In Case You've Forgotten:

Byrnzie

And the people who supported George W. Bush have the gall to criticize Obama?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Polit ... ments.html

George W. Bush:

Accomplishments as president

* Attacked and took over two countries.
* Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
* Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
* Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
* Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
* First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
* First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
* First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
* After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.
* Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.
* In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
*Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.
* Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.
* Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
* Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
* Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history.
* Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
* Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
* Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
* Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
* Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
* My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.
* Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Exxon oil tanker named after her).
* First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
* Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.
* First president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation.
* Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
* Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.
* First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.
* First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.
* Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
* Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
* Withdrew from the World Court of Law.
* Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
* First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).
* All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
* My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
* Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
* First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
* First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
* First US president to establish a secret shadow government.
* Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
* With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
* First US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
* First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
* Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
* Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
* Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.
* Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capital building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.
* In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
* Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
* In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.
* Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Byrnzie

Also, let's not forget what Bush accomplished in his first year in office prior to 9/11.

I remember in the summer of 2001 saying to a friend of mine that I thought something big was gonna happen in response to all the American aggression and beligerence of that year.
In case anyone's forgotten, during 2001 both the Americans and British were bombing Iraq on a daily basis whilst causing half a million Iraqi children to die as a direct result of sanctions. Within two months of Bush taking office he oversaw a massive bombing campaign over Baghdad which killed 3 people and injured dozens more. This was followed by tensions with Russia after the U.S expelled more than 40 Russian diplomats in March of that year. The Bush Administration then pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty at the end of that same month, effectively killing it. He then began a war of words with China over the collision of a US spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet in the South China Sea on April 1, 2001.
...not to mention that Bush's election victory followed closely on the heels of the second intifada in the occupied territories and came shortly before the war criminal Ariel Sharon was elected Israeli Prime Minister in February 6, 2001. In their first meeting in April of 2001 Bush announced that any final peace deal should reflect that "realities on the ground and in the region have changed greatly", thereby accomodating Sharon's demand that Israel be allowed to keep its large illegal settlements in the West Bank.

If the flames of resentment across the Arab world weren't already sufficiently stoked by the time of this first meeting between these two far right-wingers then they were certainly blazing by the time Sharon flew home from Washington that month.

sabreleaf

I will not nation build. He forgot that he ran on that. Could of took out the Taliban with Air Power and Spec. Forces. Not troops all over the country. His book is a joke.

gimmesometruth27

sabreleaf wrote:

Ok.. Web Site froze then posted this alot of times. Not my doing!!!!

surrrrrrrre.....

j/k



yeah this man should be in jail. i heard some human rights organizations are petitioning eric holder to investigate and charge him, which will not happen. and it is good to hear some republican reps are not opposed to investigating him. with his admission of authorizing torture, they pretty much HAVE to investigate him if for no other reason than to prove to the rest of the world that we can put our money where our mouth is when we are called on our hypocracy. i hope they investigate and bring down everyone in that last administration for what they have done to people of other countries, for what they have done to the constitution, and for what they have done to our reputation...

gimmesometruth27

ahhh yes, two war criminals before they committed their crimes...i could not find the full size image small enough to post here so this is the cropped version. to see the full size one, click the link and click on the pic and the full size pic shows up...

Blake Morrison's photograph of the decade

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/ ... aph-decade


US president George W. Bush walks with British prime minister Tony Blair and Bush's dog Spot on 23 February 2001 at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland.

9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan: they're all prefigured in this shot of Blair and Bush out walking in the grounds of Camp David in February 2001. Over the previous four years Blair had become a close friend of Bill Clinton, with whom he saw eye to eye on foreign policy. But how would he get on with the newly elected (or unelected) US president?

The snowy backdrop suggests there's some thawing to do before they hit it off. Hands in pockets, wearing the jumper he'd thrown on after ditching the formal suit he had arrived in, Blair looks uneasy – the tense feline next to the strutting simian. But relaxation is the image they want to convey – two ordinary-guy world leaders out for a stroll. More subliminal messages also come through. They're shoulder to shoulder, and will remain so for the next seven years. And they have a dog with them, a spaniel, which may not be a dog of war but certainly looks eager to be unleashed. After the invasion of Iraq, Blair would be accused of being Bush's poodle, but here the two men are depicted as equals, matching each other in age, physical stature and authority. Bush wears a bomber jacket and carries his hands like a gunslinger – ominous hints of a warmonger in the making. But at the time the talk was of peace and harmony, with the weekend at Camp David seen as a honeymoon start to the special relationship and as proof that the traditional opposition between Republicans and the Labour party would be set aside for a higher cause.

