For all you liberal democraps

Submitted by Byron Leggett on 05/12/2004 at 21:27. ( ) 64.12.116.209

Worst president in
history?

(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the
editor.
Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in
perspective:)


Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it.
One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S.
history.

Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on terror.
Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.
Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,

an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked US!
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.

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

Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.


In the two years since terrorists attacked us,

President Bush

has liberated two countries,
hushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a
shot,
captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.
Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at
home

Worst president in history? Come on!


The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq
than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.


We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy
the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the
police
after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.


It took less time to take Iraq
than it took to count the votes in Florida!


Our military is GREAT! PASS IT ON.

Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu


old post

This response submitted by Steve on 05/12/2004 at 22:10. ( ) 209.122.229.220

this cut and paste garbage was posted about a month ago. just a rehash of half truths and lies.


where is Bush number1?

This response submitted by JB on 05/12/2004 at 22:20. ( ) 65.73.163.233

Did you forget about his dad? What did Iraq do to us? He had S.H. head given to him on a platter, but did he do anything about it? No! If he would of done it right the first time this crap wouldn't be happening right now. So I would say not just one Bush is the worst but both together top the list.


Kuwait ask for our help, for Desert Storm.

This response submitted by John C on 05/12/2004 at 22:50. ( ) 66.233.157.155

We did not have U.N. approval for either.

The coalition finally received U.N. approval.

We know a Current President cannot be judged on performance until later in life.

Look at Jimmy Carter, great Humanitarian(SP)

The dessicion to go after Saddam is a lot more complicated than just go after him.

Many, many of us soldiers ask "Why not, go after Saddam?" We did not have the coalition backing to do so at that time. It also would have appeared that we were beating a dead horse.

In my opinion we screwed up by not doing that in 91, but that is just my opinion.

You also have to remember we were dealing with the IRON CURTIAN just Falling, things were a pretty huge mess in the former Eastern Block Countries.

The operation of World Politics are far far above our understanding and is surly a lot more complicated than putting a deerhead together or finding the time to skin out heads while holding down a first job.

Sure like arm chair quarterbacks on Monday morning maybe the coach did not see it or plan it from our point of view, but we don't know what the game plan is or was until down the road.

More to it than we will ever understand!


Yes John C. the falling is a good point

This response submitted by Cecil 63.115.128.181 on 05/12/2004 at 23:08. ( ) 63.115.128.162

When you said, "The operation of World Politics are far far above our understanding and is surly a lot more complicated than putting a deerhead together or finding the time to skin out heads while holding down a first job."

Looks like a president that hadn't been out of the country and didn't know half the leaders of the world before he became president was far, far, below in his understanding of world politics eh? I think that is most of our problem.


Byron, where were you when...

This response submitted by Cecil 63.115.128.181 on 05/12/2004 at 23:09. ( ) 63.115.128.162

Ken Edwards said he was fed up with all the copy and pastes and would delete them?


JOHN C & CECIL

This response submitted by ETCC on 05/13/2004 at 00:00. ( getrichkwik@webtv.net ) 209.240.205.62

Deer John..."AMEN".

Deer CECIL...STILL PRAYING Fur YA. ;-)
~ ETCC


Half Truths

This response submitted by DaveT on 05/13/2004 at 07:14. ( ) 66.205.109.132

Steve once again your mouth is opened and crap runnith out.

There was a big difference in DS1 and the last war. One we were attacked and the last war held Saddam accountable of 10 years of Clinton patty cake crap. What stopped us from going into baghdad the first time.... UNITED NATIONS hello the same orginazation you liberal pukes keep crying we should involve.

The fact is we finished the job this time and everyone is boo hooing, Far as I am concerned, Saddam got what he had coming. Of course Clinton and the liberals do not understand that, that would require a backbone.

DaveT


Irak ain't over for a long time

This response submitted by Superpig on 05/14/2004 at 12:07. ( ) 205.188.116.140

And of right now no evidence has been found to support the notion of having to deal with Saddam in this manner because he was an immediate threat to world peace. No weapons of mass destructions have been found as of right now, no evidence exists that he was linked to Al Quaida in any way.

Remember the terrorists are using their religion (as wrong as it may seem) to do and justify what they are doing. Saddam was not a religious person and actually despites religion. I would not classify Saddam as a terrorist but rather a gruel dictator of whom we have many. North Korea is a dictator ship, China is, Cuba is and actually any Middle Eastern Country is as well (run under the umbrella of kingdoms, yeah right). We don't invade them but trade with them and send our companies over there so we can import cheap manufactured goods and have our own people unimployed.

If Saddam would have wanted to work with Al Quaida or any other terorist group, don't you think he would have supplied them in those last 12 years with chemicals, biological agents and other weapons? He never did. His intent was not to terrorize the world, only his own people.

But where there weren't terrorists before there are now tens of thousands of them and growing every day by hundreds. Bush created all of them with his misguided Irak politic. Now the whole Middle Eastern World hates us more then ever. Record numbers of muslims all around the world are switching over to the terrorists. Nice going Mr. Bush I say.

That we now have extreme high unemployment (no the job market is not coming back. Even though we supposedly gained 500,000 jobs over the last few months, over 3 million jobs were lost since Bush took over. Still sounds like a job deficit to me), the worst deficit in US history (our grandchildren will have to pay for this still) and are the most hated nation in the entire world is just on top of it.

Yes, President Bush did not start the war on terrorism, the terrorists did, but he did start the war on Irak. They never attacked us. Since when has preemptive war become the rule of this nation?
Whom are we going to invade next? Syria (they do support terrorism more then Saddam ever did)? Saudi Arabia (biggest financer of terrorists)? North Korea (willing to sell a nuclear device to the highest bidder including Al Quaida)? Just think about it.

We will never invade Syria for it is an ally of Iran. If we invade Syria we have a war on our hands with Iran and that we could not win.
Saudi Arabia will never be touched in any way bad since it is ourmain source of oil. Until we find a solution to the oil problem we will always be bind to it like a slave to its master. North Korea will not be invaded even though it poses the greatest risk of any nation right now in the world, because of the fact it has nuclear powers and is not afraid to lop a missile towards China, Japan and even the US. Invading North Korea could start a true world war.

Invading Irak was easy. It had no allies, was actually a hated government/dictatorship by its neighbors as well as its own people. No dangerous weapons, a weakened army and a perfect candidate for an internal revolution by the Shiites and Kurdes. It should have been handled differently. The only way to change a regime successfully is from within. Now we are stuck there for who knows how many years.

And before all you people start insulting me and calling me names, no I am neither a democrat nor a republican. I always take the good from each party. I do not vote for a party, I base my vote on issues and how they are taken care off. Heck if McCain would have been able to run for the presidency,I would have voted for him.

You all have a good day.


Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu