Discussion:
George W Bush - worst president in 100 years?
(too old to reply)
Karen Gordon
2006-04-15 05:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Macleans.ca - April 11, 2006


Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?

He has always been a polarizing figure, but now his constant battles at
home and abroad are taking on historic proportions


On March 16, Iraqi insurgents fired a mortar shell into the U.S. army base
in Tikrit, landing near two members of the 101st Airborne Division,
reportedly as they stood waiting for a bus. The explosion killed Sgt.
Amanda Pinson of St. Louis, Mo., making her the 2,315th U.S. soldier
killed in Iraq since the war began three years ago. She was 21.

A few hours later in Washington, the U.S. Senate voted 52-48 to increase
the ceiling on the national debt, by $781 billion, to $9 trillion <===== !
(all figures US$) -- or roughly $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the
country -- thus avoiding the first-ever default on U.S. debt. The House of
Representatives then approved another $92 billion in federal spending to
support the war effort in the Middle East.

That night, Gallup wrapped up its latest opinion poll on Americans'
attitudes toward the White House, showing just 37 per cent approve of the
President's performance, versus 59 per cent who disapprove -- a drop of
five percentage points in a month -- one of the worst scores of any
president in the modern era.


Just another day in the life of the world's last superpower under the
leadership of President George W. Bush.

With deficits and debt swelling to epic levels, an economy showing massive
cracks, and support for America crumbling abroad, the Bush administration
finds itself increasingly isolated. With mid-term elections looming in
November, the President is now widely seen as a political liability.
Republicans are actively distancing themselves from Bush, and joining
Democrats in strident critiques of the White House. And things may be
getting worse.

Last week, court documents emerged showing Scooter Libby, former chief of
staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, testified that Bush authorized the
leak of sensitive intelligence to shore up support and discredit critics of
the Iraq war, raising, for the first time, the possibility that the
President may be personally implicated in a scandal.

These are more than just the normal travails of a second-term president
fending off the slings and arrows of partisan attack. Bush's constant
battles at home and abroad are taking on historic proportions, hardening
perceptions that his administration is defined by failure on multiple
fronts.

Just over 16 months have passed since George W. Bush was elected for the
second term that eluded his father, but already historians and pundits are
beginning to debate whether he just might be the worst U.S. president in a
century.

In 2004, George Mason University polled 415 presidential historians and
found 80 per cent considered Bush's first term a failure. More than half
considered it the worst presidency since the Great Depression. More than a
third called it the worst in 100 years. Eleven per cent said it was the
worst ever. Robert McElvaine, a professor of history at Millsaps College
in Mississippi, says scores would likely be worse if the poll were
repeated today.

"When I filled out that survey I said Bush was the worst since Buchanan
[1857-61], but things have gotten worse and now I'd have to consider him
the worst ever," McElvaine says. "If you look at the situation he
inherited, and the situation following 9/11, he had great opportunities and
he basically squandered them. He has put the future of the country in a
much more precarious position than it was when he became president."

That Bush is unpopular, especially among academics, is not surprising in
itself. He has always been a polarizing figure, and most presidents have
been deeply unpopular at some point in office, especially those who
dedicated themselves to ambitious projects beyond America's borders. Even
Abraham Lincoln, now generally considered the greatest of all U.S.
presidents, was widely detested in his day for triggering the bloodbath of
the Civil War for no good reason.

In the final analysis, presidents are judged on a relatively narrow set of
criteria -- fiscal management, economic stewardship, handling change or
crisis at home, and the promotion of America's interests abroad. It all
boils down to two questions: how did he deal with the challenges of his
day? And were the American people better off at the end of his tenure than
they were at the start? No president can claim an unambiguously positive
record, but few have come up so short, on so many counts, as Bush has.
[....]

With just a few years left in his mandate, historians say George W. Bush
has no such achievements to offset the grievous cost of Iraq in blood and
treasure. Despite the biggest federal spending spree in more than a
generation, the Bush White House has produced no transformational vision
for domestic policy. His massive tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have neither
sparked the economy nor bolstered his popularity. They have, however,
exacerbated a fiscal crisis that threatens to undermine the very basis of
the American state.

"It used to be a part of the American character to believe in delaying
gratification, and saving for the future," McElvaine says. "But it seems
the future is being ignored in spectacular fashion by this administration."

Even a couple of years ago this would have sounded like a partisan
indictment. But today it is sounding more like the general consensus. The
latest backlash against Bush has nothing to do with his folksy demeanour,
his frequent malapropisms, or even the allegations that the Iraq invasion
was launched under false pretenses. Nor is it rooted solely among the
Democrats and urban intellectual elites that have always despised him.

Over the course of the past two years, a growing list of Bush allies has
broken faith with his leadership -- conservatives and libertarians like
Bruce Bartlett, Peggy Noonan and Newt Gingrich, and neo-con intellectuals
like Francis Fukuyama. Their complaints are based on numbers -- huge,
frightening numbers, that cast serious doubt on the notion that Bush will
ever be vindicated. [...]

When George W. Bush took office at the beginning of 2001, he inherited
from the Clinton administration a budget surplus of US$86.4 billion. He
had campaigned on a promise to use that money for an ambitious program of
tax cuts, which he put into action immediately upon arrival in the Oval
Office.

But Bush's conservative allies had expected those tax cuts to be followed
by an equally sweeping review of federal spending. That austerity never
came. On the contrary, he's gone on a mammoth spending spree.

Stephen Slivinski, director of budget studies at the Cato Institute:
"People thought over the long term he'd try to do some good and
Republicans could finally make good on their promises of getting spending
under control, but here we are in the second term and that has not
materialized," he says. "The dam has just broken."

The Bush administration has a standard answer for this critique. In a time
of war, they say, budget overruns are the inevitable cost of defending
freedom and democracy at home and abroad. But that no longer holds water
with Washington's budget hawks. They point out that federal spending has
risen by $683 billion a year under Bush, less than a third of which has
gone to national defence and homeland security.

As a result, the U.S. national debt has surged from $5.7 trillion in the
last fiscal year before Bush took office, to over $8.3 trillion and
counting. Brian Riedl, a budget analyst with the right-wing Heritage
Foundation, says the Bush administration has played the benevolent uncle
to every special interest that comes calling, using its spending power to
win support in potentially vulnerable constituencies.

The No Child Left Behind education bill, for example, was aimed at suburban
families; the farm bill at Midwest rural voters; and the prescription drug
benefit at the most active voting bloc of all, seniors. "No president since
FDR has accelerated spending as fast as Bush has," he groans. "I'm shocked
about it, but the numbers show what the numbers show."

In reality, the $8.3-trillion figure doesn't even begin to describe the
true size of America's fiscal crisis because it doesn't include the
so-called entitlement liabilities.

In Medicare and Social Security, the U.S. government is committed to
providing retirement benefits and medical care for senior citizens. But
thanks to an aging population (the first of about 78 million American baby
boomers turn 60 this year) and rising medical costs, those programs are
desperately underfunded.

At the end of 2004, government actuaries calculated that the two programs
had unfunded liabilities of $43 trillion, up from $20 trillion in 2000. In
other words, Washington would need an immediate cash infusion of $43
trillion in order to meet all its future obligations under Medicare and
Social Security.

The Economic Policy Institute recently projected that under the current
tax regime, by 2014 all government revenue would be consumed by four
budget items: Medicare, Social Security, national defence and interest on
the debt. Walker's department forecasts that, at the current rate of
growth, the cost of servicing the national debt will consume half of all
tax revenues within 25 years.

Bush does have his fiscal defenders, and they generally point out that the
national debt rose higher as a percentage of the economy under Reagan.
[....]

America's looming financial crunch would be less daunting if it seemed
like the economy was poised to take flight. But among economists there is
little hope for such a windfall. With 12.6 per cent growth in GDP and the
creation of 2.3 million jobs since 2001, President Bush frequently crows
about the world's "pre-eminent" economy. Beneath the surface, critics see
a situation far less healthy than it first appears.

Two million new jobs sounds like a lot, but it's the most anemic job
creation performance by any president in the postwar era. The gains have
also failed to keep pace with the growth of the workforce, and as a result
the overall employment rate under Bush has declined from 64.4 per cent to
62.9 per cent.

The manufacturing sector has been particularly hard hit, losing 2.9 million
jobs since Bush took office, a decline of roughly 17 per cent -- worse than
the postwar hangover under Truman, worse than the early '70s stagnation
under Nixon, and far worse than the darkest days of Reagan's Rust Belt
plant closures.

Little wonder that a Gallup poll earlier this year showed more than half of
Americans consider the economy only "fair" or "poor," and 52 per cent think
it's getting worse. [....]

So while CEOs and politicians can point selectively to indicators of a
robust economy, the story on Main Street doesn't look so rosy. Consumers
know much of their lifestyle has been financed on credit. Household
indebtedness has skyrocketed by 60 per cent to $4.5 trillion in the past
five years, and U.S. consumers now owe close to five times as much as they
did 20 years ago when adjusted for inflation. [....]

In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the election over Jimmy Carter by repeatedly
asking voters, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

In 2004, Bush wouldn't have dared ask such a question, and since then things
have deteriorated substantially. While not all of this can be blamed on
the President, the perception is now taking hold that America's vaunted
standard of living is under assault.

A decade of improvements in alleviating poverty have reversed in recent
years. While the economy has grown, the poverty rate has risen to 12.7 per
cent of the population, the highest level since 1998, representing five
million people who have fallen into poverty in five years.

Even economists who supported Bush's tax cuts see little hope that they
will form the bedrock of a future boom -- not with U.S. consumers so
deeply indebted, and with future administrations saddled with massive
funding liabilities that will, in all likelihood, force taxes back up
again in the near future. But those are long-term concerns, and America
has more immediate problems to face. [....]

"There is an old weakness in our foreign policy," Dallek says. "We make the
mistake of believing that inside every foreigner there is an American just
waiting to emerge. It's just not true. Woodrow Wilson made that mistake,
and George Bush is making it again. The whole notion that you can export
democracy at the point of a bayonet simply does not work."
[....]

Foreign policy is often a nightmare for U.S. presidents, since Americans
have a long history of preferring isolationism to foreign intervention.
John F. Kennedy suffered the humiliation of the Bay of Pigs fiasco; Carter
was embarrassed by the Iranian hostage crisis; and every president from
Truman to Reagan operated under the shadow of the Soviet menace. Bush
doesn't yet face a threat on the scale of the Cold War, but no president
has attracted such hostility on so many fronts, in so short a time.

More worrying are the signs that Bush's tendency toward unilateralism has
weakened ties to America's traditional allies, including Canada.

Perhaps the most dramatic example came in 2004, with Spain's election of a
new left-leaning government, which immediately bowed to public opinion and
pulled the country's 1,300 troops out of Iraq.

Hungary, Poland, Ukraine and the Netherlands began their own gradual
withdrawals last year. And last September, Italy -- which had the
fourth-largest contingent of troops on the ground in Iraq -- began a phased
pullout after an Italian agent was accidentally killed by U.S. troops and
the public turned strongly against the war.

The NATO deployment in Afghanistan has been more stable, but not without
controversy. It recently took six months of wrangling in the Dutch
parliament before the Netherlands finally authorized deployment of 1,400
troops to the region to relieve a withdrawing U.S. force.

Observers say these foreign controversies would be easily manageable, if
not for a steady stream of domestic missteps eroding confidence in the
administration.

The bungled relief effort following hurricane Katrina, Bush's aborted
attempt to appoint his close friend, the woefully underqualified Harriet
Miers, to the Supreme Court, and Scooter Libby's revelations about the
ongoing CIA leak affair, have all contributed to the President's slide.

Last month, Pew released its latest study of American attitudes, finding
that just one in three support Bush's leadership. Even among those who say
they voted for Bush in 2004, his support has fallen from 92 per cent at the
beginning of 2005 to 68 per cent.

Asked for a one-word description of the President, the most common response
was "incompetent," followed closely by "idiot" and "liar." A year ago, the
top response was "honest." [....]

For now, the pessimists outnumber the believers. And with every one of
Bush's former allies that turns away from his leadership, the margin grows
and the odds get longer.
TaxAmnesty
2006-04-15 05:36:13 UTC
Permalink
no
f***@gmail.com
2006-04-15 06:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Yes, Bush has allowed the brown-skinned Mexicans to predominate in what
othewise would have been a 'white' California!
Denz
2006-04-15 07:14:45 UTC
Permalink
no
what... worst in 200 years then ?
masfeliz06
2006-04-22 06:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Flooding the world with the currency of the economy that makes the
world what it is today is hardly a bad thing. Only those who have a
twisted view of America could see otherwise, especially following 911
and the attempt to throw the US currency out of the loop, which to your
dislike would have cast us all back 300 years in progress.

The tax cuts are another example of the US model proving that allowing
individuals and individual companies to set their own limits pumps more
progress and money into our systems than by taxing them, ultimately
providing more prosperity to those who need help.

This is what you socialists fail to comprehend, socialism taxes from
those you wish to help, capitalism, especially as it progresses in
human terms provides the vehicle those in need rely on.

Stalin's example of socialist economics provide the ultimate picture of
how it is an illogical idealism.

Bush's tax cuts, the US economic model, and its currency are what are
providing the historic levels of humanitarian aid and individual wealth
we are seeing today. They are facts. Anything else you say is nothing
but garbage.
Zigler
2006-04-15 16:29:55 UTC
Permalink
no
Correct.

Worst EVER.
masfeliz06
2006-04-22 06:17:45 UTC
Permalink
AS FOR GW BUSH'S HISTORIC PERFOMANCE ........

Bush's economic performance brought masses out of poverty, and improved
the wealth of Americans at record levels not seen since after world war
II.

Bush's liberation of almost 100 million once oppressed people is
historic.

Bush's humanitarian aid is the largest ever in history.

Bush's grant for alternate energy development is the largest in
history.

Al-Qaeda (a global economic threat) is being hunted and gradually
dismantled.

50 million people have been liberated in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Libya, long time terror state, surrendered its WMD program knowing the
US would no longer tolerate the insanity following 911.

Syria, long time terror state and supporter of world jihad against
anyone not a muslim is evacuating Lebanon, a center piece of the battle
between good and evil.

Democratic elections never before seen, actually giving people rights,
have taken place for the first time in history in Saudi Arabia.

Movements for freedom bubble in Egypt and within Syria.

The Orange Revolution has seen freedom for millions in the Ukraine shed
its light for the first time, in huge celebratory fashion.

This is hardly the time to be shalowly US or Bush bashing just because
commodities, stocks, and economics are poised to see some pull back
from historic high performance.


AS FOR HIS ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE ..........

US Oil supplies are near 8 year highs.

The war supposedly costing $150 million a day pales in comparison to
the half a trillion US dollar loss in US income directly related to
911, which is part of why a coalition is
cleaning up the middle east. We can't have many more shocks like that.
Nearly 70 percent of the job loss we have experienced occurred during
the 2001 recession and immediately after the attacks of September 11th.
In the three months after September 11th, the economy lost nearly one
million jobs. To act as if there is a job crisis due to current
management, or the rebound from such devastation has been slow when the
current unemployment rate is below the average rate of the 1970?s,
1980?s, and 1990?s is absurd. The destruction of physical assets from
the terror attack was estimated in the national accounts to amount to
$14 billion for private businesses, $1.5 billion for State and local
government enterprises and $0.7 billion for Federal government. Rescue,
cleanup and related costs have been estimated to amount to at least $11
billion. Lower Manhattan lost approximately 30 per cent of its office
space and scores of businesses disappeared. The implied projected
cumulative loss in national income through the end of 2003 amounted to
roughly half a trillion dollars.

US stocks have been on a historic run in every index in the last 8
years. The S&P running from 800 to 1302 since 2003 is quite a show.

Interest yields are still in historically low ranges despite the string
of hikes, so the economy is well cushioned to sustain fluctuation or
even shock. Moreso than at the turn of the century.

The US Dollar closed the year 2005 up 15% vs the Euro on its strongest
annual gain in 8 years on the back of continued rate increases. Prior
to that is was rebalancing downward from an overheated state prior to
2000 and it greatly helped the economy as the doom and gloomers were
screaming of a dollar crash. The currency moves in cycles dependant
largely on FED policy.

US stock dividends and stock buybacks began setting record highs in
2005 and have kept going.

The US has been on a tangent of record corporate earnings.

The core rate of consumer inflation stood at a 40 year low of 1.1% yoy
in Jan 2004. Recent core growth is the work of a stronger economy as
excesses are thinned. Broad structural forces -- globalization and
strong productivity -- provide offsetting pressures. The Fed more
closely watches core PCE prices as an inflation guide which stands at
just 1.8% yoy.

As of December of last year, US Productivity was growing at the fastest
rate in nearly 40 years. Over the past 30+months, America had created
more than 5 million new jobs, and the unemployment rate of 5.0 percent
was lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

The unemployment rate is now at a meagre 4.7%. The US is technically at
full employment.

Real disposable personal income increased by nearly $1,900 per capita
in 2005 alone in part to Bush's tax cuts that were widely scathed in
certain circles.

Tax receipts for the government are currently higher than at any time
during the 1990's despite the tax cuts, because of the booming economy.

US Net Foreign holdings data hit a record for US assets held by
foreigners in the final month of 2005. Net foreign capital inflows into
the United States increased to $86.9 billion in February 06, the
largest net purchases since November. U.S. capital inflows from central
banks slowed in March, but it was the first time in 19 months. Hardly a
big red flag. While foreigners own a great deal of US assets, it isn't
fashionable in certain circles to acknowledge the US is the worlds
largest holder of gold, and owns gigantic percentages of foreign assets
itself which could easily be called due.

The US is coming off of a string of economic records, some spanning 40
years. The 8% US GDP seen prior to this year was not a mirage. GDP has
seen strings of over a year at a time of more than 3%.

US personal wealth has increased at record levels in the last few
years.

US housing ownership has increased at record levels in recent years and
is still going following housing starts hitting 21 year high in 2/05,
and permits a 32 year high in 9/05.

US business ownership has increased at record levels in recent years.

The record US budget deficit is actually comically only just over 3% of
GDP in the end and a component of a vibrant economy. It is projected by
the US and other governments/organizations to fall to 1% in coming
years (as early as 2009 in some estimates). A surplus is fine, but in
the end it is a mirage if the money is not fueling free economics and
instead funding special interests, more government control of economic
rights/liberties, and higher tax programs. From one data analyst, "the
2004 deficit of $412 billion was a record in dollar terms, but prior
deficits in the mid-1980s and early 1990s were larger when measured
against the size of the economy. The new estimates reflect significant
improvement in revenues, which are so far coming in at levels 15
percent higher than last year." Though claimed that tax cuts would
"kill" the US economy, the relief has helped fuel small business and
large business alike, seen wealthy sources paying more capital gains
from record wealth creation, as well as allowed consumers the liberty
to put money to work. Tax receipts have grown far faster than forecast
despite the cuts because of this stimulation of activity. Federal tax
receipts (y/y) have now, in fact, surpassed any level of receipts seen
during 1994-2001, with lower taxes and drag on people and business.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
2006-04-15 06:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Macleans.ca - April 11, 2006
Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
There have been 43 of them in about 220 years.

He's already qualified to be considered one of the worst THREE, and there
is a favorable debate that would make him the worst of all time.

So it is nonsense to ask whether he's the worst in a century.

If he had stuck to the response to 11 September---the just attack on
Afghanistan----that might have balanced out his Mortgaging of the Future
Tax Cuts for the Filthy With Wealth program, where he has enslaved future
generations of Americans to pay for the party he had at their expense.

As far as the wars now and to be, Bush allowed himself to be manipulated
by the largely Jewish founders of the neo-conservative movement who, along
with pro-Israeli (or is that pro-Jewish?) Gentiles, want not just a secure
but a powerful state of Israel, alongside the United States. Israel will
be the secure and powerful state it wants and has a right to be, but not
through the subjugation and murder of Arabs and Muslims. It's first and
foremost effort toward security and power should be to form a tri-state
economic union with the Russian and Turkish republics, a north-south axis
which will compete with the anemic and chaotic European Union; this is
something I have been urging for years.

