CONGRESS SHOULD BEGIN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF BUSH AND CHENEY

Mike Quint wrote:

The Worst President?

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They
complain about his prosecution of it. They point out that Iraq didn't

attack

the U.S. and we shouldn't have went to war with them. One liberal recently
claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic party. Being

an

Independent I decided to take a look at history and see if using that
criteria who else could be called the "worst" president.



Being an independent
Who are you kidding?

I am an independent, I voted for Bush yet feel he pretty close to the worst
president.

And I (a very liberal democrat and damn proud of it) feel he is the worst.

Howie

nt"
Date: 4/20/04 8:04


The Worst President?

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They
complain about his prosecution of it. They point out that Iraq didn't attack
the U.S. and we shouldn't have went to war with them. One liberal recently
claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic party. Being an
Independent I decided to take a look at history and see if using that
criteria who else could be called the "worst" president.

FDR ( a democrat) led us into World War II against Germany, Italy, and
Japan. Neither Germany or Italy ever attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945,
450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. That's 1 Democratic
President, 4 years and 450,000 American lives

Harry Truman (a democrat) 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. That's 1 Democratic President, 3 years, and
55,000 American lives.

John F. Kennedy (a democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us. Lyndon B. Johnson (a democrat) turned Vietnam into a
quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per
year. Finally in the 1970's Richard Nixon (a republican) pulled us out of
Vietnam. That's 2 Democratic Presidents, 1 Republican President, 13 years,
and 58,000 American lives.

Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia WITHOUT UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us. The Clinton administration 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
inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and
captured Sadaam Hussein, who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost about 600 soldiers, an average of 200 a year. Bush did all this
abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. That's 1
Republican President, 2 1/2 years, and about 600 American lives.

Then the Democrats complained about how long the war on terror is taking,
but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it TOOK JANET RENO TO TAKE THE BRANCH
DAVIDIAN C0MPOUND! THAT WAS A 51 DAY OPERATION!

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for LESS TIME
THAN IT TOOK HILLARY CLINTON TO LOCATE THE ROSE LAW FIRM RECORDS IN HER OWN
OFFICE!

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
the Medina Republican Guard than it took TED KENNEDY TO CALL THE POLICE AND
GIVE HIMSELF UP AFTER HE HAD AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRUNK AND SANK HIS OLDSMOBILE
IN
THE CHAPPAQUIDIK RIVER KILLING THE YOUNG LADY WHO WAS HIS PASSENGER!

And Finally...
IT TOOK LESS TIME FOR THE U.S. MILITARY TO TAKE IRAQ THAN IT DID TO COUNT
THE VOTES IN FLORIDA IN 2000!!!!

But for some reason the Democrats didn't complain about how long any of

that took! Hmmm.....


Excellent!

Howie wrote:

And I (a very liberal democrat and damn proud of it) feel he is the worst.

Howie



I'm a proud moderate Democrat, and I think George Bush stinks worse than the
cooked broccoli his Daddy wouldn't eat.

Howie wrote:


Mike Quint wrote:

The Worst President?

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They
complain about his prosecution of it. They point out that Iraq didn't


attack

the U.S. and we shouldn't have went to war with them. One liberal
recently
claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic party. Being


an

Independent I decided to take a look at history and see if using that
criteria who else could be called the "worst" president.



Being an independent
Who are you kidding?

I am an independent, I voted for Bush yet feel he pretty close to the
worst
president.


And I (a very liberal democrat and damn proud of it) feel he is the worst.

Howie

You must be pleased with "Hanoi John".

"chrishunt" wrote in message
news:TTihc.36839$ru4.35815@attbi_s52...

"Surfer E2468" wrote in message
...
If PRESIDENT BUSH IS MAN ENOUGH TO BE PRESIDENT,WHY CAN HE NOT BE MAN
ENOUGH TO ADMIT WHEN HE KNOW'S HE HAS MADE A BIG BIG MISTAKE

The Worst President?

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They
complain about his prosecution of it. They point out that Iraq didn't
attack
the U.S. and we shouldn't have went to war with them. One liberal recently
claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic party. Being
an
Independent I decided to take a look at history and see if using that
criteria who else could be called the "worst" president.

FDR ( a democrat) led us into World War II against Germany, Italy, and
Japan. Neither Germany or Italy ever attacked us: Japan did. From
1941-1945,
450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. That's 1
Democratic
President, 4 years and 450,000 American lives


For the record, Germany declared war with the United States immediately
after we declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. The vote to declare
war on Japan passed the House of Representatives 434 to 1, with the one
being a Republican from Montana

Harry Truman (a democrat) 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. That's 1 Democratic President, 3 years, and
55,000 American lives.


