrorist operations and America is just as in fault like those other countries because they were also busy funding their operation and now America is complaining that terrorist is destroying their nation. No it's not the terrorist it's the people inside the Usa. Thank you-
As long as we have a few rotten apples in th bunch, all the rest will turn rotten.
Inside this government is a bunch rotten apples who sell secrets to terrorist and sell weapons to terrorist and the government does nothing about them when they are the real terrorist.
We should hold Bush responsible for his actions too, there is a lot that went down that you citizen's know nothing about and was covered up, Bush know why this war was started.
He started it.
Him and his lawless family. Open your eyes and see the real terrorist.
The world now knows about Adu Gharaib and other prisons that torture people on Americas watch. If it wasn't exposed we would know nothing about it.
Americans are lied to daily by their elected officials and it becomes like nothing to you Citizens who are so use to it that you think nothing of it. So keep on trusting the Government and let them continue to lie to you since most people today love to believe a lie.
This war is the one that will send the country into a bottomless pit.
Nothing but more problems globally will result from this war.
I got news for you, hide your children because this is just the beginning.
-
-
Some of the guys in the 1800s mighta been not so good, I don't know.
I do know this. There is only one president I am certain makes a worse president than I would be. Compared with all the other presidents I know anything about, I would have been much worse. But this one president shows me that in America, even a lowly scumbag like me has hope not only of being president someday, but not being the worst president ever.
Not to give away this president's identity by mentioning his initials or anything, but I am talking about George W. Bush, Worst President I Know About, And Worse than Me, which is BAD
GW in the dock, where he belongs-
There is an actual website where kids are worshiping him as some kind of God.
Funny but I remember Saddam also had murals of himself as some Godlike figure.
Oh the testosterone of men.
I just read today that some father had a mercy killing of his 17 year old daughter.
She was seen speaking to a British Soldier. This alone was enough for her father to kill her.
He also had his 3 sons beat her to death, kicking her in the head
and stamping on her throat until she was dead.
A child is precious gift from God, not belong to any father or mother like possessions
but but a gift given to you by God to appreciate.
Obviously this world is filled with negative and hateful snakes.
What a life it must be for those women, constantly having to be afraid
not to do anything wrong or to do anything to displease their fathers who could kill them at any moment. Their women always wearing black and constantly in mourning, how depressing.
I would of killed myself a long time ago under those conditions. What a miserable life that would of been for me.
I am glad I am not living there but I feel terrible for those women who have to suffer under those circumstances. Imagine being stomped on in the throat until death by your own father. What God would condone that?
Certainly not some God of mine. That is no God but a Beast.
The destructive nature of man in general will have to cease if we are to see any peace on this God forsaken planet.
Never in my lifetime have I know any respect for women or ever seen any. Referred to as a _itch by the opposite sex and never known. Men have no respect for women and if they do that is a very small number of men. The world in general is run by men and look at the mess we have now. The planet in general is under attack and live is being destroyed on a huge scale. We are seeing a record numner of bees becoming extinct. This means the planet will not vegatate crops and we have many people to feed. Earthquakes, sunami's and hurricanes will come and you have no food. What the hell will you do to survive? -
The person who should be elected as president is not being elected.
We are stuck with idiots like Bush.
You mean to tell me that out of all the well educated men/women we have
in America, this is the only choice we had for President. What a shame.
Even I should of run. I stand a good a chance as the idiot next to me. I will pray for you.
For those of you that want to survive you better pray that you are one of those who get to be on the mother ship.
-