"Tony put the charm offensive on me and it worked," Bush told a press conference, adding that they even used the same toothpaste. "They're going to wonder how you know that, George," Blair quipped. Here it's he who has the brighter Colgate smile. In 2001 we still half-believed that smile was benign. That's why the photo is so poignant. The warning signs were all there, if only we'd seen them.

gimmesometruth27

ok thanks to google i found one small enough. here is the full size pic...

is that a "pleather" jacket george is wearing?

Godfather.

yea there have been a few....

Another Failed Presidency
By Geoffrey P. Hunt
Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.


In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.


George Bush Jr didn't fail so much as he was perceived to have been too much of a patrician while being uncomfortable with his more conservative allies. Yet George Bush Sr is still perceived as a man of uncommon decency, loyal to the enduring American character of rugged self-determination, free markets, and generosity. George W will eventually be treated more kindly by historians as one whose potential was squashed by his own compromise of conservative principles, in some ways repeating the mistakes of his father, while ignoring many lessons in executive leadership he should have learned at Harvard Business School. Of course George W could never quite overcome being dogged from the outset by half of the nation convinced he was electorally illegitimate -- thus aiding the resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.


But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.


But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?


No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.


But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task-- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.


In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."


Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.


Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

Jeanwah

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yeah this man should be in jail.

Him and Cheney should be in jail. But it'll never happen.

KDH12

like Obama

don't like Obama

that is not a very good article

Byrnzie

Godfather. wrote:

yea there have been a few....

Another Failed Presidency
By Geoffrey P. Hunt
Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.


In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.


George Bush Jr didn't fail so much as he was perceived to have been too much of a patrician while being uncomfortable with his more conservative allies. Yet George Bush Sr is still perceived as a man of uncommon decency, loyal to the enduring American character of rugged self-determination, free markets, and generosity. George W will eventually be treated more kindly by historians as one whose potential was squashed by his own compromise of conservative principles, in some ways repeating the mistakes of his father, while ignoring many lessons in executive leadership he should have learned at Harvard Business School. Of course George W could never quite overcome being dogged from the outset by half of the nation convinced he was electorally illegitimate -- thus aiding the resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.


But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.


But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?


No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.


But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task-- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.


In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."


Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.


Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

What a crock of shit.

Godfather.

Byrnzie wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

yea there have been a few....

Another Failed Presidency
By Geoffrey P. Hunt
Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.


In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.


George Bush Jr didn't fail so much as he was perceived to have been too much of a patrician while being uncomfortable with his more conservative allies. Yet George Bush Sr is still perceived as a man of uncommon decency, loyal to the enduring American character of rugged self-determination, free markets, and generosity. George W will eventually be treated more kindly by historians as one whose potential was squashed by his own compromise of conservative principles, in some ways repeating the mistakes of his father, while ignoring many lessons in executive leadership he should have learned at Harvard Business School. Of course George W could never quite overcome being dogged from the outset by half of the nation convinced he was electorally illegitimate -- thus aiding the resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.


But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.


But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?


No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.


But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task-- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.


In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."


Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.


Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

What a crock of shit.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/ ... dency.html

don't get excited man it's just an article on failed presidents,it's important to understand that there are different views and ideas about presidents and politics, we're all in this together believe it or not.

Godfather.

Byrnzie

Godfather. wrote:

don't get excited man it's just an article on failed presidents,it's important to understand that there are different views and ideas about presidents and politics, we're all in this together believe it or not.

Godfather.

Any article that tries to gloss over the crimes and corruption of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. really is a crock of shit.

Godfather.

Byrnzie wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

don't get excited man it's just an article on failed presidents,it's important to understand that there are different views and ideas about presidents and politics, we're all in this together believe it or not.

Godfather.

Any article that tries to gloss over the crimes and corruption of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. really is a crock of shit.

again the opinions of others vs. yours, I didn't post this to irritate you but to show that there other opinions
that are legit to those people as are yours to you, I've come to understand in the last week that what your or my opinion is on this site is almost irrelevant and not worth foul language or anger with each other because at the of the day nothing has changed in the way we view our opinions about politics or what ever we discus on the train, we will not make a difference in these matters on the train the only way to make a difference is to get involved with the party or ideas you support, we need to learn to respect each others opinions and views we don't have to agree with other views and opinions but we do need to respect each other.

