Bush, Worst President in History? Not By A Long Shot.

At this point in almost any modern Presidency, detractors of the Commander In Chief, regardless of his approval rating, have their disdain of the individual who has spent the last seven years in the Oval Office at astronomical levels.

Disregarding any historical context or rational thought, they inevitably label the current President as history's worst. Fire breathing Republicans did it with Clinton and similarly ferocious Democrats did it to Reagan near the end of their terms, even though both left office with approval ratings above 60-percent.

George W. Bush is in a different situation with ratings only in the low 30’s and having to hold the line on the necessary task of finishing the job in Iraq, regardless of how unpopular the war becomes or how much political gain the Democrats decide to squeeze out of it.

Many in the press, predictably on the pages of lefty publications like Newsweek and the editorial page of The New York Times, liberals who never liked George W. Bush are chomping at the bit to proclaim his presidency a failure based on Iraq alone. However one wonders what these same authors would say if you offered up presidencies in which wars of choice cost us more in blood and treasure than Iraq has. Ten times more if you want to get specific about it.


Surely Liberals would not label Harry S. Truman as a failed president. Even with second term approval ratings in the 30’s, a war against a nation that didn’t attack us which cost the lives of more than 50,000 American soldiers and the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan, which ended World War II but still leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of many in the Dennis Kucinich crowd. But to call Truman a failure? To the contrary, he is regarded by most historians to be one of the best presidents we’ve ever had.

The godfather of modern liberalism Lyndon Johnson, who presided over another war in which nearly 60,000 Americans lost their lives, is not regarded as highly as Truman, but is still not considered a failure or one of the worst of all-time, even when you factor in the credit he deserves for giving us the behemoth bureaucracy that we have today.

Nor, is his predecessor John F. Kennedy considered a failure for bringing us into Vietnam in the first place.

The blemish of the Iraq war on the record of George W. Bush, the conclusion of which is not clear, regardless of what Harry Reid says, can be cleared by history, just as it seems that history has validated Truman and on other policy matters Johnson and Kennedy. The nearly 4,000 American lives which have been lost, sadden even the most ardent supporter of the war, yet do not even come close to the numbers sacrificed in Truman’s war in Korea or the Kennedy/Johnston led debacle in South East Asia.

The rest of George W. Bush’s record is quite positive.
We have experienced four straight years of strong economic growth, coupled with record unemployment and record setting runs on Wall Street.


He put into place the second most popular government program in history giving prescription drugs to senior citizens under Medicare.

The No Child Left Behind act, while not without its flaws, is the most promising piece of education reform in this nation since the creation of the public school system.

His administration has prevented numerous terrorist attacks both large and small since September 11th and despite the recent regrouping of Al-Queda in Pakistan and Iraq, the organization is nowhere near its pre 9/11-strength, it’s leadership having been sent to Gitmo or helplessly huddled in the mountain caves of the Middle East.(Even Hillary thinks we're safer.)

The progress made in Afghanistan to date is nothing short of miraculous.

These successes that I have listed are only those that can be agreed upon by all, simply by looking at the record books. It does not take into account the moves made by his administration, which at this point are only lauded by Conservatives, but which we believe will have overwhelmingly positive effects on our nation’s future, most notably the Bush appointments to the Supreme Court.


His administration’s failings are noteworthy as well, but will pale in comparison in the scope of history.

Bush failed to control spending while president, although my guess is that he will quickly be outspent by the next Democrat to move into the White House.

He failed to get a serious comprehensive immigration reform package passed, and has not done enough to secure our southern border, a failing that has angered more Republicans than Democrats.

His lack of communication skills and his often-slow reaction to verbally addressing problems has also been one of his biggest failings. While not a failure in itself, it has led to the President’s difficulty in defending himself against unfair attacks, which should have been directed towards others. Hurricane Katrina comes to mind here.

