« Cindy Sheehan Still Too Busy For Son's Grave | Main | Understanding General Zinni »

Rolling Stone Mag: Bush Worst President in History?

Here's the cover of Rolling Stone's upcoming issue, out on Friday:


Drudge has the scoop. Notice the cover says a "leading historian" evaluates President Bush. Apparently this is the "leading historian's" conclusion:

"George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace."

The left is giving it everything it's got to win back the House for the Dems so they can begin impeachment hearings against Bush. We have a few retired Democrat generals coming out and calling for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, a political attack aimed to hurt Bush. We hear constant carping about how the war in Iraq is a quagmire and a lost cause. Now we have this hit piece that will say that Bush is the worst president in American history.

Of course, the MSM is the left's willing accomplices; expect them to pick up on this article and discuss it as if it has importance and meaning.

With the November elections approaching, look for it to get really nasty out there.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rolling Stone Mag: Bush Worst President in History?:

» Joust The Facts linked with A Moss-Covered Rolling Stone

» Chickenhawk Express linked with Rolling Stone Magazine - Crass and Vile

» low culture linked with Old Issue

Comments (95)

Bush is the worst. The Rep... (Below threshold)

Bush is the worst. The Republicans are lost. What else is new?

How soon people forget Jimm... (Below threshold)

How soon people forget Jimmy Carter,

You know, I used to get ups... (Below threshold)

You know, I used to get upset.

But this is really just pathetic.

I guess the coin flip came ... (Below threshold)

I guess the coin flip came up "dunce" today.

Will we be back to "evil criminal mastermind" tomorrow?

Uh. I have to echo smitty. ... (Below threshold)

Uh. I have to echo smitty. Jimmy Carter. Hellooo?

This is probably the type o... (Below threshold)

This is probably the type of thing that should be judged 10-20 years from now; I'm sure it'll sell them a bunch of magazines though.

Also, any president undergoing the kind of political resistance he has (every.single.step.of.the.way.) would probably be a failure, so I don't know if it's necessarily a good barometer for his policies or potential effectiveness.

"Worst president ever"?... (Below threshold)

"Worst president ever"?

What a freakin' joke.

Even without Jimmy Carter on the list, there are other easy targets that are being passed over in favor of the current pinata of the left, W.

Herbert Hoover was pretty piss-poor at his job, with his attempts to stop the Depression actually making things worse.

LBJ saddled the country with a war that went on for another 7 years after he was gone as well as the Great Society programs helping plunge our economy into the toilet.

James Buchanan basically fiddled while Rome was burning, helping make the divides between the North and South worse, which caused the Civil War once Lincoln won the 1860 election because the South knew he'd actually get off of his ass and push for changes.

That's three easy historical choices that will be ignored just so they can continue the "dummy in the White House" argument.

Considering the LAST guy to get that treatment was Reagan, who is now unquestionably one of the best presidents ever, I'd say the fact they're stooping to this means W is doing a lot of things right.

With the track record of li... (Below threshold)

With the track record of liberals never being on the right side of history, this can only mean Bush will obviously be thought of as one of the best in history.

I can't believe that anyone... (Below threshold)

I can't believe that anyone who thinks that GW Bush is a good President, must be a bleeding heart Republican, that would openly support any Republican President, who uses a very corporate media to get what he wants. Lying about foreign and domestic security issues, is enough for impeachment, if not crimminal charges, but as long as we continue to drive our Escalades with W04 stickers on them we'll never be able to look ourselves in the mirror and say, "We the people" because we the misinformed people created this mental midget! This course we have been led down by Bush is a crash course for disaster. Bring on Hilary in 08, she'll fix it...LOL
We are going through Americas Dark Ages, thank you W.

OK Jimmy Carter number one ... (Below threshold)

OK Jimmy Carter number one Bush number two!

I remember this Wilentz guy... (Below threshold)

I remember this Wilentz guy. He was also blow-harding about how history would remember the Clinton impeachment... as a travesty of justice or some such. He was a witness at the proceedings.

Keith , you like your par... (Below threshold)
Rob in LA Ca.:

Keith , you like your party you are pathetic and diluded. It didn't take but hearing the vile spewing out of Fraud Kerry's mouth to put an end my having voted democrat for almost 20 years and yes registered. All it took was paying attention followed by countless hours of research and with every passing minute the more disgusted I became with the democrat party and the more relieved I was that they didn't get my vote Nov. 2 2004. You and your incompetant traitorous party can no longer lie without impunity and deceive the Majority. Or are you still in denile of the fact that you "ARE THE MINORITY PARTY IN EVERY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT" AND DESERVINGLY SO. Your a fool and a tool.

So who are these alleged "l... (Below threshold)

So who are these alleged "leading historians?"

Gotta love keith. He falls ... (Below threshold)

Gotta love keith. He falls back on the ol' tired LLL rhetoric complete with the "Escalades with W stickers on 'em" stuff.

Memo to Keith:

Where I live I find that there are PLENTY of Escalades, along with Lexus, Volvo, Mercedes, Acura, and Porsche SUV's and other SUV's of all types sporting the usual LLL bumperstickers including their Kerry/Edwards ones. Of course most are being driven by the rich elitist lawyer/ college professor/media types that live in their little enclaves nearby.

I had to laugh my ass off when I was behind a Jeep Cherokee one morning. It had the LLL favorite "No Blood for Oil" bumpersticker along with a rear window sized CODE PINK sign! What a bunch of hypocrites!!!

So Keith, you might refrain form making the presumptious assumption about who drives what, honey. You just might find out that a good portion of those "evil SUV's" are being driven by hypocritical LLL's just like you.

The left is giving... (Below threshold)
The left is giving it everything it's got to win back the House for the Dems so they can begin impeachment hearings against Bush.

There's an easy way for the Congressional Republicans to avoid that (and keep their majorities): follow Carl Bernstein's advice and open a real, serious investigation into Bush, complete with subpoenas -- the kind of investigations they opened into Clinton's behavior just about every week.

Right now the main thing that will drive Democratic voters to the polls is that the Republican Congress refuses to do any oversight of Bush (whereas when the Democrats had Congress in 93-94, they did real oversight of Clinton and even forced him to appoint a Special Prosecutor). If the Republicans pre-empt this by investigating Bush themselves, this will take away the main GOTV weapon of the Democrats -- because "moderate" Democrats don't want impeachment, but would be satisfied with real oversight hearings.

Since when did "Rolling Sto... (Below threshold)
Sperm Donor:

Since when did "Rolling Stone" become part of the "MSM?"

Over the years it has become pretty corporate and Wenner maintains it as just a part of his media-publishing empire, but come now: In terms of the "MSM" pantheon of accepted, "go to" outlets, "Rolling Stone" has rarely, if ever been included in such company as "Newsweek," "Time," the "New York Times," or "The Washington Post."

It's history was born of the 60s counterculture, and its left-of-center political writing has consistently been the one remaining vestige of that heritage. And this is probably why it has never been treated by the real "MSM" as a worthy member of their group.

"Rolling Stone" part of the MSM?

Anyone who thinks that way, reveals just how ignorant and out-of-touch he or she is. Or, to put it in other terms, just how "un-hip" he or she is.

But right wingers are rarely if ever "hip." Just like they are rarely if ever in touch with reality in general.

Obviously Wizbang is where ... (Below threshold)

Obviously Wizbang is where at least two almost parallel universes manage to meet at a single node. How else to explain the separate versions of reality that posts present on controversial political topics like this one.

Either that or at least one side is lying or delusional.

Now, lets see, did the orig... (Below threshold)

Now, lets see, did the original post say RS was part of the MSM, or did it speculate that the MSM would pick up on their cover story and run with it?

I sure hope that Sperm Donor hasn't been smoking something "hip" before either making donations or posting here. Our gene pool and our thread could do with fewer dead-end mutations.

BrandonInBatonRogue: Unque... (Below threshold)

BrandonInBatonRogue: Unquestionably? Seriously?

I love the rousing defense here. No, Carter was worse. No Hoover was worse. At least you are all admitting he is bottom three or four. That is the first step. We will accept your apologies when you are ready to give them. Seriously. When you are ready to move forward as a nation, feel free to send us an apology. An apology for calling us traitors for pointing out the obvious.