But I digress.

We all recognize and have said that the White House simian is not really
the master of his own fate. A book has already been out for some time the
goes on at length about the Cheney presidency. Everyone understood in the
2000 campaign that when Cheney announced that he would be Bush's running
mate, that this was a chaperone being picked by Poppy and Babs Bush to
make sure that Little George never got out of control or was never left
unsupervised. These facts alone would condemn this presidency to among
the ten or five worst category.

Bush still has another two years to bring even more horrors to the people
of the United States, horrors they have richly earned (you know, "people
get the government they deserve" yadda yadda). That is even assuming the
Democrats take back control of the Congress, for in their attempts to
"move forward," they will demonstrate that certain characteristic
spinelessness that some confuse with "making compromises" or "wanting to
reach across the aisle," and they will not hold Bush/Cheney accountable
for their crimes, both domestic and foreign. Thus Bush will finish out
his term.

Let's wait for the final chapter of Bush's control over the throne to be
written, and then we can all reflect properly whether he has indisputably
earned the dubious distinction of being the worst, instead of just one of
the worst three.
--
http://hume.realisticpolitics.com/


Estimate the worth of a man by how sincerely he greets you.
Arrive at the worth of a man by how he opens himself to you.
Know the worth of a man by how conscientiously he listens to you.
Verify the worth of a man by how warmly he takes his leave of you.
Nosmo King
2006-04-15 12:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
Post by Karen Gordon
Macleans.ca - April 11, 2006
Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
There have been 43 of them in about 220 years.
He's already qualified to be considered one of the worst THREE, and
there is a favorable debate that would make him the worst of all time.
So it is nonsense to ask whether he's the worst in a century.
If he had stuck to the response to 11 September---the just attack on
Afghanistan----that might have balanced out his Mortgaging of the
Future Tax Cuts for the Filthy With Wealth program, where he has
enslaved future generations of Americans to pay for the party he had
at their expense.
As far as the wars now and to be, Bush allowed himself to be
manipulated by the largely Jewish founders of the neo-conservative
movement who, along with pro-Israeli (or is that pro-Jewish?)
Gentiles, want not just a secure but a powerful state of Israel,
alongside the United States. Israel will be the secure and powerful
state it wants and has a right to be, but not through the subjugation
and murder of Arabs and Muslims. It's first and foremost effort
toward security and power should be to form a tri-state economic union
with the Russian and Turkish republics, a north-south axis which will
compete with the anemic and chaotic European Union; this is something
I have been urging for years.
But I digress.
We all recognize and have said that the White House simian is not
really the master of his own fate. A book has already been out for
some time the goes on at length about the Cheney presidency. Everyone
understood in the 2000 campaign that when Cheney announced that he
would be Bush's running mate, that this was a chaperone being picked
by Poppy and Babs Bush to make sure that Little George never got out
of control or was never left unsupervised. These facts alone would
condemn this presidency to among the ten or five worst category.
Bush still has another two years to bring even more horrors to the
people of the United States, horrors they have richly earned (you
know, "people get the government they deserve" yadda yadda). That is
even assuming the Democrats take back control of the Congress, for in
their attempts to "move forward," they will demonstrate that certain
characteristic spinelessness that some confuse with "making
compromises" or "wanting to reach across the aisle," and they will
not hold Bush/Cheney accountable for their crimes, both domestic and
foreign. Thus Bush will finish out his term.
Let's wait for the final chapter of Bush's control over the throne to
be written, and then we can all reflect properly whether he has
indisputably earned the dubious distinction of being the worst,
instead of just one of the worst three.
I would add that, to those who advocate impeachment, they then put in
power the very man who already wields it in the background. I say leave
Bush in place, as well as Rumsfield and Cheney. Rather than try to fix or
demolish an already crumbling edifice, let it collapse of it's own
accord. I think it would be better for the country in the long run to
serve as an example of poor choices. It would be better to rebuild on the
ruins than go through the rancorous debate of political vendettas.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
a***@primus.com.au
2006-04-15 07:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Macleans.ca - April 11, 2006
Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
He has always been a polarizing figure, but now his constant battles at
home and abroad are taking on historic proportions
On March 16, Iraqi insurgents fired a mortar shell into the U.S. army base
in Tikrit, landing near two members of the 101st Airborne Division,
reportedly as they stood waiting for a bus. The explosion killed Sgt.
Amanda Pinson of St. Louis, Mo., making her the 2,315th U.S. soldier
killed in Iraq since the war began three years ago. She was 21.
A few hours later in Washington, the U.S. Senate voted 52-48 to increase
the ceiling on the national debt, by $781 billion, to $9 trillion <===== !
(all figures US$) -- or roughly $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the
country -- thus avoiding the first-ever default on U.S. debt. The House of
Representatives then approved another $92 billion in federal spending to
support the war effort in the Middle East.
That night, Gallup wrapped up its latest opinion poll on Americans'
attitudes toward the White House, showing just 37 per cent approve of the
President's performance, versus 59 per cent who disapprove -- a drop of
five percentage points in a month -- one of the worst scores of any
president in the modern era.
Just another day in the life of the world's last superpower under the
leadership of President George W. Bush.
With deficits and debt swelling to epic levels, an economy showing massive
cracks, and support for America crumbling abroad, the Bush administration
finds itself increasingly isolated. With mid-term elections looming in
November, the President is now widely seen as a political liability.
Republicans are actively distancing themselves from Bush, and joining
Democrats in strident critiques of the White House. And things may be
getting worse.
Last week, court documents emerged showing Scooter Libby, former chief of
staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, testified that Bush authorized the
leak of sensitive intelligence to shore up support and discredit critics of
the Iraq war, raising, for the first time, the possibility that the
President may be personally implicated in a scandal.
I would disagree by saying he is probably the worst president ever.
America will be paying for his incompetence for a long time. Wouldn't
be surprised if he was impeached when the democrats takeover congress
in November.
Post by Karen Gordon
These are more than just the normal travails of a second-term president
fending off the slings and arrows of partisan attack. Bush's constant
battles at home and abroad are taking on historic proportions, hardening
perceptions that his administration is defined by failure on multiple
fronts.
Just over 16 months have passed since George W. Bush was elected for the
second term that eluded his father, but already historians and pundits are
beginning to debate whether he just might be the worst U.S. president in a
century.
In 2004, George Mason University polled 415 presidential historians and
found 80 per cent considered Bush's first term a failure. More than half
considered it the worst presidency since the Great Depression. More than a
third called it the worst in 100 years. Eleven per cent said it was the
worst ever. Robert McElvaine, a professor of history at Millsaps College
in Mississippi, says scores would likely be worse if the poll were
repeated today.
"When I filled out that survey I said Bush was the worst since Buchanan
[1857-61], but things have gotten worse and now I'd have to consider him
the worst ever," McElvaine says. "If you look at the situation he
inherited, and the situation following 9/11, he had great opportunities and
he basically squandered them. He has put the future of the country in a
much more precarious position than it was when he became president."
That Bush is unpopular, especially among academics, is not surprising in
itself. He has always been a polarizing figure, and most presidents have
been deeply unpopular at some point in office, especially those who
dedicated themselves to ambitious projects beyond America's borders. Even
Abraham Lincoln, now generally considered the greatest of all U.S.
presidents, was widely detested in his day for triggering the bloodbath of
the Civil War for no good reason.
In the final analysis, presidents are judged on a relatively narrow set of
criteria -- fiscal management, economic stewardship, handling change or
crisis at home, and the promotion of America's interests abroad. It all
boils down to two questions: how did he deal with the challenges of his
day? And were the American people better off at the end of his tenure than
they were at the start? No president can claim an unambiguously positive
record, but few have come up so short, on so many counts, as Bush has.
[....]
With just a few years left in his mandate, historians say George W. Bush
has no such achievements to offset the grievous cost of Iraq in blood and
treasure. Despite the biggest federal spending spree in more than a
generation, the Bush White House has produced no transformational vision
for domestic policy. His massive tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have neither
sparked the economy nor bolstered his popularity. They have, however,
exacerbated a fiscal crisis that threatens to undermine the very basis of
the American state.
"It used to be a part of the American character to believe in delaying
gratification, and saving for the future," McElvaine says. "But it seems
the future is being ignored in spectacular fashion by this administration."
Even a couple of years ago this would have sounded like a partisan
indictment. But today it is sounding more like the general consensus. The
latest backlash against Bush has nothing to do with his folksy demeanour,
his frequent malapropisms, or even the allegations that the Iraq invasion
was launched under false pretenses. Nor is it rooted solely among the
Democrats and urban intellectual elites that have always despised him.
Over the course of the past two years, a growing list of Bush allies has
broken faith with his leadership -- conservatives and libertarians like
Bruce Bartlett, Peggy Noonan and Newt Gingrich, and neo-con intellectuals
like Francis Fukuyama. Their complaints are based on numbers -- huge,
frightening numbers, that cast serious doubt on the notion that Bush will
ever be vindicated. [...]
When George W. Bush took office at the beginning of 2001, he inherited
from the Clinton administration a budget surplus of US$86.4 billion. He
had campaigned on a promise to use that money for an ambitious program of
tax cuts, which he put into action immediately upon arrival in the Oval
Office.
But Bush's conservative allies had expected those tax cuts to be followed
by an equally sweeping review of federal spending. That austerity never
came. On the contrary, he's gone on a mammoth spending spree.
"People thought over the long term he'd try to do some good and
Republicans could finally make good on their promises of getting spending
under control, but here we are in the second term and that has not
materialized," he says. "The dam has just broken."
The Bush administration has a standard answer for this critique. In a time
of war, they say, budget overruns are the inevitable cost of defending
freedom and democracy at home and abroad. But that no longer holds water
with Washington's budget hawks. They point out that federal spending has
risen by $683 billion a year under Bush, less than a third of which has
gone to national defence and homeland security.
As a result, the U.S. national debt has surged from $5.7 trillion in the
last fiscal year before Bush took office, to over $8.3 trillion and
counting. Brian Riedl, a budget analyst with the right-wing Heritage
Foundation, says the Bush administration has played the benevolent uncle
to every special interest that comes calling, using its spending power to
win support in potentially vulnerable constituencies.
The No Child Left Behind education bill, for example, was aimed at suburban
families; the farm bill at Midwest rural voters; and the prescription drug
benefit at the most active voting bloc of all, seniors. "No president since
FDR has accelerated spending as fast as Bush has," he groans. "I'm shocked
about it, but the numbers show what the numbers show."
In reality, the $8.3-trillion figure doesn't even begin to describe the
true size of America's fiscal crisis because it doesn't include the
so-called entitlement liabilities.
In Medicare and Social Security, the U.S. government is committed to
providing retirement benefits and medical care for senior citizens. But
thanks to an aging population (the first of about 78 million American baby
boomers turn 60 this year) and rising medical costs, those programs are
desperately underfunded.
At the end of 2004, government actuaries calculated that the two programs
had unfunded liabilities of $43 trillion, up from $20 trillion in 2000. In
other words, Washington would need an immediate cash infusion of $43
trillion in order to meet all its future obligations under Medicare and
Social Security.
The Economic Policy Institute recently projected that under the current
tax regime, by 2014 all government revenue would be consumed by four
budget items: Medicare, Social Security, national defence and interest on
the debt. Walker's department forecasts that, at the current rate of
growth, the cost of servicing the national debt will consume half of all
tax revenues within 25 years.
Bush does have his fiscal defenders, and they generally point out that the
national debt rose higher as a percentage of the economy under Reagan.
[....]
America's looming financial crunch would be less daunting if it seemed
like the economy was poised to take flight. But among economists there is
little hope for such a windfall. With 12.6 per cent growth in GDP and the
creation of 2.3 million jobs since 2001, President Bush frequently crows
about the world's "pre-eminent" economy. Beneath the surface, critics see
a situation far less healthy than it first appears.
Two million new jobs sounds like a lot, but it's the most anemic job
creation performance by any president in the postwar era. The gains have
also failed to keep pace with the growth of the workforce, and as a result
the overall employment rate under Bush has declined from 64.4 per cent to
62.9 per cent.
The manufacturing sector has been particularly hard hit, losing 2.9 million
jobs since Bush took office, a decline of roughly 17 per cent -- worse than
the postwar hangover under Truman, worse than the early '70s stagnation
under Nixon, and far worse than the darkest days of Reagan's Rust Belt
plant closures.
Little wonder that a Gallup poll earlier this year showed more than half of
Americans consider the economy only "fair" or "poor," and 52 per cent think
it's getting worse. [....]
So while CEOs and politicians can point selectively to indicators of a
robust economy, the story on Main Street doesn't look so rosy. Consumers
know much of their lifestyle has been financed on credit. Household
indebtedness has skyrocketed by 60 per cent to $4.5 trillion in the past
five years, and U.S. consumers now owe close to five times as much as they
did 20 years ago when adjusted for inflation. [....]
In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the election over Jimmy Carter by repeatedly
asking voters, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"
In 2004, Bush wouldn't have dared ask such a question, and since then things
have deteriorated substantially. While not all of this can be blamed on
the President, the perception is now taking hold that America's vaunted
standard of living is under assault.
A decade of improvements in alleviating poverty have reversed in recent
years. While the economy has grown, the poverty rate has risen to 12.7 per
cent of the population, the highest level since 1998, representing five
million people who have fallen into poverty in five years.
Even economists who supported Bush's tax cuts see little hope that they
will form the bedrock of a future boom -- not with U.S. consumers so
deeply indebted, and with future administrations saddled with massive
funding liabilities that will, in all likelihood, force taxes back up
again in the near future. But those are long-term concerns, and America
has more immediate problems to face. [....]
"There is an old weakness in our foreign policy," Dallek says. "We make the
mistake of believing that inside every foreigner there is an American just
waiting to emerge. It's just not true. Woodrow Wilson made that mistake,
and George Bush is making it again. The whole notion that you can export
democracy at the point of a bayonet simply does not work."
[....]
Foreign policy is often a nightmare for U.S. presidents, since Americans
have a long history of preferring isolationism to foreign intervention.
John F. Kennedy suffered the humiliation of the Bay of Pigs fiasco; Carter
was embarrassed by the Iranian hostage crisis; and every president from
Truman to Reagan operated under the shadow of the Soviet menace. Bush
doesn't yet face a threat on the scale of the Cold War, but no president
has attracted such hostility on so many fronts, in so short a time.
More worrying are the signs that Bush's tendency toward unilateralism has
weakened ties to America's traditional allies, including Canada.
Perhaps the most dramatic example came in 2004, with Spain's election of a
new left-leaning government, which immediately bowed to public opinion and
pulled the country's 1,300 troops out of Iraq.
Hungary, Poland, Ukraine and the Netherlands began their own gradual
withdrawals last year. And last September, Italy -- which had the
fourth-largest contingent of troops on the ground in Iraq -- began a phased
pullout after an Italian agent was accidentally killed by U.S. troops and
the public turned strongly against the war.
The NATO deployment in Afghanistan has been more stable, but not without
controversy. It recently took six months of wrangling in the Dutch
parliament before the Netherlands finally authorized deployment of 1,400
troops to the region to relieve a withdrawing U.S. force.
Observers say these foreign controversies would be easily manageable, if
not for a steady stream of domestic missteps eroding confidence in the
administration.
The bungled relief effort following hurricane Katrina, Bush's aborted
attempt to appoint his close friend, the woefully underqualified Harriet
Miers, to the Supreme Court, and Scooter Libby's revelations about the
ongoing CIA leak affair, have all contributed to the President's slide.
Last month, Pew released its latest study of American attitudes, finding
that just one in three support Bush's leadership. Even among those who say
they voted for Bush in 2004, his support has fallen from 92 per cent at the
beginning of 2005 to 68 per cent.
Asked for a one-word description of the President, the most common response
was "incompetent," followed closely by "idiot" and "liar." A year ago, the
top response was "honest." [....]
For now, the pessimists outnumber the believers. And with every one of
Bush's former allies that turns away from his leadership, the margin grows
and the odds get longer.
Noons
2006-04-15 07:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
That is so obvious I'm surprised the question only shows
up now. The REALLY scary part is that this blithering,
bumbling idiot got elected TWICE and a large number of
citizens voted him in!
Winston Smith, American Patriot
2006-04-15 07:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noons
Post by Karen Gordon
Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
That is so obvious I'm surprised the question only shows
up now. The REALLY scary part is that this blithering,
bumbling idiot got elected TWICE and a large number of
citizens voted him in!
So it really says more about the moron membership of the Red State Nation
that it does about Bush, doesn't it?

And I agree.


America can never have enough residents of filthy, rusting single wides who
are not experts at super-sizing. Truly.
--
http://hume.realisticpolitics.com/


Estimate the worth of a man by how sincerely he greets you.
Arrive at the worth of a man by how he opens himself to you.
Know the worth of a man by how conscientiously he listens to you.
Verify the worth of a man by how warmly he takes his leave of you.
2006-04-15 09:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Macleans.ca - April 11, 2006
Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
He has always been a polarizing figure, but now his constant battles at
home and abroad are taking on historic proportions
What's really amazing, and you somehow forgot to mention, is that knowing
everything we know he was by far been the best candidate in the last two
presidential elections. You can't blame the American people. In both
elections they chose the lesser of two evils.
Post by Karen Gordon
On March 16, Iraqi insurgents fired a mortar shell into the U.S. army base
in Tikrit, landing near two members of the 101st Airborne Division,
reportedly as they stood waiting for a bus. The explosion killed Sgt.
Amanda Pinson of St. Louis, Mo., making her the 2,315th U.S. soldier
killed in Iraq since the war began three years ago. She was 21.
A few hours later in Washington, the U.S. Senate voted 52-48 to increase
the ceiling on the national debt, by $781 billion, to $9 trillion <===== !
(all figures US$) -- or roughly $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the
country -- thus avoiding the first-ever default on U.S. debt. The House of
Representatives then approved another $92 billion in federal spending to
support the war effort in the Middle East.
That night, Gallup wrapped up its latest opinion poll on Americans'
attitudes toward the White House, showing just 37 per cent approve of the
President's performance, versus 59 per cent who disapprove -- a drop of
five percentage points in a month -- one of the worst scores of any
president in the modern era.
Just another day in the life of the world's last superpower under the
leadership of President George W. Bush.
With deficits and debt swelling to epic levels, an economy showing massive
cracks, and support for America crumbling abroad, the Bush administration
finds itself increasingly isolated. With mid-term elections looming in
November, the President is now widely seen as a political liability.
Republicans are actively distancing themselves from Bush, and joining
Democrats in strident critiques of the White House. And things may be
getting worse.
Last week, court documents emerged showing Scooter Libby, former chief of
staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, testified that Bush authorized the
leak of sensitive intelligence to shore up support and discredit critics of
the Iraq war, raising, for the first time, the possibility that the
President may be personally implicated in a scandal.
These are more than just the normal travails of a second-term president
fending off the slings and arrows of partisan attack. Bush's constant
battles at home and abroad are taking on historic proportions, hardening
perceptions that his administration is defined by failure on multiple
fronts.
Just over 16 months have passed since George W. Bush was elected for the
second term that eluded his father, but already historians and pundits are
beginning to debate whether he just might be the worst U.S. president in a
century.
In 2004, George Mason University polled 415 presidential historians and
found 80 per cent considered Bush's first term a failure. More than half
considered it the worst presidency since the Great Depression. More than a
third called it the worst in 100 years. Eleven per cent said it was the
worst ever. Robert McElvaine, a professor of history at Millsaps College
in Mississippi, says scores would likely be worse if the poll were
repeated today.
"When I filled out that survey I said Bush was the worst since Buchanan
[1857-61], but things have gotten worse and now I'd have to consider him
the worst ever," McElvaine says. "If you look at the situation he
inherited, and the situation following 9/11, he had great opportunities and
he basically squandered them. He has put the future of the country in a
much more precarious position than it was when he became president."
That Bush is unpopular, especially among academics, is not surprising in
itself. He has always been a polarizing figure, and most presidents have
been deeply unpopular at some point in office, especially those who
dedicated themselves to ambitious projects beyond America's borders. Even
Abraham Lincoln, now generally considered the greatest of all U.S.
presidents, was widely detested in his day for triggering the bloodbath of
the Civil War for no good reason.
In the final analysis, presidents are judged on a relatively narrow set of
criteria -- fiscal management, economic stewardship, handling change or
crisis at home, and the promotion of America's interests abroad. It all
boils down to two questions: how did he deal with the challenges of his
day? And were the American people better off at the end of his tenure than
they were at the start? No president can claim an unambiguously positive
record, but few have come up so short, on so many counts, as Bush has.
[....]
With just a few years left in his mandate, historians say George W. Bush
has no such achievements to offset the grievous cost of Iraq in blood and
treasure. Despite the biggest federal spending spree in more than a
generation, the Bush White House has produced no transformational vision
for domestic policy. His massive tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have neither
sparked the economy nor bolstered his popularity. They have, however,
exacerbated a fiscal crisis that threatens to undermine the very basis of
the American state.
"It used to be a part of the American character to believe in delaying
gratification, and saving for the future," McElvaine says. "But it seems
the future is being ignored in spectacular fashion by this
administration."
Even a couple of years ago this would have sounded like a partisan
indictment. But today it is sounding more like the general consensus. The
latest backlash against Bush has nothing to do with his folksy demeanour,
his frequent malapropisms, or even the allegations that the Iraq invasion
was launched under false pretenses. Nor is it rooted solely among the
Democrats and urban intellectual elites that have always despised him.
Over the course of the past two years, a growing list of Bush allies has
broken faith with his leadership -- conservatives and libertarians like
Bruce Bartlett, Peggy Noonan and Newt Gingrich, and neo-con intellectuals
like Francis Fukuyama. Their complaints are based on numbers -- huge,
frightening numbers, that cast serious doubt on the notion that Bush will
ever be vindicated. [...]
When George W. Bush took office at the beginning of 2001, he inherited
from the Clinton administration a budget surplus of US$86.4 billion. He
had campaigned on a promise to use that money for an ambitious program of
tax cuts, which he put into action immediately upon arrival in the Oval
Office.
But Bush's conservative allies had expected those tax cuts to be followed
by an equally sweeping review of federal spending. That austerity never
came. On the contrary, he's gone on a mammoth spending spree.
"People thought over the long term he'd try to do some good and
Republicans could finally make good on their promises of getting spending
under control, but here we are in the second term and that has not
materialized," he says. "The dam has just broken."
The Bush administration has a standard answer for this critique. In a time
of war, they say, budget overruns are the inevitable cost of defending
freedom and democracy at home and abroad. But that no longer holds water
with Washington's budget hawks. They point out that federal spending has
risen by $683 billion a year under Bush, less than a third of which has
gone to national defence and homeland security.
As a result, the U.S. national debt has surged from $5.7 trillion in the
last fiscal year before Bush took office, to over $8.3 trillion and
counting. Brian Riedl, a budget analyst with the right-wing Heritage
Foundation, says the Bush administration has played the benevolent uncle
to every special interest that comes calling, using its spending power to
win support in potentially vulnerable constituencies.
The No Child Left Behind education bill, for example, was aimed at suburban
families; the farm bill at Midwest rural voters; and the prescription drug
benefit at the most active voting bloc of all, seniors. "No president since
FDR has accelerated spending as fast as Bush has," he groans. "I'm shocked
about it, but the numbers show what the numbers show."
In reality, the $8.3-trillion figure doesn't even begin to describe the
true size of America's fiscal crisis because it doesn't include the
so-called entitlement liabilities.
In Medicare and Social Security, the U.S. government is committed to
providing retirement benefits and medical care for senior citizens. But
thanks to an aging population (the first of about 78 million American baby
boomers turn 60 this year) and rising medical costs, those programs are
desperately underfunded.
At the end of 2004, government actuaries calculated that the two programs
had unfunded liabilities of $43 trillion, up from $20 trillion in 2000. In
other words, Washington would need an immediate cash infusion of $43
trillion in order to meet all its future obligations under Medicare and
Social Security.
The Economic Policy Institute recently projected that under the current
tax regime, by 2014 all government revenue would be consumed by four
budget items: Medicare, Social Security, national defence and interest on
the debt. Walker's department forecasts that, at the current rate of
growth, the cost of servicing the national debt will consume half of all
tax revenues within 25 years.
Bush does have his fiscal defenders, and they generally point out that the
national debt rose higher as a percentage of the economy under Reagan.
[....]
America's looming financial crunch would be less daunting if it seemed
like the economy was poised to take flight. But among economists there is
little hope for such a windfall. With 12.6 per cent growth in GDP and the
creation of 2.3 million jobs since 2001, President Bush frequently crows
about the world's "pre-eminent" economy. Beneath the surface, critics see
a situation far less healthy than it first appears.
Two million new jobs sounds like a lot, but it's the most anemic job
creation performance by any president in the postwar era. The gains have
also failed to keep pace with the growth of the workforce, and as a result
the overall employment rate under Bush has declined from 64.4 per cent to
62.9 per cent.
The manufacturing sector has been particularly hard hit, losing 2.9 million
jobs since Bush took office, a decline of roughly 17 per cent -- worse than
the postwar hangover under Truman, worse than the early '70s stagnation
under Nixon, and far worse than the darkest days of Reagan's Rust Belt
plant closures.
Little wonder that a Gallup poll earlier this year showed more than half of
Americans consider the economy only "fair" or "poor," and 52 per cent think
it's getting worse. [....]
So while CEOs and politicians can point selectively to indicators of a
robust economy, the story on Main Street doesn't look so rosy. Consumers
know much of their lifestyle has been financed on credit. Household
indebtedness has skyrocketed by 60 per cent to $4.5 trillion in the past
five years, and U.S. consumers now owe close to five times as much as they
did 20 years ago when adjusted for inflation. [....]
In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the election over Jimmy Carter by repeatedly
asking voters, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"
In 2004, Bush wouldn't have dared ask such a question, and since then things
have deteriorated substantially. While not all of this can be blamed on
the President, the perception is now taking hold that America's vaunted
standard of living is under assault.
A decade of improvements in alleviating poverty have reversed in recent
years. While the economy has grown, the poverty rate has risen to 12.7 per
cent of the population, the highest level since 1998, representing five
million people who have fallen into poverty in five years.
Even economists who supported Bush's tax cuts see little hope that they
will form the bedrock of a future boom -- not with U.S. consumers so
deeply indebted, and with future administrations saddled with massive
funding liabilities that will, in all likelihood, force taxes back up
again in the near future. But those are long-term concerns, and America
has more immediate problems to face. [....]
"There is an old weakness in our foreign policy," Dallek says. "We make the
mistake of believing that inside every foreigner there is an American just
waiting to emerge. It's just not true. Woodrow Wilson made that mistake,
and George Bush is making it again. The whole notion that you can export
democracy at the point of a bayonet simply does not work."
[....]
Foreign policy is often a nightmare for U.S. presidents, since Americans
have a long history of preferring isolationism to foreign intervention.
John F. Kennedy suffered the humiliation of the Bay of Pigs fiasco; Carter
was embarrassed by the Iranian hostage crisis; and every president from
Truman to Reagan operated under the shadow of the Soviet menace. Bush
doesn't yet face a threat on the scale of the Cold War, but no president
has attracted such hostility on so many fronts, in so short a time.
More worrying are the signs that Bush's tendency toward unilateralism has
weakened ties to America's traditional allies, including Canada.
Perhaps the most dramatic example came in 2004, with Spain's election of a
new left-leaning government, which immediately bowed to public opinion and
pulled the country's 1,300 troops out of Iraq.
Hungary, Poland, Ukraine and the Netherlands began their own gradual
withdrawals last year. And last September, Italy -- which had the
fourth-largest contingent of troops on the ground in Iraq -- began a phased
pullout after an Italian agent was accidentally killed by U.S. troops and
the public turned strongly against the war.
The NATO deployment in Afghanistan has been more stable, but not without
controversy. It recently took six months of wrangling in the Dutch
parliament before the Netherlands finally authorized deployment of 1,400
troops to the region to relieve a withdrawing U.S. force.
Observers say these foreign controversies would be easily manageable, if
not for a steady stream of domestic missteps eroding confidence in the
administration.
The bungled relief effort following hurricane Katrina, Bush's aborted
attempt to appoint his close friend, the woefully underqualified Harriet
Miers, to the Supreme Court, and Scooter Libby's revelations about the
ongoing CIA leak affair, have all contributed to the President's slide.
Last month, Pew released its latest study of American attitudes, finding
that just one in three support Bush's leadership. Even among those who say
they voted for Bush in 2004, his support has fallen from 92 per cent at the
beginning of 2005 to 68 per cent.
Asked for a one-word description of the President, the most common response
was "incompetent," followed closely by "idiot" and "liar." A year ago, the
top response was "honest." [....]
For now, the pessimists outnumber the believers. And with every one of
Bush's former allies that turns away from his leadership, the margin grows
and the odds get longer.
Tartarus Sanctus
2006-04-15 15:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by
Post by Karen Gordon
Macleans.ca - April 11, 2006
Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
He has always been a polarizing figure, but now his constant battles at
home and abroad are taking on historic proportions
What's really amazing, and you somehow forgot to mention, is that knowing
everything we know he was by far been the best candidate in the last two
presidential elections. You can't blame the American people. In both
elections they chose the lesser of two evils.
By far? I don't think so. Why do you think Gore, for instance, was so
ill qualified?
--
Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus
Iskandar Baharuddin
2006-04-29 23:27:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 09:10:55 -0600, Tartarus Sanctus
Post by Tartarus Sanctus
Post by
Post by Karen Gordon
Macleans.ca - April 11, 2006
Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
He has always been a polarizing figure, but now his constant battles at
home and abroad are taking on historic proportions
What's really amazing, and you somehow forgot to mention, is that knowing
everything we know he was by far been the best candidate in the last two
presidential elections. You can't blame the American people. In both
elections they chose the lesser of two evils.
By far? I don't think so. Why do you think Gore, for instance, was so
ill qualified?
Maybe you should direct your question to the voters of Tennessee.

If Gore had managed to inch ahead of Bush he would have been, IIRC,
the first person ever elected President without carrying his home
state.

To paraphrase an old WV joke (about incest):

"If he ain't good enuff fer his own folks, he sure ain't good enuff
fer us'ns."
--
Shalom & Salam

Izzy
f***@gmail.com
2006-04-16 07:48:16 UTC
Permalink
g wrote:" In both elections they chose the lesser of two evils. "

I agree with you. Some Canadians believe they can tell the Americans
what to do and that they know something which the Americans don't. The
Canadians who believe they are amarter than the Americans in terms of
who to elect are usually very STUPID!
Peter Wright
2006-04-16 07:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
g wrote:" In both elections they chose the lesser of two evils. "
I agree with you. Some Canadians believe they can tell the Americans
what to do and that they know something which the Americans don't. The
Canadians who believe they are amarter than the Americans in terms of
who to elect are usually very STUPID!
You live in a country that doesn't elect it's leader.

Fuck off. You have nothing to say here.
--
Dr. Zaius
2006-04-16 07:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Wright
Post by f***@gmail.com
g wrote:" In both elections they chose the lesser of two evils. "
I agree with you. Some Canadians believe they can tell the Americans
what to do and that they know something which the Americans don't. The
Canadians who believe they are amarter than the Americans in terms of
who to elect are usually very STUPID!
You live in a country that doesn't elect it's leader.
Fuck off. You have nothing to say here.
You're right!


fyfpoon's ISP;
IP: 219.133.242.11
Country: China
City: Guangdong, Guangdong


Eat shit, asshole. When you can elect a leader. Let us know.
f***@gmail.com
2006-04-16 09:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Dr.Zaius,

I am a Canadian, albeit I can afford, like many Canadians, to travel
everywhere and don't live in Canada all the time. I am advising you
that I can elect a leader.

That someone does not live in a country that elects its leader does not

mean he has to move to live in a country that does in order to express
an opinion. By the same token, that you are stupid does not mean you
have to become smart in order to express an opinion. As a matter of
fact, you have just expressed a stupid opinion.

Now, get fuck yourself.
Constable Bob
2006-04-16 22:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
Now, get fuck yourself.
LOL! Sounds like we have another angry little Chinaman Coolie on our hands.

Go fuck yourself Hop Sing. No one cares if you live or die. Stupid Chinese
Commie.














*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Eric®
2006-04-18 20:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
Dr.Zaius,
I am a Canadian, albeit I can afford, like many Canadians, to travel
everywhere and don't live in Canada all the time. I am advising you
that I can elect a leader.
You're not Canadian. Except for studying in North America for a while
you've lived in Communist China. You aren't 'travelling'. You live
there. And for at least ten years you've been a mouthpiece for the
Communist Chinese party line.
Post by f***@gmail.com
That someone does not live in a country that elects its leader does not
mean he has to move to live in a country that does in order to express
an opinion. By the same token, that you are stupid does not mean you
have to become smart in order to express an opinion. As a matter of
fact, you have just expressed a stupid opinion.
Now, get fuck yourself.
<LOL!>


Eric
_____
Those Jesus Freaks
Well, they're friendly but
The shit they believe
Has got their minds all shut
An' they don't even care
When the church takes a cut
Ain't it bleak when you got so much nothin'
-- Frank Zappa, "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing"
f***@gmail.com
2006-04-23 14:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Eric,

You're a Canadian but a drunk and a welfare recipient. Except for
collecting welfare and molesting kids in Canada, you have done nothing
useful in your life. You are jealous of people who could afford
travelling while drinking yourself to death. You live in Canada and
for at least ten years you've been a mouthpiece of the socialist
welfare state.
f***@gmail.com
2006-04-16 09:46:48 UTC
Permalink
Peter Wright, fuck you!

That someone does not live in a country that elects its leader does not
mean he has to move to live in a country that does in order to express
an opinion. By the same token, that you are stupid does not mean you
have to become smart in order to express an opinion. As a matter of
fact, you have just expressed a stupid opinion.
masfeliz06
2006-04-16 21:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
Peter Wright, fuck you!
That someone does not live in a country that elects its leader does not
mean he has to move to live in a country that does in order to express
an opinion. By the same token, that you are stupid does not mean you
have to become smart in order to express an opinion. As a matter of
Bush's economic performance brought masses out of poverty, and improved
the wealth of Americans at record levels not seen since after world war
II.

Bush's liberation of almost 100 million once oppressed people is
historic.

Bush's humanitarian aid is the largest ever in history.

Bush's grant for alternate energy development is the largest in
history.

Al-Qaeda is being hunted and gradually dismantled.

50 million people have been liberated in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Libya, long time terror state, surrendered its WMD program knowing the
US would no longer tolerate the insanity following 911.

Syria, long time terror state and supporter of world jihad against
anyone not a muslim is evacuating Lebanon, a center piece of the battle
between good and evil.

Democratic elections never before seen, actually giving people rights,
have taken place for the first time in history in Saudi Arabia.

Movements for freedom bubble in Egypt and within Syria.

The Orange Revolution has seen freedom for millions in the Ukraine shed
its light for the first time, in huge celebratory fashion.

The nuclear programs of terror states Iran and North Korea are
cracking.
Baron
2006-04-16 21:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by masfeliz06
Bush's economic performance brought masses out of poverty, and improved
the wealth of Americans at record levels not seen since after world war
II.
American poverty rates are higher now than ever, so is personal debt while job
quality is at an all time low.

The rest of your bull shit has been deleted because you're a complete idiot who
has nothing to say but lies.
f***@hotmail.com
2006-04-16 21:56:36 UTC
Permalink
masfeliz06 is obviously another right wing loon living in a fantasy land.

It must be terrible having such blind adoring loyalty to one of the worst
presidents the USA has ever seen. Bush has buggered the economy, the debt is
soaring and most good jobs are being lost to outsourcing. His invasion of Iraq
has been responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 innocent people and his
invasion of Afghanistan has opened the heroin trade up and it's never been
cheaper or more plentiful to buy.


You're probably one of those Rush Limbaugh / Bill O'Reilly / Sean Hannity
loving Bush apologists who has no education and typically, an IQ less than
average. You fringe loons are a laughing stock. Prepare to go down with the
ship, it's sinking fast. The Repugs will be out in the midterm elections
because of Bush and all you can to is laud him with false praise.
f***@gmail.com
2006-04-23 14:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Fucking coward, why did you deflect the replies to your silly comments
to the following ngs?

aus.computers,aus.food,aus.invest,aus.legal,aus.motorcycles,aus.music

Trash, fucking trash!

==============================
Post by f***@hotmail.com
masfeliz06 is obviously another right wing loon living in a fantasy land.
It must be terrible having such blind adoring loyalty to one of the worst
presidents the USA has ever seen. Bush has buggered the economy, the debt is
soaring and most good jobs are being lost to outsourcing. His invasion of Iraq
has been responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 innocent people and his
invasion of Afghanistan has opened the heroin trade up and it's never been
cheaper or more plentiful to buy.
You're probably one of those Rush Limbaugh / Bill O'Reilly / Sean Hannity
loving Bush apologists who has no education and typically, an IQ less than
average. You fringe loons are a laughing stock. Prepare to go down with the
ship, it's sinking fast. The Repugs will be out in the midterm elections
because of Bush and all you can to is laud him with false praise.
Drennan
2006-04-16 22:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Bush is our savior. The second coming of the Messiah.
Without him we would be defenceless against the terrorists who want to kill us
all.

Bush's economic brilliance has virtually eliminated poverty and crime in the
USA, turning it into a lush, green prosperous paradise where everyone lives in
perpetual harmony.

They say that eating Bush's excrement will make you immortal.
Post by masfeliz06
Bush's economic performance brought masses out of poverty, and improved
the wealth of Americans at record levels not seen since after world war
II.
Bush's liberation of almost 100 million once oppressed people is
historic.
Bush's humanitarian aid is the largest ever in history.
Bush's grant for alternate energy development is the largest in
history.
Al-Qaeda is being hunted and gradually dismantled.
50 million people have been liberated in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Libya, long time terror state, surrendered its WMD program knowing the
US would no longer tolerate the insanity following 911.
Syria, long time terror state and supporter of world jihad against
anyone not a muslim is evacuating Lebanon, a center piece of the battle
between good and evil.
Democratic elections never before seen, actually giving people rights,
have taken place for the first time in history in Saudi Arabia.
Movements for freedom bubble in Egypt and within Syria.
The Orange Revolution has seen freedom for millions in the Ukraine shed
its light for the first time, in huge celebratory fashion.
The nuclear programs of terror states Iran and North Korea are
cracking.
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Secular Human
2006-04-17 03:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by masfeliz06
Post by f***@gmail.com
Peter Wright, fuck you!
That someone does not live in a country that elects its leader does not
mean he has to move to live in a country that does in order to express
an opinion. By the same token, that you are stupid does not mean you
have to become smart in order to express an opinion. As a matter of
Bush's economic performance brought masses out of poverty, and improved
the wealth of Americans at record levels not seen since after world war
II.
Bush's liberation of almost 100 million once oppressed people is
historic.
Bush's humanitarian aid is the largest ever in history.
Bush's grant for alternate energy development is the largest in
history.
Al-Qaeda is being hunted and gradually dismantled.
50 million people have been liberated in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Libya, long time terror state, surrendered its WMD program knowing the
US would no longer tolerate the insanity following 911.
Syria, long time terror state and supporter of world jihad against
anyone not a muslim is evacuating Lebanon, a center piece of the battle
between good and evil.
Democratic elections never before seen, actually giving people rights,
have taken place for the first time in history in Saudi Arabia.
Movements for freedom bubble in Egypt and within Syria.
The Orange Revolution has seen freedom for millions in the Ukraine shed
its light for the first time, in huge celebratory fashion.
The nuclear programs of terror states Iran and North Korea are
cracking.
Most of the items you list are exaggerations and have little to do with
Bush. Poverty has increased while bush has been in office by four per
cent. I agree with your comments on wealthy Americans. Bush did a great
job of providing huge tax subsidies to this group. Al Qaeda is alive and
well. Osama Bin Laden is still alive. Libya efforts to disarm were
handled by the UK, not the US. The Syrians can reoccupy Lebanon whenever
they want. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are hardly democratic countries. The
developments in the Ukraine have noting to do with Bush. The new
Ukrainain government is not stable. Belarus is led by a communist dictator.

