Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (344277)	7/25/2007 2:18:24 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572505

"Bush will be viewed favorably by history and rightly so for not backing down." Bush will be viewed as the President that elevated Osama to his level and made him a superstar, trash-talked and failed to follow through like a Jr. high bully, and recruited ten times the terrorists we started with, in the process lowering our stock worldwide. He will be viewed as the President who took a national tragedy, 9/11, lied, twisted, fearmongered, manipulated and exploited it in order to promote the war he desired when he came into office, with Saddam Hussein. A war that had NOTHING to do with the attack we suffered. A quagmire war we're STUCK in, just like Vietnam. A mistaken war of CHOICE. Bush will be remembered as the President that packed all levels of government with politically loyal followers who were incompetent, since competence wasn't a criteria he used. Bush will be remebered as a President that used the Constitution for toilet paper. Bush will be TRASHED by history. The history is being written NOW - read Bob Woodward. Deservedly so. The chimp Nero should be impeached. You must be referring to the revisionist histories to be written by flacks at his "Liberry".

To: goldworldnet who wrote (344277)	7/25/2007 2:56:01 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572505

re: Bush is just the first American president forced to confront modern terrorism... What's your definition of "modern terrorism"?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (344277)	7/26/2007 1:09:31 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572505

Bush is just the first American president forced to confront modern terrorism which will last for decades if not more. There is considerable dissatisfaction that all has not gone as well as hoped, but Bush will be viewed favorably by history and rightly so for not backing down. At some point Democrats will have their turn at the reigns and when they do they will have to acknowledge that terrorism is not easily dealt with.' There has been considerable terrorism in the world since before WW II. The only difference between then and now is that their methods have become more destructive and the US has become a focal point when it wasn't previously. Now what you should be asking yourself is why that is? As for Bush, history will not save him.......he is doomed to be known as the worst president of modern times.

To: goldworldnet who wrote (344277)	7/26/2007 1:38:57 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572505

but Bush will be viewed favorably by history and rightly so for not backing down. There is a time when not backing done makes you look stronger and still another time when it makes you look weak and incompetent. Frankly, I don't really care about Mr. Bush's legacy other than I wish he would resign the presidency now so no further damage can be done to the country and its reputation by he and his cohorts. Here's an excerpt from a recent poll that foreshadows what his legacy mostlikely will be: Yet Bush's political troubles seem to go beyond particular policies. Many presidents over the past 70 years have faced greater or more immediate crises without falling as far in the public mind -- Vietnam claimed far more American lives than Iraq, the Iranian hostage crisis made the United States look impotent, race riots and desegregation tore the country apart, the oil embargo forced drivers to wait for hours to fill up, the Soviets seemed to threaten the nation's survival. "It's astonishing," said Pat Caddell, who was President Jimmy Carter's pollster. "It's hard to look at the situation today and say the country is absolutely 15 miles down in the hole. The economy's not that bad -- for some people it is, but not overall. Iraq is terribly handled, but it's not Vietnam; we're not losing 250 people a week. . . . We don't have that immediate crisis, yet the anxiety about the future is palpable. And the feeling about him is he's irrelevant to that. I think they've basically given up on him." Exactly.....the dislike for Mr. Bush runs very deep and can not be dismissed easily by historians. That may stem in part from the changing nature of society. When Caddell's boss was president, there were three major broadcast networks. Today cable news, talk radio and the Internet have made information far more available, while providing easy outlets for rage and polarization. Public disapproval of Bush is not only broad but deep; 52 percent of Americans "strongly" disapprove of his performance and 28 percent describe themselves as "angry." Other presidents like Reagan, Johnson and HW Bush have hid the truth from the American people and played games...not nearly as badly as the Bushies but bad enough.....however, they got away with it because the media let them. Now the media is much more widespread thanks to the internet. Bush is the first president to have a fully functioning internet watching his every move. So the tricks that worked under Reagan and Nixon and were brought forward by former Reaganites and Nixonians like Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't work for the current Mr. Bush as expected. To make matters worse, there have been many GOPers accused, arrested, indicted and/or thrown in the clink under Bush's watch, lending a dark cloud of corruption and dishonesty hovering around his administration along with a strong does of incompetence. No, I don't think its Mr. Bush's destiny to occupy a good place in American and world history.