Wow, He Really IS The Worst President Ever
This is what those historians said -- and it should be noted that some of the criticism about deficit spending and misuse of the military came from self-identified conservatives -- about the Bush record:
- He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend and foe alike in the process;
- He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive military spending and reduced taxation of the rich;
- He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and state;
- He has repeatedly "misled," to use a kind word, the American people on affairs domestic and foreign;
- He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and foreign (Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);
- He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity;
- He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress;
- He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems, corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime.
by MG at 7:42 AM
17 Comments:
My new song:
http://www.tomsongs.com/images/Bushwhacked.wmv
BushWhacked
I served my time far away from the front lines
But I’ve seen them come and I’ve seen them go
Bullets fly when politicians lie and soldiers die that’s war
Their fathers and mothers wake up crying in the middle of the night
Their hearts jump at every knock upon the door
Young Americans bleeding and dying in the middle of this fight
Still trying to figure out what the hell they’re really dying for
Bushwhacked and another soldier dies
They’ve been Bushwhacked
By a whitehouse war built on whitehouse lies
Bushwhacked
And by the time we realize we’ve all been Bushwhacked
Another roadside bomb another soldier dies
If you close your eyes force yourself to look inside
Read between the whitehouse lies that we’ve all been fed
In the name of humanity they peddled our democracy
Claim they’re trying to set Iraqis free
So far we’ve freed a hundred thousand dead
And their fathers and mothers wake up crying in the middle of the night
Their hearts jump with every knock upon the door
Soldiers and civilians bleeding and dying in the middle of this fight
Still trying to figure out what they’re really dying for
They’ve been Bushwhacked and another soldier dies
They’ve been Bushwhacked
By a whitehouse war built on whitehouse lies
Bushwhacked
And by the time we realize we’ve all been Bushwhacked
Another roadside bomb another soldier dies
Bushwhacked and another soldier dies
They’ve been Bushwhacked
By a whitehouse war built on whitehouse lies
Bushwhacked
And we’re gonna lose a thousand more
Yeah we’ve been Bushwhacked
Maybe George should fight his own bullshit war
"Unwinnable War"
That's about the silliest thing ever. Kinda puts the whole article in perspective...
"Today" show, August 2004.
"Asked 'Can we win?' Mr. Bush said, 'I don't think you can win it.'"
Yep, pretty darn silly thing to say.
Yep, I remember the 2000 elections well. Bush & Co. were going to bring back honor and inegrity to Washington. Bill Clinton had SLIMED the presidency by having a consensual extramarital fling and then lying about it. Oh, the HORROR! The SHAME!
But let's overlook the Iraq lies, the cronyism and its ensuing incompetence ("You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie!"), the unprecedented bribery, the politicalization of government agencies (the FDA and the Plan B contraceptive) -- has the GOP succeeded in making America safe from sex?
Well, if what half of what Washingtonienne wrote in her blog is true, Republicans have yet to swallow their first dose of saltpeter.
Don't get me wrong, I'm old enough, wise enough, and cynical enough to know that the Dems are no saints in all those departments, but JESUS! the sheer magnitude of the GOP hypocrisy leaves one speechless...so thank God for forums like this one!
Moxie, have a happy holi -- whoops! -- I mean, have a Merry Christmas! And who knows? Maybe Fitzmas will come twice this year!
