Ahhh, I've never, ever said "fuck it" we should leave. I think we are stuck in Iraq until we can at least stabilize the situation, probably longer. And, I don't pretend to know whether or not we should have invaded. In fact, that is the crux of my argument: we were given the wrong reasons so the right reasons become suspect. Read my other posts. I even thought the surge was smart back when people called Bush crazy.

To be the worst president in history doesn't mean everything you do is wrong. Maybe you even do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Maybe you even do some good things. But, when you sidestep the Constitution, surround yourself with supporters so you don't have alternate views, give into groupthink, risk lives (American and non-American)based on faulty intelligence (that was pretty obviously faulty), give THESE reasons to Congress and the nation to garner support, get your foreign policy from Saudi Arabia, have a Defense Secretary who is more preoccupied with power than policy, have an attorney general who is figuring out how to skate the spirit of the Constituion -- that all adds up to bad in my book.

And while history (or herstory, he he he I just heard that again for the first time in a while) is written by the winners, history is based upon do the historical record, too. And more and more comes out that shouts pretty clearly Bush is at best out of touch and at worse unconstitutional. This thread is on why he is the worse President in our history (possibly), not on whether we should have invaded Iraq. I am more concerned with the misuse of power by Bush and his administration -- and, by early evidence, so is Herstory.

I also blame the press. Man, we agree there. If the press was doing it's job, I honestly think many of Bush's errors would have been negated. My thought here is simple: Politicians react to the scrutiny of the press - that means the scrutiny of the American public. No scrutiny, no need to react. No need to react, Rumsfeld can mitigate the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff to an advisory panel.

Well, thank you. I edited that comment like a Dan Rather interview. Let me think of what else to say....we'll cut to commercial break.

you mean those people who have been protesting the usa whenever anything goes wrong for well over 30 years now.

Ahh, that's an oversimplification Rush Limbaugh style. Why do you think the Poles pulled out their token force from Iraq. Here's a hint: they thought we were dumb and duped them with 9/11.

this is the argument that Cambridge used not to allow the boy scouts to collect donations at voting booths for the troops. if you support the troops your making a political statement.

this is double talk good double talk but double talk.

I don't thi

I don't think so. I think if you support the troops, you support the troops. If you don't support the troops, you don't. What about the troops who think we shouldn't be in Iraq? (Of which there are many). By voicing their opinions when they return (they aren't permitted to when they serve), are they not supporting themselves?

And what about me? I think we were duped into going into Iraq, but now we are stuck. Where do I fit into the dark lines you draw?

when and where.

if it was obviously faulty to you then why didnt you speak up. if your an american it is your duty to bring such matters to the public. as long as it is the truth.

of course he/she/it has a talent for writing. he/she/it is a professional.

a couple of years ago i got to talk to one of our returning troops. his comment was that the majority of the Iraqis was happy that we were there.

This is also an argument unique to this Administration in scope: if you are against us,you are against our troops and unamerican. That reasoning is perhaps the single biggest example of how this President thinks outside the lines of the Constitution and is perhaps the worst in history.

See that is spin.  Bush was not talking about Democrats or political opponents, nor did the administration ever accuse them of that.  He was talking about and to Terror states (specifically North Korea, Iran and Iraq).  But yes, it will be taken out of context, screeched about at demigoging speeches (ala Shillary) and made to look like George Bush is trying to be George Orwell.

Bush is no Abe.

Being new, you have not seen some of the issues some here at JU have with Abe.  But suffice it to say, that I am glad Bush is not Abe.  For all the feigned pain of the Patriot Act, and allegations (false as they are) of Constitution being circumvented, are nothing in comparison to what Lincoln (or for that matter Wilson and FDR as well) did to the laws and Constitution of this land during their wars. If Bush had even tried one step in the direction Lincoln took, there would be no calls for impeachment by the loonatic fringe - he would have already been impeached 4 years ago.

if it was obviously faulty to you then why didnt you speak up. if your an american it is your duty to bring such matters to the public. as long as it is the truth.

hmmm. Daniel, tone down the nasty. Obviously, it is after the fact this knowledge became declassified. I am not the Secretary of Defense. I am a photographer. Which brings me to my next point: read my other postings. I am not a writer, I am a he, and while you may not agree with what I say you will respect my right to say it. And, I hope, evaluate your standing opinions (as I do) based on new info. As for when and where Bush sidestepped the constitution, I'll leave that up to the Supreme Court and the various cases. Many of which the court has already ruled Bush overstepped his bounds. That's why we have courts, and a press, and checks and balances. That's why we have the system we do, and thank God for it.

Even Republicans view signing statements with skepticism. And, when we are in a position arguing over if something is torture or not, it hurts American credibility no matter which side of the water board you stand.

I have to run. Best wishes,
M