As for Carter, at least he wasn't a complete embarrassment every time he opened his mouth. At least he was a real Evangelical Christian with actual christian values, unlike this mean-spirited, dry-drunk frat guy we got now. At least he didn't run up three trillion in debt in five years. At least when faced with rising energy prices, he actually pushed conservation. At least he wasn't a phony silver-spoon New England bred southerner. At least he didn't read My Pet Goat for seven minutes while the nation was being attacked. At least the photo op wasn't his first priority. I certainly don't recall him spending months and months on vacation. Nor do I recall the outrageous cronyism. Nor do I remember Carter being unable to admit obvious mistakes.

Say what you will about Carter, just don't compare him to this petty, shallow, ridiculous man we currently have in office. They aren't even in the same league.

These right wings blogs a... (Below threshold)

These right wings blogs are amusing. I get a kick out of it, I can't believe you hard rightwingers still take youreselves seriously. This blog is a joke. "Sheehan still too busy to visit sons grave," this is you're headline, pathetic! You right wing extremists are as incompetent as Bush. Good luck, losers.

So, this is where the 32 pe... (Below threshold)

So, this is where the 32 percenters run for cover. Here you'll find the persistent campaign of mockery towards human conditioning. You'll find and learn to love the pompous, pretentious writings of the diminishing radical rights endless loud bombastic declamation of nefarious preservation. This is indeed a very entertaining lethal polypeptide gene pool where the repressor introns are between the nonallele exons causing flatulence anxiety. It's only fitting that this blog be renamed to WizJape or WizFart.

Harry Truman bottomed out a... (Below threshold)

Harry Truman bottomed out at a 23% approval rating. Just thought you should know.

Daniel gets an A for spelli... (Below threshold)

Daniel gets an A for spelling and a C- for grammar, punctuation and syntax.

Rolling Stone being part of... (Below threshold)

Rolling Stone being part of the MSM or not, I was struck by the notion that a magazine would try to push articles on such a wide range of topics as:

Who is the Worst Pres in History (possibly a serious discussion)


What is Nick Lachey up to (isn't he Jessica whats-her-name's husband? hardly a serious discussion)

The liberals are salivating... (Below threshold)
Rodney Dill:

The liberals are salivating over the opportunity to get even for the Congresses impeachment of the worst president ever. Its hard to understand why perjury is preferred to integrity by some, but I'm sure some moonbats will subsequently try to explain it.

Are the 70% of Americans wh... (Below threshold)

Are the 70% of Americans who are sick and tired of this man's incompetent bungling all "liberals"? Maybe reasonable folks are salivating over the prospect of getting this country back on track and out of the hands of the current bunch of power drunk fools who are selling US out corporate greed.

When the dust clears on what's left of this country and the world when this 8 year shitstorm is over, Bush will indeed be viewed as the worst ever; no one else even comes close. Comparisons with Carter are laughable. Doesn't anyone remember his take on our dangerous dependence on oil? Seems he just might have been on to something there. We'd be in a much safer and stronger position today if we listened 30 years ago instead of ridiculing him as weak and ineffective.

Tim, thanks for the ... (Below threshold)

Tim, thanks for the info. Harry had his problems with the media, too.

Along those lines, anybody see / hear about the recent Gallup poll that asked people their opinion of the Congress? I think Congress got a 23% (!) "favorable" rating.

Is RS - or any other publication - going to cover that?

Doubt it...

Regarding groucho's remarks (April 19, 2006 08:17 AM), my feeling is that a large number of the 70% are conservatives like me who think that the president has turned into democrat lite: spends like a drunken sailor, soft on border security, a wet noodle on his court nominees, and entirely too "nice" for the country's good.

Seattle Slough,You... (Below threshold)

Seattle Slough,

You're intentionally misconstruing my argument.

The point of it was that the "historians" in question must not have a lot of credibility if they're claiming W is *the* worst president during the middle of his administration while ignoring a couple of guys who were unmitigated disasters.

That's based on the argument made above, which I agree with, that a presidency can't be judged accurately until at least 10-20 years down the line, once the results of policies are more evident.

If you want a proper historical comparison between Bush and another president, I'd say that James Polk is appropriate, as Polk was hated by the intelligencia of the day for the war against Mexico (referred to as "Mr. Polk's War" by Henry David Thoreau, amongst others).

"Mr. Polk's War" was seen as a land-grab by the anti-war side back then, while the War On Terror is seen as an oil-grab by the anti-war side today.

As for the length of my argument in the previous post, it's because I've got a college background in history and one of the things drilled into me there was that you actually *make and support* an argument rather than just throwing it out there and insulting the opposing viewpoint.

I'd expand more on the Polk-Bush comparison, but I've got to work in a few minutes.

The usual suspects for wors... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

The usual suspects for worst Presidents are Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Warren G. Harding...Bush seems to have bet the house on Iraq being a significant threat and equally(and recklessly in my view) bet the future of our children's children on global warming not being a significant threat. ..It shouldn't be too difficult for history to judge in 20 years the results of these two decisions, and whether Bush joins the aforementioned Presidents with so much at stake...but the trends and facts on the ground have recently so unfavourable and Bush, like a character in greek tragedy, is unable to change, since he decides" what's best" for us almost solely on instinct.

Also, any president unde... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Also, any president undergoing the kind of political resistance he has (every.single.step.of.the.way.)

umm, he had 80%+ approval rating after 9/11, had both houses of Congress for most of his presidency, and a media that did ZERO investigative reporting to refute/support his claims to go to war, they just took gov't sources at their word. The opposition he faced was purely POPULIST from the people who knew from the beginning that Bush would lead this country down the wrong path. Now people are jumping on the bandwagon. I would argue that Bush had one of the easiest political presidencies.

With the track record of liberals never being on the right side of history

umm, this is categorically incorrect. Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Paine, Lincoln, Grant, FDR, Churchill, Gandhi, Jesus, Moses, MLK, Nelson Mandela, Susan B Anthony, William Wallace (Braveheart, great movie), all liberals. Hell, if you want to believe Bush, he's liberating Iraq, some might say that makes him liberal too. Power-hungry egomaniacs have generally been on the wrong side of history more than liberals (Hitler, Mussolini, King George (no, not GWB), Caesar, Pharaoh, Milosevic, Hussein, bin Laden, Charles Taylor, just to name a few). Now Bush is somewhere in the middle of those two categories (inherent presidential authority vs. "liberating" Iraq).

History will judge his presidency, and it will probably be closer to the bottom than the top, but if he nukes Iran, than no question in my mind he will definitely be the worst ever.

Hey sean, where will they r... (Below threshold)

Hey sean, where will they rank him if Iran nukes us? Expand your mind, doooood.

Yes he had 80% approval rat... (Below threshold)

Yes he had 80% approval rating...which would have dropped like a rock no matter WHAT he would have done. It was a temporary spike for obvious reasons. As soon as he began to act, the number dropped and the voices of dissent emerged. Unfortunately, those voices became a constant roar that have never let anyone come out and clearly define the concensus facts.

Also, I think you completely mistate the circumstances of the reporting regarding the buildup to Iraq. What were they supposed to report? That the world intelligence community supported Bush's assertions? That there was bipartisan support? That Hussein had consistently violated the terms of the ceasefire from the first Gulf War? That Hussein was acting as though he did, in fact, have WMD's? That Hussein was abusing his own populace and was a serious human rights violater? These things didn't hinge on the government's word, they were readily apparent for anyone with eyes and a functioning brain. But because we didn't find any serious stockpiles of WMD's after a 2 month buildup, Bush lied. Even if Hussein DIDNT have WMD's at any point we believed he did, his intent was obviously to have them; and the latticework for reconstituting his program was solidly in place, as well as the know-how. As soon as the sanctions against him were dead and gone (which would not have been very long the way things were looking) the world would have gone back to ignoring him and what do you think would have happened? A few years down the line things would have come to a head again as some obvious signs would inevitably leak out that production of WMD's was going full scale. The world would act surprised and outraged and we'd be exactly where we are now, except in this circumstance we would be in a position of weakness as we are with regards to Iran.