A couple of problems: The "war" is still in progress since no armistice has
been signed with North Korea. We have been operating under a cease fire for
over 50 years with occasional shooting incidents since. It should also be
noted that this was authorized by the United Nations mainly because the
representative from the Soviet Union was stupid enough to walk out of the
Security Council meeting rather than exercising his veto power to block the
resolution authorizing the use of troops. In fact, while Iraq may have had
chemical weapons, and missiles that threatened Israel, North Korea admits to
having nuclear weapons, and they probably have missiles that could reach the
Western United States, as well as Japan and South Korea. Now which is the
greater threat?

John F. Kennedy (a democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam
never attacked us. Lyndon B. Johnson (a democrat) turned Vietnam into a
quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per
year. Finally in the 1970's Richard Nixon (a republican) pulled us out of
Vietnam. That's 2 Democratic Presidents, 1 Republican President, 13 years,
and 58,000 American lives.


Currently, there are only three US Senators who served in Vietnam; Chuck
Hagel (R-NE), John McCain (R-AZ), and John Kerry (D-MA). In 2002, one
Senator, Max Cleland (D-GA) was called "chicken" and "unpatriotic" by
Republicans despite losing three limbs in Vietnam. Apparently this was a
good argument since he lost his re-election bid.

Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia WITHOUT UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us. The Clinton administration was offered Osama bin
Laden's
head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked
us on multiple occasions.


Number of US combat related fatalities in Bosnia - 0

As for the Sudanese claim of offering to turn over Bin Laden, there is no
evidence to support the assertion that Sudan ever offered him to the United
States. For a lot more information on this topic, see
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearin...tatement_5.pdf.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put
nuclear
inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and
captured Sadaam Hussein, who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost about 600 soldiers, an average of 200 a year. Bush did all this
abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. That's 1
Republican President, 2 1/2 years, and about 600 American lives.


You misspelled Libya. And speaking of Libya, after the bombing of Pan Am
flight 103, there was no military retaliation against Quadafi after he
murdered hundreds of Americans, the worst terrorist act against the United
States until 9/11. Ronald Reagan was president at the time, but George H.
W. Bush was coming into office. Both of those were Republicans. Also,
there was no retaliation after our Marines were bombed in their barracks in
Lebanon. In fact, after our citizens were kidnapped, Col. Oliver North sold
Iran, who supported and financed the terrorists, anti-tank missiles in
exchange for our hostages. Also, Donald Rumsfeld arranged for Saddam
Hussein in 1983 to purchase the raw materials to gas his own people.

At the time Kabul fell, the United States had only 750 troops on the ground.
It is becoming apparent that the Taliban fled into the hills and are biding
their time. There have been several attempts to kill the leader of Pakistan
and replace him with a leader hostile to the United States. It is also
confirmed that the person responsible for Pakistan developing a nuclear bomb
has sold his knowledge to North Korea and who knows else, for which he was
pardoned by the government of Pakistan and will never face charges for what
he did.

It is now becoming obvious that we abandoned the war on Al Quida and the
Taliban in lieu of the war on Iraq. This has not only let the Taliban and
Al Quida regroup, but unified the Arab world against us. While we never
have been popular in the Middle East because of our support of Israel,
opinion polls show that our support amongst the Arab population is at its
lowest point in history. Our commanders in Iraq now estimate that 10% of
the Iraqi security forces we trained are now actively fighting against us,
and another 40% have abandoned their posts. As one solder put it, "They
apparently didn't get the memo [that the war ended in Iraq]."

As for Iraq, we were told, without any doubt, that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction. It is now apparent that Iraq not only does not have weapons of
mass destruction, that they did not have the capability of producing them
since 1993. Even President Bush didn't think there was enough evidence to
indicate they possessed them. What is worse, and more disturbing, is that
those responsible for the failures in Iraq (can anyone reasonably call
what is going on there now a success?) have not been fired.

Then the Democrats complained about how long the war on terror is
taking,
but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it TOOK JANET RENO TO TAKE THE
BRANCH
DAVIDIAN C0MPOUND! THAT WAS A 51 DAY OPERATION!


Janet Reno wasn't confirmed until the middle of the siege. The raid began
with ATF agents, which were and are under the Treasury Department, botched a
raid.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for LESS
TIME
THAN IT TOOK HILLARY CLINTON TO LOCATE THE ROSE LAW FIRM RECORDS IN HER
OWN
OFFICE!

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy
the Medina Republican Guard than it took TED KENNEDY TO CALL THE POLICE
AND
GIVE HIMSELF UP AFTER HE HAD AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRUNK AND SANK HIS
OLDSMOBILE
IN
THE CHAPPAQUIDIK RIVER KILLING THE YOUNG LADY WHO WAS HIS PASSENGER!

