Bush is Bad

Divided, we fail

Published on November 21, 2007 By joe-pro-photographer In Politics

In my last political posting, I suggested Bush was one of the worst Presidents in history. My reasoning was straight forward: no matter what your position on the war in Iraq, his handling of the planning up to war, the execution of the war itself, and the poor after-thought about the conflict's aftermath, make him a nominee for Lousy Prez.

So, many more conservative bloggers took me to task on the intelligence leading up to the war. "No," they write, "hind sight is 20/20, and it's easy to see the intelligence was wrong after the fact."

The problem is,from the beginning, Bush forced the intel to fit his agenda. It's not me who says this, it's a chorus of people from both the right and left. David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, couldn't believe the lack of intel on WMD's when he started looking for WMD's after the conflict began. And although he had no intel, was given a rag-tag group to look for WMDs, he still thought the wMDs probably existed. As he dug into the reports, he understood how everyone was duped.

The Bush Administration relied on Iraqi exhiles to support the WMD beliefs. Some of these folks hadn't been to Iraq since the first Gulf War. Their intel was more than 10 years old. One was later arrested for accepting money from SH himself, under the oil for food program. He had been a regular visitor at the White House.

A leader doesn't take facts and fit them to his agenda. A leader evaluates facts and reacts to the facts. A leader inspires others to come forward and voice their opinion, even when that opinion is different from theirs. A leader evaluates his team, and watches for power hungry people who can't run their department (read: Rumsfeld), a leader works with the minority and incorporates their concerns, where possible, into his agenda. A leader works within the Constitution. A leader unites and inspires.

Bush did none of these. (Though whether he stepped out of the bounds of the Constitution is open to debate). He took a "you're with us or you're against us" approach.

The uniter turned out to be the ultimate divider.

Comments (Page 8)

106

danielost

on Nov 22, 2007

hitler killed 6 million. stalin sent even more to prison.

107

starkers

on Nov 22, 2007

In the case of this president - this country - and this war - truth was indeed the first casualty.

All the best!

The truth is always the first casualty when politicians use deceit and rhetoric to conceal hidden agendas, whose casualties then include the innocent victims of their dubious decisions. Guess that's why I have the utmost respect AND sympathy for those sent into battle....for they are also casualties of the fabricated truth the public is fed to justify the means, in fact, more-so. Sadly, your own combatants are victims just as much as those they're sent to fight...then there's all the collateral damage to innocent civilians,their families,property and homes.

I know that if I were even partly responsible for the kinds of horror inflicted by war, whether I was sent there or not, I'd still feel a certain amount of guilt and shame, suffering eternal nightmares that I had in some way contributed to wreaking havoc, death and destruction on other humans lives. Yeah, I know there are some who think of people like me as being a woos and coward, but I'll apologise to no-one for having the compassion and humanity for wishing that everyone, including my supposed enemies, would be spared the first casualty of war to avoid all the others.

108

danielost

on Nov 22, 2007

i don't remember who said it but truth is the first casualty of any war. this was said a long time before bush took office.

the second truth of any war is that god is on our side. doesn't matter who we are.

109

starkers

on Nov 22, 2007

the second truth of any war is that god is on our side. doesn't matter who we are.

That's a fallacy, if you're a God fearing Christian...Christ was a vocal opponent war and condemned needless acts of violence at every turn, saying that it is better to turn the other cheek than strike your enemy, even in self defense. Therefore, if the Son of God says it is wrong to strike out, then God is not going to be with those who strike first in an act of aggression. An no, I'm not religious, devoutly or otherwise, though I've had a fair few religious canvassers leave my place shaking their heads over my understanding of the Bible and God's will. In fact, I've had some looking for excuses to leave (rather than try putting their foot in the door) when I bounce their false belief/ideals right back at them with Biblical knowledge to justify my refusal to bow to religious indoctrination.

I'm not too sure that I even believe in God, in the traditional sense, at least, but I surely believe in Jesus Christ, whether he was the son of God or not, because too much historical evidence exists to say that he surely did exist....and for me, his teachings and beliefs are good examples as to how we could all live, as pacifists who respect all human life and refuse to take it.

Yeah, I'm a pacifist and I don't give a stuff who thinks that's girlie, I know that if I am to stand before my maker on Judgement Day, I'll be judged for perpetuating pirate threads at WC and some curried cabbage related air pollution.

110

danielost

on Nov 22, 2007

just before we attacked Iraq bush prayed.

the terrorists say that Allah has ordered the death of the great Satan.

Hitler blessed world war 2. he made himself god.

Stalin did the same thing.

show me a war where someone on both side didn't say that god was on their side.

Granada doesn't count.

i am not saying it is true. i am just saying that both sides says that god is on their side. Japanese emperor was considered to be god as well.

111

starkers

on Nov 22, 2007

Here's an article about how bad Bush really is WWW Link suggests he's the worst US president of all time. Guess tho, there isn't a US publication....heck, a publication anywhere that hasn't run an article or 3 like it.

112

jamespaulp

on Nov 22, 2007

Dude, are you serious?!

Yes, I am. Let's take a look at your list.

1. Walk, Ride Your Bike and Take the Bus
- I've been walking to work since October 1995

Good for you. Nothing much to talk about it

2. More Fuel Efficient Internal Combustion Engines

Still runs on fossil fuel 100%.