The North Koreans have not backed up from their nuclear aspirations.
Neither has Iran. Who are you trying to kid?
Constable Bob
2006-04-16 22:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
Peter Wright, fuck you!
LOL! Sounds like we have another angry little Chinaman Coolie on our hands.

Go fuck yourself Hop Sing. No one cares if you live or die. Stupid Chinese
Commie.




















*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
c***@cs.uwaterloo.ca
2006-04-18 20:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by
Post by Karen Gordon
Macleans.ca - April 11, 2006
Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
He has always been a polarizing figure, but now his constant battles at
home and abroad are taking on historic proportions
What's really amazing, and you somehow forgot to mention, is that knowing
everything we know he was by far been the best candidate in the last two
presidential elections. You can't blame the American people. In both
elections they chose the lesser of two evils.
I doubt if Al Gore would have used 9/11 as a tragic ruse to start the
Iraq War (and subsequent quagmire).
Post by
Post by Karen Gordon
On March 16, Iraqi insurgents fired a mortar shell into the U.S. army base
in Tikrit, landing near two members of the 101st Airborne Division,
reportedly as they stood waiting for a bus. The explosion killed Sgt.
Amanda Pinson of St. Louis, Mo., making her the 2,315th U.S. soldier
killed in Iraq since the war began three years ago. She was 21.
A few hours later in Washington, the U.S. Senate voted 52-48 to increase
the ceiling on the national debt, by $781 billion, to $9 trillion <=====
!
(all figures US$) -- or roughly $30,000 for every man, woman and child in
the
country -- thus avoiding the first-ever default on U.S. debt. The House of
Representatives then approved another $92 billion in federal spending to
support the war effort in the Middle East.
That night, Gallup wrapped up its latest opinion poll on Americans'
attitudes toward the White House, showing just 37 per cent approve of the
President's performance, versus 59 per cent who disapprove -- a drop of
five percentage points in a month -- one of the worst scores of any
president in the modern era.
Just another day in the life of the world's last superpower under the
leadership of President George W. Bush.
With deficits and debt swelling to epic levels, an economy showing massive
cracks, and support for America crumbling abroad, the Bush administration
finds itself increasingly isolated. With mid-term elections looming in
November, the President is now widely seen as a political liability.
Republicans are actively distancing themselves from Bush, and joining
Democrats in strident critiques of the White House. And things may be
getting worse.
Last week, court documents emerged showing Scooter Libby, former chief of
staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, testified that Bush authorized the
leak of sensitive intelligence to shore up support and discredit critics
of
the Iraq war, raising, for the first time, the possibility that the
President may be personally implicated in a scandal.
These are more than just the normal travails of a second-term president
fending off the slings and arrows of partisan attack. Bush's constant
battles at home and abroad are taking on historic proportions, hardening
perceptions that his administration is defined by failure on multiple
fronts.
Just over 16 months have passed since George W. Bush was elected for the
second term that eluded his father, but already historians and pundits are
beginning to debate whether he just might be the worst U.S. president in a
century.
In 2004, George Mason University polled 415 presidential historians and
found 80 per cent considered Bush's first term a failure. More than half
considered it the worst presidency since the Great Depression. More than a
third called it the worst in 100 years. Eleven per cent said it was the
worst ever. Robert McElvaine, a professor of history at Millsaps College
in Mississippi, says scores would likely be worse if the poll were
repeated today.
"When I filled out that survey I said Bush was the worst since Buchanan
[1857-61], but things have gotten worse and now I'd have to consider him
the worst ever," McElvaine says. "If you look at the situation he
inherited, and the situation following 9/11, he had great opportunities
and
he basically squandered them. He has put the future of the country in a
much more precarious position than it was when he became president."
That Bush is unpopular, especially among academics, is not surprising in
itself. He has always been a polarizing figure, and most presidents have
been deeply unpopular at some point in office, especially those who
dedicated themselves to ambitious projects beyond America's borders. Even
Abraham Lincoln, now generally considered the greatest of all U.S.
presidents, was widely detested in his day for triggering the bloodbath of
the Civil War for no good reason.
In the final analysis, presidents are judged on a relatively narrow set of
criteria -- fiscal management, economic stewardship, handling change or
crisis at home, and the promotion of America's interests abroad. It all
boils down to two questions: how did he deal with the challenges of his
day? And were the American people better off at the end of his tenure than
they were at the start? No president can claim an unambiguously positive
record, but few have come up so short, on so many counts, as Bush has.
[....]
With just a few years left in his mandate, historians say George W. Bush
has no such achievements to offset the grievous cost of Iraq in blood and
treasure. Despite the biggest federal spending spree in more than a
generation, the Bush White House has produced no transformational vision
for domestic policy. His massive tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have neither
sparked the economy nor bolstered his popularity. They have, however,
exacerbated a fiscal crisis that threatens to undermine the very basis of
the American state.
"It used to be a part of the American character to believe in delaying
gratification, and saving for the future," McElvaine says. "But it seems
the future is being ignored in spectacular fashion by this
administration."
Even a couple of years ago this would have sounded like a partisan
indictment. But today it is sounding more like the general consensus. The
latest backlash against Bush has nothing to do with his folksy demeanour,
his frequent malapropisms, or even the allegations that the Iraq invasion
was launched under false pretenses. Nor is it rooted solely among the
Democrats and urban intellectual elites that have always despised him.
Over the course of the past two years, a growing list of Bush allies has
broken faith with his leadership -- conservatives and libertarians like
Bruce Bartlett, Peggy Noonan and Newt Gingrich, and neo-con intellectuals
like Francis Fukuyama. Their complaints are based on numbers -- huge,
frightening numbers, that cast serious doubt on the notion that Bush will
ever be vindicated. [...]
When George W. Bush took office at the beginning of 2001, he inherited
from the Clinton administration a budget surplus of US$86.4 billion. He
had campaigned on a promise to use that money for an ambitious program of
tax cuts, which he put into action immediately upon arrival in the Oval
Office.
But Bush's conservative allies had expected those tax cuts to be followed
by an equally sweeping review of federal spending. That austerity never
came. On the contrary, he's gone on a mammoth spending spree.
"People thought over the long term he'd try to do some good and
Republicans could finally make good on their promises of getting spending
under control, but here we are in the second term and that has not
materialized," he says. "The dam has just broken."
The Bush administration has a standard answer for this critique. In a time
of war, they say, budget overruns are the inevitable cost of defending
freedom and democracy at home and abroad. But that no longer holds water
with Washington's budget hawks. They point out that federal spending has
risen by $683 billion a year under Bush, less than a third of which has
gone to national defence and homeland security.
As a result, the U.S. national debt has surged from $5.7 trillion in the
last fiscal year before Bush took office, to over $8.3 trillion and
counting. Brian Riedl, a budget analyst with the right-wing Heritage
Foundation, says the Bush administration has played the benevolent uncle
to every special interest that comes calling, using its spending power to
win support in potentially vulnerable constituencies.
The No Child Left Behind education bill, for example, was aimed at
suburban
families; the farm bill at Midwest rural voters; and the prescription drug
benefit at the most active voting bloc of all, seniors. "No president
since
FDR has accelerated spending as fast as Bush has," he groans. "I'm shocked
about it, but the numbers show what the numbers show."
In reality, the $8.3-trillion figure doesn't even begin to describe the
true size of America's fiscal crisis because it doesn't include the
so-called entitlement liabilities.
In Medicare and Social Security, the U.S. government is committed to
providing retirement benefits and medical care for senior citizens. But
thanks to an aging population (the first of about 78 million American baby
boomers turn 60 this year) and rising medical costs, those programs are
desperately underfunded.
At the end of 2004, government actuaries calculated that the two programs
had unfunded liabilities of $43 trillion, up from $20 trillion in 2000. In
other words, Washington would need an immediate cash infusion of $43
trillion in order to meet all its future obligations under Medicare and
Social Security.
The Economic Policy Institute recently projected that under the current
tax regime, by 2014 all government revenue would be consumed by four
budget items: Medicare, Social Security, national defence and interest on
the debt. Walker's department forecasts that, at the current rate of
growth, the cost of servicing the national debt will consume half of all
tax revenues within 25 years.
Bush does have his fiscal defenders, and they generally point out that the
national debt rose higher as a percentage of the economy under Reagan.
[....]
America's looming financial crunch would be less daunting if it seemed
like the economy was poised to take flight. But among economists there is
little hope for such a windfall. With 12.6 per cent growth in GDP and the
creation of 2.3 million jobs since 2001, President Bush frequently crows
about the world's "pre-eminent" economy. Beneath the surface, critics see
a situation far less healthy than it first appears.
Two million new jobs sounds like a lot, but it's the most anemic job
creation performance by any president in the postwar era. The gains have
also failed to keep pace with the growth of the workforce, and as a result
the overall employment rate under Bush has declined from 64.4 per cent to
62.9 per cent.
The manufacturing sector has been particularly hard hit, losing 2.9
million
jobs since Bush took office, a decline of roughly 17 per cent -- worse
than
the postwar hangover under Truman, worse than the early '70s stagnation
under Nixon, and far worse than the darkest days of Reagan's Rust Belt
plant closures.
Little wonder that a Gallup poll earlier this year showed more than half
of
Americans consider the economy only "fair" or "poor," and 52 per cent
think
it's getting worse. [....]
So while CEOs and politicians can point selectively to indicators of a
robust economy, the story on Main Street doesn't look so rosy. Consumers
know much of their lifestyle has been financed on credit. Household
indebtedness has skyrocketed by 60 per cent to $4.5 trillion in the past
five years, and U.S. consumers now owe close to five times as much as they
did 20 years ago when adjusted for inflation. [....]
In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the election over Jimmy Carter by repeatedly
asking voters, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"
In 2004, Bush wouldn't have dared ask such a question, and since then
things
have deteriorated substantially. While not all of this can be blamed on
the President, the perception is now taking hold that America's vaunted
standard of living is under assault.
A decade of improvements in alleviating poverty have reversed in recent
years. While the economy has grown, the poverty rate has risen to 12.7 per
cent of the population, the highest level since 1998, representing five
million people who have fallen into poverty in five years.
Even economists who supported Bush's tax cuts see little hope that they
will form the bedrock of a future boom -- not with U.S. consumers so
deeply indebted, and with future administrations saddled with massive
funding liabilities that will, in all likelihood, force taxes back up
again in the near future. But those are long-term concerns, and America
has more immediate problems to face. [....]
"There is an old weakness in our foreign policy," Dallek says. "We make
the
mistake of believing that inside every foreigner there is an American just
waiting to emerge. It's just not true. Woodrow Wilson made that mistake,
and George Bush is making it again. The whole notion that you can export
democracy at the point of a bayonet simply does not work."
[....]
Foreign policy is often a nightmare for U.S. presidents, since Americans
have a long history of preferring isolationism to foreign intervention.
John F. Kennedy suffered the humiliation of the Bay of Pigs fiasco; Carter
was embarrassed by the Iranian hostage crisis; and every president from
Truman to Reagan operated under the shadow of the Soviet menace. Bush
doesn't yet face a threat on the scale of the Cold War, but no president
has attracted such hostility on so many fronts, in so short a time.
More worrying are the signs that Bush's tendency toward unilateralism has
weakened ties to America's traditional allies, including Canada.
Perhaps the most dramatic example came in 2004, with Spain's election of a
new left-leaning government, which immediately bowed to public opinion and
pulled the country's 1,300 troops out of Iraq.
Hungary, Poland, Ukraine and the Netherlands began their own gradual
withdrawals last year. And last September, Italy -- which had the
fourth-largest contingent of troops on the ground in Iraq -- began a
phased
pullout after an Italian agent was accidentally killed by U.S. troops and
the public turned strongly against the war.
The NATO deployment in Afghanistan has been more stable, but not without
controversy. It recently took six months of wrangling in the Dutch
parliament before the Netherlands finally authorized deployment of 1,400
troops to the region to relieve a withdrawing U.S. force.
Observers say these foreign controversies would be easily manageable, if
not for a steady stream of domestic missteps eroding confidence in the
administration.
The bungled relief effort following hurricane Katrina, Bush's aborted
attempt to appoint his close friend, the woefully underqualified Harriet
Miers, to the Supreme Court, and Scooter Libby's revelations about the
ongoing CIA leak affair, have all contributed to the President's slide.
Last month, Pew released its latest study of American attitudes, finding
that just one in three support Bush's leadership. Even among those who say
they voted for Bush in 2004, his support has fallen from 92 per cent at
the
beginning of 2005 to 68 per cent.
Asked for a one-word description of the President, the most common
response
was "incompetent," followed closely by "idiot" and "liar." A year ago,
the
top response was "honest." [....]
For now, the pessimists outnumber the believers. And with every one of
Bush's former allies that turns away from his leadership, the margin grows
and the odds get longer.
Leftists = traitors
2006-04-15 11:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Bush worst president in 100 years. Only in liberal
minds. But then some people know nothing about
history.
A Brick in the Wall
2006-04-15 11:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leftists = traitors
Bush worst president in 100 years. Only in liberal
minds. But then some people know nothing about
history.
Please tell us all that you know about history --

put it here ---->
Leftists R Evil
2006-04-15 11:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brick in the Wall
Post by Leftists = traitors
Bush worst president in 100 years. Only in liberal
minds. But then some people know nothing about
history.
Please tell us all that you know about history --
put it here ---->
Everyone loves Bush that's because he's the biggest hero ever. That's all
the proof you need. Stupid lefties and your stupid thinking. Always getting
in the way. Everybody loves Bush so they elected him President twice.
Deaf Power
2006-04-15 13:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leftists R Evil
Post by A Brick in the Wall
Post by Leftists = traitors
Bush worst president in 100 years. Only in liberal
minds. But then some people know nothing about
history.
Please tell us all that you know about history --
put it here ---->
Everyone loves Bush that's because he's the biggest hero ever. That's all
the proof you need. Stupid lefties and your stupid thinking. Always getting
in the way. Everybody loves Bush so they elected him President twice.
So it doesn't matter to you whether Bush is the biggest hero is
because of your evil hatred toward Americans aka "lefties"?

--
Bush = Nixon

https://political.moveon.org/donate/notillegal-QT.html
Bruce Toleman
2006-04-15 15:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deaf Power
So it doesn't matter to you whether Bush is the biggest hero is
because of your evil hatred toward Americans aka "lefties"?
He's an America hater all right. He's so full of contempt for the USA that
he won't even live there and associate with the American people. Check his
headers.
A Brick in the Wall
2006-04-16 00:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leftists R Evil
Post by A Brick in the Wall
Post by Leftists = traitors
Bush worst president in 100 years. Only in liberal
minds. But then some people know nothing about
history.
Please tell us all that you know about history --
put it here ---->
Everyone loves Bush that's because he's the biggest hero ever. That's all
the proof you need. Stupid lefties and your stupid thinking. Always getting
in the way. Everybody loves Bush so they elected him President twice.
Wow -- all you know about history in 5 sentences -- all of them wrong --- I
guessed as much.
Dimocrats Are Traitors
2006-04-16 00:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brick in the Wall
Post by Leftists R Evil
Post by A Brick in the Wall
Post by Leftists = traitors
Bush worst president in 100 years. Only in liberal
minds. But then some people know nothing about
history.
Please tell us all that you know about history --
put it here ---->
Everyone loves Bush that's because he's the biggest hero ever. That's all
the proof you need. Stupid lefties and your stupid thinking. Always getting
in the way. Everybody loves Bush so they elected him President twice.
Wow -- all you know about history in 5 sentences -- all of them wrong ---
I guessed as much.
another lib living in denial.

seems to be nearing epidemic levels
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Deaf Power
2006-04-16 04:02:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 20:47:08 -0400, "Dimocrats Are Traitors"
Post by Dimocrats Are Traitors
Post by A Brick in the Wall
Post by Leftists R Evil
Post by A Brick in the Wall
Post by Leftists = traitors
Bush worst president in 100 years. Only in liberal
minds. But then some people know nothing about
history.
Please tell us all that you know about history --
put it here ---->
Everyone loves Bush that's because he's the biggest hero ever. That's all
the proof you need. Stupid lefties and your stupid thinking. Always getting
in the way. Everybody loves Bush so they elected him President twice.
Wow -- all you know about history in 5 sentences -- all of them wrong ---
I guessed as much.
another lib living in denial.
What is a "lib"?
Post by Dimocrats Are Traitors
seems to be nearing epidemic levels
You're speaking nonsense.

--
Bush = Nixon

https://political.moveon.org/donate/notillegal-QT.html
Peter Wright
2006-04-16 04:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deaf Power
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 20:47:08 -0400, "Dimocrats Are Traitors"
Post by Dimocrats Are Traitors
Post by A Brick in the Wall
Post by Leftists R Evil
Post by A Brick in the Wall
Post by Leftists = traitors
Bush worst president in 100 years. Only in liberal
minds. But then some people know nothing about
history.
Please tell us all that you know about history --
put it here ---->
Everyone loves Bush that's because he's the biggest hero ever. That's all
the proof you need. Stupid lefties and your stupid thinking. Always getting
in the way. Everybody loves Bush so they elected him President twice.
Wow -- all you know about history in 5 sentences -- all of them wrong ---
I guessed as much.
another lib living in denial.
What is a "lib"?
Post by Dimocrats Are Traitors
seems to be nearing epidemic levels
You're speaking nonsense.
No, he makes perfect sense to me. He's an idiot who thinks that if someone
doesn't believe that "everybody loves Bush", they're living in denial.

I've heard crazier ideas, but thankfully not often because Rush Limbaugh is
only syndicated in the USA and not in Canada, where I live.

It's mainly due to the fact that like Fox News Network in Canada and the rest
of the planet, Rush is irrelevant unless someone's a boob.
A Brick in the Wall
2006-04-16 12:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimocrats Are Traitors
Post by A Brick in the Wall
Post by Leftists R Evil
Post by A Brick in the Wall
Post by Leftists = traitors
Bush worst president in 100 years. Only in liberal
minds. But then some people know nothing about
history.
Please tell us all that you know about history --
put it here ---->
Everyone loves Bush that's because he's the biggest hero ever. That's all
the proof you need. Stupid lefties and your stupid thinking. Always getting
in the way. Everybody loves Bush so they elected him President twice.
Wow -- all you know about history in 5 sentences -- all of them wrong ---
I guessed as much.
another lib living in denial.
seems to be nearing epidemic levels
Yes --- that's why Bush's disapporoval numbers are @60% --- "libs"are in the
majority -- now please leave our country.
Post by Dimocrats Are Traitors
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
masfeliz06
2006-04-22 08:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Adolf Hitler once had the highest approval rating in history. By
socialists of course, the NAZI party were socialists in fact. So
approval ratings mean nothing, especially when it comes to the
socialists who are promoting the figures.

See my posts, see what historic good GW Bush has done for the world,
and its all fact. You can't deny it.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Socialism was a horrible lesson from
decades ago. It doesn't produce what it claims it should, it produces
the opposite.
Rick Patterson
2006-04-22 08:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by masfeliz06
Adolf Hitler once had the highest approval rating in history. By
socialists of course, the NAZI party were socialists in fact. So
approval ratings mean nothing, especially when it comes to the
socialists who are promoting the figures.
Oh! So you've bought into the American conservative propaganda that Hitler was
a Socialist! That's amusing.

I see that you never studied history or political science.

The American right has been apologizing for years, accusing Hitler of being a
Liberal.

It's quite pathetic. You need a little less Rush, Bill O'Reilly and Hannity
and more facts. I'm not a "leftist", but I'm certain that Hitler wasn't a
"socialist".

North Korea claims to be the Peoples Democratic Republic of North Korea,

Does that mean that they're a Democracy?

East Germany called itself "The German Democratic Republic".

Does that mean that they're a Democracy?

Hitler (a known liar) said that he represented "National Socialism".

Do you actually believe Hitler?

Read on:

Fascism and Conservatism

There is some controversy about the ideological impact of the conservative
element in fascism. European fascism drew on existing anti-modernist
conservatism, and on the conservative reaction to communism and 19th-century
socialism. Conservative thinkers such as historian Oswald Spengler provided
much of the world view (Weltanschauung) of the Nazi movement. However,
traditionalist, monarchist, and Roman Catholic conservatives often despised the
fascist mass movements, and the personality cult around the leader. In Britain,
the conservative Daily Mail enthusiastically backed Sir Oswald Mosley's British
Union of Fascists, and part of the Conservative Party supported closer ties
with Nazi Germany. When defeat in World War II ideologically and historically
discredited fascism, almost all Western conservatives tried to distance
themselves from it. Nevertheless, many post-war Western conservatives continued
to admire the Franco regime in Spain, clearly conservative but also fascist in
origin. With the end of the Franco regime and Portugal's Estado Novo in the
1970s, the relationship between conservatism and classical European fascism was
further weakened.

Militarism is perhaps the most striking similarity between Fascism and
contemporary American conservatism. Of course, there are many liberals in
America who support the military and even call for increased military spending.
Even so, American liberals are traditionally more skeptical of the military
than American conservatives. Left-wing activists and intellectuals often claim
that, like Hitler, Neoconservatives see the military as a paradigm for problem
solving (even in situations that may render militarism impractical or
unethical).

The relationship of fascism to right-wing ideologies (including some that are
described as neo-fascist) is still an issue for conservatives and their
opponents. Especially in Germany, there is a constant exchange of ideology and
persons, between the influential national-conservative movement, and self-
identified national-socialist groups. In Italy too, there is no clear line
between conservatives, and movements inspired by the Italian Fascism of the
1920s to 1940s, including the Alleanza Nazionale which is member of the
governing coalition under premier Silvio Berlusconi. Conservative attitudes to
the 20th-century fascist regimes are still an issue
masfeliz06
2006-04-28 19:40:00 UTC
Permalink
According to the results of OFII's 2006 survey, eighty-eight percent
of CEOs of U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies plan to increase or
maintain their companies' investments in the United States over the
next year.

"This survey shows a continued level of confidence in the United
States as a location for investment - primarily due to the quality of
the American workforce," said Todd M. Malan, OFII President and CEO.
masfeliz06
2006-04-22 08:11:43 UTC
Permalink
95% Leftists are not evil, just horribly misguided and easily steered
because they actually want good to happen but are so easily misled into
the false sense of socialism proved horribly irrational so long ago.

Today's modern version is just the same mistake in a less militaristic
fashion (at present). In the end it does not produce for the people.
The American model does, and can produce even more if the leftists will
wake up and let it do its thing. We could all produce on a massive
scale and the wealth made would make its way to those who need it on
never before seen scales. Even now, America has been at the helm with
its non-socialist platform in leading historic peformance in
humanitarian aid.
Rick Patterson
2006-04-22 08:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by masfeliz06
95% Leftists are not evil, just horribly misguided and easily steered
because they actually want good to happen but are so easily misled into
the false sense of socialism proved horribly irrational so long ago.
You have no idea what a "leftist" is.

I'm not a Leftist, but you somehow believe that I am.

I know "rightists" who would make you look like a commie, boy.

Don't ramble on about shit to me.
masfeliz06
2006-04-23 04:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Well, I must admit I should change my perceived percent downward. And
no I don't think you are a leftist, and yes I do know what a leftist
is.

I actually didn't agree with your comments, other than I feel the
leaders are the evil ones and the followers have a majority that are
simply misguided and not rational.
b***@hotmail.com
2006-04-23 12:09:27 UTC
Permalink
"Leftist" this, "leftist" that, blah, blah, blah.

Get your head out of your ass, you ignorant, uneducated right wing worm.

You sound like a moron but only because you are a moron.
Post by masfeliz06
Well, I must admit I should change my perceived percent downward. And
no I don't think you are a leftist, and yes I do know what a leftist
is.
I actually didn't agree with your comments, other than I feel the
leaders are the evil ones and the followers have a majority that are
simply misguided and not rational.
--
f***@gmail.com
2006-04-23 14:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Fucking coward, you are trying to shit and then deflect the replies to
other ngs.

If you had no guts and the education needed to debate with people,
stand aside and learn something.

=====================
Post by b***@hotmail.com
"Leftist" this, "leftist" that, blah, blah, blah.
Get your head out of your ass, you ignorant, uneducated right wing worm.
You sound like a moron but only because you are a moron.
Post by masfeliz06
Well, I must admit I should change my perceived percent downward. And
no I don't think you are a leftist, and yes I do know what a leftist
is.
I actually didn't agree with your comments, other than I feel the
leaders are the evil ones and the followers have a majority that are
simply misguided and not rational.
--
masfeliz06
2006-04-24 00:43:50 UTC
Permalink
To watch someone say US conservatives are nothing but bad molesters and
socialists are pure is about the most incredibly ignorant and amazing
thing I've ever heard.

Did you know there was a book published, not just a little article, but
a 500+ page book where 95% was a simple list of socialist criminal acts
and atrocities, including mass rape, torture, genocide, molestation,
invasion, and others? I'll try to find the title for you.

Anyone with half a brain wouldn't need it though.

I like this quote:

"Over the past couple of centuries tens of millions of our fellow
humans have been murdered in the name of socialism. In the Soviet
Union, National Socialist (Nazi) Germany, Cuba and China, the firing
squads were kept busy building workers' paradises. Socialism by its
very nature is coercive ? people don't willingly surrender their God-
given liberties to dictatorial states. In the name of "social justice"
they must be forced to obey Big Brother.

As the old joke told by the inmates of the Soviet workers' paradise
went, "Under Socialism you will all eat strawberries and cream." To
those who protested that they did not want to eat strawberries and
cream, the response was "You will eat strawberries and cream and like
it. Or else."


Every German was excercising his/her rights to voice their own form of
government during the Nazii party era. So just to be able to voice your
opinion doesn't make it acceptable and nor should EVERYTHING be
tolerated.

Today the Euro socialist voices anger that tyrranists are taken out of
power, or that state rule under a less dramtic scale than the heavier
communist era should hold court. Neither is acceptable now, nor has
either been.

Decades will not erase the linkeage between Euro leftist socialism and
Naziism or communism. They can try to pretend it isn't there, or that
it never existed, but it always has. Just for kicks I will definately
find and post for reminder purposes a historical I found in a national
library.

Of course I'm not suggesting the current crop of Euro leftists are
Naziis waiting to jump. But it is abundantly clear Europe has not
learned from its horrible history and still clings to its leftist
ideals, doing their best to convince people democracy should allow for
socialism. Socialism is not democracy.
John Norman
2006-04-23 12:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Everyone knows that Rightists are inferior because they're liars and devious
sex perverts. They talk a lot about family values and capitalism but in
practice are pedophiles and socialists who demand that the government
subsidize their taxation by borrowing money from foreign countries and
running massive deficits. Rigbt wing sex pervert socialists like you only
care about yourselves and believe in robbing peter and stiffing paul because
you are so selfish.

Here's a summary of only a few recent convictions of the alleged "Family
Values" Conservatives who have been caught and convicted of raping America's
children, you people are not only ignorant and uneducated, you're disgusting
hypocrites (Look for Bush to grant Presidential Pardons to each and every
one of these right wing pedophiles some time before he steps down):

Failed amateur propagandist and pathological liar Lambourn is defending right
wing criminal Tom Delay and War Criminal Bush in the same thread. Can there
be
any doubt that he supports these criminals also?


* Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted
child rapist in Florida.


* Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to
molesting
two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.


* Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-
year
old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.


* Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to
possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to
anybody who murders an abortion doctor.


* Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10
years in
prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.


* Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in
federal
prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.


* Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three
years
probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.


* Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond
had
sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.


* Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the
2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a
sexual affair with a female juvenile.


* Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an
inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.


* Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties
at
the White House during the 1980s.


* Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the
White House during the 1980s.


* Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having
sex
with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.


* Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child
porn
charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.


* Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex
crimes
involving children.


* Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted
sexual assault on a child.


* Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working
as a
congressional page.


* Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell
admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.


* Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly had sex with a 16
year
old girl when he was 28.


* Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged
with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.


* Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for
distributing
a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.


* Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was
taken
into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual
activity
with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.


* Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with
molesting a
12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.


* Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex
with
his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the
allegations
were reported in the media.


* Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to
traditional
values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy
for
permission to perform oral sex on him.


* Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his
genitals to an 11 year old girl.


* Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to
40
years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to
stop
a gay couple from adopting her.


* Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of
raping
his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.


* Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two
years
probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.


* Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first
degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.


* Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony
counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16
(i.e.
exposing himself to children).


* Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with
sexual
misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.


* Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting
a
male child.


* Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual
assault
on a teenage girl.


* Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two
daughters.


* Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted
of
molesting a 13-year old girl.


* Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to
unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.


* Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to
raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.


* Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of
child
pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in
federal
prison and fined $18,000.


* Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state
representative,
Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his
possession.


* Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin
Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex
from
boys and girls over the internet.


* Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good
military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex
with
an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.


* Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for
Minnesota
governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude
with
four underage girls, including his daughter.


* Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas
Elizondo
molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in
prison.


* Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A.
Dasen
Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for
sex.
Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several
grandchildren, has
allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1
million
to have sex with a large number of young women.


*PENDING - Republican Mayor John Gosek, 58, of 275 West 7th Street,
Oswego,
was arrested for the federal offense of "using a facility in interstate
commerce (a telephone) to knowingly attempt to persuade, induce,
entice, and
coerce an individual under the age of 18 years to engage in sexual
activity
for which he could be charged with criminal offenses, that is, rape in
the
third degree and criminal sexual act in the third degree" in violation
of
the New York State Penal Code.


(1) Republican Mayor Philip Giordano - 37 year sentence for sexually
abusing 8 and 10 year old girls.
http://www.armchairsubversive.com/Giordano.htm


(2) Republican Congressman, Donald "Buz" Lukens, convicted of having
sex with a minor.
http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/04RESOURCES/Speeches-SurvivalValue...


(3) Republican fundraiser, Richard A. Delgaudio, convicted of child
porn charges.
http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/2153721/detail.html


(4) Republican activist, Mark A. Grethen, convicted on six counts of
sex crimes involving children.


(5) Republican activist, Randal David Ankeney, convicted of assaulting
a 14-year-old girl.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/1130885/detail.html


(6) Republican Congressman, Dan Crane, had sex with a minor.
http://archive.salon.com/col/cona/1998/10/05cona.html


(7) Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader, Beverly
Russell, admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step
daughter.
http://wlo.org/nw/nww5.html


(8) Republican anti-abortion activist, John Allen Burt, was charged
with sexual misconduct involving a 15 year old girl.


(9) Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing
his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/111203_local_matthews.html


(10) Republican congressman, Robert Bauman, Marlyand: Married dad of
four ,was charged with committing oral sodomy on a 16-year-old boy.
(Salon, 1.1.04) http://www.glinn.com/news/h122989a.htm


(11) Republican activist, Marty Glickman convicted on four counts of
unlawful sexual activity with a juvenile and one count of the delivery
of LSD.


(12) Howard L. Brooks, a Republican staffer, charged with molesting a
12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/news/calreport/N2001-11-22-2300-0.html


(13) Republican Senate candidate, John Hathaway, was accused of having
sex with his 12-year old baby sitter.


(14) Republican preacher, Stephen White, arrested after offering
to a 14-year-old boy to perform oral sex on him.


(15)Republican state Rep. Brent Parker arrested for soliciting sex
from an undercover officer posing as a male prostitute.


(16)Douglas County Election Commissioner Pat McPherson arrested for
fondling a 17-year-old girl.


(17) Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty
to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty
to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.


(18) Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10
years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.


(19) Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for
distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.


(20) Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was
sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after
he
attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.


(21) Parker J. Bena, Virginia Republican activist: Convicted in 2001
of possession of child pornography. (Salon, 1.1.04)


(22) Kevin Coan, Missouri: Arrested in Illinois in 2001 for offering
to pay for sex over the Internet from a 14-year-old girl -- who turned
out to be male police officer working a chat-room sting. (Salon, 1.1.04)


(23) Richard Gardner, Nevada: Convicted in California in 1988 for lewd
and lascivious behavior with a child under the age of 14 -- a felony
sex crime. The victim was his own 12-year-old daughter. Investigation
led to exposure of two additional sex-crime convictions, one involving
the same daughter, and one involving another daughter under age 14.
(Salon, 1.1.04)


(24) Mark A. Grethen, Virginia: Convicted in 2002 on six counts of sex
crimes against children. (Salon, 1.1.04)


(25) Jeff Patti, Sparta, N.J., GOP Chair: Arrested on child
pornography charges. (NJH, 2.8.05)


(26) Fact: There's an entire newsgroup just for right-wing Christian
pedophiles. Police say a Pierce County foster dad charged with
molesting and photographing young boys in his care posted messages in
an Internet newsgroup catering to Christian pedophiles....describing
himself as a "boylover that has devoted my life to boys and
introducing the love of Christ to them." [And then this typical
hypocrite says] "homosexual desire is unnatural".


(27) Serial killer/rapist Ted Bundy campaigned for the Republican
Party


(28) Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom
Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.


(29) Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex
parties at the White House during the 1980s.


(30) Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties
at the White House during the 1980s.

http://www.armchairsubversive.com/
--
"Traitor Bush's warmongering and genocide,
murdering 100,000 innocent women and children,
meant that $Billions flowed freely into the
pockets of his crony Capitalist criminal
friends, the same ones who put him in
office. Like a typical cowardly NeoCon, Bush
went AWOL from his NG Champagne Regiment."
---
masfeliz06
2006-04-24 15:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:47 a.m. EDT
CIA Leaker Was Top Intel Aide to Clinton

The CIA officer fired Friday for leaking classified information to the
Washington Post about U.S. counterterrorism efforts once served as a
top intelligence aide to President Clinton.

Appointed in 1998 by then-National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Mary
O'Neil McCarthy held the post of Special Assistant to the President and
Senior Director for Intelligence Programs.

Prior to her appointment as President Clinton's Special Assistant,
McCarthy served as the Clinton administration's National Intelligence
Officer for Warning from 1994-1996.



WASHINGTON -- The top Democrat on the House ethics committee is
stepping down to defend his own conduct and is being replaced by a
lawmaker who worked well with Republicans.

Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., decided on his own to leave, at least
temporarily, his party leader said Friday.

The Wall Street Journal reported April 7 that the U.S. attorney's
office in Washington is examining Mollohan's personal finances and
whether he properly disclosed them. The newspaper reported that
Mollohan directed, or "earmarked," millions of dollars in federal funds
for special projects in his home state of West Virginia as a member of
the House Appropriations Committee and received campaign donations from
beneficiaries of the projects.
Leftists = traitors
2006-04-15 19:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Worst war: Vietnam - Johnson
Worst old economy: 1933 - 1938 FDR
Worst new economy: 1977-79 - Jimmy Carter. Not to mention, Russians
invading
Afghanistan, Communists in South America, Cubans in Africa, Hostage
Crisis in Iran.

People have short memories.
Nosmo King
2006-04-15 20:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leftists = traitors
Worst war: Vietnam - Johnson
Started by Eisenhower, made far worse by Nixon
Post by Leftists = traitors
Worst old economy: 1933 - 1938 FDR
Started by Harding, Hoover

Fixed by FDR
Post by Leftists = traitors
Worst new economy: 1977-79 - Jimmy Carter.
Started by Nixon and his prolonged Vietnam War

Not to mention, Russians invading Afghanistan,

With Reagan bringing on the Taliban and Al Queda

Communists in South America,

Where?

Cubans in Africa and Cubans in Cuba.

Hostage Crisis in Iran.

Thanks to the CIA under Eisenhower
Post by Leftists = traitors
People have short memories.
Not as short as yours.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
A Brick in the Wall
2006-04-15 11:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leftists = traitors
Bush worst president in 100 years. Only in liberal
minds. But then some people know nothing about
history.
Please tell us all that you know about history --

put it here ---->
basilod
2006-04-15 16:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Macleans.ca - April 11, 2006
Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
Asked for a one-word description of the President, the most common response
was "incompetent," followed closely by "idiot" and "liar." A year ago, the
top response was "honest." [....]
One-word description may be too tuff to make and not quite accurate.
The other day somebody shared with me a joke which gives an amazingly
correct one-sentence description of everything that is wrong with Bush
Administration:

Pole Turtle



While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old Texas rancher, whose hand
was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a
conversation with the old man. Eventually, the topic got around to former
Texas Governor George W. Bush and his elevation to the White House. The old
Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post
turtle'." Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a
"post turtle" was.
The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come
across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."
The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to
explain. "You know, he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there,
he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just want to help
the dumb shit get down!"
Karen Gordon
2006-04-15 18:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noons
Post by Karen Gordon
Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
That is so obvious I'm surprised the question only shows
up now. The REALLY scary part is that this blithering,
bumbling idiot got elected TWICE and a large number of
citizens voted him in!
(K): Says almost more about the people of the U.S. than the man himself,
doesn't it?

Canada is a neighbour to this stupid country - and I mean stupid in the
most derogatory sense of the word. How can ANY country with access to the
internet, to international newspapers and international TV programs be
duped so completely by such deliberate manipulations of the White House?

Americans - a huge percentage of them - STILL believe that Saddam Hussein
and the Iraqis were the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

They STILL believe that the hijackers of 9/11 got into their country through
Canada.

They STILL believe that there were 'weapons of mass destruction' being
stockpiled by Saddam Hussein and that the pre-emptory strike on Iraq was 'to
safeguard America'.

They STILL believe that their presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is welcomed
by the people of those countries.

The American people have NO excuse for their culpable ignorance. None. If
other countries, with less access to the media and to the internet are able
to recognize lies and manipulation by the leaders of the U.S. and Britain,
then there is no excuse for those with more access to discover the truth.

I'm now coming to the realization and belief that perhaps it's those
countries WITH most access to the media that may be the most vulnerable to
manipulation. The very same media that could carry the truth can also carry
lies and indoctrination and instil the fear and the hatred that is needed to
vote for those who would promise to 'protect them from the evil countries'.

Never before in history has it been so important for voters to keep aware
of the issues - from EVERY perspective, not just their own media - and to
decide if they are being 'used' by their own governments to advance wars
and atrocities against others - for profit by a handful.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men - or their leaders.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
ACOG
2006-04-16 09:55:40 UTC
Permalink
On 2006-04-15, Karen Gordon probably said,

[...]
Post by Karen Gordon
The American people have NO excuse for their culpable ignorance. None. If
other countries, with less access to the media and to the internet are able
to recognize lies and manipulation by the leaders of the U.S. and Britain,
then there is no excuse for those with more access to discover the truth.
I'm now coming to the realization and belief that perhaps it's those
countries WITH most access to the media that may be the most vulnerable to
manipulation. The very same media that could carry the truth can also carry
lies and indoctrination and instil the fear and the hatred that is needed to
vote for those who would promise to 'protect them from the evil countries'.
http://www.allprodad.com/6tveffects.asp

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p011070.html

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/5jcl/5JCL59.htm

Of possible interest?
--
http://tinyurl.com/puefx
http://tinyurl.com/zxzmz
masfeliz06
2006-04-22 06:23:11 UTC
Permalink
It really is fun to watch the "useful idiots" as Lenin and Stalin
called them, common leftist brainwashed go insane with claims of the US
being "neo cons" and drum up all sorts of over the edge of sanity
imagery only to watch each one of the images fall to rubble over time.