What actually happened is as soon as we hit Afghanistan we heard talk about a quagmire and Vietnam 2. Then with Iraq it was Bush lied and manipulated intelligence, where are the terrorists chimpy?, oh there they are...well we brought them there obviously, this one's really going to be a quagmire though, Joe Wilson, we're terrorizing innocent Iraqi's, the body count is 100.000+, white phosphorous, war-for-oil, we're torturing them!, secret prisons, Iraqi civil war...any second now, a grim milestone a grim milestone a grim milestone a grim mileston, domestic spying!!!!!, plame 007, the economy sucks, economy ok: women/minorities hardest hit, Cheney is a murderer...oh wait he didnt die, we're going to nuke Iran (no, really, we are), Rumsfeld obviously has to go, and a dozen other trumped up "scandals" I've left out. Yes, obviously the media has given him a pass. The fact that you say he's had one of the easiest presidencies is laughable. The man can't take a piss without calls for investigation or impeachment or the NYT claiming it's a sign of ominous things to come. Then you act surprised that the public has lost faith in him -those who ever had any- after this kind of sensationalistic media interrogation. He could be Jesus Christ and have similar approval ratings right now. Just remember, "we destroy people, it's what we do."

I judge the liberal conserv... (Below threshold)

I judge the liberal conservative argument like this: If I moved next door to a tree hugging,volvo driving liberal, with a Kerry bumper sticker; and an F-150 pick up driving conservative with a W bumper sticker. Who would move first when they see my black ass coming? Mmmmm, I am going to put my money on the F-150 guy putting up that Century 21 sign first. In fact, did I mention that this is not some hypothet I made up for sake if this argument? Well I should have, because it is not, it really happened to my wife and I. Yes, the liberals are still there, and I consider them friends. As for the conservative, not sure where he went, but I am sure it's to a whiter brighter neighborhood :)

So hey, call me crazy, but my politics are partially based on my personal experiences. Bush might be a decent guy, but he is in the wrong party as far as I am concerned, and his decision to go to Iraq was a bad one. Where he ranks among our Presidents? Only history will tell.

The node where the parallel... (Below threshold)

The node where the parallel universes meet. The ozone (and perhaps some other smokey sweet smell emanating from one side) permeates the air here.

Or maybe its just the smell of a barn that hasn't been cleaned for a while.

At any rate, you Bush haters are only verifying the last statement of the post: "look for it to get really nasty out there."

Just what, if any logical thinking process was used, are you thinking when you spread venomous and spiteful verbiage in the comments of a post about how venomous and spiteful verbiage is about to be promulgated by the Left and MSM? I guess it is to agree with Kim. Unless you are simply incapable of suppressing the knee-jerk response of Bush Bashing in any post mentioning him, no reading comprehension need be applied.

[If you are Independent or Conservative and posting such, you are disagreeing and saying its not just the Left]

Personally, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other for the fellow - I don't particularly like all of his decisions or his staff. I think its way too early to judge the results of his decisions. One reason to rush to judgement at this time is fear that time may disintegrate your arguments. Kinda like what the Bush bashers accuse him of doing with the tired and hackneyed WMD debate.

So, to get back on topic, anyone got any links to MSM picking up on this story?

field-negro, your argument ... (Below threshold)

field-negro, your argument goes as follows: white guy who owns a pickup truck moves out when I move in, therefore republicans = racists; liberals = correct on national policy matters.

Brilliant logic.

Maybe the guy moved because he actually had plans on moving? Could such a thing happen in your racially charged world? Perhaps starting from the default assumption that everything is racially motivated makes you see the world from a skewed perspective? Try not assuming the worst out of people for a week and see if things look a little different for you.

Actually, I agree with sean... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Actually, I agree with sean. "Liberals" are not consistently on the wrong side of history. Leftists are. There are exceptions to the rule, but it is a consistent trend.

Black folks moved in across... (Below threshold)

Black folks moved in across the street. We didn't move - didn't see a reason to. Three years later, the fifth black family moved in down the street. We moved. I guess that makes us racisists, right?

We moved because the little guy was getting to school age, and the elementary school we were zoned for was ranked in the bottom third for the state - and the state ranked 49th in the nation. We'd benn planning to move to a better school area since before the little guy was born, (because She who decides these things REALLY believes in advance planning) and it was just time.

I'm sure to that family that moved in down the street it seemed like we were running away screaming. But you know something? It wasn't.


I have a feeling that if Fi... (Below threshold)

I have a feeling that if FieldN-word ever did move into a situation as he describes, and if the "For Sale" sign didn't go up on Whitey's lawn fast enough to suit him, he'd think of ways to speed up the process.

Living next to a white guy who couldn't care less what r4ace he is, must certainly be FieldN-word's idea of hell.

I find it curious (and tire... (Below threshold)

I find it curious (and tiresome) that field-negroe is compelled to inject racial politics into every comment thread, no matter how far off-topic. Dude, can you just get over the fact that despite your most fervent belief to the contrary, we are not racists just because we're conservative!

Gawdamighty that's annoying.

Leftists are [on the wro... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Leftists are [on the wrong side of history]. There are exceptions to the rule, but it is a consistent trend.

This is a questionable argument. Clearly, the Russian communists, were on the wrong side of history. But right now, it doesn't look like the Chinese are going anywhere anytime soon, unfortunately. And most, if not all, of western society started as monarchies/empires, or developed into fascists, and are now liberal democracies.

The countries who are our primary enemies now are right-wing (NK and Iran). The most unstable parts of the world are run by right-wing authoritarian leaders (primarily in Africa and the Mid-East). Russia is becoming more authoritarian and America is urging them to stay at least in the center. Most major political movements as of late have been to the left (Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Venezuela and South America, Italy, Spain, and maybe Hamas, but they're kind of right-wing because of their religiosity and militancy). The few exceptions are Canada (out of protest of corruption), the US (though the country is 50/50), and Germany (again dead-even).

All in all, I'd say the world has moved from kingdoms/empires on the right to democracies on the center/left. The exceptions are that, occasionally, countries go too far left, but then correct themselves more to the center. China is the exception to the exception, but they too may correct to the center.

Bush is not just the Worst ... (Below threshold)
Michael Kraus:

Bush is not just the Worst President evr BUT he is a war criminal who has murdered 2400 Americans and 10's of thousands of Iraqis. The only difference between Bush & Saddam is possibly the magnitude of their body counts.

Bush should not just be impeached, he should be tried, convicted and executed for crimes against humanity.

And the frightening thing i... (Below threshold)

And the frightening thing is you actually believe that.

Of course the guy was plann... (Below threshold)

Of course the guy was planning to move all along.
I guess seeing the field-negro next door just caused him to speed up the process huh? Wheeew!

Anyway, wavemaker I think this will put the me being a reverse racist argument to rest once and for all.(At least I hope it does) I bet every white person posting here that I have more white friends than you have black ones. Period, end of story.If in your heart you think you can refute that statement I stand corrected, and I lose the bet.

srl, you questioned the logic of me raising the issue of race in a political discussion. Are you insane? We live in America; politics and race go hand in hand in this country. Besides, I was simply explaining my reasons for not particularly liking Bush. And yes, it's because he belongs to a party that has not traditionally embraced people that look like I do. That's a fact. Why is that so hard for you repubs to understand that? There no such formula as repubs + black folk= love.

It aint ever happening, ever. Because the moment we start coming to your party you will all bolt like bats out of you know where. Just like the dixiecrats did in the sixties, and the dems have not been able to win the south ever since.

How is Bush a war criminal?... (Below threshold)

How is Bush a war criminal? How did he murder 2400 Americans? Only if you completely ignore all of the reasons we went to war and assumed the most hateful load of crap at every conceivable turn could you arrive at such a conclusion. Want to believe there were no WMD's there? Fine. Want to believe there were no terrorists there until we arrived? Fine. Those two points are very debatable, but hardly settled, despite what many on the left state; but for the sake of argument let's give you those. What you can't disagree with is that Saddam Hussein was a genocidal madman that destablized the region and the world and was one of the worst human rights abusers the world has ever seen. You also can't argue that he violated the terms of the ceasefire he agreed to when he lost the first Gulf War that HE started. If you are so concerned with human life you should probably be giddy that this man is now behind bars. You also can't dispute the fact that regime change in Iraq has been the de facto position of our government well before Bush got into office, or that many democratic politicians who claim to be adamantly opposed to the war unequivocally supported it before the war. So Bush should be impeached? For what, doing something you don't agree with or understand? Executed??? Bush and Saddam are the same?????? My goodness, what planet are you from?