And Finally...
IT TOOK LESS TIME FOR THE U.S. MILITARY TO TAKE IRAQ THAN IT DID TO
COUNT
THE VOTES IN FLORIDA IN 2000!!!!

But for some reason the Democrats didn't complain about how long any of
that took! Hmmm.....



Nothing like false analogies. By the way, more troops died in the first
three weeks in April than in ALL OF THE "MAJOR COMBAT" PHASE OF THE WAR IN
IRAQ! I thought that after we captured Saddam Hussein that the insurgency
would melt away. It appears it not only has not gone away, but intensified.

I don't want to defend Hussein. The world is a better place without him in
power. However, I am afraid we may have made a much worse problem, and
given Osama Bin Laden his ultimate victory, a war between the United States
and the Arab world.

Tom Smith

We are also independent ,did not vote for BUSH first time,and will not
vote for him this time,anybody but BUSH

The Worst President?

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They
complain about his prosecution of it. They point out that Iraq didn't attack
the U.S. and we shouldn't have went to war with them. One liberal recently
claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic party. Being an
Independent I decided to take a look at history and see if using that
criteria who else could be called the "worst" president.

FDR ( a democrat) led us into World War II against Germany, Italy, and
Japan. Neither Germany or Italy ever attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945,
450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. That's 1 Democratic
President, 4 years and 450,000 American lives

Harry Truman (a democrat) 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. That's 1 Democratic President, 3 years, and
55,000 American lives.

John F. Kennedy (a democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us. Lyndon B. Johnson (a democrat) turned Vietnam into a
quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per
year. Finally in the 1970's Richard Nixon (a republican) pulled us out of
Vietnam. That's 2 Democratic Presidents, 1 Republican President, 13 years,
and 58,000 American lives.

Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia WITHOUT UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us. The Clinton administration 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
inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and
captured Sadaam Hussein, who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost about 600 soldiers, an average of 200 a year. Bush did all this
abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. That's 1
Republican President, 2 1/2 years, and about 600 American lives.

Then the Democrats complained about how long the war on terror is taking,
but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it TOOK JANET RENO TO TAKE THE BRANCH
DAVIDIAN C0MPOUND! THAT WAS A 51 DAY OPERATION!

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for LESS TIME
THAN IT TOOK HILLARY CLINTON TO LOCATE THE ROSE LAW FIRM RECORDS IN HER OWN
OFFICE!

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
the Medina Republican Guard than it took TED KENNEDY TO CALL THE POLICE AND
GIVE HIMSELF UP AFTER HE HAD AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRUNK AND SANK HIS OLDSMOBILE
IN
THE CHAPPAQUIDIK RIVER KILLING THE YOUNG LADY WHO WAS HIS PASSENGER!

And Finally...
IT TOOK LESS TIME FOR THE U.S. MILITARY TO TAKE IRAQ THAN IT DID TO COUNT
THE VOTES IN FLORIDA IN 2000!!!!

But for some reason the Democrats didn't complain about how long any of

that took! Hmmm.....


Excellent!







I agree...very good.
Sean

As another proud liberal democrat and pro-choice father I believe that 43
lied to America to satiate his need to exonerate 41 for his failure to rid
Iraq of Saddam Hussein in 1991.

Hopefully impeachment will not be necessary and America will vote this Bush
out as they did his daddy in 1992.
--
DG in Cherry Hill, NJ

Kerry '04

"RTCReferee" wrote in message
...
Howie wrote:

And I (a very liberal democrat and damn proud of it) feel he is the
worst.

Howie



I'm a proud moderate Democrat, and I think George Bush stinks worse than
the
cooked broccoli his Daddy wouldn't eat.

and you have to be equally proud of 43's wonderful war record with the
National Guard.

When asked if he would accept an assignment to Vietnam, he answered "No",
which is why both "yes" and "no" are covered.

The next question asks "where do you want to be assigned", and had W
answered "yes" to the assignment to Vietnam question, this question would
not have all of the answers blocked.

W answered "no" to Vietnam and asked to be assigned somewhere safe, coward
that he is.

600 dead Americans so far, 100 this month, this is the president you want us
to re-elect?
--
DG in Cherry Hill, NJ

Kerry '04


"Kevin" wrote in message
news:csAhc.172351$gA5.1996354@attbi_s03...

You must be pleased with "Hanoi John".

"Thomas Smith" -NO-SPAM wrote in message
...


I don't want to defend Hussein. The world is a better place without him
in
power. However, I am afraid we may have made a much worse problem, and
given Osama Bin Laden his ultimate victory, a war between the United
States
and the Arab world.

Tom Smith

A war between the United States and the Arab world is exactly what is
needed. It is time to eliminate those sand ******s once and for all. The
sooner the better. Just ask Dick Goldhaber.