I have been mistaken - Bush told us Saddam was developing NUKULAR weapons, not Nuclear weapons. I don't know what a NUKULAR weapon is, but since I don't I can't gaurantee that he didn't have 'em.
James and Bribite - can you tell us what Nukular weapons are and help correct all this mistaken animosity?
Unless, of course, Bush is simply too fucking stupid to pronounce 'Nuclear'. That couldn't be the case, could it?
Has anyone else read this monumental work by Anthoney Cave Brown and related the information contained therein to the current operations in Afghanistan & Iraq?
So "Bush is simply too fucking stupid to pronounce 'Nuclear'."?
I assume we'll soon see a similar post disparaging Jimmy Carter, who was also "simply too fucking stupid to pronounce 'Nuclear'" even though he was a fucking "nukular engineer" when in the Navy and working for Hyman Rickover, the father of the "nukular" Navy.
Especially when it comes to dealing with the Economy and Middle Eastern Moslem Extremists. And, hopefully, Bush's Presidency will be ended after 1 term, just as Carter's was.
It seems that use of the word Nukular, for nuclear, is a pretty darn effective predictor of how ineffective a President someone will be, at least based on these two examples.
-- Modified on 4/29/2004 6:03:23 PM
Carter had a much more difficult presidency than Witless, yet Witless passed Carter in the "worst president of my lifetime sweepstakes" after about 12 months.
Witless came into a healthy economy and a budget surplus and jacked the American taxpayer for upwards of $5T so far. Carter got fucked over by his Trilteral backers who jacked up the prime to 20%, mishandled OPEC, and let Witless's daddy, who was running the CIA, take out the Shah and replace him with some cleric who was locked up in a sanitarium in Marseilles.
Without a doubt, Carter was a fuckup as prseident, perhaps because he's way too decent a human being for the gig. Even on his worst day, he's light years away from Witless.
Americans were not attacked on their own soil during the Carter Administration.
The internet bubble had burst and the economy was trending down when GWB took office. The economy was hardly "healthy." Moreover, defense and intelligence spending had to increase as a result of the attacks.
Carter came to office complaining of the horrendous unemployment and prime interest rates (the "misery index") and promptly doubled both. Trilateralists? Why don't you just blame the Illuminati?
George H.W. Bush had left CIA in the Ford Administration, long before the Shah fell in 1979; there's no one to blame but Carter's incompetent DCI, Stansfield Turner.
You're right about one thing, though. Carter is light-years away from GWB. The only problem is that it's in the wrong direction.
-- Modified on 4/30/2004 6:15:58 PM
And I agree that as a MAN, Dumbya couldn't carry Carter's Jockstrap, but as Presidents, they are the two sides of the same inept coin.
Chamberlin brought us "peace in our time" and Chuchill was just a warmonger...
We have seen how history has judged these two men, look for the same with G.W.B. and Carter (jury's already back on Carter)
While the Carter / Chamberlain comparison might be apt, Bush has NOTHING in common with Churchill. After all, Churchill merely suggested that Britain gird up for the inevitable conflict he saw coming with Germany, and he went about getting the necessary support of his allies to do it.
It was Moussolini who attacked other sovereign nations in the Arab world for access to their resources, claimed that he was acting in God's will, and dreamed of burnishing his own legacy as a great warrior.
Of course, let's all remember that after his megalomaniacal fantasy war bankrupted his country and led them to their evetual defeat, Moussolini's end came with his corpse hung naked by his feet in a public square.
Since you seem to want to imply that we are like the Italins and will go down in defeat, there is no other way to imterpret this.
One other thing, I can't seem to remember Moussolini's plan for establishing self rule for the countries he conquered.
In regards to garnering support from allies, this was before the UN existed which made Churhill's task much easier. GWB got 48 countries to join in on the Iraq war.
I give Carter credit for the Camp David Accords, bringing peace between Israel and Egypt. Yet for that one undeniable triumph, you seem to condemn him.
Moreover, comparing Carter to Bush on "Middle Eastern" Islamicists is simply fatuous. Those extremists had Carter by the gonads, which was quite a trick, since he apparently lacked enough of them to actually do something about them. Bush has taken names and kicked butt. You'd apparently rather he took their orders and kissed their butts, as Carter did.
As for the economy, Carter doubled the misery index, while Bush inherited an economy sinking into recession (into which it had sunk even before his budget went into effect) which he turned around with his tax cuts.
"Nukular" predicts nothing. It's just a device by which left-wing elitists condemn Southerners.
Although, frankly, Carter was not stupid. The word is not properly pronounced Nukular in the South, or anywhere else, for that matter.
Personally, I think Carter was a good man, but a lousy President. He was too liberal on his government spending. Just like Bush. Spending on Schools and social programs is not any more LIBERAL than spending on Munitions and Wars. In either case, if you spend without collecting the revenue to support it, that is an economically Liberal policy, and these two guys were the worst Presiedents in the last 60 years in that regard.
And I have yet to see Bush Kick Butt in Iraq. He has sent in troops to Iraq, who quickly disposed of Saddam, but at an IMMENSE cost, which includes so far over 750 Brave American lives, A giant sucking on OUR economic well being for the next decade, the creation of a vast new playground for Al Qaida, and a major loss of American Prestige throughout the rest of the world. OK, so Two bit despots fear us more now, I grant you that. But Afghanistan was a sufficient deterrent in that regard. Now, we have lost the moral high ground in all of our dealings with Europe and Asia, by trumping up a war case, and unilaterally turning the Iraq into a power vacuum with no coherent plan to get out.
What Bush SHOULD have done with Middle East Moslem extremists is finished the job in Afghanistan. Saddam was NOT a moslem extremist. In fact, he was oppressing his moslem extremists, and keeping them under control. It was US who let that genie out of the bottle in Iraq.
I'm so glad you see the obvious parallels. I guess it points out the dangers inherent in electing (or appointing) a religious fanatic.