Laugh Of The Day

From who else? The worst President in the history of America tries another desperate attempt to make himself look good by capitalizing on Bush's problems.

Former President Carter says President Bush’s administration is “the worst in history” in international relations, taking aim at the White House’s policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.

Pardon my candor, but Carter's greatest domestic challenge was trying to keep his drunken Brother from pissing on the White House lawn. And he couldn't even accomplish that.

And as far as foreign policy? We have Jimmy Carter and no one else to thank for Iran.

You have to give the old anti-Semite credit, though. He keeps managing to get out of his straight jacket and crawl out from under his rock.

Comments

[Purple Avenger]

This from a guy who's fecklessness and inattention led directly to 444 days of hostages, the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets, the Cambodian killing fields, and 13% inflation rates.

[jong]

The hostages all got out alive. George Bush lapped Carter long ago in the Worst President race. It's not even close.

[greenwing]

Don't forget the Panama Canal and the odd-even gasoline buying days.

It'll take a lot to take the title from Carter.

[jong]

Like a war we didn't need to fight?

[Buzzy]

Not as bad as Carter yet but President Jorge is working hard to take up the slack.

[Captain Joe]

Wasn't his brother consorting with Kadaffiduck? Wasn't there some kind of bank scandal?

[Captain Joe]

I loved it when the rabbit "attacked" him

[Ronald Truman]

And I suppose we'll next hear that Clinton says Bush is the biggest horndog ever in the White House.

[James]

Bottom line is: Who told Carter?

That Bush is the worst U.S. president is Top Secret. Top Secret.

Someone spilled the beans. I'm leaning toward Scooter Libby; or Rove.

[Observer]

Gee always nice to see the DU clowns and the Kos Kids the MyDD types get out on a field trip and see how they do in unsupervised social interaction.

[BobinStamford]

You rednecks want proof? Here's some proof:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

4 years and the goatherders still can't be pacified. Sorry patriots, you voted for a stuttering fool - twice.

The SURGE is WORKING!!!

[Cindi]

Speaking of fools. See what happens BIS when jerkoffs fail to vote. Majority rules!

[LOL]

iirc the worst terrorist attack on the US and the most moronic war happened under carter, not bush

i could be mistaken though

[nowingker]

Bush is cleary the worst and most damaging president in history. He has eroded our military power, trashed the constitution, generally madea fool of himself by appointing dim bulb hacks to cabinet level posts and made us a both a laughing stock and an object of hate and fear around the world, even among our allies.

Don't forget the world wide poll where Bush and the US ranked top of the list for most dangerous. Some legacy.

[Phoenix]

I'd rather be ranked most dangerous than whatever Great Twitain is ranked. Most twits.

We're only dangerous because we have morons running the country.

And because our military kicks ass. :)

[Phoenix]

About that worldwide poll: Let's cut ourselves off from the world in every way possible - trade, telecommunications, travel, all military personnel home... just shut ourselves up in a plastic greenhouse and stay for a month without one bit of outside communication whatsoever. Let France be the superpower for a week, then Germany, then Russia, then Zimbabwe. Maybe Venezuela or Canada. Iran.

Then let's have another poll.

[Fred Beloit]

I especially like Venezuela for leader. They are beginning to have food shortages there at the same time as they are further clamping down on freedom of the press. Isn't socialism wonderful, Sr. purple suit?

[nowingker]

Other than Korea, I can't see what damage moving our troops out of Japan, The Phillipines or Germany would have, in fact, there isn't any real reason for them to be there at all.

The idea of 'punishing the world' for considering George Bush a dangerous leader and the U.S. now a dangerous country is pretty silly. What do you think would happen to us if we cut ourselves off? Everything we consume is made in freaking China or Korea so we would be in a world of hurt. It is the childish reaction of a bully, exactly the mentality that got us in trouble in teh first place.

What has Bush accomplished?

Tax cut for the rich and profligate spending resulting in a record deficit.

The USDA, FDA, EPA asleep at the switch, ceding their regulatory duty to the private sector, reducing man power and gutting existing regulations.

Crime is up for the second year in a row, probably becuase too many LE resources are used trying to find imaginary terrorist cells while ignoring the real criminals on the street.

Faith based initiatives that don't work, don't produce any results.

No child left behind, that doesn't work, doesn't produce real results only paperwork results.

The Iraq war is far more embarassing than Vietnam. Ho Chi Min had a real, though rag tag army, in Iraq we can't even keep the peace in a country the size of Texas with only one big city. Of course if Bush had let the military plan the war instead of the neocon intellectuals, we wouldnt' be suffering this humiliation.

Then there is the litany of Republican corruption that he's turneda blind eye to: Ken Lay, his friend/not friend, Abramoff who he does/does not know, Tom DeLay, Cunningham, Ney and the rest of them.

