Why Bush will go down as the Worst President Ever

My first posting seems to have disappeared....

Published on November 19, 2007 By joe-pro-photographer In War on Terror

]"The reasons why we went to war in Iraq don't matter any more, we are there and that mission is accomplished."

That's a quote from a fellow blogger, buried under 99 other responses. Of course, I think he's wrong. The reasons we went to war in Iraq are central to our mission, and those reasons are changed and manipulated at the whim of this administration.

Measures of success, in a similar fashion, are "evolved".

Today, Bush cites the lower death tolls and levels of violence as his barometer of success. Never mind these numbers, when they were bad, were classified by this administration and kept from the American people. Never mind that photos of our soldiers, those who were killed in the ultimate sacrafice for our country, were hidden from view (and the photographers vilified.) Never mind that we seem to prop up the least likely leaders in a country whose termoil reaches back to about 400 ad, if not beyond. Never mind Bush seeks the advice of the Saudis (since before Bush was even elected)to shape his form policy. (wording is deliberate).

The reasons we went to war in Iraq are key. Those reasons set the framework of what our goals -- and measures of success -- should be. By losing view of those reasons, we muddle around in waters that should be crystal clear. Perhaps it is this lack of vision which leads to scandals like Abu Grab. Perhaps it is because we are blinded by confusion we can't see the forest for the trees. When our truest beliefs -- that freedom and justice and a certain moral action -- are shoved aside in the name of security is counter-American.

That's why I believe this administration, no matter what the outcome of the Iraq war, will be viewed as one of the worse in our more than 200 year history. I believe this Administration is unamerican.

Response? None will be deleted. That, also, is UnAmerican.

Comments (Page 3)

greywar

on Nov 20, 2007

By voicing their opinions when they return (they aren't permitted to when they serve), are they not supporting themselves?

Funny, I seem to recall expressing myself quite regularly even from within a combat zone.

Additionally our re-up rate was far larger in Iraq than when we were in garrison. Soldiers didn't (and don't) want to sit on their asses in the States, they would rather be in Iraq or Afghanistan.

If they would have let me stay in Iraq, I never would have left the Army.

joe-pro-photographer

on Nov 20, 2007

this is double talk good double talk but double talk.

Thanks, but no, it's not. I think Bush was right on the surge. I think he was right when he doubled the funding for NIH. I think he was right to attack Afghanistan. I think he reacted well (after 1 fish two fish) immediately after 9/11 and showed great courage. I think he was smart on Alito. I think he's made some errors that will go down as some of the poorest decisions in American history.

Gotta run and actually work,
M

ParaTed2k

on Nov 20, 2007

At the risk of sounding like I applaud sidestepping the U.S. Constitution... if you look back at how history has treated our presidents, all of the ones considered "great" took their turn at ignoring the Constitution. On the other hand, the ones that nobody can remember without help from Wikipedia, usually stayed well within their Constitutional authorities.

I'm not sure exactly what to make of that, but it is an interesting little tidbit. ;~D

danielost

on Nov 20, 2007

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.

the only one i can think of is the wire tapping. and what did the democrats do. they proposed and passed a law making it legal for him to do that which the supreme court said was unconstitutional. and this was a court with his judges in it.

danielost

on Nov 20, 2007

If they would have let me stay in Iraq, I never would have left the Army.

sorry but the army is correct in making troops come home and recoup for a while from combat.

even in the bible after combat the troops that had killed had to stay away from everyone for three days.

joe-pro-photographer

on Nov 20, 2007

Funny, I seem to recall expressing myself quite regularly even from within a combat zone.Additionally our re-up rate was far larger in Iraq than when we were in garrison. Soldiers didn't (and don't) want to sit on their asses in the States, they would rather be in Iraq or Afghanistan.If they would have let me stay in Iraq, I never would have left the Army.

Good god, I gotta get some work done. But, yes, this is also my experience in my interactions with vets, including those who are now quads. Wanting to reenlist, though, may or may not mean they support the overall mission in Iraq. My experience is soldiers want to go back to support their buddies, their unit. The idea that friends are fighting and dying while they sit stateside is horrible.

I've had plenty of soldiers tell me directly that they don't support the war, or perhaps they don't know if they support the war, but are desperate to get back to their post. I don't think reup rates tell you what soldiers feel.

My mother-in-law has 5 kids serving in Iraq. 5! She is NOT a Bush supporter, and that's putting it nicely. My point: she sure as hell supports her kids, many of which have multiple tours.

danielost

on Nov 20, 2007

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.

i agree with this but i don't think it was pointed at bush.

joe-pro-photographer

on Nov 20, 2007

I'm not sure exactly what to make of that, but it is an interesting little tidbit.

And potentially a dangerous one. Everyone remembers Hitler. But I'm grandstanding, I know what you mean. And I don't necessarily disagree. Gotta run! M

danielost

on Nov 20, 2007

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 according to your tone unless i agree with you. i have to give up my right to say what i believe.

you have stated in the past that you are/were a reporter. a reporter is a professional writer. if you are only a photographer as you name implies. you can still be a semi professional writer.

danielost

on Nov 20, 2007

and you libs keep forgetting one thing

the congress had the same info that the president had. congress declared war. i will accept genes argument that the congress only wanted the president to talk tuff. you don't declare war just to talk tuff.

the British had the same info that the president had. in fact they collected some of it.

COL Gene

on Nov 20, 2007

For me the bottom line is are we less likely to be attacked in the future because of our invasion of Iraq? HELL NO. We have increased our efforts to STOP attacks by the terrorists. However the Bush argument that we should fight them over there rather then over here is a false argument because our invasion of Iraq has not reduced the danger from future attacks over here.

ParaTed2k

on Nov 20, 2007

Yeah, that sure worked through the 90s, idiot!

Hey Gene, do you have any original thoughts? Or do you just rehash the same tired lines you found on a MoveOn.org website 8 years ago? I'd really like to know if there is an original thought in your head.

joe-pro-photographer

on Nov 20, 2007

my tone replies to the "he/she/it" comment. No, I am a photographer, have almost always been a photographer, and leave the writing to others. I did, however, take writing in college. My sister teaches English, and my dad was in the media. That, however, isn't me.

joe-pro-photographer

on Nov 20, 2007

congress had the same info that the president had.

not according to members of congress. I defer to them. And, by members, I mean those on both sides of the aisle. Congress DOES NOT have the same top secret evidence available to the white house. And, infact, not all members have access to the same info. Those on the Intelligence Committee, for example, have a wider security clearance than those on Finance. So, unless the rules have drastically changed, your argument falls short on the facts.

joe-pro-photographer

on Nov 20, 2007

Again, and I know this is just a waste of my effort, this discussion is not on whether we should have invaded Iraq. This discussion is on whether Bush is one of the worst presidents in history. You may think those two things are tied together, and in a way they are. But what bothers me more than our efforts in Iraq is the, yes, State Of Denial the administration seems to live in and the liberties they they take with our liberties.

Back to work! (photographing)(that's what I am, a photographer) (that's why I have the cameras) (that's why I don't write articles, 'cause, um, I'm a photographer)

M

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!