Bush most unpopular president in history

Buzzcook

New member
Let's see....maybe the UN? All Saddam had to do is allow inspectors back in Iraq and the war would never had started.

It's this kind of ignorance that leads one to despair.

Hkmp5sd: The Inspectors were in Iraq. They were withdrawn by the order of George Bush. Not surprisingly Hans Blix the head UN weapons inspector was saying that they had found no evidence of WMD or a WMD program.
Also not surprisingly that was the conclusion the first group of UN weapons inspectors had come to before they were withdrawn by the order of Bill Clinton, in the 1990's.

Many people knew before the invasion that Iraq did not have WMD and was in no way an immediate threat to the US.
No one listened to us.

GlenJ: I understand that lots of people hate Carter. But come on he didn't start an unnecessary war and the number of Americans that died in military actions was way lower any other post WWII president.
Carter stacks up pretty well against the Shrub on all counts.
 

Maxb49

New member
Fighting terrorists and trying to liberate millions of oppressed people is enough to make the mainstream media loathe you.

"Liberate people" on your own dime, with your own gun, risking your own life and keep your mitts out of my wallet.
 

gc70

New member
The Inspectors were in Iraq. They were withdrawn by the order of George Bush. Not surprisingly Hans Blix the head UN weapons inspector was saying that they had found no evidence of WMD or a WMD program.
Also not surprisingly that was the conclusion the first group of UN weapons inspectors had come to before they were withdrawn by the order of Bill Clinton, in the 1990's.

Reference, please. I could find no mention in the histories of UNSCOM (1991-1999) or UNMOVIC (1999-2007) that those UN weapons inspection organizations were subject to the orders of US Presidents.
 

xd9fan

New member
Would be nice to see a president enforce and protect the Constitution like this one enforces and protects UN resolutions.....
 

JaserST4

New member
Hkmp5sd: The Inspectors were in Iraq. They were withdrawn by the order of George Bush. Not surprisingly Hans Blix the head UN weapons inspector was saying that they had found no evidence of WMD or a WMD program.
Also not surprisingly that was the conclusion the first group of UN weapons inspectors had come to before they were withdrawn by the order of Bill Clinton, in the 1990's.

Many people knew before the invasion that Iraq did not have WMD and was in no way an immediate threat to the US. No one listened to us.
Why is that argument used so often? First of all, Afghanistan was no immediate threat to the US prior to 9/11 either. The point was to not wait for the immediate threat where options would be extremely limited. You can disagree with it but to pretend the point of view doesn't exist because you don't agree is intellectual dishonesty.

Secondly, Mr. Blix didn't say they had no WMD or WMD program and the inspectors were thrown out and withdrew a number of times during the 12 years of Saddam's failure to cooperate.

It's also disengenuous to pretend, after the fact, that your opinion trumps the world's leading intel at the time. Even Saddam's own generals were mislead. We didn't send our troops over there with gas masks to make Bush's evil plot look good.
 

Master Blaster

New member
If all this thread is about is popularity, the thread title is obviously wrong. Lincoln holds that title. A president whose election to office caused the entire southern half of the country to rebel and attempt to form a separate country must have been pretty darned unpopular. Seems self-evident that Lincoln is the most unpopular by simple comparison: No other such monumental event had ever occurred before, nor has it ever occurred since.
Jimmy Carter the worst president in my lifetime.
Yep, And Jimmy Carter was a much worse president than W., I remember my first mortgage 15% fixed thanks to Jimmy's great management of the economy. Under W. I refinanced at 5% fixed for 15 years (not the same house).
Jimmy invented Stag Flation, thats inflation and a recession at the same time!!! Jimmy also HELPED the Ayatollah take over Iran which is the source of many problems we have today. Jimmy let the Jihadis know that we were a paper tiger a JOKE when they invaded our embassy and held our citizens hostage for the whole world to see, and he did nothing but roll over and cry. Jimmy was also the source of many of our prblems with Iraq, Sadaam was our friend prior to Jimmy's administration.
Jimmy deregulated the Savings and Loans with no govt oversite, opening the way for the S&L disaster. Do you remember standing in line for An hour on the odd/even (based on license plate numbers) day for Gasoline and finding when you got to the pump that they were out of Gasoline? I do that was 1979. Also 8% unemployment. Its why we only elected him for one term. People get really pissed when they get laid off, the price of everything doubles, interest rates make it impossible to afford a home, and there is no gasoline to fill your car with.