Field-negro, as usual you'v... (Below threshold)

Field-negro, as usual you've completely ignored what I said or just didn't understand it. I wasn't questioning the logic of bringing race into a political discussion - though I think someone else did - I was questioning the logic you used to make your point. It was flawed, to put it lightly. What you seem to be guilty of is what is known to pyshologists as "finding what you're looking for" and it can be a sign of serious mental illness. You dog-ear every instance of racism you think you find and then ignore any evidence to the contrary because you're only looking for the racism. When you say the man planned to move away and that you being there quickened the process, whether jokingly or not, you have absolutely no reason for making the assumption for that particular instance. You are assuming by default that the man is racist without making the assumption known and then expecting that the man (or anyone for that matter) prove through their actions that they are not racist. That's very egocentric. Also, you claimed to belong to the other party simply by virtue of this perceived racism. How does that work?

I am a fairly liberal agnostic young man who didn't vote for Bush, but I have no hatred for him or either party in particular. I'm able to judge each issue independently from personal bias. I'm not a christian, but that doesn't mean I can't agree with a Christian on matters unrelated to religious affiliation. So do all democratic policy positions suddenly become your own because you think republicans are racists? You seem to be saying that, and if so that is a very unprincipled way of moving through the world. And as for the republican party not being a party that has "embraced people that look like I do" do you even realize that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President? You know, the man who essentially ended slavery? I'm also taking a guess here, but I'd say Bush has the most racially diverse administration in the history of the country.

There is a lot of Jimmy Car... (Below threshold)
Mike Christiansen:

There is a lot of Jimmy Carter bashing going on here. As I recall, President Carter's policies were based on humanitarian and personal convictions. He is the only Christian president I can think of. OTOH, Bush's (err Cheney's) policies have leveraged the tragedy of 9/11 to promote a middle-east power grab that has blown up in our faces. The man should, and hopefully will, be impeached and removed from office.

field-negro wrote (A... (Below threshold)

field-negro wrote (April 19, 2006 01:56 PM):

We live in America; politics and race go hand in hand in this country.

EXACTLY. That's why I would NEVER vote for a black woman like Condi Rice! Oh... wait a minute... I WOULD vote for somebody like her. Something about the content of her character instead of the color of her skin... Where have I heard that...

Besides, I was simply explaining my reasons for not particularly liking Bush. And yes, it's because he belongs to a party that has not traditionally embraced people that look like I do.

Check up on who was running the South when slavery was still legal, and who was running it when Jim Crow came into existence. Look at the party affiliation of the black members of Congress during Reconstruction. Then check up on who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Then check up on who sent troops into Little Rock High to enforce desegregation. Look into who gave the most support to the 1965 Civil Rights Act. And what's the name of the president who had the first black man as Secretary of State? And the first black woman?

The loopy things that lefties believe....

Boy, conservatives sure do ... (Below threshold)

Boy, conservatives sure do love to play the victim. I'm constantly being told that the Democratic party is over, we can't win elections, the people have turned Republican. But what's this? When it suits you, I also hear that Bush is the valiant, embattled leader, fighting for what is right against overwhelming opposition. To claim that "any president undergoing the kind of political resistance he has (every.single.step.of.the.way.) would probably be a failure" is a joke. He's had a compliant Congress that has provided no oversight, and until recently a lapdog press corps that asked no tough questions. And as for the notion that there were no tough questions for the press to ask, those of us who opposed the war all along had plenty of questions. But I know the current right wing meme is that the left's opposition to the war was based on ignorance and a hatred of America, while many conservatives are now opposing the war because they are thoughtful and principled.

I believe that the Bush presidency has been a disaster for this country. But you can all go ahead and dismiss the critics as "Bush haters." It's easier than facing the fact that we were right, and you all were too busy labelling us "traitors" to see that you were wrong.

To srlJust where i... (Below threshold)

To srl

Just where in the US Constitution is a president impowered to launch a war of choice through deception?

When Bush and Cheney DELIBERATELY lied this nation into a war resulting in the slaughter of 2400 Americans & 10's of thousands of Iraqis, THEY ARE MURDERING WAR CRIMINALS who should be impeached, convicted and then tried along with Saddam Hussein.

At worst they were wrong, n... (Below threshold)

At worst they were wrong, not liars. There are two reasons that we went to war that MIGHT have been wrong, and even those have qualifications. The other reasons we went to war are pretty much beyond dispute. As others have said thousands of times that you don't seem to get, there is a big difference between lieing and being partially wrong.

As for those two things, WMD's and Iraq supporting terrorism. We have not found large stockpiles of WMD's. BUT we also gave them 2 months notice in our build up to the war so they would have been foolish not to have moved them. There has since been little trickles of evidence that they might have been moved to Syria and Lebanon. Maybe that's a load of crap, maybe it isn't. In the end, we knew he had them and used them in the past and certainly wanted them, so the international intelligence community being wrong on this one isn't that much of a surprise if they were in fact wrong at all. Hussein's own generals thought they had WMD's and Saddam postured himself as though he did. Should we just ignore this because it doesn't fit in with your version of events?

As for Saddam supporting terrorism and Al Queda? Well, I think that was overplayed some. Saddam did support some known terrorists, some of them pretty big fish...but to this point there is no conclusive evidence of any kind of systematic working relationship with AQ. However, some documents that are coming out of Iraq and being translated are challenging that notion.

Hardly a war criminal resume. But keep hyperventilating and maybe it'll come true.

Dear BrandonInBatonRogue,</... (Below threshold)
Helen Lovell:

Dear BrandonInBatonRogue,

I read your email and I had to comment. I would like to ask-who thinks Regan was the greatest president ever? I would assume it would have to be hard right wingers that are too myopic to see the damage he caused.

Might I remind you of a few things Regan
acomplished during his presidency. First he put the nation into considerable debt. This debt caused the economy and the average person to suffer. He cut taxes on the wealthy so social programs were cut for the poor and middle class. Thus causing the biggest wealth gap in American history to date.

Another part of Regans legacy was his rollback of gun laws. Until Regan came into power one could not buy a gun outside of ones state of residence. Regan changed the law so people who are on parole in one state can buy a gun in another state and the background check will not come up with anything. Regan was shot by a guy that bought a gun outside his state of resdience. The guy would not have been able to purchase a gun in his own state because he was on parole. Poetic justice. Incidently the NRA disagrees with Regans rollback of this law.

Lastly Regan decided that the way to combat the debt he caused was to take more of your money out of your paycheck. "social security" payments are much higher then they should be. Most of that money goes to paying off the national debt.

Regan did very little to help the average person in the United States. He was the governer of my state over 30 years ago and we have still not recovered from the damage he caused. He hurt the economy, environment, education, jobs and healthcare. California used to set the standard in all of the above areas and now we are sadly at the bottom. THANKS REGAN!!!!

Anyway I have said my two cents. Unless you are extremely wealthy Regan did nothing to help you, in fact he made your life harder. If you have that kind of money more power to you, otherwise wake up the guy made it easier for you to get expolited!!!!!

srlYou Repubs drin... (Below threshold)


You Repubs drink too much of the Kool Aid. Try explaining your way around the various Downing Street Memos-particularly the last one to see the light of day wherein Bush suuggested to Blair that they fly some U-2's painted like UN planes so that when Saddam shot them down they could go to the UN with a causus belli. All the while as the Liar Bush told this country that going to war was the last option.

Apparently you never heard of PNAC wherein most of the gang of war criminals that the Murderer Bush appointed to DOD & State argue that the US needs to invade Iraq but the public would never accept such an invasion unless there was an event on the magnitude of Pearl Harbor. And then, along came 9/11-a truly blissful event for Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney Perle, Abrams, Hadley, Libby et al who had, for years, been ready to send someone else's loved-ones to die in their fiendish Iraq war.