And lastly, his penchant for hiring boobs and hacks for senior management positions: Wolfowitz, Gonzales, "Brownie" Crawford...

He wants to privatize social security in a country where people are so stupid they can't even understand their own mortgages but h e thinks they average American can play the stock market. Brilliant.

His disdane for the Constitution and historic American values has brought eternal shame on this country and set a dangerous precedent for the next nut job elected president, he's removed many barriers to dictatorship, all we're missing is Phase II.

He has accomplished NOTHING positive.

[charles]

that's very sad

must suck to be you

[Fred Beloit]

The very best, charles. The BoobinBridgeport will be most envious. He was especially lame with his comment here last night. I followed his link. Basically, it was just another story about Isalamist savages killing civilians, a story showing why we need to keep doing what we are doing over there.

[Hard Right]

Carter...worst president EVER! He fits in nicely with the lefties here, as he also hates America and the JOOOOOS!

[jong]

Get a clue, the Iran Hostage Crisis isn't even in the same ballpark as Bush's disastrous Iraq War.

Iraq, Katrina, deficits, trashing of civil rights, US Attorney scandal, general incompetence across the board, bogus signing statements.

Bush leads by a mile. Ain't no one close in the last 100 years.

[bloodrage bob]

democrat 101: they'll stand in line in the rain for hours to defend another liberal - even one as profoundly incompetent and moronically stupid as carter. just like teacher told them to. good luck with that, dipshits. since carter didn't do *anything* worth defending in his long long 4-year-national-nightmare-in-the-white-house term, it's obvious they're just gonna have to lie about him to make him look good.

ok, show of hands: who DIDN'T see that coming?

[jong]

Carter's presidency looks like paradise compared to what Bush has brought us.

[Phoenix]

"The idea of 'punishing the world' for considering George Bush a dangerous leader and the U.S. now a dangerous country is pretty silly. What do you think would happen to us if we cut ourselves off? Everything we consume is made in freaking China or Korea so we would be in a world of hurt. It is the childish reaction of a bully, exactly the mentality that got us in trouble in teh first place."

So, you're saying the world only 'considers' us dangerous, but not in a real sense. And yet, we'd be in a world of hurt if we cut ourselves off from the world because everything we consume is made in China or Korea. Sounds to me as if they'd be in a world of hurt. That's what you get for calling us dangerous. Childish reaction? Ever heard the phrase 'you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone'? Being 'dangerous' is an asset if you ask me. Good for us. Oh, and tell China we're not coming out until she fixes her money to match ours and tell Hugo to refine his own black pudding. And the EU can rot with its cheese and equally funky attitudes.

[charles]

i lived thru 4yrs of carter and so far 7 yrs of bush

you bds sufferers haven't got the slightest inkling of what you are saying

it's always informative to see who or what the leftist moonbats defend

it's also boringly repetitive

[jong]

Bush starts useless war on bogus evidence. Gets thousands of American soldiers killed and who knows how many Iraqis. Fails to catch Osama Bin Laden, even says he doesn't really care about him anymore. On that alone he's the Worst President Ever. Then throw in Katrina, the US Attorney's and Bush's attempt to turn the Justice Department into a wing of the Republican Party, his trashing of civil liberties, his deficit spending. He's so popular Republican Presidential Candidates can't bear to speak his name. IT AIN'T EVEN CLOSE.

Oh yeah, I hear Bush opposes a 3.5% pay hike for U.S. Soldiers. Exactly how is this supporting the troops?

Read about it in the radical Army Times:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_payhike_whitehouse_070516/

[charles]

you are nothing but a heckler

and a cheap one at that

try writing a comment and leave out the talking points

bet you can't

" radical Army Times" you haven't a clue and no idea why i say this either, which unbeknownst to you proves my point

[jong]

Charles at home with the family:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFtsfDjOGjs

[charles]

haha very cute, but inaccurate - i have never called a leftist moonbat that posts here a liberal because you aren't

you are nothing but a heckler

and a cheap one at that

i am completely underwhelmed by you

dan is out soon and bush is not going to be re elected

what ever are you going to do then? could your life become any more meaningless? or have you already bottomed out?

life is tough for those that "peak" at an early age, i almost feel bad for you

and i might, except that you are so filled with hate i always have second thoughts

[Robert]

True sign of a Patriot:
Voting for a moron to run America into the ground (twice).

Monica Lewisnksy, where are you when we need you?

[jong]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

[LOL]

between katrina, 9/11, and the Iraq war, how many americans have died while Bush was president? It doesn't even compare to anything that happened under Carter, even if you were to double his mistakes.