hey Brash Limburg:
It certainly is unwinnable. Consider: There has been on average 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq at any given time. For occupying a country that restive a good rule of thumb is at least 10,000 troops per every million population, bare minimum just to have a chance at keeping order in the country. So that would be at least 280,000 U.S. troops necessary, but they have only HALF of that in country. By anybody's estimation the Insurgency is getting stronger and more skilled and sophisticated, definitely not less so. Genl. Barry McCaffery [retired], about as right-wing as you can get, has even said that the current [pitifully inadequate] force level in Iraq is unsustainable beyond summer 2006. He has even said of the occupation "This thing, the wheels are coming off of it". He's right. The U.S. all-volunteer military simply isn't meant for lengthy wars, just look at the problems it is causing for recruitment and retaining of personnel. Look at the way the Pentagon is being forced to send many units on second and third tours of duty there because the military's manpower is stretched to the limit. Also consider that a couple months ago the top Pentagon brass admitted that they've basically given up hope of crushing the Insurgency militarily and that they're now reduced to trying to whittle it down a little so as to [pretend to] give the Iraqi puppet troops a fighting chance against them when the U.S. pulls out of the country, a move it will be having to make starting in less than a year. Most likely the Iraqi sellout troops will collapse faster than the South Vietnamese sellouts did and the whole thing will be a disgraceful end to a disgraceful illegal war, just like the end of the Vietnam war. The Insurgency is growing and is larger and more capable than it was even this time last year. Meanwhile the U.S. military is getting steadily weaker and more worn out, and the American public has decisively turned against this illegal war. It would likely be unwinnable with 280,000 U.S. troops in country; with 140,000 it is definitely unwinnable. They are dying, and worse, killing Iraqis, for nothing, for a lost cause. It's time to hang it up and send them home.
See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101837_pf.html
http://www.tommaertens.com/writing/strib/8232005.html
The worst? - Let's all remember not to misunderestimate how terrible the W, Rove and Co really is.
Brash said: ""Unwinnable War" That's about the silliest thing ever. Kinda puts the whole article in perspective..."
Define how someone calling this joke of a war being "unwinnable" as being the silliest thing ever.
I call it the most obvious thing ever. But maybe that's just us evul libruls.
I am an historian. I'm a farily bright one at that. I have been saying now for at least 2 years that this administration will go down in history as the most damaging and destructive, corrupt and clueless administration in U. S. History.
I stand by that statement today. I wish I had the time and energy to write one of the MANY books that will be written and will describe in deathly detail the chaos and havoc that has been created by this evil cabal of corporate 'christian' criminals.
It will take at least a generation to repair a significant amount of the damage done...
I love your blog, grrl. Keep up the good work!
Although the article says that "The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record." that is just wrong.
This survey actually came out a year and a half ago.
5-17-04
Historians vs. George W. Bush
http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html
I would have to believe that chimpy's numbers would be A LOT worse if the poll were current.
Definitely the WORST PRESIDENT EVER.
Moxie,
It's silly because it's so absolutely nonsensical. There is no way that these terrorist can beat us militarily. It just can't happen, it's impossible. This war is no more "unwinnable" then Vietnam. And just like Vietnam, the only way we can lose is to quit.
And Destroy, we we're winning in Vietnam before Congress cut off funding. Time to do a little historical research, maybe Ohagi can help you...
'And Destroy, we we're(sic)winning in Vietnam before Congress cut off funding. Time to do a little historical research, maybe Ohagi can help you...'
It doesn't apppear to me that Destroy needs help nearly as much as you do, BL. I would only discuss it with you, however; with certain 'given' truths.
We would need to come up with acceptable definitions of
'winning ' and 'winnable.' During the long nightmare that was Vietnam, our stated mission was not to 'WIN' but, rather, to keep 'them' from winning. Tell me how you measure that. Explain to me how we were 'winning' in Vietnam. We weren't even TRYING to WIN. Just as now, there were no guidelines, no perameters as to what victory would look like.
We have invaded a sovereign nation without having been attcked by it. We have completely torn it's very structure apart. We have incited the wrath of a whole new generation of potential terrorists anxious to wage jihad on us. We have unleashed a massive civil war between two (actually three but the Kurds are pretty much staying out of this one so far) major factions in Iraq. There are untold numbers of different insurgent groups there and nothing we do makes it better...it only makes things worse.
You tell me, BL....just how 'winnable' it all is and exactly how you will define 'victory.'
hey Brash Limburg:
One side could win every single engagement and it still won't mean a damn thing if the larger strategic goal they're fighting for is an impossibility and has been since before they started. Since even before the U.S. involvement and all the way through the vast majority of the people of "South Vietnam" wanted unification with the North and the more the U.S. stayed there the more pronounced this would become. The saddest and most ironic part is that the U.S. involvement in Vietnam never had to occur, and wouldn't have if the U.S. would have minded its own business and let the people of both sides of the artificial border decide the issue for themselves at the ballot box. Remember that after Ho Chi Minh's Communist forces crushed the French at Dien Bien Phu causing the French colonials to decide to withdraw, a referendum to decide the future of Vietnam was agreed upon to take place in 1956. The French government gave the U.S. some very sound advice, that it would be best to not meddle in it and to just let the Vietnamese people decide their own future, but of course the U.S. government was too pigheaded to listen. Since the Communists promised unification and since they were the driving force behind the expulsion of the French, they were predicted to win the referendum in a landslide. The U.S. government agreed to the referendum, but once they realized that the Communists would almost certainly win it, the U.S. government broke their word and cancelled it, showing for all time that America's support for democracy is a joke, in that they'll support it all right, but only as long as those voting will vote for the side they want them to vote for. They then went about propping up the South Vietnamese puppet state run by leaders hand-picked by the U.S. who had no popular support because the people of South Vietnam saw them for what they were, toadies, Quislings for the Americans and that they didn't represent the interests of their people. The South Vietnamese military, with the exception of a couple elite units, didn't at all believe in what it was fighting for and this is why it usually folded up like cardboard against the North Vietnamese and Viet-Cong. The best case scenario the U.S. could hope for was to be perpetual occupiers of a South Vietnamese puppet state, reviled by the population who understandably saw them as standing in the way of the common interest of the vast majority of Vietnam's people of both sides of the artificial border, keeping them unneccessarily partitioned when neither side's people wanted that. If propping up a fascist gangster puppet state whose people feel no loyalty to it, in order to keep the Vietnamese people artificially separated and prevent the will of the vast majority of Vietnam's people from being carried out, keeping an ugly "South Vietnamese" flag flying over Saigon when its own military will do little to protect it, if this is your definition of "victory" then you have exceedingly low standards.
As for exactly why the illegal war in Iraq is totally unwinnable, see my earlier post of December 3rd, 11:57 A.M.
destroy fascism does not know what he's talking about because he wishes to "destroy fascism", yawn, what is he, in 10th grade?
Unless urcommunist, and White House luminary Trotsky was a "fascist."
Dude, it's Rothchild jews, Fiat Money, the world bank, the Sith, the Freemasons, the Colonel of KFC fame, Dr. Phil, and extraterestrial converts to the protestant faith, they, with their puppet in the white house, they DID IT. (well I guess you personally can stick Herr Hitler in there too, but it would be like paprika.)
hey Deadserious:
First of all Trotsky was NOT a fascist (he was the principal organizer of the [Bolshevik] Red Army during the Russian Revolution!).
Secondly, you know nothing whatsoever about fascism. A good article that describes it thoroughly, called "Fascism then, fascism now" [brought to my attention by our friend S.E.A.L.] is at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1128-24.htm
See, fascism is very reactionary, meaning it is a "reaction" against social progress. In its inner workings it enshrines the interests of corporations above all else and seeks to create the most profitable business environment possible for them [as fascist politicians are ALWAYS puppets of big business interests], and this is of course always to the detriment of the well-being of the working class. Mussolini himself said that another word for fascism is "corporatism". Thus fascists are always anti-labor union, anti-workers' rights etc. because anything that empowers the worker and helps provide a better standard of living for him or her eats into the profits of the bourgeois business owners. Of course since your average citizen of any country is much less likely to sympathize with politicians that place the interests of a tiny sliver of the population [the multimillionaire big business bourgeoisie] far ahead of the interests of the common person, fascists don't try to appeal to the common person in speeches voicing their true intentions, instead submerging it in a sea of nationalistic flag-waving and chest-beating, painting opponents as being "less patriotic" than they. It has been done throughout the 20th Century and appears likely to continue to be done, because no working class person with more than part of a functioning mind is going to support policies that make their own economic and social well-being more precarious were the policies to be presented to them as such. Too many people think of fascism just as goosestepping parades of thugs carrying vexillaries, thinking anything without jackboots can't be fascist. Well, they need to look a little farther than the surface veneer.
Post a Comment
<< Home