O'Neill and Clarke both have said that from Day 1 of the Bush regime there was talk about invading Iraq. And Bill Cohen has said that the day the Supreme Court appointed this Murder-in-Chief that he got a call from the real president, Cheney, requesting a DOD briefing for the Murder-elect & the only subject that these war-mongerers wanted the Murder-elect briefed about was Iraq.

Barely 6 hrs after the 1st palne hit the WTC, Rumsfeld called his aides together and ordered a "broad sweep" especially in regard to Iraq. These are from notes obtained thru the FIA not long ago.

And you have the gall to say "things they got partially wrong?" You are like all the Repubs-worried to the tits about aborted fetuses but not a care about aborted fully developed human beings sent off to a LYING WAR as in the case of the 2400 Bush-murdered American GI's.

BTW What planet are you from? because you obviously have not been on Earth since January, 2001.

Wow, where do I start? firs... (Below threshold)

Wow, where do I start? first, I know repubs like to throw Lincoln at us black folk, but he wasn't the great emancipator that you thinks he is. He didn't give a hoot about the well being of slaves, and in fact, only wanted to do what's best for the union. He was a good pragmatic politician, and that's it. Nothing wrong with that, he probably was a good President. But please, don't make him out to be my savior.-The Emancipation Proclamation freed 40,000 out of 4 million slaves- If he really wanted to save me he would have supported the Confiscation Act which would have really punished slave owners. There is more, but I don't feel like giving a history lesson right now. Also, this is for docjim505; I'm sorry, when exactly did you vote for Condi Rice? Because I don't ever remember her running for any office.Oh, that's right, you said you WOULD vote for her. Mmmm that's what you say now, but when you go into that voting booth.... The bottom line is this, white folks love to pretend they don't see racism and that they are not racist, but the proof is in the pudding, and when the rubber hits the road everyone posting here knows what's in their own hearts. And I say it aint what you say it is.

srl; I don't believe your claim that you are not a card carrying republican, I think you try to use a moderate label to seem more credible. Well you're not, I see right through your republican talking points. And If you think I have a psychological problem because I choose to see racism when it actually does exists then so be it. Your problem, and the problem with others like you, is that you like to pretend that it doesn't exist, because that gives you the illusion that all is right in your world. You live that lie until some news story comes crashing through your TV screen, or you have a chance encounter with a person of color that makes you uncomfortable and you tell yourself; this was just an anomaly.

I say these things because I care, and I am just trying to keep the debate honest and real. Now let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya :)

Operation Nascar Freedom ak... (Below threshold)

Operation Nascar Freedom aka Operation Hubert's Peak blows up in your face. Haaaa haaaa !

Let me see , Clinton,Carte... (Below threshold)

Let me see , Clinton,Carter? Clinton,Carter? if i use lefty illogic the War mongerer who killed the most and tortured people ,than the Honor goes to FDR for imprisoning and thus torturing 100s of thousands of Japanese and Killing over a million of them after Pearl Harbour. Yep its FDR alright!

f-n, just so I get this str... (Below threshold)

f-n, just so I get this straight, you're saying that because you (think you) have more white friends than I have black friends, then -- what? We conservatives must be more racist than blacks like you? Are we all to make a list of our "black friends" and tally them up to meet you challenge? Would you actually accept a "some of my best friends are black" defense (har har)? If I don't happen to live in a place where black people are accessible to me, does that say something about my racial bias or stereotype? What if the black people I meet don't seem to interested in befriending me? That's apparently my failing, not theirs?

And keeping it honest and real, I was asking why you were inclined to turn a post about Rolling Stone's anti-Bush article into a black vs white thing. Does that say more about you or "us white people?"

VirgoYou just don'... (Below threshold)


You just don't get it......the argument isn't about who can rack up whatever historical garbage you think that you can drag out..it's the abomination that people who think like you do have helped to bring upon this world out of your demented drive to support the Bush-Murderer-in-chief no matter what kind of a war-criminal that he is.

Even if what you propound were true, it matters not, considering what you Repubs are foisting on our present world. You just don't get it... it's not some scoreboard to drag out while you blindly support the Murdering Pig Bush as he shoves this planet into his maniacle war.

You are the perfect example incarnate of what the German population was like in the late 1920's and early 1930's.

Man F N get over t... (Below threshold)

Man F N
get over the race thing already, this thread is about who was historically the worst pres thats all.

Mak44 you are the pe... (Below threshold)

you are the perfect example of being ruled by emotions with little or no ability to look at History without your politics getting in the way of reality, I do not blindly support any man or woman and i have not brought an "abomination "on this world, if it were up to Me there would be no wars but i live in reality where it is going to happen. and i am not Republican ! i vote for who makes the most sense period!

field negro Before y... (Below threshold)

field negro
Before you equate republicans with racism, please take a history course.

Jefferson Davis (Democrat) President of the confederacy

Nathan Forrest (Democrat) was the first leader of the Ku Klux Klan in 1865

George Wallace (Democrat) Elected Governor of Alabama in 1962 was quoted as saying: "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw a line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say: segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever." "I'll never be outniggered again."

David Duke (Democrat) former leader of the Ku Klux Klan (1974-1976) ran for Senator of Louisiana as a Democrat in 1976. He then ran for President on the Democratic ticket in 1988

Democrat Senator Robert Byrd's outburst of racist bigoted slurs, more specifically the "n-word," on national television in March of 2001. (Former member of Ku Klux Klan)

Now please feel free to continue the discussion in an orderly manner.

VirgoAfter your ra... (Below threshold)


After your rant about FDR & Clinton you sound just like the idiot propagandists Hannity & Limbarf, immediately dragging in the Clinton & any other Democratic presidencies when you want to deflect from the current Bush chaos.

And as for the reality that you claim to live in, you need to get off the Kool Aid and see what this Pig of a president has done to this country and the world.

It's quite clear from your rant about Clinton & FDR that you in no way vote for the man rather than the party.......that is just so much BS. Your so-called logic & reason reveal you to be a right-wing neo-fascist Hannity/Limbarf Pavlovian Puppy yapping at the heels of your war criminal of an appointed president. I am sure that you are practicing up on your rendition of "Tomorrow Belongs to Me."

Why my almighty Mak44 ! any... (Below threshold)

Why my almighty Mak44 ! anything you say . it must suck to be controlled by such unadultered hatred 24/7, you must be following Kerry and Dean around like a little puppy believing all their putrid hogwash about how bad our military is ! you are under the illusion that the current pres did not win by 6 million votes! and if you throw out all the fraud more like 15 mil.
Im sure your practicing up on Your rendition of "DONT STOP THINKING ABOUT TOMORROW"

Tim, you obviously didn't s... (Below threshold)

Tim, you obviously didn't see my earlier post about the dixiecrats etc. If you did, you would have gotten a history lesson. FYI, the people you mentioned were all democrats but they bolted-and would have bolted- when the democratic party started embracing blacks. They ended up joining, yep, you guessed it, the republican party.

And yes, race is relevant to this question of the worst President in our history. Especially as it relates to this one. Many of you think Lincoln was one of our great Presidents because of what he supposedly did for blacks. Many people -myself included-will think this one is one of the worse becuase of what he didn't do for blacks on a faithful day at the end of last summer. (Katrina anyone?) So stop trying to run from the racial question. It's relevant to how a President handles certain domestic policies, and it's relevant to how he leads.

I happen to like some of frat boys appointments, and I like no child left behind. Having said that, I still think he rates as one of the bottom five Presidents when it comes to performance and missed opportunities. Right off the top I rate Nixon, LBJ, and maybe James Buchanan as worse than frat boy; but that's about it.

He may not be the worst as Rolling Stone claims, but if I were a repub, I would still not be proud of the job he has done.