[bloodrage bob]

what i'd pay REAL money to see is when the idiot carter finally bites the dust, and goes off to presidential valhalla.

will washington, reagan, and all the immortals *horsewhip* him? *tar & feather* him? or will they cut him some slack and just make him the assistant pissboy? "you'll be the backup pissboy and privy-cleaner, when wilson calls in sick, carter. try to keep your mouth shut, ok?"

[charles]

"between katrina, 9/11" - idiot

[Fred Beloit]

The Dems these trolls know and love have folded on Iraq war funding. Hahahahahahahahaha.

[Phoenix]

LOL,

What in the hell? "between Katrina and 9/11" ? I know a side-effect of BDS is delusional thinking, but that doesn't even qualify as thinking.

If you're going to continue the Rewind History Blame Game, chances are you'd find Carter's sheer stupidity had a lot to do with setting us up for complete disaster in the present. But that's far from the point here - the blame game is a puerile method of saying nothing except that you have nothing of substance to say. It's the stuff of playground bullies to finger point about the past mistakes of others to justify your stance on something today unless you back it up with some sure, hard facts. And in the end, it does no good for civil discourse in the present.

[nowingker]

The sure hard fact is that Clinton warned Bush about the dangers posed by Bin Laden in a memo from Richard Clark and the warning was ignored because Bush had already decided to invade Iraq and so wasn't worried about Al Quaeda, and of course, in lock step with his winger base, if Bill Clinton's people said it or believed it, then Bush would take the opposite viewpoint.

[Fred Beloit]

Yeswanker, the chemistry expert. If Clinton knew bin-Laden was so dangerous, why didn't he do something about it instead of just trying to pass the baton. Interesting: "...Bush had already decided to invade Iraq and so wasn't worried about al Qaeda." Mind numbing non sequitur and implication by yeswanker that she knew what was in Bush's mind.

[nowingker]

If you got your news somewhere other than Little Green Footballs or the Weekly Standard you would know that all of this is already known, it has been stated by numerous individuals that Bush was preoccupied with Iraq and not focused on Al Quaeda. The neocon argument and plan ALWAYS revolved around Iraq not Al Quaeda, again, this is public knowledge, it cannot be refuted that the neocons wanted to invade Iraq to install a friendly democracy since the 1990s.

Bill Clinton actually did a lot of anti terror work, and made many anti terror proposals, most of which were thwarted by the R. Congress at the time. Funny that.

[jong]

Starting a war that didn't have to be, then running it with utter incompetence pretty much tattoos "Worst President Ever" as your legacy.

[Phoenix]

Bush had already decided to invade Iraq ..."

Yeah? So why'd he invade Afghanistan? Just for practice?

How about a source for that statement.... That Bush came into office with plans to invade Iraq and ignored Clinton's sketchy knowledge about 'some' plans by a group called al Qaeda. Considering Clinton and staff totally trashed the WH and the computers, the chances of Bush getting solid evidence that something was imminent are pretty small. IF Clinton bothered to brief Bush, why didn't Bush shut down all flights into the U.S.? Just to be safe, you know. Why didn't Clinton do it?

Anyway - source your assureties.

[Phoenix]

And prove this asinine statement:

"...in lock step with his winger base, if Bill Clinton's people said it or believed it, then Bush would take the opposite viewpoint."

Jaysus. Are you a mind-reader? Clairvoyant? Or suffering the butter-patty throwing stages of BDS?

[nowingker]

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

-----------

Let me guess, Paul O'Neil the former Treasury Secretary is a liar. He was a clost Demopcrat...it doesn't matter anyway, blahdiblah.

[nowingker]

Woodward reports that just five days after Sept. 11, President Bush indicated to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that while he had to do Afghanistan first, he was also determined to do something about Saddam Hussein.

”There's some pressure to go after Saddam Hussein. Don Rumsfeld has said, ‘This is an opportunity to take out Saddam Hussein, perhaps. We should consider it.’ And the president says to Condi Rice meeting head to head, ‘We won't do Iraq now.’ But it is a question we're gonna have to return to,’” says Woodward.

“And there's this low boil on Iraq until the day before Thanksgiving, Nov. 21, 2001. This is 72 days after 9/11. This is part of this secret history. President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically, and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, ‘What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.’"

Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam - and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

”Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the preparations in Kuwait, specifically to make war possible,” says Woodward.
---------------

Must be more lies, can't be evidence that Bush always intended to invade Iraq and was looking for a pretext from the beginning.

Nah, can't be.

[nowingker]

Not so, said O'Neill and Clarke, and now Tenet. They claim the administration was searching for reasons to invade Iraq as soon as Bush took office in January 2001. The common theme in Tenet's and Clarke's books is that both say they had personally warned Rice in the summer of 2001 about a looming attack being planned by al-Qaeda, but were rebuffed by the former national security adviser. They say Rice and other White House officials had been shifting military and intelligence resources toward Iraq.