Only one of the many latest.... the "US gulag" propoganda, all Bush's
doing of course.
From Investors.com
No American Gulags
Posted 4/21/2006

Media: Reports of secret CIA prisons in Europe where the Bush and Blair
governments tortured suspected terrorists caused quite an uproar. But
what if those prisons never existed?

Would The Washington Post and reporter Dana Priest return the Pulitzer
Prize that was awarded just last week for the Post's coverage of those
prisons? Not likely. They'd be far more likely to employ the Dan
Rather/CBS fake-but-accurate defense.

While Priest and the Post bask in the sheen of a just-minted Pulitzer,
the European Union's anti-terror chief said Thursday that even after
more than 50 hours of testimony he has been unable to confirm a that
single secret "rendition" prison exists in Europe.

It's noteworthy that it wasn't 50-plus hours of testimony from Bush-
and Blair-friendly witnesses. It was from rights advocates and the very
people who claim they had been kidnapped by CIA agents.
Rick Patterson
2006-04-22 06:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by masfeliz06
It really is fun to watch the "useful idiots" as Lenin and Stalin
called them, common leftist brainwashed go insane with claims of the US
being "neo cons" and drum up all sorts of over the edge of sanity
imagery only to watch each one of the images fall to rubble over time.
And when was the last time you met a liberal from Canada, the US or most other
places who was walking around quoting Lenin?

In fact, I see ideologues like you useless imbeciles quoting Von Mises and
Hayek like it was Mao's Little Red Book.

Despite the fact that the Austrian School has never worked in reality.

Get a grip.

And take a course in Economics. I did my MBA after my Engineering degree.

What are your accomplishments?
masfeliz06
2006-04-22 07:47:44 UTC
Permalink
First. It does not matter what my qualifications are. In this case,
these are all facts. It has all happened. And only the best liars
could possibly claim socialists in Canada and elsewhere are not calling
Bush a "neo con" with the intent of painting him a ceasar of some sort.
Its the socialist song and dance, lets not deny it now. The historic
economic performance, and world scale liberation at the hands of Bush
are also fact.

Second. I honor your schoolastic achievement with sincerity. My
qualifications go far beyond your textbook knowledge of how a bike
should be ridden, however. I've ridden the bike, and at a much larger
scale than you will likely sniff in your life. I say that with
absolute humility and hope you will acknowledge the vast proportion of
business successes were originated by people with no degree, let alone
an MBA. I too am educated, but without the MBA that studies have
concluded less than 5% benefit from at the scale they envisioned. I
have been blessed in some ways, although there has been much struggle
to accomplish the good things we have. I've bailed out more people in
strife in more cities than you can name. I've built enterprises from
the ground into machines that help people on a large scale.

Third. GW Bush's American system, tax breaks, and realization that
capitalism feeds the poor are a part of what made our ventures
successful.
Rick Patterson
2006-04-22 08:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by masfeliz06
First. It does not matter what my qualifications are. In this case,
these are all facts. It has all happened. And only the best liars
could possibly claim socialists in Canada and elsewhere are not calling
Bush a "neo con" with the intent of painting him a ceasar of some sort.
Its the socialist song and dance, lets not deny it now. The historic
economic performance, and world scale liberation at the hands of Bush
are also fact.
Second. I honor your schoolastic achievement with sincerity. My
qualifications go far beyond your textbook knowledge of how a bike
should be ridden, however. I've ridden the bike, and at a much larger
scale than you will likely sniff in your life. I say that with
absolute humility and hope you will acknowledge the vast proportion of
business successes were originated by people with no degree, let alone
an MBA. I too am educated, but without the MBA that studies have
concluded less than 5% benefit from at the scale they envisioned. I
have been blessed in some ways, although there has been much struggle
to accomplish the good things we have. I've bailed out more people in
strife in more cities than you can name. I've built enterprises from
the ground into machines that help people on a large scale.
Third. GW Bush's American system, tax breaks, and realization that
capitalism feeds the poor are a part of what made our ventures
successful.
You're a little too much of an ideologue for me.

Poverty in the US has increased under Bush's system, not decreased.

The gap between the rich and the poor has increased.

I grew up middle class and live in a country that balances wealth better than
the US.

In fact, if you rate the 10 best nations for average quality of life, the US
rates below 15th. When Americans say "Everybody wants to be an American",
almost nobody from those 10 countries wants to be one.

I've also lived and worked in the US from coast to coast plus Ohio and Texas,
and theres no way that I'd raise my kids there.


Don't call me a 'socialist' though. I'm worth a shit load and working hard.
:)

The US doesn't take care of its weak, that's why there are so many issues.

The worst part is that the President and the current regime doesn't care much
either. My country has much to learn from the US, but the issue is that the
US refuses to learn from others in so many ways.
masfeliz06
2006-04-23 05:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Actually in reviewing your posts I'm not sure what you are other than
you hate America. You also have no idea of what I am, so your spitting
I'm an idealogue is ridiculous. This is what is causing your
perception to become innacurate. There is no fact in existence that
can be heard by people in your mindset.

I happen to be an extremely economically educated professional, so
educated I doubt you know anyone at my level.


Show me the fact and the source of your claim poverty in the US has
expanded under Bush please.

Lets go from there intillectually and not childishly if you are game.
judgejudy
2006-04-24 22:32:30 UTC
Permalink
On 22 Apr 2006 22:02:50 -0700, "masfeliz06" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

#Actually in reviewing your posts I'm not sure what you are other than
#you hate America. You also have no idea of what I am, so your
spitting
#I'm an idealogue is ridiculous. This is what is causing your
#perception to become innacurate. There is no fact in existence that
#can be heard by people in your mindset.
#
#I happen to be an extremely economically educated professional, so
#educated I doubt you know anyone at my level.

More like a lazy egotistical ass.

#
#
#Show me the fact and the source of your claim poverty in the US has
#expanded under Bush please.

Do you know how to google?

#
#Lets go from there intillectually and not childishly if you are game.

For "an extremely economically educated professional", you were not
smart enough to use a spell checker. It is spelled "intellectually".
I smell a phoney who likes to hear his own voice but is incapable of
interacting with a dissenting opinion.
John Lemay
2006-04-24 23:02:37 UTC
Permalink
, so
Post by judgejudy
#educated I doubt you know anyone at my level.
More like a lazy egotistical ass.
#
#
#Show me the fact and the source of your claim poverty in the US has
#expanded under Bush please.
Do you know how to google?
#
#Lets go from there intillectually and not childishly if you are game.
For "an extremely economically educated professional", you were not
smart enough to use a spell checker. It is spelled "intellectually".
I smell a phoney who likes to hear his own voice but is incapable of
interacting with a dissenting opinion.
Agreed. Any bozo who can't spell "intellectually", claims to be "extremely
economically educated" (meaning that he has no formal education and has over
estimated his abilities due to an inflated ego) and goes around spewing bull
shit like "you hate America" and calling anyone who he doesn't view as an
American Republican a "Socialist" (another word which he has no idea of the
meaning) and a "Leftist"; is clearly totally full of shit.

He's also deluded because you *are* correct about the increase in US poverty and
there is a widening gap between the rich and the poor, meaning that the middle
class is diminishing, not that the wealthy are expanding as much.

I don't know how you can stand discussing anything with that boob because he's
clearly no more than another right wing extremist boob who's not afraid to
expose his abject ignorance and lack of education.

I've kill filed him ages ago.










*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
f***@gmail.com
2006-04-25 02:57:36 UTC
Permalink
John wrote:"Any bozo who can't spell "intellectually"......... is
clearly totally full of shit."

Does it mean that anyone who can spell the word "intellectually"
correctly is either void or semi-full of shit?
Jolly Roger
2006-04-25 03:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
John wrote:"Any bozo who can't spell "intellectually"......... is
clearly totally full of shit."
Does it mean that anyone who can spell the word "intellectually"
correctly is either void or semi-full of shit?
Not as full of shit as you are, you stupid foul mouthed communist.

Go back to your labour camp, asshole.

(plonk)























*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
f***@gmail.com
2006-04-25 05:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Jolly wrote:"Not as full of shit as you are..."

***Does it mean you are still of shit but in comparison you have less
shit?
***Do you have the education to know what a communist is?
***Where is *your* labor camp?
***Do you have an asshole? No?
masfeliz06
2006-04-25 09:34:34 UTC
Permalink
It truly is fascinating to witness you people who will hate any US
President who is not a leftist. You called Poon a communist, and I
know by fact he is not. You called me a right winger, and I am not.
You call us many things, and you are wrong and really just acting out
like children with no real arguments of any weight or TRUE factual
evidence.

Basically, I see a lot of nonsense out of you and little else.

Lets see if any of you can handle answering to issues such as these, I
await your educated response (I realize I may be waiting indefinately)
....

The US had to perform and stimulate massively following 911 with a
recession present or it truly faced economic collapse. It was
imperative that every single measure taken was, including slashing
rates and taxes. Spending, some in the military, some in the economy,
and it was the majority by far that went into the economy, was
absolutely necessary on a massive scale, including the printing of
dollars to lubricate the system.

People do care when their AOL stock goes down. There was massive wealth
loss from low, to mid, to higher class from the stock collapse of the
late 1990's under Clinton. I hardly know anyone that didn't lose
severely who wasn't a financier. In many cases, all of their liquid
assets.

But they kept their property, and we've seen record appreciation and
wealth creation impact during Bush. And this has enabled many to
recover all or part of their losses from Clintons stock crash, which
was directly related to his recession.

Bush and Greenspan revived this nation from the cliff of chaos
following 911/recession, and yes we're tasting some deficit concerns
but they are reparable, and the spending did go overwhelmingly into
this record producing economy.

Its far better structured now than in 1998 to absorb any kind of shock,
wether economic or outside shock.
Right Way
2006-04-25 16:59:43 UTC
Permalink
The right is smarter than the left. It's a fact.


Bush is the Decider.
masfeliz06
2006-04-25 09:50:34 UTC
Permalink
And I will just throw in this little taste of reality for you, just a
quote from a major investment firm noting that under Bush, the US has
seen record wealth creation.

"We remained bullish for much of this year, despite analyst worries
about rising oil prices, official rate hikes and the threat that the
housing bubble would pop. We chose to focus on the strength of
liquidity flows and the record wealth creation generated by the housing
market, predicting that real GDP would grow 4% this year. The run-rate
for the first three quarters of 2005 has been 3.8%."
John Wesley Asquith
2006-04-25 16:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by masfeliz06
And I will just throw in this little taste of reality for you, just a
quote from a major investment firm noting that under Bush, the US has
seen record wealth creation.
"We remained bullish for much of this year, despite analyst worries
about rising oil prices, official rate hikes and the threat that the
housing bubble would pop. We chose to focus on the strength of
liquidity flows and the record wealth creation generated by the housing
market, predicting that real GDP would grow 4% this year. The run-rate
for the first three quarters of 2005 has been 3.8%."
Then how do you explain that there are more people in the U.S. below
the poverty level than ever before in history?

Bush is a cheap, lying politician. And Frist is his goon that goads
on the right-wing-religious-wackos.

Time for a regime change in America and that doesn't include Frist.

You'd think a person with an M.D. might be smart but check him out for
yourself. There are dumb doctors just like there are stupid
presidents.

If there was ever a president who should be impeached, not just for
the Iraq war, but for the several felonies committed, it is GEORGE W.
BUSH.
f***@gmail.com
2006-04-25 17:45:19 UTC
Permalink
That both the Dow and the Nasdaq have been making new heights is an
indication that the absolute amount of wealth has increased since Bush
took office and the economy has recovered from both the Nasdaq bubble
burst and the 9/11 debacle. What you have observed, however, is the
widening disparity between the rich and the poor. And this widening
gap has been brought about by inflation. But this inflation has its
origin in Clinton's administration and his iresponsible monetary
policy. Clinton simply passed the bubble onto Bush and the bubble
burst in Bush's hand. This burst, couple with the 9/11 attack, almost
brought the US economy to a depression. It was GreenSpan under Bush
who tried to rescue the collapsing economy through providing ample
credit. That latter is what gave rise to the current inflation, and in
turn the widening gap between the rich and the poor that you have
observed. Then please take a look at Canada; inflation has also
produced similar effect in Canada and to have done so without Bush.
Thus if Bush were the worst president in 100 years, who would then be
Clinton, and then Martin, and then the current Harper. Has Harper
proposed how to redistribute the wealth back to the poor victimized by
inflation since he came to power? Of course he has not. Why should
he? His party, like the Libs, is also a party of properties holders.
Is there a segment of the Canadian working poor in Canada? Of course
there is! How has the NDP proposed to help them? Is NDP also a party
of properties holders? Is the Democrats down in the US also a party of
properties holders?

So do you still think Bush is the worst president ? I think he is the
best of all who are available to the Americans so far!
Eric®
2006-04-25 17:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
That both the Dow and the Nasdaq have been making new heights is an
indication that the absolute amount of wealth has increased since Bush
took office and the economy has recovered from both the Nasdaq bubble
burst and the 9/11 debacle. What you have observed, however, is the
widening disparity between the rich and the poor. And this widening
gap has been brought about by inflation. But this inflation has its
origin in Clinton's administration and his iresponsible monetary
policy. Clinton simply passed the bubble onto Bush and the bubble
burst in Bush's hand. This burst, couple with the 9/11 attack, almost
brought the US economy to a depression. It was GreenSpan under Bush
who tried to rescue the collapsing economy through providing ample
credit. That latter is what gave rise to the current inflation, and in
turn the widening gap between the rich and the poor that you have
observed. Then please take a look at Canada; inflation has also
produced similar effect in Canada and to have done so without Bush.
Thus if Bush were the worst president in 100 years, who would then be
Clinton, and then Martin, and then the current Harper. Has Harper
proposed how to redistribute the wealth back to the poor victimized by
inflation since he came to power? Of course he has not. Why should
he? His party, like the Libs, is also a party of properties holders.
Is there a segment of the Canadian working poor in Canada? Of course
there is! How has the NDP proposed to help them? Is NDP also a party
of properties holders? Is the Democrats down in the US also a party of
properties holders?
So do you still think Bush is the worst president ? I think he is the
best of all who are available to the Americans so far!
Your posts seem to get more bizarre with each passing week.

Eric
--
For every prohibition you create you also create an underground.
- Jello Biafra
f***@gmail.com
2006-04-26 03:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Eric wrote:"Your posts seem to get more bizarre with each passing week.
"

No, it is only that you, like many others, are finding your education
background more and more ill equipped for being a voter or democracy of
Canada.
masfeliz06
2006-04-28 15:23:23 UTC
Permalink
I'm going to start using the fyfpoon reply link since I've discovered a
few of you found a way to redirect comments you don't want heard.
Sounds a bit communist doesn't it?

I've found a home here. A socialist barber shop where the propoganda
and stupidity is never ending. I think I'll show up routinely and
blast the bs with facts.

Today's economic data out of the US:

Regarding todays data.

PMI -

Slightly less than expected.
Figure being above 50 however means bottom line is an expanding
economy.

GDP -

Slightly less than expected.

Bottom line, 4%+ is a solid/strong figure.
Business investment at 14.3% strongest in 6 years.
masfeliz06
2006-04-28 18:48:14 UTC
Permalink
According to the results of OFII's 2006 survey, eighty-eight percent
of CEOs of U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies plan to increase or
maintain their companies' investments in the United States over the
next year.

"This survey shows a continued level of confidence in the United
States as a location for investment - primarily due to the quality of
the American workforce," said Todd M. Malan, OFII President and CEO.
Fafnir
2006-04-29 05:30:37 UTC
Permalink
In article
nothing of consequence
Dubbyiah has the title of 'Worst President in 100 Years' locked
up.

Now he's going for the gold - worst president in history.

He's got a ways to go - after all, James Buchanan was
responsible for the Civil War.

But Bush still has a sporting chance...
Dr. Zaius
2006-04-29 05:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fafnir
But Bush still has a sporting chance...
But only if he avoids Dick Cheney with a six-pack and a shotgun.
masfeliz06
2006-05-02 04:26:05 UTC
Permalink
A bit more US ecomomic data, today's releases (there is data almost
every day):

Income rose at twice the pace expected (0.8%, 6.0% yoy) as wages and
salaries rose 0.4% (5.0% yoy).
Andrew H.
2006-05-03 23:01:06 UTC
Permalink
Okay, we have a number of serious challenges as they pertain
to my particular circumstance, so, I'm going to need to get
your feedback on these following three issues as a starter.


Firstly, the original arrest warrant was bogus. My essays
were not "emails", but public postings to a board that carried
all my written work up to that point regarding the documented
truths of 9/11. UNCONTENDED truths such as who was
responsible for carrying out the planning and execution of the
terrorist event, even including the money man, Mr. Bush's
business partner, the un-arrested General Ahmad. The
arresting National Security officers recorded my comments at
the police station, and could find no honorable position to
find disagreement. - That they were refusing to do their jobs
to the serve the interests of Justice in seeking the culprits
for mass murder on nine-eleven, is at least what one officer
from section "D" is prepared to testify in court.


Two, the local city cops, -----z and ------s, confessed to be
irrational in their unsubstantiated support of cop killer Bush
as their universal know nothing leader, and acted with a
flagrant disregard for Canadian soldiers lives by unjustly
opposing our truths to be spoken in my defense. Suffering
from what I term to be bushitism. A sufferable mental
condition where the principles of Justice and reason to
protect our freedoms do not apply to totalitarian fascists who
hate clever people who do good police work because we make'em
look blind and stupid. So, instead of just doing their job
honorably, -----z and company decided it would be best to make
attempts to demonize my better name, with lying to me
directly, among a great many other things. So, as a result,
my comments in the recorded video statement, are made with the
understanding that the principled positions that the national
security of our country has, would be introduced, and that
they would perhaps, possibly look dumb and ignorant, but not
evil to the general masses of surviving soldier families, with
my comments as they were placed. [The Bush junta's "patriotic
troops" blindly targeted mostly TRULY honorable police
officers for death, when they weren't bombing the completely
innocent and defenseless including children with land mines
and toxic waste] So, my recorded comments addressed about
their honorable positions, were only made by believing that
-----z wouldn't cut the tape dishonorably before the official
conclusion was drawn, such as, my agreement stating that no
coercion on their part had taken place. They made a
professional promise to this country to uphold the protections
of our community, and failed by promising me I would be
granted a recording to speak openly in my own defense. My
expressions recorded were done so in acknowledgement of the
overall statement. So, because they edited my sworn testimony
as saboteurs of Justice, it must, in any world, be thrown out
as invalid.


Three. I need to challenge every single last alleged picture
of adults that are claimed to be children, or children that
they claim to be sexual. These pictures that were found on my
possession are not my expressions, nor defined by what only
the Crown's pro-bush crew sees in private. The Crown sees all
animations on my vast video tape collections as, "Child
Cartoon". Simpsons, Family Guy, Fritz the Cat, and so on.
However, I am an adult, but none-the-less, I purchased many
tapes "as is" from the salvation army. I know of a convicted
pedophile who states television turned him on to sex crimes,
and almost suggested therefore it's everybody else's fault he
infringed on the rights of another. The faulting sexually
dysfunctional interpretations of the Crown's crew are not my
own, including their ungodly refusal to speak out for the
defense of children in Afghanistan, Iraq, or, who tragically
died murdered in New York City on 9/11, and finally, today,
still, as teen soldiers die for their personal cowardice and
betrayals to our Human race - and job desciptions, attempt to
have me silenced from speaking justly for everyone's defense.


Finally, for now, as you should be aware, the possession
charge absent intent to possess or distribute, images the
crown's crew would confess are many for sure legal, or
leastly, legally obtained, is not only unconstitutional, but
got to be made seriously unjust as borderline criminal.