Last time i checked Byrd w... (Below threshold)

Last time i checked Byrd was still a democrat! they would have bolted? they did not bolt! they are and were democrats , do not try to change history to fit your beliefs, and if they would have went to the repubs party than they would have had a part in passing the civil rights amendment. as for that fateful day last summer , If the people did not leave it is not Bushs fault! thats ridiculous! is it Clintons fault that people died during hurricane Andrew? No, when does personal responsibility come into play? I lost 20 bucks on the lottery last week! damn Bush should have told me the winning #s. this is how you come across. life is full of personal choices and Bush is not responsible for the right or wrong ones we make.

VirgoIn support of... (Below threshold)


In support of F-N, the GOP picked up all the Southern racist white votes with Nixon's policy of Benign Neglect aimed at the Southern Blacks after LBJ alienated the Southern racist vote w/ his Civil Rights legislation. That is why your party today is filled with the most ignorant crypto-racist Southern voters who now make the South solid for Republicans. That and the moronic Evangelicals waiting for Bush to hasten the End of Days is what gives Republicans an electoral edge.

MakFirst of all wha... (Below threshold)

First of all what is a crypto-racist southern voter? ive never heard that one before, and how would you know who voted for what? did you give a lie detector test to every single voter and ask them if they were racist and who did they vote for ?impossible to qualify this, so it is viewed as stereotyping a class of supposed people, and the Evangelicals wanting Bush to Hasten in the end of days? if thier right you,ll have your control of the country back very soon ! And you think Bush is bad, you have,nt seen nothing yet!

Virgo, stop using that old ... (Below threshold)

Virgo, stop using that old and tired republican trick of picking on Robert Byrd. Yes he was a klansman, but I believe in forgiveness, and I forgive him. At least he openly admitted he was in the Klan. Who knows how many repub congressmen and senators were Klansmen too. Do you? I bet not, and your analogy with the lottery ticket was a bad one. To follow your hypothet to it's logical conclusion. If Bush set up the lottery system in your state, it is his fault that you lost your $20.

BTW, I think a crypto-racist is like a lot of people in your party. You know, a hidden racist. The type that would just lose it if they ever saw their daughter with a field-negro for instance :)

If Bush admitted he was a ... (Below threshold)

If Bush admitted he was a closet democrat would you forgive Him hmmm?
The lotto tickets . No it would be my bad because i know the odds and played anyways! personal responsibility ok. Well i think a lot of the people in the dems party are phonies and a lot like the plantation owners of the past. and i believe Your right about people in the repubs being racist too! no doubt neither political party has a monopoly on being right or wrong!
And im not aware of any repub tricks, i only mentioned Byrd because you did , forgive and forget is a great thing to be able to do and i for one applaud you for this.

srl at 02;00,What ... (Below threshold)

srl at 02;00,

What were those reasons we went to war again?
and DON'T mention WMDs. That was never a reason for the WH to go to war. That was an excuse for the WH to go to war.

I've heard some other reasons, but they seem pretty poor as well.

Like Iraq was defying the UN. You know, the UN that Bolton, the WH, and Israel (who also defy UN mandates) think is a joke.

Or bringing Democracy to an Arab country in the Middle East.
Wouldn't it have been easier (and much less deadly) to convince our friends (Saudi arabia) to "go Democratic" than to start a war?

Or because we care about iraqi citizens?
I won't even dignify that lie with a reply.

Or it could be the oil. We (not china) needed their resources so we can remain the worlds only superpower.
I think this last one makes the most sense, but it certainly lays to rest the lie that America acts for altruistic reasons.
BTW, does anyone still believe that altruisic crap?

I've heard the WH has given 38 reasons for the Iraqi war. My bet is on hubris.

Thats good, we went to war... (Below threshold)

Thats good, we went to war for oil! sure We have more oil in this country than is over there, so why would we go to war? why would,nt we use our own oil ?hmmmm oh yeah, its called the democratic party ,thats why! so if your right and were there for oil, than logically were there because of your partys decisions... take it up with them cause it aint selling here !

I am constantly amazed by p... (Below threshold)

I am constantly amazed by pro Bush supporters undying love and support for this weak, failure of a man. Bush's recent rant of declaring himself "The Decider" was really a feast for the eyes and ears. To watch this cockroach so pathetically try and defend his uncle Rummy was to watch Bush once again reveal his true colors. And they are all primary of a defensive 1st grader who has yet to learn any of the most basic lessons in life. Like he was found out pissing his pants in class.

You Bushies here are the most juvenile republican ilk I've seen on any blog yet. I notice some of you ramble on about past wars and how sometimes war is the answer. This isn't the civil war and we aren't living in the 1800s. This is 2006 right now. Your comparisions of the Iraq war with any past war is nothing more than a futile attempt to justify the slaughter house that Iraq has become. Also probably an attempt to sound knowledgeble and smart. Freedom and Democracy my ass. Yeah as they say "Draped in the Flag and carrying the Cross". Fight in one and see how much you like it.

We Americans are all being robbed blind by the most ruthless mob ever assembled who's committing the biggest bank job in human history.

As for you children here who bow to Bush's toes, stay the fuck out my way.


NeverXanIrishman:A... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:


A response to some of your points:

1) "As for you children here who bow to Bush's toes, stay the fuck out my way."

Um... this is OUR place. You are a GUEST. If you don't like the prevailing attitude, feel free to leave. But you do NOT have the right to tell others to "stay out of your way." You put yourself in OUR way.

2) In proper context, Bush was correct -- he is the "decider." He is the Chief Executive, and his whole job revolves around making decisions. And in the Executive Branch, which he governs, his IS the final decision. You got a problem with that, then maybe you oughta take it up with the Constitution.

3) If you oppose comparing the war on terror (or the war in Iraq) to prior wars, does that mean you're foreswearing the Viet Nam parallels? After all, they were both started by Republicans (Eisenhower and Bush 41), allowed to fester and grow under Democrats (Kennedy and Johnson, Clinton) until another Republican finally got it over with (Nixon, Bush 43). It's a stupid comparison, and I'm glad to see SOMEONE on the idiots' side agrees.

4) You might want to discuss upping your meds with your doctor. Sounds like they're not quite doing the trick.


Don't feed the trolls, don'... (Below threshold)

Don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls...

I need to tape this to my keyboard to remind me.

Actually Jay, it was Harry ... (Below threshold)

Actually Jay, it was Harry Truman (democrat)that got us in Vietnam and Korea right before Eisenhower took office. Truman had discussions with both the French and Ho Chi Min about the conflict in Vietnam. Truman felt that the spread of communism was a threat. Now I will have to add this for the libs on here ... It doesn't matter how you feel about WWII, the facts are that Harry Truman (democrat) has been the only person in history to use an atomic weapon on innocent civilians. Personally I think it was the right choice, but let's make it clear that he was a Democrat.

a lapdog press corps tha... (Below threshold)

a lapdog press corps that asked no tough questions.

That's rich. I always wonder of the people that think this, what color is the sky in your universe ?? You mean the same "lapdog press" where music industry publications print articles about how the president is the worst in history ?

Can you even comprehend the irony of that statement ?

and DON'T mention WMDs. ... (Below threshold)

and DON'T mention WMDs. That was never a reason for the WH to go to war. That was an excuse for the WH to go to war.

You see, this is exactly where "debate" with the moonbat left (surprisingly well represented in these comments) ENDS. Your ridiculous assertion to start your little rant is laughable. Maybe you should go back and listen to what the paragons of the left were saying in 2002 and 2003.

What a goddam joke.

Ahhhh Robert ... (Below threshold)

Ahhhh Robert

The whole Baath party regime of Saddam Hussein was a weapon of mass destruction ! not just the chemical,bio and other things He whisked away during the long run up to His justifiable removal.
Your rant is vacant of thought

Rob in LA,Obviousl... (Below threshold)

Rob in LA,

Obviously you stopped reading at some point. Because if you did you would never come to the defense of this president. It's morons like you who swallow the "limbaugh speak" hook line and sinker. If you pull your head out of your asss and start reading again you'll realize that W is a disaster and so is my former party the repubican "hijacked by neo con" party. Ididot.

Im defending no one, that ... (Below threshold)

Im defending no one, that is simply how the facts line themselves up!
You welldone Dolt !

