Poll: Bush "Most Disapproved" President in History

Monorprise wrote:

<quoted text>
Given the same choice I'd vote for him again in 2004 even knowing what I know now. How does that make you feel?
Just because you feel all theses things are a disaster for some ungodly reason, doesn’t make your point valid.
The fact is and has been known for the last 12 years prior to the Iraq war, that Saddam had not accounted for the weapons he did have, and that the inspection were in themselves corrupt.
This was a circle that went around and around and all sides knew about it.
The reason the Euros wanted more time was because they were getting paid off we know that now because we have the documents to prove it captured in Iraq.
The notion that Saddam had weapons that he could uses on us, was a proven fact until it was disproven by the simple procedure of accounting for the known stock that did exist prior to the 1991 golf war.
To do otherwise with regard to such weapons would constitute gross negligence’s.
You can’t simply change the known reality of history for more than a decade after the fact because it’s not convenient.
PS: War is war, its not murder, its not genocide, it’s war, a very human state of relation that exist when either of 2 or more parties are unable to deal with each other adequately otherwise.
Chill out! It’s been going on for thousands and thousands of years, not going to change simply because you’re all Emo about it.
PS: If your want a dictatorship extend federal control over our individual life’s and remove our right to bear arms. O sorry that’s right your already trying to ... sorry.
Having the Army over seas isn’t going to help any government control the country as a dictator would here at home. In fact one might say it leave your “dictator” quite vulnerable.

This is the silliest thing I have ever read, having grown up in the Marcos dictatorship. Invading Iraq was gross negligance of due diligence.

Lucrecia wrote:

<quoted text>
Just remember, who our enemies are...not the Mexicans, the worse threat are the people that orchestrated 911..Mexicans did not bomb. Get your enemies straight. We need to keep the crap where it is!!& obviously that's what Bush has accomplished..No More Bombs on American soil. With the democratic congress blocking Bush in every way, it's no wonder that this country is so messed up. Put the blame where it belongs, the donkeys NOT the elephants.

We HAVE BEEN invaded by the RASCIST state of Mexico. They are in a war with the US, even if crooked politicians don't acknowledge it.

The MSM has been surpressing the cost to this country of these CRIMINALS but the huge deficit, rising cost of gas and ruined school system are there for all to see.

bottlecap wrote:

Bush had the opportunity to be a great president after 9-11 but FAILED.
After 9-11 he had the political leveredge to seal the southern border. HE FAILED MISERABLY.

I agree he has failed to secure the border, although looking at his plan of using technology to tract the transfers and the significant progress he had been making towards that end. If you asked me at the start what was the best way to secure to border, I would have agreed that was plausible and preferable to trying to build the great wall of America, which the illegal would have simply hop over like the walls they already hop over, where they then already existed.

What’s the point of building a wall out in the middle of no where, where they can simply hop over it like they do in urban areas only with no one within 100 miles to see and stop them?
If we were serous Landmines might be a good deterrence but can you imagine how that would go over if it was even suggested?

The only other alterative is the one he ironically was pressuring, increase surveillance technology on the border so we could see them come in and intercept them.

To be quite honest, if the Mexicans are determined to get here, there is nonthing we can do to stop them. they will find away, and we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars Building up security at the border such as the soviets did, and the Mexicans will STILL find ways to breach it.
AT best all we will do is catch most of them only for them to try again, and keep trying till they are successful, and the one’s with resources will find even more creative ways to get in.

Unfortunately OUR resources are not unlimited, and if we are attempting to deal with international-terrorist who have resources, then spending much if not most of our resources dealing with Mexicans who have none, doesn’t really make sense.

Indeed the only true defense here, is a good offence.

bottlecap wrote:

After Afghanistan the trail led to Saudi Arabia,. the home of Wahhabism, which could have been confronted politically without war. HE FAILED MISERABLY.

Sorry I don’t recall, the trail ever leading to Saudi Arabia... I further more do recall us existing political and otherwise pressure on Saudi Arabia, and on top of that, I recall Saudi Arabia helping when as requested.

bottlecap wrote:

HE COULD STILL SALVAGE HIS LEGACY by withdrawind troops from Iraq and putting our troops on the Southern border,

Why leave a war we will inevitably win? Iraq is a insurgency, its not really much different than any past insurgency, it will take a decade for the insurgency to be fully suppressed, in the mean time we merely have to get the Iraqi Government able to deal with them itself. A matter that is tricky because we also want the Iraqi Government to be a Democracy.(Next major elections are 2010).
Meaning we can’t pick their leaders.

So our basic choices are:
1: Stick with the democracy goal and wait for the leaders to either be changed, or learn.
2: Screw the democracy goal, and just install our own dictator.(probably wont help us with achieving our long-term goals in the region).
3: Abandon the whole thing, and all the effort and money we put into it and walk away.

I don’t know about you, but going for #3 as your demanding is pretty dam ill-responsible. I can’t think of anything he could do that would be more damaging to his legacy, then to waist this much effort for nonthing.

The simple truth here is that the american public has no idea who the worst president ever was because those alive today have not an iota of an idea who past presidents were. Example - ask someone about Andrew Johnson and they'll reply "you mean Lyndon, don't you?????"

pythias07 wrote:

The simple truth here is that the american public has no idea who the worst president ever was because those alive today have not an iota of an idea who past presidents were. Example - ask someone about Andrew Johnson and they'll reply "you mean Lyndon, don't you?????"

Seriously…. You can’t top James Buchanan 15th president and only suspected gay.(let the union fall apart while at the same time denying the legality of it).

And in the 20th century go and possibly all time as far as incompetents you can’t top John F. Kennedy.(caused the loss at the bay of pig’s by changing the plans by withdrawing American Airport and resupply, and caused every subsequent event, Bay of pig, Loss of missiles, loss of American advantage with them, rise of the Berlin wall, Vietnam Police action policy, ect…

As far as Tyrant goes, you can’t top in any century Frankly Delano Roosevelt, effectively overthrew the United States Constitution via political Blackmail, Vastly expanding federal power and control over everyone’s individual life’s at the expense of state and Individual rights, vastly reducing individual liberty and greatly expanding the decline of the same liberty thou “the new” presidents in judicial rulings forced upon the court by means of court stacking blackmail.
In short under the current definition of the commerce clause the court would be forced to say congress has the power to dictate what you can feel, think and do, as they all impact in no less significant a manner “interstate” commerce.

Which is by the way defined the same as International commerce, and commerce with Indians in the constitution, does congress have the right to dictate and regulate what foreigners can do in their own countries too?

I'm not an American, but I know the problems the US had in the last 8 years, because of my father who works already for over 10 years in the US on regular times. It seems to me that it would be the best thing ever if he would be remembered as the worst president ever, because:
- he worsened the safety feeling of the Americans
- he made a mess of the economy
- he made, indirectly, almost every American less rich than 8 years ago
- he gave a bad image of the Americans in foreign countries
- he commanded to destroy (help?) Afghanistan and Iraq
- last, but not least, he gave a very difficult exercise to the next president (Obama or McCain?)