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27

godfather it has already been well established on this forum that american thinker is a hack apologist site for the right wing. how can they call obama a failure and he is just 2 years in? they have been saying he is a failure for at least 8 or 9 months now. that website is an organized smear campaign against obama, and those that refer to themselves as progressives, and it will hold up republican politicians like they are jesus himself. it is trying to re-write history and diminish CRIMES that have been committed. i have called that website american stinker for six months now.

do not try to take the moral high ground and say that you are not trying to incite things, you have been doing that for the past 10 days with increasing frequency. you are right, we have a right to speak our opinion, and in my opinion that article was just a hatchet job with regard to obama and presidential history. it is revisionism at it's worst. it is no wonder that i rarely even read your posts anymore. at least you did not reply with a , a , or a like you do in many of your posts. i think this article should have had a :? included in it.

bush was the WORST president we ever had, followed closely by reagan for too many reasons for me to list right here. both of them should be injail, or reagan should have died in jail instead of a free man.

here is some info about wmds fro 2 weeks ago from american thinker. it is at the bottom.
Right-wing media spin Wired article to claim "Bush was right" about WMDs
Fox & Friends' Doocy and Carlson: "Turns out President George W. Bush was right about Saddam Hussein hiding weapons of mass destruction." On the October 25 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy claimed that the WikiLeaks documents prove that "President George W. Bush was right" about WMDs. Co-host Gretchen Carlson echoed Doocy's claim later in the show.

Instapundit: "WMDs were found in Iraq in quantity." An October 24 post on conservative blog Instapundit linked to the Wired article and claimed that the WikiLeaks documents showed that "WMDs were found in Iraq in quantity."

NY Post: "There were weapons of mass destruction after all." In an October 25 article headlined, "US did find Iraq WMD," the NY Post linked to the Wired article and stated that "the [WikiLeaks] documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion." The article also noted that the documents only reveal the existence of "small amounts of chemical weapons."

American Thinker: "Wikileaks proves WMD found in Iraq." In an October 25 post to the conservative outlet American Thinker, headlined "Wikileaks proves WMD found in Iraq," blogger Rick Moran linked to a HotAir post discussing the Wired article and added:

As for WMD, no new weapons were found but the fact that there was so much of it still in Iraq after the UN was supposed to have gotten rid of it is significant [sic]. Don't expect any apologies from the rest of the world or even any acknowledgment that they were wrong. The narrative is set and nothing will change it.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201010250022

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

godfather it has already been well established on this forum that American thinker is a hack apologist site for the right wing. how can they call obama a failure and he is just 2 years in? they have been saying he is a failure for at least 8 or 9 months now. that website is an organized smear campaign against obama, and those that refer to themselves as progressives, and it will hold up republican politicians like they are Jesus himself. it is trying to re-write history and diminish CRIMES that have been committed. i have called that website American stinker for six months now.

do not try to take the moral high ground and say that you are not trying to incite things, you have been doing that for the past 10 days with increasing frequency. you are right, we have a right to speak our opinion, and in my opinion that article was just a hatchet job with regard to obama and presidential history. it is revisionism at it's worst. it is no wonder that i rarely even read your posts anymore. at least you did not reply with a , a , or a like you do in many of your posts. i think this article should have had a :? included in it.

bush was the WORST president we ever had, followed closely by Reagan for too many reasons for me to list right here. both of them should be in jail, or Reagan should have died in jail instead of a free man.

here is some info about wmds fro 2 weeks ago from American thinker. it is at the bottom.
Right-wing media spin Wired article to claim "Bush was right" about WMDs
Fox & Friends' Doocy and Carlson: "Turns out President George W. Bush was right about Saddam Hussein hiding weapons of mass destruction." On the October 25 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy claimed that the WikiLeaks documents prove that "President George W. Bush was right" about WMDs. Co-host Gretchen Carlson echoed Doocy's claim later in the show.

Instapundit: "WMDs were found in Iraq in quantity." An October 24 post on conservative blog Instapundit linked to the Wired article and claimed that the WikiLeaks documents showed that "WMDs were found in Iraq in quantity."