Heh, this is about as meani... (Below threshold)

Heh, this is about as meaningless as the following:

Worst Magazine in History?
One of America's most random persons assesses Rolling Stone Magazine.

Yup - worst in history. Doesn't fit in my magazine rack.

Snowballs now that ... (Below threshold)

now that you mention it , your right ,this rags not even worth michael moores dingleberrys.

OK, obviously this is a hea... (Below threshold)

OK, obviously this is a heated discussion, but I'm going to throw in some stuff I haven't seen mentioned.

The Constitution does not speak of "free speech zones" but instead directs that free speech cannot be abridged (curtailed). The creation of these zones by the Bush Administration is unprecedented. I think one could make a good argument that just because speech is critical of the President doesn't justify moving dissenters to another location so the President isn't inconvenienced. Cases are being brought right now to challenge this behavior, which has a very good chance of violating the Constitution.

Our courts have yet to determine whether or not the President violated the Fourth Amendment when he directed the NSA to collect domestic communications without a warrant from the FISA court, but there can be little doubt that imprisoning people indefinitely, without charge, and without trial violates the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, and probably the Fifth as well. In fact, the government dropped a charge against Padilla so that the courts would not consider this issue, and it seems fairly likely that they did so because they knew they would lose that argument. The Constitution is very clear on this issue when it states that "no person shall be held" and not "no citizen shall be held" in the Fifth Amendment. By holding people indefinitely, the Administration violates the Sixth Amendment.

Some would argue that Congress' AUMF negates many of these charges, but Congress cannot remove rights granted by the Constitution without amendment (e.g. the Twenty-first Amendment repealing the Eighteenth), and in any event, many on both sides of the aisle who voted for the AUMF claim that such was not their legislative intent.

George W. Bush took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, but there are very good arguments that he and his Administration have violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Would any here, whether Democrat or Republican, deny that violating the Constitution rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? Further, isn't it possible that Presidential violations of the Constitution amount to treason against the people of the United States? And what is the penalty for treason during wartime?

You either support the Constitution, no matter what your political stripe, or you don't.

But even if you think that none of the actions are unconstitutional, how can any conservative or Republican support a President who has increased this country's national debt by three trillion dollars, more than all the previous presidents combined? How is an ever-growing deficit and an ever-expanding government a result of conservative principles? George W. Bush promised to shrink government. Prior to George W., Clinton had increased the size of the federal government more than any President before him. George W. Bush has not only exceeded Clinton, he has increased the government's size by an even greater percentage than Clinton did, even when you remove defense spending.

George W. Bush is considering using nuclear weapons against a country which does not yet possess them. What will a billion and a half muslims think of this? Will Hezbollah sit still while Bush attacks Iran, or will they counter-attack with terrorist actions against the United States and its allies?

Even if you agree with George W. Bush and his actions, you must concede that some of his strategies and policies are questionable, and even downright dangerous for the people of the United States.

Wow thats funny - you peopl... (Below threshold)

Wow thats funny - you people grew up thinking that Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history!

OK, how many skyscrapers were demolished by terrorists killing thousands of people in America under Jimmy Carter?

How many American cities were LOST with 2/3 of the population scattered and most of the place still in ruins eight months later under brother Jimmy?

And how many foreign wars did America get into under Carter's presidency?

Now I gotta be fair - our current problem with al-Queda is partially Carters fault (and it is a problem, but not one that threatens the friggin' union! As a NYer, I get real tired of these pantywastes in Florida or the mid-west who talk about 9/11 like it was Hiroshima or the burning of Altlanta. It wasn't; we Americans are tough enough to survive it AND preserve our constitution).

OK, with that said, Carter started aid to the Afghan mujahadin, paving the way for Reagan to arm those bastards throughout the 80s to fight them commies. Sooooo... can we agree that Carter wasn't as bad as Bush, is probably a nice guy (he builds houses for the homeless and teaches Sunday school in Plains, Ga), but nevertheless has the blood of millions on his peanut farming hands as a result of his support of the mujahadin (and early support for the contras and Unita too... it took Ronnie to rev up the genocide but Jimmy was there in the beginning).

So when it comes to worst president, I wouldn't venture a guess because I dont know enough about 19th century presidents. However I'd say Bush may tie Nixon as worst of the last 100 years... both were worse than Hoover.

Anyway, I'm not the one to ask. I think the last really good president was Theodore Roosevelt. (and I liked a lot of things about his crippled distant cousin too).

baruch hashem alla akbar praise the lord

Bush is a dimwit that had t... (Below threshold)

Bush is a dimwit that had to be bailed out of all his failures by family and cronies. He would be in jail for insider training if not for his father. After dodging the draft by using family connections, he couldn't even complete his tour in the National Guard (he trained to fly the F-102, knowing that it would never be deployed to Vietnam). Bush has declared war on the environment, the Constituion, the middle and working cvlasses, the English language, honest and common sense. His support is from the oil industry, the ultra wealthy, and ultra stupid, i.e., Jesus-freak fundamentalists who still bleieve in dark age mythology, magic, and superstition. Hello, the world is not flat. Name one thing that Bush has got right. Would someone please gibe him a blowjob so we can impeach him.

Sorry for all the misspelli... (Below threshold)

Sorry for all the misspellings in the previous post. It just occurred to me that the pentacostals and charismatics are going to be doing their ashole acts this weekend, speaking in tongues, rolling on the floor, etc. Maybe one of those tongues can fulfill the request of my precious post.

All you airheaded robots wh... (Below threshold)
nelson solano:

All you airheaded robots who voted for Bush are responsible for the absolute failure of this administration's policies. To defend the Bush Admistration in light of all the concrete evidence of crime and corruption only reveals one thing. The Right's denial of truth and approval of lies, deception and obviously un-christian policy is now a shrinking percentage of Americans. We know the god they bow to! They are always defending thier almighty dollars. Read the Bible again losers! Then pray and repent!

Hey, Kim Priestap -- how ab... (Below threshold)

Hey, Kim Priestap -- how about you crack a book or two and do some research before you make ENTIRELY invalid assertions...

I point directly to this sentence of yours: "Notice the cover says a 'leading historian' evaluates President Bush."

If you want to help whatever cause it is that you believe in, why don't you actually look up the author, Sean Wilentz?

Sean Wilentz is one of America's leading historians... he is the Director of the American Studies program at Princeton, University.

Honestly, here is some advice: If you actually value your cause (whichever it may be), all you need to do is take 20 minutes and A) read your oppositions arguments and B) back up your claims with some semblance critical reasoning.

Look at all these sheeple that are blindly follow your baseless assertion. You are misleading Americans and damaging the integrity of rational debate in this country.

Honestly, you make me sick.

Oh yeah -- just so that I c... (Below threshold)

Oh yeah -- just so that I can weigh in on the actual debate about this...

Here are some facts about your boy George W. Bush - under his stewardship, this administration has borrowed more money ($1.05 trillion) than ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS COMBINED ($1.01 trillion).

Plus, all you need to do is look at Camp X-Ray down in Communist Cuba to prove the disgusting personas of the leaders of this government.

It should be noted that the Democrats are just as bad. I mean, need we mention Clinton's numerous questionable activities (and I'm not talking about Monica, because Bush Sr. cheated on his wife, so why don't you just lay off it): Clinton murdered the Branch Davidians at Waco, sold tons of nuclear technology to North Korea, and caused horribly accentuated disdain between his Executive Branch and the military.

But that being said, G-Dubs is our current president, so we should focus on him. Those who maintain this stringent, un-wavering support of their "Christian" need to know a few things. It is in the public record that Pres. Bush actively considered painting an airplane with UN colors in a blatant act of what is known as "False Flag Terrorism" in order to INCITE war with Iraq, and he and his neocon "Vulcans" as they call themselves had been planning long before 9/11 to roll on Baghdad.

Those who use the whole "Saddam was soooo evil" argument to justify our government's actions in Iraq actively discard the record of history to do so. Namely, that all of the "weapons of mass destruction" and bio weapons and all that were given to him by the United States. Not to mention the fact that the genocide in Sudan outweighs any human rights violations in Iraq by factors of infinity.