Jimmy was so bad he only held office for one term, and even after Nixon this country was ready to elect a Republican for the next 12 years after that.

Many of you folks posting here were in diapers then but ask your parents they remember.

When I look at Barrak Obama I see another Jimmy Carter.
A very smart likeable guy, who is an unrepenatant socialist, and doesn't have a clue about how to run this country. His answer for the mortgage crisis ( which is more of an adjustment) is to freeze interest rates, the worst thing you could possibly do unless you want to cause a major recession and a huge liquidity crisis.
Its shows he has no understanding of economics finance and the banking system at all.

He also wanted to invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden, wow destabilizing a friendly country with 100 working nuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them, and giving it to Islaamic radicals sounds like a great idea to me if you are looking to alienate, India, and the rest of the Muslum world more than we have already and possibly start WWIII.
 
Last edited:

Buzzcook

New member
gc70 from your own link.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war.
Emphasis mine.

You seem to be of the opinion that Bush's invasion had nothing to do with the withdrawal of weapon's inspectors.
Nice parsing, it's very Clintonian of you.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0603blix.htm
UN Weapons Search in Iraq was Fruitless, Blix Says

U.N. inspectors found no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but had many questions and leads to pursue when their searches were suspended just before the U.S.-led invasion, chief inspector Hans Blix said in his final report yesterday at the UN.

The United States and Britain have barred U.N. inspectors from returning to Iraq. Instead, Washington and London have deployed their own teams, and Blix said they have not requested any information or assistance from U.N. inspectors.

In the report to the Security Council, Blix said U.N. inspectors "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items."

References only trump rhetoric when those references back up someone else's rhetoric.
While you may enjoy defending your guy by being the rhetorical equivalent of the grammar police; I tend to think history will will point to George Bush as the one who caused the withdrawal of the UN weapons inspectors.
 

Buzzcook

New member
JaserST4:

Why is that argument used so often?
Because it's a good argument.

First of all, Afghanistan was no immediate threat to the US prior to 9/11 either.
Afghanistan was no threat to us after 9/11. It was Al Quaeda that was the threat before and after.
The point was to not wait for the immediate threat where options would be extremely limited. You can disagree with it but to pretend the point of view doesn't exist because you don't agree is intellectual dishonesty.
The point is that threats have to be accessed in some kind of realistic manner. Bush went into Iraq before Al Quaeda had been corralled in Afghanistan. He abandoned prosecuting the immediate threat for a threat that as it turned out was nonexistent.

Secondly, Mr. Blix didn't say they had no WMD or WMD program
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0603blix.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0622blix.htm
As he nears the end of his three-year hunt for Iraq's biological and chemical weapons, Hans Blix, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector, says he suspects that Baghdad possessed little more than "debris" from a former, secret weapons program when the United States invaded the country in March.

and the inspectors were thrown out and withdrew a number of times during the 12 years of Saddam's failure to cooperate.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0227expertsay.htm
South African disarmament experts visiting Iraq said Thursday they are convinced Iraq is doing its best to disarm, and appealed to the U.N. Security Council to give weapons inspections more time to work before authorizing war. "It's clear there is movement on the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction," South Africa's deputy foreign minister, Aziz Pahad, said at a news conference. "Clearly (the inspection regime) is working, and if it's working, why stop it?"

It's also disengenuous to pretend, after the fact, that your opinion trumps the world's leading intel at the time.
By this time you may have noticed several links to articles that state the experts at the time didn't think Iraq had either weapons of mass destruction or programs for their development.

Even Saddam's own generals were mislead.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0622blix.htm
Blix said he is now lending greater credence to assertions by senior Iraqi officials and a prominent defector, Gen. Hussein Kamel, that Iraq had destroyed its weapons -- and the bulk agents from which to manufacture them

We didn't send our troops over there with gas masks to make Bush's evil plot look good.
"We" didn't send our troops anywhere. George Bush sent them there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq#October_2002
Approximately 2 out of 3 respondents wanted the government to wait for the UN inspections to end, and only 31% supported using military force immediately.
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F66A90AD5B6DA37&p_docnum=1
Nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose any invasion of Iraq if the United States does not have the blessing and assistance of allies or the United Nations, the poll shows. Furthermore, a narrow majority (51 percent) opposes the idea of Congress granting Bush unlimited military authority to attack Iraq.