Bush's Hard-Line Stance Toward Iraq Surfaced in January 2001

A January 11, 2001 article in the New York Times, "Iraq Is Focal Point as Bush Meets with Joint Chiefs," which has been overlooked post-9/11, seems to support the assertions of Tenet, O'Neill and Clarke.

"George W. Bush, the nation's commander in chief to-be, went to the Pentagon today for a top-secret session with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review hot spots around the world where he might have to send American forces into harm's way," reads the lead paragraph of the Times article.

Bush was joined at the Pentagon meeting by Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Rice.

The Times reported that, "About half of the 75-minute meeting ... focused on a discussion about Iraq and the Persian Gulf, two participants said. Iraq was the first topic briefed because 'it's the most visible and most risky area' Mr. Bush will confront after he takes office, one senior officer said."

"Iraq policy is very much on his mind," one senior Pentagon official told the Times. "Saddam was clearly a discussion point."

Responding to a reporter's question on January 26, 2001 about the Bush administration's policy toward Saddam Hussein's regime days after his Senate confirmation hearing, Rumsfeld said, "I think that the policy of the country is that it is not helpful to have Saddam Hussein's regime in office."

In his inaugural address on January 20, 2001 President Bush also alluded to the possibility of war, although he did not mention Iraq by name.

"We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors," Bush said. "The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake. We will defend our allies and our interests."

----------------

That's three former officials, including two of Bush's own guys all saying the same thing, add in what Colin Powell has said and it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that Bush always intended to invade Iraq and was planning a way to justify it when he took office.

[Phoenix]

Good work, Nowinger. Now, I wonder why Bush was so concerned about Iraq before 9/11? Can you figure that out, or was it just to get back for his daddy? Cheap oil, maybe? Oh... maybe Clinton gave him some good intel? Maybe Bush wanted to look manly for the world?

How did Woodward know what Bush and Rumsfeld actually said when Bush collared Rumsfeld and took him to the closet? Do you suppose Bush told Woodward? Rumsfeld told Woodward? Maybe they lied. Maybe they didn't tell Woodward anything about The Closet Conversation.

What you've got here are third-person 'facts' written for a book. But you still don't know the 'why'. Whadya think?

[nowingker]

Rumsfield told Woodward.

As expected EVERYBBODY is lying. George Tenet and Paul O'Neil wrote their own books, thus, their knowledge is first person.

George Tenet is lying.
Paul O'Neil is lying.
Colin Powell is lying.
Bob Woodward is lying.

As I expected and predicted, when confronted with facts, you dismiss them, they aren't facts at all they are lies, and you change the subject, now you want to know "why" Bush wanted to invade Iraq all along.

The botton line, whatever the nuts real reasons for wanting to invade Iraq, that it was an imminent threat to the U.S. was not among them.

[Phoenix]

The botton line, whatever the nuts real reasons for wanting to invade Iraq, that it was an imminent threat to the U.S. was not among them.

Agreed. And I'm not for changing the subject unless it's to wander off on something silly in the face of stupid stuff.
My point is - Truth is a commodity no matter who is in the WH. It's been that way since the beginning, and most people with half a brain realize that what 'we the people' get is what they want us to know. That's changing these days with leaks and intense scrutiny from the Internet, but even those leaks may lack an element of truth, and we still have to depend on someone else's framework of what will one day be history or not depending on which framework becomes the be all and end all.

More to my point: Why the utter and complete derangement over things you may not know as full truths? You think you know 'why' Bush invaded Iraq. You don't. Neither do I. We can surmise all we want, but chances are the need for an American presence in the Levant are closer than any option you can come up with because you're working from a position of unmitigated hatred. It's ridiculous. Another example: Your hatred of Bush makes you figure Wolfowitz is guilty of crimes. That's so nuts it's mind-blowing.

You are too reasonable on everything else to be a complete 'lib', so it has to be BDS that guides you; and you know if the derangement was on the other side, you'd mock it as stupid that people are making grand generalizations on what they only know as generalizations provided by several sources removed.

[nowingker]

I never said Wolfowitz was guilty of any "crimes" in light of the WB issue, only that he was a lying POS, unethical, arrogant hack who has always thought rules for others don't apply to him, was a bully, put Bush polices over the WB and was a poor choice destined to end in disaster. I stand by all of that as well as the fact that if you came to the WB on an anti corruption platform you shouldn't start out trying to get around rules and your conduct has to be unimpeachable. It wasn't.

The totality of the evidence tells me that George Bush is not fit to be president, not fit intellectually, morally or tempermentally or emotionally. He represents everything that is negative in the American psyche: reactionary, intolerant, greedy, militaristic, ideologically motivated.