There are other issues that I will need to discuss with you,
such as our approach to my pending motions, new motions, and
relevant precedent setting decisions to get your expertise in
these matters - in hopes to further illuminate my rock solid
defense for my love of children everywhere. I expect us to
work together on the continuing preliminary of course, and hope
when you do have the space to take this case on full time, you'll
keep in regular contact with me, as I would imagine you'd only
expect. Right?.. Take it easy ------, thanks for joining the
team, and I hope to hear from you soon.


John.


---


http://istanbul.indymedia.org/uploads/t-timebig8.mp3
--
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0604i.asp


/ / No restraints on declaring and waging war against other nations.
No restraints on the power to secretly record telephone conversations
of the American people. No restraints on the power to kidnap and send
people into overseas concentration camps for the purpose of torture
and even execution. No restraints on the power to take Americans into
custody as ``enemy combatants'' and punish them -- even torture and
execute them -- without due process of law and jury trials. If all
that isn't dictatorship, what is? \ \


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/As_U.S._prepares_to_face_U.N._0428....


/ / "The heaviest sentence imposed on anyone to date for a
torture-related
death while in U.S. custody is five months," notes Curt Goering,
Senior
Deputy Executive Director for Amnesty International USA. "[That's] the
same sentence that you might receive in the U.S. for stealing a
bicycle." \ \


http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/04/us-ambassador-john-bo...


/ / Let's not forget that [UN-ELECTED] Bolton was appointed to the UN
by Bush,when congress was on vacation. Congress voted againist him
but the presiduce can overturn the vote-when on holiday. When congress
came back--not a peep from the Democrats. This old goat is a MOSSAD
agent with dual citizenship. \ \


Nor was the incompetent/traitor elected by anyone else either.


---


DEAD ENEMY


/ / [TRUE anti-Christ] Bush wrote "we do not rule out the use
of force before attacks occur -- even if uncertainty
remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." \


What threat of distant looming attack was lowered, by criminally
murdering and thieving to be enemies of everyone, friendly?
The Son of God preaches: A good bushite is a dead enemy halted
from victimizing the godly as innocent. Happy hunting.


Know Thy Enemy - Christs Comedy of Error - Truly amazing audio
performance!!!


http://houston.indymedia.org/uploads/know_thy_enemy---christs-comedy-...
http://hawaii.indymedia.org/uploads/know_thy_enemy---christs-comedy-o...
http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2006/04/know_thy_enemy---christs-come...


http://dc.indymedia.org/usermedia/video/2/thewall.wmv
--
REVELATIONS


/ / 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but
thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which
say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue
of Satan. \ \


/ / 1. Is Scottie getting worse at lying, or are
we just getting better at seeing the truth? \ \


/ / It has denied that there were any civilian casualties,
despite television footage showing dead and wounded
women and children being pulled from the rubble of
flattened homes. \ \ While sadistic satanic enemies cheer at
God's suffering - proudly kill a bushite for the love of Jesus


http://www.binghamtonpmc.org/usermedia/audio/5/thesonofman-godsfrontl...


Battle Plan of Christ


http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/battle_plan_of_christ.mp3
http://istanbul.indymedia.org/uploads/battle_plan_of_christ.mp3
http://houston.indymedia.org/uploads/battle_plan_of_christ.mp3


/ / Sept. 30, 2003: "There are too many leaks of
classified information in Washington. "And if there's a
leak out of the administration, I want to know who it
is. And if a person violated the law, the person will
be taken care of." \ \


/ / Really, W. should fire himself. He swore to look high
and low for the scurrilous leaker and, lo and behold, he
has himself in custody. \ \


/ / The U.S. government has been running up bills --
notably the promises of pensions and health-care
benefits for military veterans and millions of other
retirees -- without putting the obligations on the
books. \ \


/ / "The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful
information campaign to date." -- Brig. Gen. Mark
Kimmitt, in an internal 2004 memo praising the
propaganda campaign to hype the threat of Iraq's
"terrorist mastermind" Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. \ \


/ / According to all three intelligence sources, military
and intelligence officials alike were alarmed that
instead of securing a known terrorist organization,
which has been responsible for acts of terror against
Iranian targets and individuals all over the world -
including US civilian and military casualties - Rumsfeld
under instructions from Cheney, began using the group on
special ops missions into Iran to pave the way for a
potential Iran strike. \ \


/ / [TRUE anti-Christ] Bush wrote "we do not rule out the use
of force before attacks occur -- even if uncertainty
remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." \ \


What threat of distant looming ...
Post by masfeliz06
A bit more US ecomomic data, today's releases (there is data almost
Income rose at twice the pace expected (0.8%, 6.0% yoy) as wages and
salaries rose 0.4% (5.0% yoy).
masfeliz06
2006-04-26 08:38:12 UTC
Permalink
No, what is too bad is that fyfp is making sound factual points and
some of you cant understand it or refuse to, which shows a denial of
reality.
john w <johnw@yoo.hoo>
2006-04-26 09:45:59 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:45:43 GMT, John Wesley Asquith
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
copyright 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of
this article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of
the author
Post by John Wesley Asquith
Post by masfeliz06
And I will just throw in this little taste of reality for you, just a
quote from a major investment firm noting that under Bush, the US has
seen record wealth creation.
You evidently missed it, you bigot.

I just posted an article in which the historians were quizzed about
the 10 worst mistakes by a President.

George W Bush's name came up ONLY as an "honorable mention."


Take your hate campaign someplace else.


john w
Post by John Wesley Asquith
Post by masfeliz06
"We remained bullish for much of this year, despite analyst worries
about rising oil prices, official rate hikes and the threat that the
housing bubble would pop. We chose to focus on the strength of
liquidity flows and the record wealth creation generated by the housing
market, predicting that real GDP would grow 4% this year. The run-rate
for the first three quarters of 2005 has been 3.8%."
Then how do you explain that there are more people in the U.S. below
the poverty level than ever before in history?
Bush is a cheap, lying politician. And Frist is his goon that goads
on the right-wing-religious-wackos.
Time for a regime change in America and that doesn't include Frist.
You'd think a person with an M.D. might be smart but check him out for
yourself. There are dumb doctors just like there are stupid
presidents.
If there was ever a president who should be impeached, not just for
the Iraq war, but for the several felonies committed, it is GEORGE W.
BUSH.
duke
2006-04-26 10:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wesley Asquith
If there was ever a president who should be impeached, not just for
the Iraq war, but for the several felonies committed, it is GEORGE W.
BUSH.
Thank you, President Bush.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2006-04-28 22:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Wesley Asquith
Then how do you explain that there are more people in the U.S. below
the poverty level than ever before in history?
Bush is a cheap, lying politician. And Frist is his goon that goads
on the right-wing-religious-wackos.
1. 'rat willie clinton left the country and went to Russia to avoid the draft.

2. 'rat willie clinton was impeached.

3. 'rat willie clinton paid the NKoreans not to build nukes than watched as
they took the money and told him to stuff it.

4. Eight times terrorists bombed US embassies and a warship, and 8 times 'rat
willie clinton said we will find out who did this and punish them, and 8 times
he did nothing.

5. 'rat willie clinton destroyed the US ground-based intel in favor of
satellites. The US says "thanks for 911, 'rat willie".

6. 'rat willie clinton resided over a massive drop in prosperity in America in
his 2nd term. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

7. 'rat willie clinton created a US recession in his 2nd term.

8. The stock market tanked in 'rat willie clinton's 2nd term.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Bush The Decider
2006-04-28 22:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by John Wesley Asquith
Then how do you explain that there are more people in the U.S. below
the poverty level than ever before in history?
Bush is a cheap, lying politician. And Frist is his goon that goads
on the right-wing-religious-wackos.
1. 'rat willie clinton left the country and went to Russia to avoid the draft.
2. 'rat willie clinton was impeached.
3. 'rat willie clinton paid the NKoreans not to build nukes than watched as
they took the money and told him to stuff it.
4. Eight times terrorists bombed US embassies and a warship, and 8 times 'rat
willie clinton said we will find out who did this and punish them, and 8 times
he did nothing.
5. 'rat willie clinton destroyed the US ground-based intel in favor of
satellites. The US says "thanks for 911, 'rat willie".
6. 'rat willie clinton resided over a massive drop in prosperity in America in
his 2nd term. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
7. 'rat willie clinton created a US recession in his 2nd term.
8. The stock market tanked in 'rat willie clinton's 2nd term.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
That was a nice load of distorted shit, wasn't it!

Now run along, boy. Revisionist historical distortions are for morons like you,
not normal people.
--
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Iskandar Baharuddin
2006-04-29 00:31:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 18:58:39 -0400, Bush The Decider
Post by Bush The Decider
Post by duke
Post by John Wesley Asquith
Then how do you explain that there are more people in the U.S. below
the poverty level than ever before in history?
Bush is a cheap, lying politician. And Frist is his goon that goads
on the right-wing-religious-wackos.
1. 'rat willie clinton left the country and went to Russia to avoid the draft.
2. 'rat willie clinton was impeached.
3. 'rat willie clinton paid the NKoreans not to build nukes than watched as
they took the money and told him to stuff it.
4. Eight times terrorists bombed US embassies and a warship, and 8 times 'rat
willie clinton said we will find out who did this and punish them, and 8 times
he did nothing.
5. 'rat willie clinton destroyed the US ground-based intel in favor of
satellites. The US says "thanks for 911, 'rat willie".
6. 'rat willie clinton resided over a massive drop in prosperity in America in
his 2nd term. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
7. 'rat willie clinton created a US recession in his 2nd term.
8. The stock market tanked in 'rat willie clinton's 2nd term.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
That was a nice load of distorted shit, wasn't it!
Now run along, boy. Revisionist historical distortions are for morons like you,
not normal people.
Actually I found his post rather interesting - as is your reply.

Would you mind awfully going back over it once more and marking the
points he got wrong?

Many thanks
--
Shalom & Salam

Izzy

"Of course, I cannot be absolutely sure that God exists
in the customary sense of the term.

"However, if He does exist He must be getting seriously
pissed off with us. Prepare for the worst."

- P S Kelly
masfeliz06
2006-04-25 09:30:13 UTC
Permalink
You have given exactly the type of response I expected.

1. Hollow and with nothing but insults.
2. No factual evidence.
3. Picking away at nothing, like the fact I made a typo because I type
quickly sometimes.

Lets get back on track, which is what you fear and cannot handle, along
with the truth.

Show me the figures on poverty increasing under Bush. We'll go from
there.

By the way, your arrogant attitude about having an MBA is exactly why I
would not hire you.
Orion
2006-04-25 16:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Liberals hate Bush because they're stupid and we're smart.
masfeliz06
2006-04-25 10:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Yes, now I am convinced you may be under 20 years of age. I see
nothing but high school type insults coming from you. I type fast
sometimes.

What do you say about this?

"The amazing thing about the leftist mind is its virtual inability to
let go of the carrot of leftist utopia, no matter the disasters of its
irrationality, and history of failure to produce even on a balanced
scale over time.

Individuals donate more than double the total US humanitarian aid of
the government. This is excluding corporatations, which are also
eclipsed by the individual. The capitalist system is what creates the
wealth that enables good men to feed the poor.

Under GW Bush, the US has seen record wealth creation, it is a fact.
And record humanitarian aid. It is a fact."
f***@gmail.com
2006-04-24 01:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Rick wrote:"Poverty in the US has increased under Bush's system, not
decreased.
The gap between the rich and the poor has increased."

***i don't think poverty has increased under Bush in absulute terms.
That the Dow has been making high heights and the Nasdaq recovering is
a contradiction to what you have indicated.

***I am not going to touch the subject of the gap between the rich and
the poor as to do so would require a set of quantitative tools.
However, even if I did accept the assumption that the gap has increased
since the time Bush took office, this gap, widened as you have claimed,
should have been blamed on Clinton but not Bush. The Nasdaq bubble was
created under Clinton. When that bubble burst, Greenspan had to
produce generous credit in order to remedy the distasteful consequences
of this burst. The result of ease credit in the form of low interest
rate is significantly responsible for today's inflation in the housing
market. What inflation does is to distribute wealth from the poor to
the rich. In this regard, the Canadian government is as guilty as the
US in terms of failing to significantly re-distribute wealth back to
the poor who have been victimized by this spiralling inflation in the
housing sector.

To sum up: Bush has not produced this widened gap between the rich and
the poor; the root cause was created under Clinton. However, an
argument seems plausible that whatever measures taken in terms of
income redistribution do not _so far_ seem to have achieved the desired
effect. It does not mean, on the other hand, that the measures will
never work. Oftentimes there is a time lag in cycles between measures
taken and the impact felt. Also, when being confronted with a set of
choices such as more employment but more inflation vs less employment
and less inflation, more steel and less butter or vice versa, the
government has to priortize. Don't forget that the US did not choose
to invite 9/11 into its country, the US did not invite Saddam to go
into Kuwait, but these events took place with no alternatives left to
the US. US had to act! When acting out of a given quantity of scarce
resources, a certain amount of depletion in the standard of living at
home has to be accepted as a given. Do you think that every home in
the US is going to have an economic ball overnight once Bush goes away
from the White House?
masfeliz06
2006-04-22 08:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Honestly. Your post actually shows how incredibly ignorant you are.
Americans don't believe most of what you are saying. I've only heard
this sort of rubble from leftist, mainly non American socialist media
sources pumping out this propoganda.

We know Iraq was more than wmd's, but we also know, and it is a fact if
you research and see the widely published documents on every major US
media source from actual Iraqi intelligence sources under Hussein's
rule quoting the details and results of their meetings with Bin Laden
in aims to wage jihaad against the US. Look it up. I'll try to
remember to post them for you if not. Every major news source,
official Iraqi documents prior to the US coalition setting foot in
Iraq. You think Hussein was selling flowers?

Millions and millions of people in Iraq and Afghanistan celebrated in
the streets with ink stained hands after voting for the first time
following their liberation, screaming "The US is our father." I have
it on tape.

Few of us believe Hussein was directly behind 911 contrary to your
propoganda. But few of us are stupid enough, especially knowing the
facts such as those I quoted above, that he hasn't had a hand in
indirectly assaulting the western world including the US. Do you
remember him screaming "death to America"?

Was it my imagination when we dug up half a million dead people in
Iraq, many women and children? Was it my imagination of the accounts
of babies being thrown into meat grinders alive, numerous accounts?

Is it my imagination France had the largest oil contract with Hussein
worth billions?

Is it my imagination the first six countries awarded oil contracts
after the liberation were not US?