Our troops carry gas masks pretty much any time the launch a full scale operation.
 

gc70

New member
You seem to be of the opinion that Bush's invasion had nothing to do with the withdrawal of weapon's inspectors.

Not at all; but I do prefer accuracy over emotional generalization.
 

Wildalaska

Moderator
This argument is endless. Some folks beleive X, some folks beleive Y and neither will convince the other or give an inch.

Each person bases their feelings on their own worldview. My views, formed during the height of the Cold War, used to be called Realpolitik, now that is folded in of course to the label Neo-con.

Whatever.

Anyway, I believe in the utilitarian nature of the projection of American power, especially when confronted by an adversary whose stated objective is to cause harm. In international politics, threat can be enough.

I believe the initial entry into Iraq was correct. I think history will bear me out. I think, however, that several aspects of the conflict were mishandled. That is neither here nor there. What matters is that neither side can convince the other of the correctness of their positions. So, all of this discussion is not to convince, but to express your own thoughts.

Why argue then...

Wait until time moves on.

Vietnam was the most unpopluar war before Iraq, yet was ultimately a strategic victory in terms of history. I'd be happy to debate that. Hell, we are still debating British strategy in WWI

But Iraq....too soon...

Wildjustmy.2Alaska TM
 

Buzzcook

New member
Not at all; but I do prefer accuracy over emotional generalization.

So you're saying I was right, but just not using the terms you'd prefer.
Thank you for that admission.

BTW if the needless deaths of American troops is not enough reason to get emotional, what is?

Wild: the question is whether those strategic gains could have occurred without the sacrifice of 50,000 American lives.
Realpolitiks dependence on militarism often blinded its adherents to more effective alternatives.
 

Hkmp5sd

New member
My views, formed during the height of the Cold War, used to be called Realpolitik, now that is folded in of course to the label Neo-con.

As someone with views formed sneaking around spying on the USSR in a submarine during the Reagan years, my views are very similar. Do I believe Vietnam was necessary? Yep.

For a different view of the Korean and subsequent Vietnam war, read the fairly recent biography The Unknown Story of MAO by Jung Chang. Mao's goal in Korea was to trade his endless supply of cannon fodder for American lives in a never ending war. The only reason for the cease fire was the death of Stalin. He was willing to carry on that strategy in Vietnam or any other country. We would have wound up in a shooting war somewhere in Asia even had we ignored Vietnam.
 

JaserST4

New member
Afghanistan was no threat to us after 9/11. It was Al Quaeda that was the threat before and after.
And the Taliban run country knew nothing of it, sorta like Sargeant Schultz and Colonel Klink?
I'm sorry, it says he didn't find any, not that the had none. He does say that Iraq said they had none.
By this time you may have noticed several links to articles that state the experts at the time didn't think Iraq had either weapons of mass destruction or programs for their development.
No, some did, most did. The experts were those involved with intelligence, not "disarmement committies".
Blix said he is now lending greater credence to assertions by senior Iraqi officials and a prominent defector, Gen. Hussein Kamel, that Iraq had destroyed its weapons -- and the bulk agents from which to manufacture them
"Leading officials and a prominent defector" could be three people for all you know. Even then Mr. Magoo was only leaning towards the opinion.
"We" didn't send our troops anywhere. George Bush sent them there.
You seem to forget that it was voted on in Congress by Democrats and Republicans. I didn't mean like on American Idol. Your link doesn't work for me but that wasn't the way I remember it either.
Our troops carry gas masks pretty much any time the launch a full scale operation.
...to a place that may well have chemical gas. Because it did and failed to dispose of with UN inspectors as per requirements. A minor detail you missed.
 

Mainah

New member
President Bush made some big mistakes but I still like him because he doesn't give a sweet damn about how popular he is. It looks to me as if we're on the verge of electing our first American Idol President, and I do not look forward to Obama- no matter what his numbers are.
 

Glen J

New member
Buzzcook, remember my argument about Jimmy Carter, Master Blaster just made the same argument. JC was an idiot who thought he could bring about the second coming by making peace in the middle east. All he did was screw things up for all of us. Don't know you're age, but you should have seen how he aged in just 4 years.
 
Top