Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/91673" target="_blank">http://www.newsweek.com/id/916 73</a> The best way to show this is just to copy and past the first paragraph: "In public, President Bush has been careful to reassure Israel and other allies that he still sees Iran as a threat, while not disavowing his administration's recent National Intelligence Estimate. That NIE, made public Dec. 3, embarrassed the administration by concluding that Tehran had halted its weapons program in 2003, which seemed to undermine years of bellicose rhetoric from Bush and other senior officials about Iran's nuclear ambitions. But in private conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week, the president all but disowned the document, said a senior administration official who accompanied Bush on his six-nation trip to the Mideast. "He told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE's] conclusions don't reflect his own views" about Iran's nuclear-weapons program, said the official, who would discuss intelligence matters only on the condition of anonymity." Sound familiar? The idiot hasn't learned a damn thing from the Iraq war. Once he makes up his mind to maim and kill another few thousand soldiers, well dadgum, nothin's gonna stop him. Can we have the election tomorrow and then install whoever wins the moment the results are announced? Bush is easily the worst president in history.
Originally Posted By Mr X In an eerie reflection of times past (save one letter, of course), here are the top two headlines on CNN... Bush: Iran is Threat to World Iran agrees to give nuke answers I wonder if their attempt at discretely kowtowing to the pressure will work any better than Husseins' did? This is getting scary.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And if Bush decides to attack Iran, with his idea of an exit strategy being "let the next president worry about it", then my feeling that the criminal investigations into this Administration will be mind boggling grows even stronger.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And I've got to add- in my almost 50 years, and in about 40 years of following politics in varying degrees, no politician, absolutely none, has managed to make me angrier than George Bush since March, 2003. He's the biggest threat to this country I've ever seen, bin Laden included.
Originally Posted By woody Have we forgotten, there is new information that contradicts the NIE report of last year. I don't think Bush will attack Iran. There's absolutely no chance. -- <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/12/nie_an_abrupt_aboutface.asp" target="_blank">http://www.weeklystandard.com/ weblogs/TWSFP/2007/12/nie_an_abrupt_aboutface.asp</a> NIE: An Abrupt About-Face As many recognize, the latest NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program directly contradicts what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying just two years previously. And it appears that this about-face was very recent. How recent? Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added): Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Your post is confusing, woody. Has information come out since early December that contradicts the report Iran hasn't had nuclear activity?
Originally Posted By ecdc Bush is absolutely the worst President ever, no question. Today we have people who insist the surge is working. That's overly simplified, but violence does appear to finally be down. Of course, that ignores the fact that we're paying the Sunnis and Shias money not to shoot each other. So now they have money to purchase more arms, and when troop levels are lowered, as they will eventually have to be, the civil war will most likely reignite with even more ferocity. The real outrage is that American soldiers payed with their blood and their limbs while that complete idiot we call a President got on the job training.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "...while that complete idiot we call a President got on the job training." And learned nothing.
Originally Posted By ecdc The irony is, Republicans should be the most pissed off about Bush. Some are; others though would defend him no matter what. He's made it next to impossible for Republicans this year - you'd think they'd disown him. It's the equivalent of defending the American Taliban just because he's American.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Of course, that ignores the fact that we're paying the Sunnis and Shias money not to shoot each other. So now they have money to purchase more arms, and when troop levels are lowered, as they will eventually have to be, the civil war will most likely reignite with even more ferocity.>> Can you provide proof of the that? That's a pretty strong claim.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< Bush is easily the worst president in history.>>> I don't believe this to be quite true. <<<And I've got to add- in my almost 50 years, and in about 40 years of following politics in varying degrees, no politician, absolutely none, has managed to make me angrier than George Bush since March, 2003.>>> Ahhhh...here...now THIS is fully believe.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Although...had you said "one of the worst three," I'd go along with you there.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The people that bush 'really' represents WANT war with iran. And syria. And possibly even venezuela too. They want the occupation of iraq to continue indefinitely. They want the four "super-bases" in iraq completed and fully staffed, from which to use as a base of operations to secure middle eastern oil supplies. One of my concerns about a hillary clinton presidency is that she might not be as aggressive in mounting investigations into the outgoing bush administration. The clintons have been woven into the bulwark of concentrated power that is washington DC and have shown a willingness to strike "go along get along" deals for political expediency. I suspect that we're more likely to see honesty and integrity in an obama administration than we would in second clinton one. He represents a clean break with the past, and the entrenched and corrupted forces of power within the government. She doesn't.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Although...had you said "one of the worst three," I'd go along with you there." He's the absolute worst, and it isn't even close.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Or well, maybe I shouldn't say "can't." Let me say, I don't think he will win. I think Hillary has a far better chance at beating whoever wins the GOP nomination than Obama does. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Hillary will likely end the middle east debacle too. She may even get bin laden - something that bush clearly is not motivated to do. But I don't expect her to show the kind of determination that I'd like to see in investigating (and prosecuting) bush administration crimes.
Originally Posted By Mr X **He's the absolute worst, and it isn't even close.** It's tough to really define "worst", although "most beligerent" or "most dangerous" might fit easily. If you look at the state our nation was in following certain presidencies (as good a representation of "worst" as any), good arguments could be made for Hoover, Buchanan, and Nixon as well.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Can you provide proof of the that? That's a pretty strong claim.<< <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2008/01/12/iraqs_tribal_sheiks_offer_peace_for_a_price/" target="_blank">http://www.boston.com/news/wor ld/articles/2008/01/12/iraqs_tribal_sheiks_offer_peace_for_a_price/</a> The story has been going around, so this is just one link. I believe The New York Times had a story as well but I'm not at my computer, and it's a pain finding more links on my phone
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Obama can't win." Talk about a non sequitur. Who said anything here about Obama? Can anyone name a domestic program of any type that Bush introduced that worked? The kind that makes one say "glad we have it?" He's presided over the most uninformed war of modern times and the current housing and mortgage crisis is only beginning to unravel. He's a disaster.