NY Post: "There were weapons of mass destruction after all." In an October 25 article headlined, "US did find Iraq WMD," the NY Post linked to the Wired article and stated that "the [WikiLeaks] documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion." The article also noted that the documents only reveal the existence of "small amounts of chemical weapons."

American Thinker: "Wikileaks proves WMD found in Iraq." In an October 25 post to the conservative outlet American Thinker, headlined "Wikileaks proves WMD found in Iraq," blogger Rick Moran linked to a HotAir post discussing the Wired article and added:

As for WMD, no new weapons were found but the fact that there was so much of it still in Iraq after the UN was supposed to have gotten rid of it is significant [sic]. Don't expect any apologies from the rest of the world or even any acknowledgment that they were wrong. The narrative is set and nothing will change it.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201010250022

I expected nothing less from you or burnzie.
cool.

Godfather.

unsung

Bush and Obama are both terrible, they are the same.

Point fingers at Bush, point them at Obama, it doesn't really change anything. Those of you that choose to live in the past are fools.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

unsung wrote:

Those of you that choose to live in the past are fools.

those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.

OnTheEdge

Godfather. wrote:

yea there have been a few....

Another Failed Presidency
By Geoffrey P. Hunt
Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.


In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.


George Bush Jr didn't fail so much as he was perceived to have been too much of a patrician while being uncomfortable with his more conservative allies. Yet George Bush Sr is still perceived as a man of uncommon decency, loyal to the enduring American character of rugged self-determination, free markets, and generosity. George W will eventually be treated more kindly by historians as one whose potential was squashed by his own compromise of conservative principles, in some ways repeating the mistakes of his father, while ignoring many lessons in executive leadership he should have learned at Harvard Business School. Of course George W could never quite overcome being dogged from the outset by half of the nation convinced he was electorally illegitimate -- thus aiding the resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.


But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.


But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?


No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.


But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task-- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.


In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."


Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.


Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

You must realize by now Godfather that most people on here don't want to hear about the CURRENT PRESIDENT. They just want to bitch and complain about the last one because the current one is too emabarasing for them.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

hey, if the last one wants to keep making himself look like the ass that he is, who are we to argue?

OnTheEdge wrote:

You must realize by now Godfather that most people on here don't want to hear about the CURRENT PRESIDENT. They just want to bitch and complain about the last one because the current one is too emabarasing for them.

OnTheEdge

Paul David wrote:

hey, if the last one wants to keep making himself look like the ass that he is, who are we to argue?

OnTheEdge wrote:

You must realize by now Godfather that most people on here don't want to hear about the CURRENT PRESIDENT. They just want to bitch and complain about the last one because the current one is too emabarasing for them.

Bush was a leader.

Obama is embarrasing.

gimmesometruth27

OnTheEdge wrote:

You must realize by now Godfather that most people on here don't want to hear about the CURRENT PRESIDENT. They just want to bitch and complain about the last one because the current one is too emabarasing for them.

have you ever heard of the concept of continuation of the presidency? it is fact that the actions of the prior president DIRECTLY affect the successor. look at the shape of the economy that bush left us with. look at iraq and afghanistan, no exit plan at all, perpetual war. obama got us mostly out of iraq and says he will have us out of afganistan sooner than later. the first stimulus/bailout? oh yeah that was bush, not obama.

i think you are angry and projecting that anger onto people on here because people from other countries know more about US and US presidential history than some of the americans posting on here. if i were to bet on a debate on us presidential history between you and some of the international people on here, i am sorry to say that i could not bet on you. and as an american i find that simply embarassing. i am more embarrassed by my fellow citizens' lack of knowledge and overall ignorance of our history and how our policies affect the world at large, than i am embarrassed about anything obama has done. he has tried to to many things but the republicans fought him tooth and nail every step of the way, and that is embarrassing to me too....

gimmesometruth27

OnTheEdge wrote:

Bush was a leader.

Obama is embarrasing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eV6y2C-iEg

Hugh Freaking Dillon

that's interesting. just because Bush used the fear of his own people to further his agenda does not make him a leader. And I would argue because Obama is trying to fix things locally rather than across the pond, makes him a much better leader than Bush. Obama is pro-American, not anti-everyone else.

OnTheEdge wrote:

Paul David wrote:

hey, if the last one wants to keep making himself look like the ass that he is, who are we to argue?