Finally, in Iraq he is yet to effectively train the Iraqi’s to fend for themselves and he has not been successful in getting all sides of the Iraqi political spectrum to come together and agree to put aside religious differences and work towards a stable democracy.

If we were to pull out prematurely as some in congress would have us do, and the elected government of Iraq collapses, as it appears, some in congress desire, then that failure will reside with Mr. Bush.


However to rank him among the Buchanan’s, Harding’s, Pierce’s, Hoover’s, Nixon’s and Carter’s is simply unfair and shows a lack of historical comprehension by those advocating such placement. Especially when he has 18 months to go, and is showing no signs of letting Congress steamroll him in to making the wrong decisions.

Caving to political pressure and not standing up for what you believe because you’re afraid of the next election, those are the true hallmarks of a failed presidency.

Pablo Picasso's "Massacre In Korea" depicting U.S soldiers killing Korean civilians.


Nut-roots Impeachment Loons. Get Ready America. We're Mobile!

Sphere: Related Content

NFL Should Suspend Vick Immediately

What kind of Neanderthal fights Dogs? The kind that plays quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, makes millions upon millions of dollars, is a role model for children and is admired by adoring fans all over the world for his athletic prowess.

And yet, once again we see an individual who refuses to shake the "thug mentality" even though he has the means to do so a million times over.

Article from Fox News:

RICHMOND, Va. — When a Bad Newz Kennels dog was wounded in a losing fight, NFL star Michael Vick was consulted before the animal was doused with water and electrocuted.

That's just one of the gruesome details that emerged Tuesday when the Atlanta Falcons quarterback and three others were indicted by a federal grand jury.

The four were charged with competitive dogfighting, procuring and training pit bulls for fighting and conducting the enterprise across state lines.

They are scheduled to appear in federal court in Richmond on July 26, the same day the Falcons begin training camp. The four will have a bond hearing before a magistrate judge at 3:30 p.m., and an arraignment will follow at 4 p.m., the court said Wednesday.

For full FOX News sports coverage, click here.

The 18-page indictment, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleged the 27-year-old Vick and his co-defendants began the dogfighting operation in early 2001, the former Virginia Tech star's rookie year as the No. 1 pick.

The operation was centered at a property Vick owned in Surry County, where a fence shielded prying eyes from the back, and the two-story brick home was surrounded by fencing in the front, with several black buildings further back.

Unlike previous documents, which did not name Vick, the indictment is littered with his name, including this tidbit — Vick was known as "Ookie" in the dogfighting world.

If convicted of all the charges, Vick and the others — Purnell A. Peace, 35, of Virginia Beach; Quanis L. Phillips, 28, of Atlanta; and Tony Taylor, 34, of Hampton — could face up to six years in prison, $350,000 in fines and restitution.

A woman who answered the phone at the home of Vick's mother, Brenda Boddie, said "no comment" and quickly hung up.

Telephone messages left at the offices and home of Vick's attorney, Larry Woodward, and an e-mail sent to his office were not returned.

While the Falcons and the NFL said little Tuesday, John Goodwin of the Humane Society of the United States said the details were especially troubling.

About eight young dogs were put to death at the Surry County home after they were found not ready to fight in April 2007, the indictment said. They were killed "by hanging, drowning and/or slamming at least one dog's body to the ground."

"Some of the grisly details in these filings shocked even me, and I'm a person who faces this stuff every day," Goodwin said. "I was surprised to see that they were killing dogs by hanging them, and one dog was killed by slamming it to the ground. Those are extremely violent methods of execution — they're unnecessary and just sick."


Purses for the fights ranged from hundreds of dollars to the thousands, and participants and spectators often placed side bets on the outcome, according to the indictment.

After two Bad Newz Kennels dogs lost fights in March 2003, the indictment alleged Vick gave a bag containing $23,000 to the owner of the winning dogs.

Started in early 2002, according to the indictment, Bad Newz Kennels began purchasing pit bulls to train as fighters. Eventually, the defendants bought shirts and headbands "representing and promoting their affiliation."

