Bush is the greatest President ever

[CogSpin]

In my opinion, George W. Bush is the greatest President of all time. People bash him all the time, but really, he's only made a few mistakes.

* He failed to protect America against the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
* He started two illegal wars based on false intelligence, despite his election promise of a "humble foreign policy".
* When subtly building up the Iraq war, he said, "Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden", exploiting his reputation for stuttering in speeches.
* He turned America's trade surplus into a $10 trillion dollar deficit, the highest of all-time.
* He devalued the dollar by over 200%.
* He destroyed America's reputation overseas.
* He failed to protect the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
* He played to the religious zealots by claiming "God told me to go fight those terrorists".
* He said that the constitution is just "a god damn piece of paper".
* He claimed that failing to stop the threat of Iran might lead to World War III.
* He signed the Patriot Act, overwriting one of the core rights outlined in the constitution: the right to a fair trial. This has essentially legalised torture in Guantanamo Bay, such as water boarding.
* He signed an act in 2006 giving him dictator power and the ability to declare Martial Law in the event of any national crisis.

And sure, on top of all of this, he can barely complete a sentence and has been classed by his former university students and teachers as a habitual liar, who would say something and then 30 seconds later claim it never happened --- but so what? He's George Dubya Bush and he's a reaaaaal Texas cowboiaa. There's no way he got into the Presidency because of his father's connections. There's no way he got into Harvard only because of his father's connections. George Bush is a real American. He should get a third term in my opinion.

[Vaebn]

I completely disagree with that.

The first sentence is not true. (someone cannot "fail" from something unpredictable. If someone failed something technically it would be the passengers in the airplanes failing to stand up to some guys with knives)

The rest are okay :P

[hippl5]

Although I know it's impossible, I would have liked to see him run for a third term, just to see how many people would vote for him.

[dySWN]

This is where this belongs.

[uhnoesanoob]

You're about 6 years late with this thread. Stop being an attention whore and go to the Bush thread if you want to whine about he is the worst president ever.

[TheMason]

At 5/18/08 12:22 PM, Mr-Money wrote:

It always amazes me how informed people can be.

* He failed to protect America against the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

The road to 9/11 started with the first Gulf War. During this time, we had UBL (Usama bin-Laden) in our cross-hairs several times. Once the Sudan even offered him to us. The person who failed to take these shots or take him into custody: Clinton.

* He started two illegal wars based on false intelligence, despite his election promise of a "humble foreign policy".

Three things wrong here:
1) Neither war was really illegal. I've gone over this several times before; in reality there is no such thing as "international law".
2) We knew UBL was in Afghanistan...so no faulty intel.
3) The intel dates back to before Clinton which was backed up by agencies in the UK and Israel.

* He devalued the dollar by over 200%.

While governments have control over their budget and fiscal policy, they actually have little control over such things.

* He destroyed America's reputation overseas.

This is one of my personal favorites. China, Russia, France & Germany...all looking to replace the current Empire/Hegemon.

* He failed to protect the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Ummm...this is actually the fault of Mayor Ray Nagin for not issuing an evacuation order and the Governor for stalling on asking for federal assistance.

* He signed the Patriot Act, overwriting one of the core rights outlined in the constitution: the right to a fair trial. This has essentially legalised torture in Guantanamo Bay, such as water boarding.
* He signed an act in 2006 giving him dictator power and the ability to declare Martial Law in the event of any national crisis.

1) The Patriot Act was something that in one form or another has been kicked around DC since the 1990s.

And sure, on top of all of this, he can barely complete a sentence and has been classed by his former university students and teachers as a habitual liar, who would say something and then 30 seconds later claim it never happened --- but so what? He's George Dubya Bush and he's a reaaaaal Texas cowboiaa. There's no way he got into the Presidency because of his father's connections. There's no way he got into Harvard only because of his father's connections. George Bush is a real American. He should get a third term in my opinion.

Any sources on this confusing paragraph?