Each of you should learn what it is we must value. We must stand up for the Bill of Rights and the values that our country claims to hold so dear. That means standing up against Bush's Patriot Act... but it also means standing up against these fake Liberals in the Democratic Party who want to destroy our national sovereignty by creating the Pan-American Union.

Go read about Ron Paul, Representative from the 14th District, and you will understand why he is THE ONLY true Patriot left in our government.

God save America -- and God save the American Sheeple from their own ignorance and stupidity.

Oh yeah -- just so that I c... (Below threshold)

Oh yeah -- just so that I can weigh in on the actual debate about this...

Here are some facts about your boy George W. Bush - under his stewardship, this administration has borrowed more money ($1.05 trillion) than ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS COMBINED ($1.01 trillion).

Plus, all you need to do is look at Camp X-Ray down in Communist Cuba to prove the disgusting personas of the leaders of this government.

It should be noted that the Democrats are just as bad. I mean, need we mention Clinton's numerous questionable activities (and I'm not talking about Monica, because Bush Sr. cheated on his wife, so why don't you just lay off it): Clinton murdered the Branch Davidians at Waco, sold tons of nuclear technology to North Korea, and caused horribly accentuated disdain between his Executive Branch and the military.

But that being said, G-Dubs is our current president, so we should focus on him. Those who maintain this stringent, un-wavering support of their "Christian" need to know a few things. It is in the public record that Pres. Bush actively considered painting an airplane with UN colors in a blatant act of what is known as "False Flag Terrorism" in order to INCITE war with Iraq, and he and his neocon "Vulcans" as they call themselves had been planning long before 9/11 to roll on Baghdad.

Those who use the whole "Saddam was soooo evil" argument to justify our government's actions in Iraq actively discard the record of history to do so. Namely, that all of the "weapons of mass destruction" and bio weapons and all that were given to him by the United States. Not to mention the fact that the genocide in Sudan outweighs any human rights violations in Iraq by factors of infinity.

Each of you should learn what it is we must value. We must stand up for the Bill of Rights and the values that our country claims to hold so dear. That means standing up against Bush's Patriot Act... but it also means standing up against these fake Liberals in the Democratic Party who want to destroy our national sovereignty by creating the Pan-American Union.

Go read about Ron Paul, Representative from the 14th District, and you will understand why he is THE ONLY true Patriot left in our government.

God save America -- and God save the American Sheeple from their own ignorance and stupidity.

This is serious essay by a ... (Below threshold)
Paul Cooper:

This is serious essay by a serious historian. I suggest reading it before mouthing off.

LOVE IT ... (Below threshold)


Hey uou bush backers. You ... (Below threshold)
Anita Bonghit:

Hey uou bush backers. You are just as guilty for the atrocities he has commited as he is. You are all murdering scum sucking bitches.
When he goes down i hope all of you go down too. You are all pieces of shit. Get you heads out of your asses and wake the fuck up already. This government is corrupt. It is owned by the corporations who kill us off. If you guys like being slowly poison by these bastards then get the hell outta the way so thsoe of us who do not want this can try to change things. If you dont get out the way then just die already.... make life better for all of us.

And so goes the GOP and th... (Below threshold)
Comedy Chick:

And so goes the GOP and their continued distorted reality....

Listen folks... If you inserted Bill Clinton's name for acts committed by George W. Bush, Americans would be clamoring for an impeachment! They'd want Bill and Hillary's head!!! They would be calling for a public hanging!!!

--Imagine if Bill Clinton had convinced us to invade an oil-rich nation with bully dictator without any credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction or terrorist threat, by instilling fear and manipulating our patriotism just so he could get "buy in" for the war and sacrifce from the American people??

--Imagine if Bill Clinton gave hundreds of billions of dollars to his buddies in no-bid government contracts.

--Let's say Bill Clinton put his unqualified pals in charge of national security and/or federal emergency management and we lost a historic, fun, major American city.

--And what if after all the scandals and miscalculations Bill Clinton decided to put his born-again Christian lawyer on the Supreme Court with wanton disregard for separation of church and state?

--What if Bill Clinton had overstepped his executive duties and had disregard for the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and our civil liberties?

I have no tolerance for hypocrisy... let's call a spade a spade... if Bill Clinton commited one-tenth of what GW has done...you'd be saying he is the worst president ever!

GW Bush and his legacy will be regarded as one of the greatest travesties in America partly brought on to us by the mindless white evangelical Christian movement that practices bad theology.

By the way, did anyone else notice how Bush proposed the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment this past Saturday??? Hmm, could it be that this issue is being used AGAIN as a diversion from the war that is escalating into a Vietnam; or a diversion from the 8.4 TRILLION national debt triggered by irresponsible tax cut and increase spending that squandered ALL the inherited budget surplus and them some or a diversion from the administration's illegal spying, which violates the Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional protections guaranteed to every American.

Hmmm... last time he proposed a marriage amendment, he was running for office...hmmm.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!

As long as some Americans believe that two boys kissing is more dangerous to our society than Bush administration's wreckless policies- we are doomed!

Liberté, égalité, fraternité... I think I'lll move to france with Alec Baldwin!

The irony is that President... (Below threshold)

The irony is that President Bush wouldn't have to deal with these problems if Carter hadn't created them.The more you look at the foreign policy predicaments we face today, the more you realize that Carter is largely responsible for every one of them.Every thing Carter is complaining about-the arms race, Iraq, the war on terror, even the legal tangles over spying--can all be laid at his doorstep.There wouldn't be anything to discuss about wiretapping if Carter hadn't signed a patently unconstitutional law requiring the President to get a warrant to conduct domestic surveilance. I'm refering to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Act, or FISA. According to the Constitution, The President is Commander-in-Chief; no sitting president has the authority to to surrender those powers but Jimmy Carter did. Yet mhe himself authorized warrantless electronic surveilance used to convict two men for spying for Viet Nam in 1977.{At the time,the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed that the Executive Branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies and doesn't need warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons". You can draw a straight line between Carter's bungling of the Iranian hostage crisis and the rise of Islamic radicalism and terror.He began by undermining the Shah of Iran, an American ally who had been accused of torturing suspected Soviet agents. Unti Carter the C.I.A. had been paying off the mullahswho opposed the Shah{but weren't to principaled to take money to keep quiet}. Carte ordered these payments stopped. But the mullahs didn't hate the Shah because he was a dictator.They only hated him because he was a secular dictator. You remember the rest: the storming of the embassy,the botched rescue attempt, and murder on ascale that made the Shah look like Mr. Rogers. What exactly did our enemies learn from Carter's 444 days of dithering during the hostage crisis? They learned they could get away with murder,literaly and figuratively. Had there been an adequate response initially, I don't think we'd be in thesituation we are today. The mullahs walked away with no cost in blood or treasure. It was a green light to terrorists worldwide-- a sign the U.S. will let you off scot-free. That's the reasonfor the birth of organizations like al Qaeda. The Soviets emboldened by the spectacle of U.S. weakness, invaded Afghanistan--the end result of which was the Taliban. Another consequence of the fall of the Shah was the Iran-Iraq war. Thanks to that, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Which brought us Desert Storm, which was a catalyst for Osama Bin Laden. The removal of the Shah is a texytbook example of how to destabilise an entire region. Iran--now being led by one of the thugs that held our people hostage-- is about to go nuclear---but at least theres no Shah. Which brings us to North Korea, a disaster Carter managed to create when he wasn't even President. In 1994 North Korea was developing nuclear weapons, so Carter took himself to Pyongyang to make an agreement with President Kim Il Sung. The U.S. gave Kim millions of dollars in aid,food,oil--and,amazingly enough, a nuclear reactor. In return Kim-- promised--promised-- not to develop nuclear weapons. Duh. Ten years later,the North Koreans acknowledged, of course, that they simply ignored the agreement. Now President Bush is left to cope with all of these problems. For the Rolling Stone magazine to claim that Bush is the worst President is at the very least intellectually dishonest and at worst totally inept and incompetent.

That Bush is the worst ther... (Below threshold)
js irvine:

That Bush is the worst there is no doubt, but that's not the half of it... we still have 2 more years and this will prove the point.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy