Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Article in Durham, N.C. Local paper in response to the liberals claiming that President Bush is the wrost president in U.S. history.

"Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war [Iraqi Freedom]. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the "worst" president in U.S. history.
Let's clear up one point: we didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember it was started by a terrorist on 9-11.
Let's look at the "worst" president and mis-management claims. F.D.R. led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never atacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without U.N. or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al Qaida, put nuclear inspections in Lybia, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 per year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
Worst president in U.S. history?"


------------------------
What do you guys think?

_________________
---REPLACE random H*R quote here.---

I'm glad. Whoever wrote that makes a strong argument.

I second that. This is probably the first political argument I've seen that is so compelling that it might even influence my opinion...

Let us also point out that is was Truman who ordered the dripping of the atomic bomb on to Japanese cities.

I think you should try expressing your own opinion instead of regurgitating a letter-to-the-editor that somebody else wrote that just reiterates the same points that Republicans have been telling eachother for the past two years and which have been thoroughly discussed in the original War on Terror thread.

But let me get this straight. You're saying that Bush is okay because he's not any worse than all of these other Presidents? Well, he sure ain't better. Let's reiterate your points:

• F.D.R. fought a war against an enemy that never attacked us.
• Truman fought a war against an enemy that never attacked us.
• Kennedy fought a war against an enemy that never attacked us.
• Clinton fought a war against an enemy that never attacked us.

That's a fine list, but you forgot one:

• Bush is fighting a war against an enemy that never attacked us!

Since you seem to be among the large number of Americans who still don't get it: There is no link between Iraq and Al Quaeda!

I don't understand why this is so difficult for some people to comprehend. We are not in Iraq because of 9/11.

_________________

Personally I think Bush is doing a pretty good job at being president. I do think the editorial failed to mention some points to get it's point across more effectively, but I did not write it so there's not a lot I can do there.

This may hit a nerve with some, but I think God wanted Bush to be in office and he made it happen. If you look back on the whole Florida recount thing, Gore should have won, but Bush ended up in office anyway. I don't think that was just a coincidence.

_________________
---REPLACE random H*R quote here.---

More on this:

Saying we shouldn't criticize Bush because FDR and Truman were just as bad is kind of like saying we shouldn't give Mussolini such a hard time because he wasn't as bad as Hitler or Stalin. Just because he isn't the worst in history (a matter of opinion) doesn't mean that he's a good guy.

[Edit: Because I'm sure someone will get uptight about it, please note: I am not comparing Bush to Hitler.]

By the way, a fun exercise: Go to Google Sets and enter Hitler and Stalin and pick Small Set. I had a laugh.

_________________

So, you're saying that Bush made the same mistakes as all these other guys. Therefore, he's much worse than them. That's good logic.

This article is simply saying these people made the same mistakes as Bush. Therefore, he's probably not the worst.

ROFL. I'm sorry, but have you been living under a rock? Of course it wasn't a coincidence. (Presented in Flash because it suits my attention span.)

_________________

Ingiald, I didn't say that, and I'll appreciate your not putting words in my mouth in the future.

_________________

Actually, we are. We declared war on terror, and that included Iraq whether or not there was such a link.

I like to believe that it is also not because of oil. I like to believe that we are there because of a ruthless dictator that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people. While he may not have had direct connections with Al Quaeda, he certainly was providing an area where terrorism could breed.

But everything is motivated by many things. So while Bush may be able to say (with a clear conscience, mind you) "This war is not about oil", how many of the other people were influenced by the economic benefits.

I know the company that both of my parents works for benefit from it. Building rockets and ammunition costs money and people.

I guess one of the other things that bothers me, is how many people in congress are not in favor of this war. If there are so many, why do we continue to send troops? The system of checks and balances is in place so that one group can't rule. It takes all three. If they were all that unhappy with the way things are being handled, why are they still being handled that way.

There are means provided to prevent that.... right? This would be why I am a computer, rather then political, scientist.

_________________

Okay. Sorry. I don't know why there were so many recounts in Florida. Bush was elected, it's just Gore's supporters were really bad sports.

This is a fine point, kef, that I would have made myself, if not for the fact that the White House has expended so much effort to convince the American people that Iraq had something specificaly to do with 9/11. I'd be all for a war on terror if it didn't involve me being lied to by my government and hundreds of this country's best men and women losing their lives.

_________________

Ingiald, did you even go to that link I posted? You'd be a bad sport, too, if the other team cheated.

Could you guys please go read over the War on Terror thread so we don't just have a rehash of everything that we've gone over already?

_________________

Well, they didn't need to expend a whole lot of effort on that before they believed it. Some people just assumed there was a link, I guess ("all them sand-[RACIAL TERM]s look alike to me!"), and Bush decided that if they had those cards they may as well play them...

Just to make it clear, I never made the claim that it was. (I don't think you were accusing me of it, Stu, but I didn't want others to get the wrong impression.)

_________________

Stu, the answer to that is simple. Let my just ask you, if you saw an ad saying 99.9% of Americans wanted Kerry in office, you'd want to vote for Kerry, right? If someone told you everyone wants Bush out of office, you'd agree, right? That's why they say most congressmen dissagree with the war.

man...I suck at keeping up with politics...

I probably should keep up more, since I'm in the military and whatnot...

At least I don't have CE5 telling me that my job is in danger of being taken away by congress...erg.

People's tendency to vote for who is already most likely to win is pretty stupid to me. Some people even say that if you vote for somebody other than the two major candidates, you're throwing your vote away. I'd like to throw people who say that away. (Well, not really, but it really gets on my nerves.)

Actually, Ingiald, some of us actually vote according to how we feel about the issues, not according to how big the crowd is. Have you actually read the numbers? Stu didn't even say "most" congressmen. He said "many". Please go back and read his post again and consider doing some of your own research.

_________________

No, I'm not saying that I would do that, I'm just saying that some people do and that's why you hear that there are so many congressmen that dissagree with the war while there are still troops being sent over there.

Sorry to give that impression, that wasn't at all what I was trying to say. Thanks for clearing me up though.



My question was mostly rhetorical. I suppose, I really don't feel that Bush is doing all that bad. I too (like others) want a president who is honest with the public.

If we are going to fight a war on terror, let it be a war on terror. If you are going to have relations with a woman other then your wife, don't try to hide or lie about it. If you are going to committ troops to Iraq, do it because it is for their good (or even our good, if they are a threat to us).

And to answer your question, if I saw an ad saying that 99.9% of Americans wanted Kerry in office, would I still vote for him? Only if I thought he was the best candidate for the job.

_________________

I don't get it. The congressmen are either against the war or for the war (or maybe some of them are neutral, I dunno). Whether particular people always go with the crowd doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the congressmen are for the war. We're not talking about playground gossip, here, Ingiald, we're talking about the Associated Press and the New York Times and Wonkette. You seem to be claiming that certain people (whom you don't identify) are distorting the facts about how these congresspeople feel. I just don't see where that's coming from.

_________________

Okay, my explanation was just a guess. My point: You can't beleive all of what you hear and most of the media is libberally biased.

How did you come to this conclusion, Ingiald? I mean, apart from hearing neocons say it over, and over, and over, and over, and over again? I don't think you've actually seen any evidence of this, first-hand. Entire books have been written about this myth (both on the supporting and debunking sides), but here's a good article to get you started.

Listen, I'm all for people having opinions different than mine. I hope you vote when you're old enough, and I hope you vote according to your beliefs, not mine. But I'm sick of people regurgitating what they've heard and procliaiming it as fact without doing a basic Google search first. I'm sick of it from my liberal friends just as much as my conservative friends. It doesn't take that much work to dig up an article (which cites sources) supporting your position, nor does it take much effort to say, if the above doesn't work out, "this is just something I heard; I'm not sure it's true."

_________________

I'll read that article. But, for the moment, I'm going to drop out of this debate out of fear of getting banned.

By whom, and for what? If you deserve to get banned, so do I, buddy. Unlike certain people I could name, none of the mods are in the business of punishing people for having dissenting opinions.

_________________

_________________

Whoa. Teh scary.

_________________