[SolInvictus]

whats wrong with martial law in the event of a crisis? thats what its for.

[Kleinhans]

The only thing I want to clear up for everyone is its not Bush's fault we are at war...that was inevitable it just happens that he was elected so he gets the blame im not pro bush but i dnt like ignorant people so just clearin shit up

[bcdemon]

At 5/18/08 08:24 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 5/18/08 12:22 PM, Mr-Money wrote:

It always amazes me how informed people can be.

* He failed to protect America against the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

The road to 9/11 started with the first Gulf War.

I agree, it's Bush Sr fault.

Three things wrong here:
1) Neither war was really illegal. I've gone over this several times before; in reality there is no such thing as "international law".

Then in reality, theres no such thing as terrorism, it's a matter of which type of warfare you wage. Oh wait, terrorism is real, and so is international law, providing you sign up to be a part of international law. Which the USA did, but then removed their signature 2 years later. That and the US has a law stating that it can use military force if a US service member is brought to trial at The Hague for such things as war crimes. The timing if this law is interesting, a year after invading Afghanistan and 7 months before invading Iraq. Good call Georgy.

2) We knew UBL was in Afghanistan...so no faulty intel.

Got proof? Let's see, you didn't catch him and you didn't kill him. Do you at least have him on video holding an Afghan newspaper? I hope the proof you had on UBL is better than your intel on Iraqs WMD.
Rumsfeld - March 30, 03 - "They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." soooo, basically all of Iraq had WMD.

[TheMason]

At 5/18/08 11:18 PM, bcdemon wrote:

At 5/18/08 08:24 PM, TheMason wrote: Three things wrong here:
1) Neither war was really illegal. I've gone over this several times before; in reality there is no such thing as "international law".

Then in reality, theres no such thing as terrorism, it's a matter of which type of warfare you wage. Oh wait, terrorism is real, and so is international law, providing you sign up to be a part of international law.

"...no such thing as terrorism..." Great attempt at obfuscation here. You see terrorism and law are not defined by the same mechanism...therefore there can be terrorism while "international law" is problematic at best.

You see bc...for law to exist it has to to be enforcible so no one defects. And seeing that states have sovereignty and (bumper sticker slogans aside) there is no world police to enforce judicial decisions: international law is a misnomer. It doesn't really exist.

Terrorism on the other hand is problematic because what is considered terrorism changes with historical context and cultural perspective. During the American Revolution the tactics of the Continental militia would have been considered terrorist (ambushes, sniping, deliberately targeting officers). Now those are considered legitimate fieldcraft. Thus terrorism is an unconventional and illegitimate mode of warfare because in 2008 the deliberate targeting of civilians is considered criminal.

2) We knew UBL was in Afghanistan...so no faulty intel.

Got proof? Let's see, you didn't catch him and you didn't kill him. Do you at least have him on video holding an Afghan newspaper? I hope the proof you had on UBL is better than your intel on Iraqs WMD.

We have the Taliban's admission that he is/was there. And again with the obfuscation. Just because we didn't catch him or kill him (which we may have...we just may not know/release the fact) is not proof that this intel was wrong.

And again...everyone up to some of Saddam's closest military advisors thought Iraq had WMD because the regime did such an effective job of projecting that image to keep Iran at bay (Saddam admited this). The problem for him was his gamble had negative dividends in that it helped provoke the US invasion.

[AHSBURNER]

Everyone just needs to come to terms with the fact that america as a whole is going to fail if we do not stand up and fight against the social control of the government the tell us what they want us to hear they show us what they want us to see face it soon we will all be controled by a push of a button.

[Idiot-Finder]

At 5/19/08 02:02 PM, AHSBURNER wrote: Everyone just needs to come to terms with the fact that america as a whole is going to fail if we do not stand up and fight against the social control of the government the tell us what they want us to hear they show us what they want us to see face it soon we will all be controled by a push of a button.

Found one.

[dySWN]

At 5/19/08 02:09 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: Found one.

It's funny because it's true.

Although the first time was better.