After an April police raid on the property, Vick said he was rarely at the house, however, and had no idea that it might have been used in a criminal enterprise. He blamed family members for taking advantage of his generosity and pledged to be more careful.

He has since said very little, citing the advice of his attorneys.

But Tuesday the NFL was quick to decry the alleged animal abuse.

"The activities alleged are cruel, degrading and illegal. Michael Vick's guilt has not yet been proven, and we believe that all concerned should allow the legal process to determine the facts," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said.

Vick and the Falcons are due to report to training camp next week.

"Obviously, we are disturbed by today's news," the team said in a statement posted on its Web site, apologizing to fans for the negative publicity. "We will do the right thing for our club as the legal process plays out. We have a season to prepare for."

Vick and the others are accused of "knowingly sponsoring and exhibiting an animal fighting venture" and conducting a business enterprise involving gambling, as well as buying, transporting and receiving dogs for the purposes of an animal fighting venture.

The indictment said dogfights were held at the Virginia property and dog owners brought animals from six states, including New York and Texas.

Local authorities have been investigating since an April 25 drug raid at the property. On June 7, officials with the Department of Agriculture with help from state police executed their own search warrant and found the remains of seven dogs.

Surry County prosecutor Gerald G. Poindexter said he didn't know of the indictment before it was filed, and said he's not sure how the county will continue its separate case.

At the start, authorities seized 66 dogs, including 55 pit bulls, and equipment commonly used in dogfighting. About half the dogs were tethered to car axles with heavy chains that allowed the dogs to get close to each other, but not to have contact — an arrangement typical for fighting dogs, according to the search warrant affidavit.

Before fights, participating dogs of the same sex would be weighed and bathed, according to the filings. Opposing dogs would be washed to remove any poison or narcotic placed on the dog's coat that could affect the other dog's performance.

Sometimes, dogs weren't fed to "make it more hungry for the other dog."

Fights would end when one dog died or with the surrender of the losing dog, which was sometimes put to death by drowning, strangulation, hanging, gun shot, electrocution or some other method, according to the documents.

The Atlanta Falcons should suspend Vick immediately. If convicted, he should pay a hefty fine and possibly serve some time.

What the NFL decides to do with this guy remains to be seen.

His fellow players, many of whom come from the same poor background and share the same less than admirable values as Vick, will probably stand up for the young QB. Clinton Portis of the Washington Redskins came to Vick's defense the other day wondering what the big deal was. He sounded really, really dumb but sincere.

The Atlanta Falcon's organization and their fans will most likely want Vick to return at some point. He is an outstanding player and a potential hall of famer who in my opinion hasn't even reached the peak of his career.

The rest of the NFL's fans can not be expected to be as understanding.

Americans are a very forgiving bunch, but we love our dogs. We put our pets and canines in particular, above all other creatures which inhabit the planet and with good reason. They are loyal, have unique personalities and they love us as much as we love them.

Michael Vick obviously does not share this view, and if he wants to continue abusing dogs that badly he should move to Mexico, Korea or some other third world country in which barbaric behavior such as this is permitted.

If he decides to stay here and if he's lucky enough to get back on the football field, he should be booed mercilessly by any fan who loves dogs. Any time he has the ball he should be heckled and needled until he realizes that in America, we don't stand for that kind of thing.

There are approximately 73 million owned dogs in the United States.Thirty-nine percent of U.S. households own at least one dog. I have one dog myself and I love her. You picked the wrong special interest group to piss off Michael Vick.

I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as a bad dog, only bad people who train their dogs to do bad things. Bad people shouldn't get to play football.

Write the NFL and the Falcons organization and tell them to suspend Mr. Vick immediately.

NFL

Atlanta Falcons

This is my dog, Mindy. If she sees you Michael Vick, she's going to eat you.

Sphere: Related Content

SHOCKER!

