Besides Obama, who has been some of our other weak presidents?
Printable View
Besides Obama, who has been some of our other weak presidents?
Jimminie CarterQuote:
Originally Posted by Terry Britton
Lyndon Bones Johnson
Hillbilly Clinton
You just want the modern day ones, right? Not Garfield, Johnson(1865) and others?
George W. Bush. When our Navy P3 Orion was held captive with it's crew by China, he stated we wouldn't apologize....then he apologized. (well, he send colin Powell to apologize) That showed the world, including Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden that we would cave to pressure. I think it was about two months until we were hit by bin Laden and the Saudi hijakers. Then he got all bravado, and hit a country that had nothing to do with 9-11. Might as well hit Paraguay. Oh, wait, they sent 6 support personnel to Iraq, they were part of our large coalition. I must have had them confused with our traditional allies...France, Germany, Russia....oops, they didn't support our mission, did they? We kinda told them they were with the terrorists....and then wondered why they didn't help us foot the $3 trillion bill that we're now having to pay for. hey, it's ok....we'll just blame Clinton...or Obama...who is the scapegoat du jour?? Damn, reality sucks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco
I'll be the last to defend Bush43. However, I would gladly take him over what we have now.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnf777
& the choices we had when he ran!Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco
W was head and shoulders above his opponents and Osama, Carter and LBJ
Carter.....ummmmm....Carter, and Carter come to mind as being as bad or worse thant the black Jimmy carter we have now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnf777
Thanks for the line of BS.
Traditional allies...Russia? We've never been that close to Russia, do you remember the Cold War? We can't trust them. Come on! I'm not too sure what France has ever done for us except roll over and beg for us to come save them.
I think in about 15 to 20 years we will look back on Bush and think he was one of the better presidents of the past 100 years at least on foreign policy. It's kind of odd that 6 months after he left office Iran and North Korea are now blatantly provoking us. Thus far king Obama has just sat back in his big 'ol chair with his feet up, watching. He doesn't even have the gonads to condemn the Iranian Govt killing protesters. Both North Korea and Iran knew not to mess with us too much because Bush had the backbone that Obama is lacking. Bush's #1 goal was to keep this country safe from another attack. Don't underestimate that how big that was.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,5937357.storyQuote:
Originally Posted by honker88
WASHINGTON -- Under growing pressure to speak out more forcefully on Iran, President Barack Obama used his toughest language yet Tuesday to condemn its government's violent suppression of political dissent and to declare the world "appalled and outraged" by the crackdown.
Bush had no backbone, he was a Bully. He attacked a country that could not defend itself. He caved in to N. Korea and took them off the "axis of evil" list. He did nothing to stop N. Korea or Iran from continuing on with their campaign for Nuclear Arms programs.
Forgive me, please. I left a key part out. Obama doesn't have the gonads to condemn the Iranian Govt on his own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Perry
From the quote that you pulled out of the story...Under growing pressure to speak out more forcefully on Iran, President Barack Obama used his toughest language yet Tuesday to condemn its government's violent suppression of political dissent and to declare the world "appalled and outraged" by the crackdown.
How many days of protests and Govt killings did it take him to reluctantly say something? Let me answer that, 10 days! Obama was pressured into responding.
Everybody in the world beleived Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction". How many UN Resolutions were issued agains Iraq? I beleive the number was 16 or 17. Here is a link to some quotes from people who now say what you are saying, "he attacked a country that could not defend itself" or "he attacked an innocent nation". http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.phpQuote:
Originally Posted by Roger Perry
I guess hindsight is 20/20 right? ;)
This story is about Iraq's link to terrorism. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a3vvPsCY8pYA
Let's go back to early 2003, before we went into Iraq and think about this.
We have intelligence that shows Iraq has WMD's. We know Saddam used biological weapons in the past. UN has issued numerous resolutions that are ignored by Iraq. Iraq has kicked out the weapons inspectors several times. Terrorists attacked us on 9/11, just 1.5 years earlier. CIA has testified in front of the Senate in 2002 that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism.
I'm not sure there is any other logical conclusion than Iraq is a threat that must be dealt with. I guess Bush should have kicked back in his easy chair and waited for the next terrorist attack and then determine if action should be taken. If you choose to say that we, "attacked a country that could not defend itself", go right ahead; but don't forget, that country sure fooled the whole world.