George W. Bush: The Worst President in the Last 100 Years

I believe AMERICA, not some guy named George, won the Revolutionary war.

It was, by and large, a guerilla war fought by commoners, which is why we won. Although political careers were built on taking credit for victories, in reality Generals had very little to do with the eventual outcome.

The modest beginnings to ending slavery were a mere by-product of the Civil War which was fought under Lincoln, but it was not begun or fought TO end slavery, and Lincoln had little interest in freeing the slaves or not freeing the slaves. His goal was to preserve the Union, which he did accomplish at the cost of roughly 618,000 citizens (more than the total dead in all wars since combined). A more effective statesman should have been able to prevent the war entirely through mediation and diplomacy. Lincoln was obviously not that man.

 

Read his quote. He said "personally" - meaning, what Carter did after leaving the White House. There is a strong argument that he is the most successful ex-president ever.

 

Jeeze, he's made up his mind and just isn't even open to suggestions. Nothing like someone who has no ability to listen.

 

Yep, it is. You know s**t about how our government works, starting with intel and ending with First Responsders.

 

I was actually referring to running sources of intelligence, which are not the same as a source for writing a book. Thanks for proving my point, and just realize you have no idea how the intelligence community functions, because there's no shame in it.

 

To make the thread is one thing. To show one's ignorance when arguing the "point" of the thread is quite another.

 

Great. Link it, let us critique it, and take credit for it.

 

Hee, hee.

I guess with the abysmal way Obama is performing, and the way his numbers are crashing in the polls, it's easier to think about Bush, eh?

 

I heard that a 10 year old virgin wrote a book about sex.

I am lucky nobody has ever used the phrase "I wrote a book about it" to my face as I would likely kick that person right in the crotch.

I think there is a law somewhere that states that someone using that phrase towards you is an acceptable defense in an assault case. I should write a book about that and cement it as fact.

edit, my response has nothing to do with my thoughts on this issue. I would need to interview Bush personally and ask him WHAT THE FUCK?

 

Kinda like a certain poster thinking he's an expert on foreign governments because he lived abroad briefly.

The flip side of that I guess is he knows less than others about his own government since he was absent when they remained home.

 

In the final analysis, history will remember that the only thing Bush ever successfully completed was a children's story titled "The Pet Goat".

 

Well, to me saying that you have been somewhere has more weight than I researched it on the internet and wrote a book about it. I don't really put much weight in either one, but the I wrote a book about it line just grates on my nerves.

Dig up and reanimate Henry Ford and lock him in a room. Give him a test about modern automobiles and give me the same test. I will kick his butt. Who is the famous automotive pioneer and who is the bondo slinging nobody? I would be the second, yet I would win.

I bet Henry Ford wrote a book at some point, but I could be wrong.

 

Is that the one he was reading when informed of 9/11? if so.......

What was he supposed to do, run to the nearest telephone booth and change into Superman?

It would have been better if he had screamed at the top of his lungs and ran out of the room running over children like George Costanza...(another classic Seinfeld moment by the way)

I love how people think Bush was mentally challenged but wanted him to jump up and take charge in a second.

 

What I dont get about posting here is why we can't disagree without being disagreeable. Why, when someone has a different take, they must be stupid or ill informed. Why can't they just come to a reasonable different conclusion?

 

That doesn't mean you know anything. Just out of curiosity, what was the name of the book? If you don't want to offer that, what was the central thesis of the text?

 

You'll get no argument from me about his good works post-presidency. I've worked with HFH since the early 90s. He's a good man who was simply over his head as CIC. I don't know if he's the best of all time, but he's repaired much of his image by his good works.

 

Easy, if you take a specific position on a subject, you should have some type of facts or knowledge to support your argument. You linked your argument to an article that was vague, and talked about the possibility of attacks or hijackings. You seem to think this shows Bush or the intelligence community knew about 9/11 before it happened. As you know, since you're a decorated writer with intimate knowledge on foreign policy, the public does not know the full context of the information to include the credibility of the sources at the time the information was reported, and sporadic intelligence makes it difficult to implement meaningful preventive measures. Spare us the "I wrote a book on it" next time, and your argument could be more interesting.