SHOCK#1: The first Muslim ever elected to Congress is a liberal Democrat.

SHOCK#2: He doesn't like George W. Bush.

SHOCK#3: Nation Of Islam. Major surprise there.

SHOCK#4: Thinks Bush comparable to Hitler, and implies that he may have been behind 9/11.

Here we have newly elected Muslim Congressman Khalid Sheik....oh I'm sorry....Keith Ellison addressing a group of Atheists. That's right folks, Atheists.

American Politics. It just doesn't get any better than this people.


Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 2:58am BST 17/07/2007


Keith Ellison, a convert to Islam, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November


America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because "you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you".

Vice-President Dick Cheney's stance of refusing to answer some questions from Congress was "the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship", he added.

Mr Ellison also raised eyebrows by telling his audience: "You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want."

BLOGGER COMMENTARY:Muslims For Atheists. That's like Jews for Jesus right? Seriously though if your friends in the rest of the Muslim world (whose opinion's of President Bush are eerily similar to your own) knew that you had said this, they would bury you in sand up to your neck and throw rocks at you. Louis Farakahn is probably rolling over in his grave right now. Huh? He's not dead? Oh. Well at least me and my friends still had a really good time at that party we threw. I'm just kidding. I love you Calypso Louie. Now back to the article.

A convert to Islam who was previously linked to the extremist Nation of Islam, Mr Ellison, 42, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November, concentrating on issues such as health and education.

He is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq. But he angered his own anti-war supporters by voting for a budget bill that aims to end the war over the next 18 months. His followers want an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

After his speech was reported, Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But his demagogic comments threaten to plunge him in controversy.

Mark Drake, of the Republican party in Minnesota, said: "To compare the democratically elected leader of the United States of America to Hitler is an absolute moral outrage which trivialises the horrors of Nazi Germany.


So does Islam make you insane once you're a member or do you have to already be insane in order to join?

Sphere: Related Content

Photoshop Of The Day

Courtesy Michelle Malkin

Sphere: Related Content

A Naughty Politician's Guide to Love

With the recent discovery of Senator David Vitter's name on a D.C. madam's client list, we are once again faced with the realization that many of our politicians are simply incapable of setting a good example and keeping it in their pants.

Therefore, in order to help our elected officials discern between those aspects of their personal lives which are appropriate and those which are not, I have compiled a list of some of these personal behaviors, along with the name of a politician who has had experiences with the problem.

I have also included a number which measures damage done to a politician for committing the offense.

The scale goes from 0 to 10, with 0 being no damage and 10 meaning that the politician will most likely be forced out of office, have their political aspirations crushed or spend time in prison.



OFFENSE: Getting Divorced Before Running for Office
OFFENDER: Ronald Reagan
DAMAGE: 0







OFFENSE: Getting Divorced While In Office
OFFENDER: Rudy Giuliani
DAMAGE: 2







OFFENSE: Not Getting Divorced While In Office
OFFENDER: John Kerry
DAMAGE: 4







OFFENSE: Having Affair
OFFENDER:Gary Hart
DAMAGE: 6








OFFENSE: Sexual Harassment
OFFENDER: Bill Clinton
DAMAGE: 3








OFFENSE: Sexual Harassment Of House Pages
OFFENDER: Bob Packwood
DAMAGE:8






OFFENSE: Sending Inappropriate E-Mails to Underage House Pages of Same Sex
OFFENDER: Mark Foley
DAMAGE: 10







OFFENSE: Having Affair With Intern
OFFENDER: Bill Clinton
DAMAGE:7






OFFENSE:Killing Intern
OFFENDER:Gary Condit
DAMAGE:10






OFFENSE: Getting Caught With a Prostitute
OFFENDER: David Vitter
DAMAGE: 5







OFFENSE: Getting Caught Smoking Crack With a Prostitute
OFFENDER: Marion Barry
DAMAGE: 10 (Damage Only Temporary)





OFFENSE: Killing Prostitute
OFFENDER: Senator Pat Geary (The Godfather Part II)
DAMAGE:0





OFFENSE: Illegitimate Child
OFFENDER: Jesse Jackson
DAMAGE: 3








OFFENSE: Illegitimate child with black woman
OFFENDER: Strom Thurmond
DAMAGE:8 (But only if You're Alive When It's Discovered)






OFFENSE: Illegitimate Child With Slave Woman
OFFENDER: Thomas Jefferson
DAMAGE: 1800: Not so bad,Today: Much, Much Worse







OFFENSE: Having Attractive Wife
OFFENDER: Fred Thompson
DAMAGE: 3







OFFENSE: Having Ugly Wife
OFFENDER: FDR
DAMAGE: 0








OFFENSE: Having No Wife
OFFENDER: James Buchanan
DAMAGE: 1 (But everyone will think you're gay.)








OFFENSE: Having Many Wives
OFFENDER: Possibly Mitt Romney
DAMAGE: + 10 for each additional wife





Above: Mitt Romney shows a supporter just how many wives he has.




OFFENSE: Coming Out of the Closet
OFFENDER: Jim McGreevy
DAMAGE:9




OFFENSE: Staying In the Closet
OFFENDER: John Edwards
DAMAGE: 0







OFFENSE:Running a Gay Brothel Out of Your Basement
OFFENDER: Barney Frank
DAMAGE: 0 (Apparently)


I hope this has helped.

Sphere: Related Content

Kristol Clear # 3

Moment of Truth
for the President
Will he reject disastrous advice to compromise with opponents of the war?
by William Kristol
07/09/2007 12:20:00 PM


The New York Times leads today with David Sanger's story, "In White House, Debate Is Rising On Iraq Pullback; Political Considerations; Not Waiting For Sept. 15, Aides Seek to Forestall G.O.P. Defections." The piece is tendentious, as one would expect--but THE WEEKLY STANDARD has confirmed that there are real discussions going on at the White House, with advocates of what is being called "The Grand Bargain" pushing hard for the president to move soon to announce plans to pull back in Iraq. So this week will not only be a week of (mostly silly) debate on the Hill; it will also be an important moment of truth for the president, who will have to decide whether to give Gen. Petraeus and the soldiers a chance, or to accept the counsel of some of his advisers and begin to throw in the towel on Iraq.

Let me be clear: The president ordered the "surge," which only recently came to full strength and whose major operation has been going on for less than a month. If he were not to give it a chance to work, he would properly be viewed as a feckless, irresolute president, incapable of seeing his own strategy through a couple of months of controversy before abandoning it. He will have asked our soldiers to go on the offensive, assuming greater risk of casualties--and then, even though the offensive is working better than expected, will have pulled the plug on their efforts.

Indeed, the White House is
living in a fool's paradise if they imagine that "compromising" now and in this way buys them anything. Even the New York Times editorial page has abandoned the pretence that its preferred strategy will lead to anything other than catastrophe in Iraq, and in the very near term. If the president gives in now, he will not be credited with a statesmanlike compromise. He will be lambasted by the left for fighting a bad war, and by the right for fighting it badly, recommitting us to the fight, and then losing it. The remainder of his term will be mired in congressional investigations as the waters fill with blood and the sharks go in for the kill. The Democrats will be emboldened to press him on every front, especially since Iraq is virtually the only position he's actually been defending. Lame duck does not even begin to describe where President Bush will be if he does this.

What's more, the president will lose any ability to mitigate the effects of the withdrawal or control it. The pullout will become a wild hell-for-leather race for the exit, and the result will be a triumph for al Qaeda and Iran, and a moral and geopolitical disaster for the United States.

The best strategy for the president is to hold firm. There is every reason to believe that he can survive the current calamity-Janes of the Republican party (does anyone really imagine that a veto-proof majority will form in the Senate this week or next?). This nonsense will pass, Congress will go on recess, and Petraeus will have a chance to continue to produce results--and the president and his allies will have a chance to gain political ground here at home. Why on earth pull the plug now? Why give in to an insane, irrational panic that will destroy the Bush administration and most likely sweep the Republican party to ruin? The president still has a chance to emerge from this as a visionary who could see what the left could not--but not if he gives in to them. There is no safety in the position some in the Bush administration are running towards.

Here's what I gather is a basic lesson of tactics: When you find yourself in an ambush, attack into the ambush. Don't twist and turn in the kill zone, looking for a way to retreat. Especially when the ambush is not a powerful one, and the Democrats' position (to mix military metaphors) is way overextended. The Democrats are hoping the president will break and run. They will not allow him a dignified retreat or welcome him with compromise. They will spring to finish him off completely. It doesn't matter what the president's motives are. Some of his advisers are trying to persuade him that he needs to go for a grand bargain now so as to build bipartisan support for his policies when he's gone. But the only way to do that is to hold firm now--and to counterattack. Those who try to convince him otherwise offer nothing but defeat, for the troops, for the mission, and for the president.

--William Kristol

Sphere: Related Content

Hi Kettle? This Is The Pot. You're Black!

I find it absolutely mind-boggling that after 15 years of dealing with this slippery character and his transparently opportunistic wife, that ANYONE other than the most partisan or the most gullible among us can take ANYTHING that either of them have to say seriously.

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton blasted his successor's decision to spare former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby from prison, telling Iowa radio listeners that Libby's case differed from his own administration's pardon controversy.


The Clintons campaign at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines on Monday.

"You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy," Clinton said during an interview on Des Moines news-talk station WHO.

Bush administration officials, he said, "believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."

President Bush on Monday commuted Libby's 30-month sentence for perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal agents investigating the 2003 exposure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Bush's order keeps Libby's conviction on his record, but he called Libby's prison sentence "excessive" and suggested that Libby will pay a big enough price for his conviction.

Clinton was impeached in 1998 over perjury allegations stemming from his sexual relationship with a White House intern, but the Senate acquitted him.

And a flurry of last-minute pardons issued as he left office in 2001 -- particularly his absolution of fugitive financier Marc Rich -- sparked largely partisan outrage. Critics alleged that the pardon of Rich was linked to contributions raised for Clinton's presidential library by Rich's ex-wife.

Libby's defenders have pointed to Democratic support for Clinton during that period to accuse critics of Bush's clemency order of hypocrisy.

"Wasn't it Bill Clinton that was handing out pardons like lollipops at the end of his administration?" former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, told supporters in Iowa on Tuesday.

"And isn't there some recognition that perhaps you might look a little silly if you didn't have anything to say when he was handing out pardon after pardon after pardon for political purposes only?"

But the former president said, "I think the facts were different."

"It's wrong to out that CIA agent, and wrong to try to cover it up -- and wrong that no one was ever fired from the White House for doing it," he said.

Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, is now seeking the presidency and has been campaigning in Iowa during the Independence Day holiday. She put him on the phone during a Tuesday interview with Iowa political columnist David Yepsen. Watch Hillary Clinton address a crowd in Iowa »

Libby was Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff before his October 2005 indictment. He was not accused of leaking Plame's identity, but prosecutors argued his false statements hindered their investigation of the disclosure and left a "cloud" over the White House.

The leak occurred shortly after Plame's husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had gone public with allegations that the Bush administration "twisted" intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq.


Rich fled to Switzerland in the 1980s to avoid racketeering, tax evasion and fraud charges stemming from oil trades with Iran.

Sphere: Related Content

THE RIGHT THING TO DO

Kudos to President Bush for commuting the sentence of "Scooter" Libby.

It's probably too much to hope that this puts the phony-baloney Valarie Plame matter to rest, but it's nice to know that taxpayer money won't be wasted on the incarceration of a good American.

Sphere: Related Content