The only imagination is yours. You need to wake up and get the facts
straight. You sound like the people who insulated Hitler.
Mike V.
2006-04-15 18:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Macleans.ca - April 11, 2006
Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
No, he's the worst ever.
Post by Karen Gordon
He has always been a polarizing figure, but now his constant battles at
home and abroad are taking on historic proportions
On March 16, Iraqi insurgents fired a mortar shell into the U.S. army base
in Tikrit, landing near two members of the 101st Airborne Division,
reportedly as they stood waiting for a bus. The explosion killed Sgt.
Amanda Pinson of St. Louis, Mo., making her the 2,315th U.S. soldier
killed in Iraq since the war began three years ago. She was 21.
A few hours later in Washington, the U.S. Senate voted 52-48 to increase
the ceiling on the national debt, by $781 billion, to $9 trillion <===== !
(all figures US$) -- or roughly $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the
country -- thus avoiding the first-ever default on U.S. debt. The House of
Representatives then approved another $92 billion in federal spending to
support the war effort in the Middle East.
That night, Gallup wrapped up its latest opinion poll on Americans'
attitudes toward the White House, showing just 37 per cent approve of the
President's performance, versus 59 per cent who disapprove -- a drop of
five percentage points in a month -- one of the worst scores of any
president in the modern era.
Just another day in the life of the world's last superpower under the
leadership of President George W. Bush.
With deficits and debt swelling to epic levels, an economy showing massive
cracks, and support for America crumbling abroad, the Bush administration
finds itself increasingly isolated. With mid-term elections looming in
November, the President is now widely seen as a political liability.
Republicans are actively distancing themselves from Bush, and joining
Democrats in strident critiques of the White House. And things may be
getting worse.
Last week, court documents emerged showing Scooter Libby, former chief of
staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, testified that Bush authorized the
leak of sensitive intelligence to shore up support and discredit critics of
the Iraq war, raising, for the first time, the possibility that the
President may be personally implicated in a scandal.
These are more than just the normal travails of a second-term president
fending off the slings and arrows of partisan attack. Bush's constant
battles at home and abroad are taking on historic proportions, hardening
perceptions that his administration is defined by failure on multiple
fronts.
Just over 16 months have passed since George W. Bush was elected for the
second term that eluded his father, but already historians and pundits are
beginning to debate whether he just might be the worst U.S. president in a
century.
In 2004, George Mason University polled 415 presidential historians and
found 80 per cent considered Bush's first term a failure. More than half
considered it the worst presidency since the Great Depression. More than a
third called it the worst in 100 years. Eleven per cent said it was the
worst ever. Robert McElvaine, a professor of history at Millsaps College
in Mississippi, says scores would likely be worse if the poll were
repeated today.
"When I filled out that survey I said Bush was the worst since Buchanan
[1857-61], but things have gotten worse and now I'd have to consider him
the worst ever," McElvaine says. "If you look at the situation he
inherited, and the situation following 9/11, he had great opportunities and
he basically squandered them. He has put the future of the country in a
much more precarious position than it was when he became president."
That Bush is unpopular, especially among academics, is not surprising in
itself. He has always been a polarizing figure, and most presidents have
been deeply unpopular at some point in office, especially those who
dedicated themselves to ambitious projects beyond America's borders. Even
Abraham Lincoln, now generally considered the greatest of all U.S.
presidents, was widely detested in his day for triggering the bloodbath of
the Civil War for no good reason.
In the final analysis, presidents are judged on a relatively narrow set of
criteria -- fiscal management, economic stewardship, handling change or
crisis at home, and the promotion of America's interests abroad. It all
boils down to two questions: how did he deal with the challenges of his
day? And were the American people better off at the end of his tenure than
they were at the start? No president can claim an unambiguously positive
record, but few have come up so short, on so many counts, as Bush has.
[....]
With just a few years left in his mandate, historians say George W. Bush
has no such achievements to offset the grievous cost of Iraq in blood and
treasure. Despite the biggest federal spending spree in more than a
generation, the Bush White House has produced no transformational vision
for domestic policy. His massive tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have neither
sparked the economy nor bolstered his popularity. They have, however,
exacerbated a fiscal crisis that threatens to undermine the very basis of
the American state.
"It used to be a part of the American character to believe in delaying
gratification, and saving for the future," McElvaine says. "But it seems
the future is being ignored in spectacular fashion by this administration."
Even a couple of years ago this would have sounded like a partisan
indictment. But today it is sounding more like the general consensus. The
latest backlash against Bush has nothing to do with his folksy demeanour,
his frequent malapropisms, or even the allegations that the Iraq invasion
was launched under false pretenses. Nor is it rooted solely among the
Democrats and urban intellectual elites that have always despised him.
Over the course of the past two years, a growing list of Bush allies has
broken faith with his leadership -- conservatives and libertarians like
Bruce Bartlett, Peggy Noonan and Newt Gingrich, and neo-con intellectuals
like Francis Fukuyama. Their complaints are based on numbers -- huge,
frightening numbers, that cast serious doubt on the notion that Bush will
ever be vindicated. [...]
When George W. Bush took office at the beginning of 2001, he inherited
from the Clinton administration a budget surplus of US$86.4 billion. He
had campaigned on a promise to use that money for an ambitious program of
tax cuts, which he put into action immediately upon arrival in the Oval
Office.
But Bush's conservative allies had expected those tax cuts to be followed
by an equally sweeping review of federal spending. That austerity never
came. On the contrary, he's gone on a mammoth spending spree.
"People thought over the long term he'd try to do some good and
Republicans could finally make good on their promises of getting spending
under control, but here we are in the second term and that has not
materialized," he says. "The dam has just broken."
The Bush administration has a standard answer for this critique. In a time
of war, they say, budget overruns are the inevitable cost of defending
freedom and democracy at home and abroad. But that no longer holds water
with Washington's budget hawks. They point out that federal spending has
risen by $683 billion a year under Bush, less than a third of which has
gone to national defence and homeland security.
As a result, the U.S. national debt has surged from $5.7 trillion in the
last fiscal year before Bush took office, to over $8.3 trillion and
counting. Brian Riedl, a budget analyst with the right-wing Heritage
Foundation, says the Bush administration has played the benevolent uncle
to every special interest that comes calling, using its spending power to
win support in potentially vulnerable constituencies.
The No Child Left Behind education bill, for example, was aimed at suburban
families; the farm bill at Midwest rural voters; and the prescription drug
benefit at the most active voting bloc of all, seniors. "No president since
FDR has accelerated spending as fast as Bush has," he groans. "I'm shocked
about it, but the numbers show what the numbers show."
In reality, the $8.3-trillion figure doesn't even begin to describe the
true size of America's fiscal crisis because it doesn't include the
so-called entitlement liabilities.
In Medicare and Social Security, the U.S. government is committed to
providing retirement benefits and medical care for senior citizens. But
thanks to an aging population (the first of about 78 million American baby
boomers turn 60 this year) and rising medical costs, those programs are
desperately underfunded.
At the end of 2004, government actuaries calculated that the two programs
had unfunded liabilities of $43 trillion, up from $20 trillion in 2000. In
other words, Washington would need an immediate cash infusion of $43
trillion in order to meet all its future obligations under Medicare and
Social Security.
The Economic Policy Institute recently projected that under the current
tax regime, by 2014 all government revenue would be consumed by four
budget items: Medicare, Social Security, national defence and interest on
the debt. Walker's department forecasts that, at the current rate of
growth, the cost of servicing the national debt will consume half of all
tax revenues within 25 years.
Bush does have his fiscal defenders, and they generally point out that the
national debt rose higher as a percentage of the economy under Reagan.
[....]
America's looming financial crunch would be less daunting if it seemed
like the economy was poised to take flight. But among economists there is
little hope for such a windfall. With 12.6 per cent growth in GDP and the
creation of 2.3 million jobs since 2001, President Bush frequently crows
about the world's "pre-eminent" economy. Beneath the surface, critics see
a situation far less healthy than it first appears.
Two million new jobs sounds like a lot, but it's the most anemic job
creation performance by any president in the postwar era. The gains have
also failed to keep pace with the growth of the workforce, and as a result
the overall employment rate under Bush has declined from 64.4 per cent to
62.9 per cent.
The manufacturing sector has been particularly hard hit, losing 2.9 million
jobs since Bush took office, a decline of roughly 17 per cent -- worse than
the postwar hangover under Truman, worse than the early '70s stagnation
under Nixon, and far worse than the darkest days of Reagan's Rust Belt
plant closures.
Little wonder that a Gallup poll earlier this year showed more than half of
Americans consider the economy only "fair" or "poor," and 52 per cent think
it's getting worse. [....]
So while CEOs and politicians can point selectively to indicators of a
robust economy, the story on Main Street doesn't look so rosy. Consumers
know much of their lifestyle has been financed on credit. Household
indebtedness has skyrocketed by 60 per cent to $4.5 trillion in the past
five years, and U.S. consumers now owe close to five times as much as they
did 20 years ago when adjusted for inflation. [....]
In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the election over Jimmy Carter by repeatedly
asking voters, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"
In 2004, Bush wouldn't have dared ask such a question, and since then things
have deteriorated substantially. While not all of this can be blamed on
the President, the perception is now taking hold that America's vaunted
standard of living is under assault.
A decade of improvements in alleviating poverty have reversed in recent
years. While the economy has grown, the poverty rate has risen to 12.7 per
cent of the population, the highest level since 1998, representing five
million people who have fallen into poverty in five years.
Even economists who supported Bush's tax cuts see little hope that they
will form the bedrock of a future boom -- not with U.S. consumers so
deeply indebted, and with future administrations saddled with massive
funding liabilities that will, in all likelihood, force taxes back up
again in the near future. But those are long-term concerns, and America
has more immediate problems to face. [....]
"There is an old weakness in our foreign policy," Dallek says. "We make the
mistake of believing that inside every foreigner there is an American just
waiting to emerge. It's just not true. Woodrow Wilson made that mistake,
and George Bush is making it again. The whole notion that you can export
democracy at the point of a bayonet simply does not work."
[....]
Foreign policy is often a nightmare for U.S. presidents, since Americans
have a long history of preferring isolationism to foreign intervention.
John F. Kennedy suffered the humiliation of the Bay of Pigs fiasco; Carter
was embarrassed by the Iranian hostage crisis; and every president from
Truman to Reagan operated under the shadow of the Soviet menace. Bush
doesn't yet face a threat on the scale of the Cold War, but no president
has attracted such hostility on so many fronts, in so short a time.
More worrying are the signs that Bush's tendency toward unilateralism has
weakened ties to America's traditional allies, including Canada.
Perhaps the most dramatic example came in 2004, with Spain's election of a
new left-leaning government, which immediately bowed to public opinion and
pulled the country's 1,300 troops out of Iraq.
Hungary, Poland, Ukraine and the Netherlands began their own gradual
withdrawals last year. And last September, Italy -- which had the
fourth-largest contingent of troops on the ground in Iraq -- began a phased
pullout after an Italian agent was accidentally killed by U.S. troops and
the public turned strongly against the war.
The NATO deployment in Afghanistan has been more stable, but not without
controversy. It recently took six months of wrangling in the Dutch
parliament before the Netherlands finally authorized deployment of 1,400
troops to the region to relieve a withdrawing U.S. force.
Observers say these foreign controversies would be easily manageable, if
not for a steady stream of domestic missteps eroding confidence in the
administration.
The bungled relief effort following hurricane Katrina, Bush's aborted
attempt to appoint his close friend, the woefully underqualified Harriet
Miers, to the Supreme Court, and Scooter Libby's revelations about the
ongoing CIA leak affair, have all contributed to the President's slide.
Last month, Pew released its latest study of American attitudes, finding
that just one in three support Bush's leadership. Even among those who say
they voted for Bush in 2004, his support has fallen from 92 per cent at the
beginning of 2005 to 68 per cent.
Asked for a one-word description of the President, the most common response
was "incompetent," followed closely by "idiot" and "liar." A year ago, the
top response was "honest." [....]
For now, the pessimists outnumber the believers. And with every one of
Bush's former allies that turns away from his leadership, the margin grows
and the odds get longer.
"The Right One"
2006-04-15 18:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Macleans.ca - April 11, 2006
Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
We're not sure but it would be interesting if Mcleans interviewed Bush and
the other 42 presidents. Then they would be able to answer their own
question
--
Ahh, it's sooo nice to be
a Canadian these days.

Terry Pearson.
http://www.rightpoint.org
Helping to shape
Canada's destiny.

The Liberals are like toothless yorkies,
who will spend the next year, at least,
attempting to gum the the Tories to
death.

A good plan executed violently
today is better than a perfect plan
executed at some indefinite point
in the future.
- Gen. George S. Patton

It's called "war" and as the cliché goes,
it is not pretty. Nor is it a science, where,
if a formula is followed, the outcome is
assured. ~ Rondi Adamson,
Toronto Star, March 2006

God Keep Our Land
Glorious And Free.
Tomo
2006-04-16 08:49:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karen Gordon
Macleans.ca - April 11, 2006
Is George W. Bush the worst president in 100 years?
He has always been a polarizing figure, but now his constant battles at
home and abroad are taking on historic proportions
On March 16, Iraqi insurgents fired a mortar shell into the U.S. army base
in Tikrit, landing near two members of the 101st Airborne Division,
reportedly as they stood waiting for a bus. The explosion killed Sgt.
Amanda Pinson of St. Louis, Mo., making her the 2,315th U.S. soldier
killed in Iraq since the war began three years ago. She was 21.
A few hours later in Washington, the U.S. Senate voted 52-48 to increase
the ceiling on the national debt, by $781 billion, to $9 trillion <===== !
(all figures US$) -- or roughly $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the
country -- thus avoiding the first-ever default on U.S. debt. The House of
Representatives then approved another $92 billion in federal spending to
support the war effort in the Middle East.
That night, Gallup wrapped up its latest opinion poll on Americans'
attitudes toward the White House, showing just 37 per cent approve of the
President's performance, versus 59 per cent who disapprove -- a drop of
five percentage points in a month -- one of the worst scores of any
president in the modern era.
Just another day in the life of the world's last superpower under the
leadership of President George W. Bush.
With deficits and debt swelling to epic levels, an economy showing massive
cracks, and support for America crumbling abroad, the Bush administration
finds itself increasingly isolated. With mid-term elections looming in
November, the President is now widely seen as a political liability.
Republicans are actively distancing themselves from Bush, and joining
Democrats in strident critiques of the White House. And things may be
getting worse.
Last week, court documents emerged showing Scooter Libby, former chief of
staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, testified that Bush authorized the
leak of sensitive intelligence to shore up support and discredit critics of
the Iraq war, raising, for the first time, the possibility that the
President may be personally implicated in a scandal.
These are more than just the normal travails of a second-term president
fending off the slings and arrows of partisan attack. Bush's constant
battles at home and abroad are taking on historic proportions, hardening
perceptions that his administration is defined by failure on multiple
fronts.
Just over 16 months have passed since George W. Bush was elected for the
second term that eluded his father, but already historians and pundits are
beginning to debate whether he just might be the worst U.S. president in a
century.
In 2004, George Mason University polled 415 presidential historians and
found 80 per cent considered Bush's first term a failure. More than half
considered it the worst presidency since the Great Depression. More than a
third called it the worst in 100 years. Eleven per cent said it was the
worst ever. Robert McElvaine, a professor of history at Millsaps College
in Mississippi, says scores would likely be worse if the poll were
repeated today.
"When I filled out that survey I said Bush was the worst since Buchanan
[1857-61], but things have gotten worse and now I'd have to consider him
the worst ever," McElvaine says. "If you look at the situation he
inherited, and the situation following 9/11, he had great opportunities and
he basically squandered them. He has put the future of the country in a
much more precarious position than it was when he became president."
That Bush is unpopular, especially among academics, is not surprising in
itself. He has always been a polarizing figure, and most presidents have
been deeply unpopular at some point in office, especially those who
dedicated themselves to ambitious projects beyond America's borders. Even
Abraham Lincoln, now generally considered the greatest of all U.S.
presidents, was widely detested in his day for triggering the bloodbath of
the Civil War for no good reason.
In the final analysis, presidents are judged on a relatively narrow set of
criteria -- fiscal management, economic stewardship, handling change or
crisis at home, and the promotion of America's interests abroad. It all
boils down to two questions: how did he deal with the challenges of his
day? And were the American people better off at the end of his tenure than
they were at the start? No president can claim an unambiguously positive
record, but few have come up so short, on so many counts, as Bush has.
[....]
With just a few years left in his mandate, historians say George W. Bush
has no such achievements to offset the grievous cost of Iraq in blood and
treasure. Despite the biggest federal spending spree in more than a
generation, the Bush White House has produced no transformational vision
for domestic policy. His massive tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have neither
sparked the economy nor bolstered his popularity. They have, however,
exacerbated a fiscal crisis that threatens to undermine the very basis of
the American state.
"It used to be a part of the American character to believe in delaying
gratification, and saving for the future," McElvaine says. "But it seems
the future is being ignored in spectacular fashion by this
administration."
Even a couple of years ago this would have sounded like a partisan
indictment. But today it is sounding more like the general consensus. The
latest backlash against Bush has nothing to do with his folksy demeanour,
his frequent malapropisms, or even the allegations that the Iraq invasion
was launched under false pretenses. Nor is it rooted solely among the
Democrats and urban intellectual elites that have always despised him.
Over the course of the past two years, a growing list of Bush allies has
broken faith with his leadership -- conservatives and libertarians like
Bruce Bartlett, Peggy Noonan and Newt Gingrich, and neo-con intellectuals
like Francis Fukuyama. Their complaints are based on numbers -- huge,
frightening numbers, that cast serious doubt on the notion that Bush will
ever be vindicated. [...]
When George W. Bush took office at the beginning of 2001, he inherited
from the Clinton administration a budget surplus of US$86.4 billion. He
had campaigned on a promise to use that money for an ambitious program of
tax cuts, which he put into action immediately upon arrival in the Oval
Office.
But Bush's conservative allies had expected those tax cuts to be followed
by an equally sweeping review of federal spending. That austerity never
came. On the contrary, he's gone on a mammoth spending spree.
"People thought over the long term he'd try to do some good and
Republicans could finally make good on their promises of getting spending
under control, but here we are in the second term and that has not
materialized," he says. "The dam has just broken."
The Bush administration has a standard answer for this critique. In a time
of war, they say, budget overruns are the inevitable cost of defending
freedom and democracy at home and abroad. But that no longer holds water
with Washington's budget hawks. They point out that federal spending has
risen by $683 billion a year under Bush, less than a third of which has
gone to national defence and homeland security.
As a result, the U.S. national debt has surged from $5.7 trillion in the
last fiscal year before Bush took office, to over $8.3 trillion and
counting. Brian Riedl, a budget analyst with the right-wing Heritage
Foundation, says the Bush administration has played the benevolent uncle
to every special interest that comes calling, using its spending power to
win support in potentially vulnerable constituencies.
The No Child Left Behind education bill, for example, was aimed at suburban
families; the farm bill at Midwest rural voters; and the prescription drug
benefit at the most active voting bloc of all, seniors. "No president since
FDR has accelerated spending as fast as Bush has," he groans. "I'm shocked
about it, but the numbers show what the numbers show."
In reality, the $8.3-trillion figure doesn't even begin to describe the
true size of America's fiscal crisis because it doesn't include the
so-called entitlement liabilities.
In Medicare and Social Security, the U.S. government is committed to
providing retirement benefits and medical care for senior citizens. But
thanks to an aging population (the first of about 78 million American baby
boomers turn 60 this year) and rising medical costs, those programs are
desperately underfunded.
At the end of 2004, government actuaries calculated that the two programs
had unfunded liabilities of $43 trillion, up from $20 trillion in 2000. In
other words, Washington would need an immediate cash infusion of $43
trillion in order to meet all its future obligations under Medicare and
Social Security.
The Economic Policy Institute recently projected that under the current
tax regime, by 2014 all government revenue would be consumed by four
budget items: Medicare, Social Security, national defence and interest on
the debt. Walker's department forecasts that, at the current rate of
growth, the cost of servicing the national debt will consume half of all
tax revenues within 25 years.
Bush does have his fiscal defenders, and they generally point out that the
national debt rose higher as a percentage of the economy under Reagan.
[....]
America's looming financial crunch would be less daunting if it seemed
like the economy was poised to take flight. But among economists there is
little hope for such a windfall. With 12.6 per cent growth in GDP and the
creation of 2.3 million jobs since 2001, President Bush frequently crows
about the world's "pre-eminent" economy. Beneath the surface, critics see
a situation far less healthy than it first appears.
Two million new jobs sounds like a lot, but it's the most anemic job
creation performance by any president in the postwar era. The gains have
also failed to keep pace with the growth of the workforce, and as a result
the overall employment rate under Bush has declined from 64.4 per cent to
62.9 per cent.
The manufacturing sector has been particularly hard hit, losing 2.9 million
jobs since Bush took office, a decline of roughly 17 per cent -- worse than
the postwar hangover under Truman, worse than the early '70s stagnation
under Nixon, and far worse than the darkest days of Reagan's Rust Belt
plant closures.
Little wonder that a Gallup poll earlier this year showed more than half of
Americans consider the economy only "fair" or "poor," and 52 per cent think
it's getting worse. [....]
So while CEOs and politicians can point selectively to indicators of a
robust economy, the story on Main Street doesn't look so rosy. Consumers
know much of their lifestyle has been financed on credit. Household
indebtedness has skyrocketed by 60 per cent to $4.5 trillion in the past
five years, and U.S. consumers now owe close to five times as much as they
did 20 years ago when adjusted for inflation. [....]
In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the election over Jimmy Carter by repeatedly
asking voters, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"
In 2004, Bush wouldn't have dared ask such a question, and since then things
have deteriorated substantially. While not all of this can be blamed on
the President, the perception is now taking hold that America's vaunted
standard of living is under assault.
A decade of improvements in alleviating poverty have reversed in recent
years. While the economy has grown, the poverty rate has risen to 12.7 per
cent of the population, the highest level since 1998, representing five
million people who have fallen into poverty in five years.
Even economists who supported Bush's tax cuts see little hope that they
will form the bedrock of a future boom -- not with U.S. consumers so
deeply indebted, and with future administrations saddled with massive
funding liabilities that will, in all likelihood, force taxes back up
again in the near future. But those are long-term concerns, and America
has more immediate problems to face. [....]
"There is an old weakness in our foreign policy," Dallek says. "We make the
mistake of believing that inside every foreigner there is an American just
waiting to emerge. It's just not true. Woodrow Wilson made that mistake,
and George Bush is making it again. The whole notion that you can export
democracy at the point of a bayonet simply does not work."
[....]
Foreign policy is often a nightmare for U.S. presidents, since Americans
have a long history of preferring isolationism to foreign intervention.
John F. Kennedy suffered the humiliation of the Bay of Pigs fiasco; Carter
was embarrassed by the Iranian hostage crisis; and every president from
Truman to Reagan operated under the shadow of the Soviet menace. Bush
doesn't yet face a threat on the scale of the Cold War, but no president
has attracted such hostility on so many fronts, in so short a time.
More worrying are the signs that Bush's tendency toward unilateralism has
weakened ties to America's traditional allies, including Canada.
Perhaps the most dramatic example came in 2004, with Spain's election of a
new left-leaning government, which immediately bowed to public opinion and
pulled the country's 1,300 troops out of Iraq.
Hungary, Poland, Ukraine and the Netherlands began their own gradual
withdrawals last year. And last September, Italy -- which had the
fourth-largest contingent of troops on the ground in Iraq -- began a phased
pullout after an Italian agent was accidentally killed by U.S. troops and
the public turned strongly against the war.
The NATO deployment in Afghanistan has been more stable, but not without
controversy. It recently took six months of wrangling in the Dutch
parliament before the Netherlands finally authorized deployment of 1,400
troops to the region to relieve a withdrawing U.S. force.
Observers say these foreign controversies would be easily manageable, if
not for a steady stream of domestic missteps eroding confidence in the
administration.
The bungled relief effort following hurricane Katrina, Bush's aborted
attempt to appoint his close friend, the woefully underqualified Harriet
Miers, to the Supreme Court, and Scooter Libby's revelations about the
ongoing CIA leak affair, have all contributed to the President's slide.
Last month, Pew released its latest study of American attitudes, finding
that just one in three support Bush's leadership. Even among those who say
they voted for Bush in 2004, his support has fallen from 92 per cent at the
beginning of 2005 to 68 per cent.
Asked for a one-word description of the President, the most common response
was "incompetent," followed closely by "idiot" and "liar." A year ago, the
top response was "honest." [....]
For now, the pessimists outnumber the believers. And with every one of
Bush's former allies that turns away from his leadership, the margin grows
and the odds get longer.
Actually GW Bush has a very strong contender for worst president in the past
100 years in the person of Ronald Reagan. I have no doubt that Reagan would
have done the same as Bush with regard to Iraq. Reagan had no idea about
international politics - the same goes for Bush. Both are mere mouthpieces
for the real drivers of policy in their respective administrations i.e.
Rumsfield, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle etc. etc. They provided the ideas and
strategy - Bush and Reagan only mouthed them to the American populace.
Neither one of them had a clue as to how international relations should be
pursued and the pitfall of easily getting into deep shit but no idea how to
get out of it without getting shit on everybody else. Reagan was a geriatric
that fell asleep at staff meetings and wasn't interested anyway with the
complexities of foreign policy. America seems doomed to a faltering if not
disastrous future as it continues to elect people like Reagan and Bush.

Tomo
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...