3. Hybrids

Still runs on fossil fuel 100%. Just most efficient.

4. Plug-In Hybrids

Still runs on fossil fuel > 90 %. Where do you think the electricity come from? Wind, Solar, Hydro, Nuclear? I'll give it a 10%. I could be wrong about the percentage point, but that is not the point.

5. Electric Vehicles (too bad GM had to kill their version of it)

Same as #5

6. Biodiesel

You need more land than the whole country (take any country) to get enough biodiesel to be completely fossil fuel independent.

7. Vegetable Oil (it's not just for salads anymore)

You are kidding, right?

8. Ethanol (we're seeing alot more use of this in Canada these past few years)

Again, what is the source of ethanol? How can we have enough ethanol to replace our need for fossil fuel?

9. Cellulosic Ethanol

Same as #8

10. Hydrogen Fuel Cells

Now where does the hydrogen come from? Run a pipe to a hydrogen star? If you have to generate hydrogen here on earth we need to split water or some other kind of chemical reaction that costs more energy than what the hydrogen will give us. Thermodynamics, hello!

11. The Ideal Green Car - look it up, it's a plug in hybrid car with roof top solar that can also make use of Cellulosic Ethanol and BioDiesel

Solar, may be someday. Not with current technology and solar cell efficiency.

I try to temper my seriousness with a $hitload of "smart a$$-ness"!

I see that

No offence, but it is very easy to get carried away.

All I am saying is that there are no technologies with exception of nuclear power that can realistically get us out of the woods.

113

WebGizmos

on Nov 23, 2007

Wow, that is not what I meant

Sorry dude....my bad!

It just gets me going whenever I see that thrown out there.

114

jamespaulp

on Nov 23, 2007

It just gets me going whenever I see that thrown out there.

I totally understand.

115

kingbee

on Nov 23, 2007

your saying that stalin wasn't a jew. prove it.

stalin (not his birth name btw) was ethnic georgian. as a boy, he attended a georgian orthodox school at which he earned a scholarship to a georgian orthodox theological seminary where he was being prepared to become a priest.

gotta stop taking everything you read in those lil neo-nazi comix as historical fact.

116

kingbee

on Nov 23, 2007

both sides says that god is on their side

If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
--bob dylan, 'with god on our side'

117

ParaTed2k

on Nov 23, 2007

I've never seen ,except in this thread, the above statement used as a primary justification for going to war with Iraq by an Administration Official. Has Bush ever said this was a reason he invaded Iraq? When and where? Has Rice? Powell? What about the state of the Union in 2003? Was it listed there? I remember the yellow cake uranium was listed as a reason. That, of course, turned out to be slightly ...um....wrong.

"And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.) State of the Union Address, 2003

Granted, it wasn't mentioned in the speech enough to consider it a primary justification, but the fact it was mentioned shows that liberating the people of Iraq was not a recent afterthought either.

As for the "yellowcake" situation, while the press made a huge circus out of Joe Wilson's trip to Niger, and conclusions that Hussein never did attempt to buy yellowcake from Niger... They all but ignored the fact that Joe Wilson's conclusions differed from what the PM of Niger really told him.

"The unanimous Intelligence Committee found that the CIA report, based on Wilson's mission, differed considerably from the former ambassador's description to the committee of his findings.

That report "did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium." As far as his statement to The Washington Post about "forged documents" involved in the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium, Wilson told the committee he may have "misspoken." In fact, the intelligence community agreed that "Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa."

"While there was no dispute with the underlying facts," Chairman Roberts wrote separately, "my Democrat colleagues refused to allow" two conclusions in the report. The first conclusion merely said that Wilson was sent to Niger at his wife's suggestion. The second conclusion is devastating:

"Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided." ~
Errant former ambassador: Robert Novak

More selective competence by the press.

118

danielost

on Nov 23, 2007

Stalin was a Jewish Moscow coffee house radical

In the Georgian language "shvili" means son of, or son, as in Johnson. "Djuga" means Jew. Therefore Djugashvili means Jewison. [Jewish son or son of a Jewish man]

So Joe Stalin's real name, before he changed it, was Joe Jewison. It gets better, his name was Joseph David Djugashvili, a typical Jewish name. During his revolutionary days he changed his name to "Kochba", the leader of the Jews during one of the anti-Roman uprisings of the Jews. Russians don't change their names. Georgians don't change their names. Jews change their names. Do a search on google.com and yahoo on Kochba.

there you go stalin was a jew

you don't have to follow the jewish faith to be a jew.

119

kingbee

on Nov 23, 2007

there you go stalin was a jew

like i said, you're an idiot who too very quickly and easily accepts whatever hateful bullshit you find on neo-nazi sites such as the one pointed to by the link you provided.

120

Jafo

on Nov 23, 2007

like i said, you're an idiot who too very quickly and easily accepts whatever hateful bullshit you find

Does that mean clever intelligent people will take longer to accept whatever hateful bullshit they find?

Or...

Has fair and reasonable debate degraded to condemnation and name-calling?

Let's attack the premise [opinion], not the person.

The only one TRUTH about politics [at any level] is that ...

"Politicians are like nappies [diapers] they need frequent changing...and much for the same reasons"....

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!