OnTheEdge wrote:

You must realize by now Godfather that most people on here don't want to hear about the CURRENT PRESIDENT. They just want to bitch and complain about the last one because the current one is too emabarasing for them.

Bush was a leader.

Obama is embarrasing.

ed243421

thanks byrnzie for reminding them
and even though obama has also sold out to big business
the hatred for him is not based on this
it's pure racism
and it's fuckin' ugly

stewart/colbert 2012

Byrnzie

unsung wrote:

Bush and Obama are both terrible, they are the same.

No they're not. There's really no comparison.

Bush was a giddy frat-boy President who shat on the American constitution and wrecked the lives of millions abroad.
Obama is a thoughtful, articulate President - actually worthy of the name 'President' - who is still struggling to put right the mess he inherited from that jackass.

Godfather.

Here we are again both sides claiming to be right and some still resorting to name calling and anger towards a man who is no longer the president and still no resolution in sight...no common ground, no society or group of people can move forward without common ground to work from, am I right ? or does it even matter ?

Godfather.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

of course it still matters. how the world views the US is directly related to how the US and the world treats Bush in the aftermath of his debacle as president. is Obama perfect? absolutely not. He's no saint. you can't get as far as being president and have a clean record and never have stepped on anyone and been ethical the whole journey through.

however, bush's presidency was a clusterf***, to be kind. it still matters because the guy stuck his nose up at international law, and continues to do so with his memoire admission. he's almost gloating about being able to get away with what amounts to war crimes. he needs to be dealt with. not just him, but anyone who was responsible with him along the way.

Godfather. wrote:

Here we are again both sides claiming to be right and some still resorting to name calling and anger towards a man who is no longer the president and still no resolution in sight...no common ground, no society or group of people can move forward without common ground to work from, am I right ? or does it even matter ?

Godfather.

Godfather.

Paul David wrote:

of course it still matters. how the world views the US is directly related to how the US and the world treats Bush in the aftermath of his debacle as president. is Obama perfect? absolutely not. He's no saint. you can't get as far as being president and have a clean record and never have stepped on anyone and been ethical the whole journey through.

however, bush's presidency was a clusterf***, to be kind. it still matters because the guy stuck his nose up at international law, and continues to do so with his memoire admission. he's almost gloating about being able to get away with what amounts to war crimes. he needs to be dealt with. not just him, but anyone who was responsible with him along the way.

Godfather. wrote:

Here we are again both sides claiming to be right and some still resorting to name calling and anger towards a man who is no longer the president and still no resolution in sight...no common ground, no society or group of people can move forward without common ground to work from, am I right ? or does it even matter ?

Godfather.

I just watch some stuff Byrnzie posted for me on the other thread...just when I thought I had an idea...boom!
and all I can think is next election I have to do more homework before I vote, man that shit is still bothering me.

Godfather.

Byrnzie

Godfather. wrote:

I just watch some stuff Byrnzie posted for me on the other thread...just when I thought I had an idea...boom!
and all I can think is next election I have to do more homework before I vote, man that shit is still bothering me.

Godfather.

And that 'Secret Government' film is 23 years old, yet it's more relevant today than ever. I'm surprised they allowed it to be broadcast - must have been right around the time of Iran-Contra when it was briefly possible to tear down the veil and discuss such things. According to Wiki PBS have refused to air it at any time since.

Here's another good one: 'Manufacturing Consent - Chomsky and the Media' - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0425568933

number1PJfan

I think the Presidency wasn't what Obama expected. He had grand ideas when he went into office of how he was going to fix everything. The Republican party decided not to play nice and has made EVERY single issue he has tried to address absolutely difficult for him to resolve. He has had to settle and make compromises and in the end, yes he has sold out on many of the issues he felt very strongly about in the beginning. But you have to consider he had very large aspirations to fix all the things that were left behind by the outgoing president.

unsung

Byrnzie wrote:

No they're not. There's really no comparison.

Bush was a giddy frat-boy President who shat on the American constitution and wrecked the lives of millions abroad.
Obama is a thoughtful, articulate President - actually worthy of the name 'President' - who is still struggling to put right the mess he inherited from that jackass.

Both voted to keep the PATRIOT Act going, both kept wars funded, both have "shat" on the Constitution, both have spent us into oblivion and sold our souls to China. They only look different.