tabana wrote::hehe:
I never heard that one. Taxi drivers have colorful language, but they usually say "female dog" or something similar. :hehe:
:rofl: nice how you worked your way around this one.
:rofl: nice how you worked your way around this one.
Interesting/Weird Stories in the News
Started by blender1184 · 8 Jul 2005 · 1,969 replies
General Discussion
:rofl: nice how you worked your way around this one.
:victory:
It always fun to hear them scream at people. Except when your driving. :mrgreen:
It always fun to hear them scream at people. Except when your driving. :mrgreen:
tabana wrote::victory:
It always fun to hear them scream at people. Except when your driving. :mrgreen:
They should sell those signs like baby on board...but instead it says "f*cking children of geisha on board" with a silhouette of a woman wearing a kimono.
:rofl:
I'd buy one. :hehe:
I'd buy one. :hehe:
tabana wrote::rofl:
I'd buy one. :hehe:
:hehe:
ALL of my South Asian students got pulled aside at ALL the airports to and from China. None of my asian or white kids did.
Wynter wrote:ALL of my South Asian students got pulled aside at ALL the airports to and from China. None of my asian or white kids did.
If you're brown...your skin is your sin....
:shakehead:
Tu_triky wrote:
If you're brown...your skin is your sin....
:shakehead:
Especially if you're a brown BOY. I never got pulled aside, but mind you, I'm a "light skin" brown person. :shakehead:
From Yahoo! News:
Man faces jail for smuggling iguanas in fake leg
A California man faces jail after being convicted of smuggling stolen rare iguanas into the United States inside his prosthetic leg, justice officials said Friday.
Jereme James, 34, was convicted on two counts of smuggling and possessing endangered animals and is due to be sentenced on July 14, a statement from the US Attorney's Office in Los Angeles said.
Prosecutors said James stole three baby Fiji Island banded iguanas from an ecological preserve while on a trip to the South Pacific islands in 2002 and smuggled them by concealing them in the compartment of a prosthetic leg.
The iguanas are threatened with extinction because of habitat loss and are considered an endangered species.
Man faces jail for smuggling iguanas in fake leg
A California man faces jail after being convicted of smuggling stolen rare iguanas into the United States inside his prosthetic leg, justice officials said Friday.
Jereme James, 34, was convicted on two counts of smuggling and possessing endangered animals and is due to be sentenced on July 14, a statement from the US Attorney's Office in Los Angeles said.
Prosecutors said James stole three baby Fiji Island banded iguanas from an ecological preserve while on a trip to the South Pacific islands in 2002 and smuggled them by concealing them in the compartment of a prosthetic leg.
The iguanas are threatened with extinction because of habitat loss and are considered an endangered species.
bmwracer wrote:From Yahoo! News:
Man faces jail for smuggling iguanas in fake leg
A California man faces jail after being convicted of smuggling stolen rare iguanas into the United States inside his prosthetic leg, justice officials said Friday.
Jereme James, 34, was convicted on two counts of smuggling and possessing endangered animals and is due to be sentenced on July 14, a statement from the US Attorney's Office in Los Angeles said.
Prosecutors said James stole three baby Fiji Island banded iguanas from an ecological preserve while on a trip to the South Pacific islands in 2002 and smuggled them by concealing them in the compartment of a prosthetic leg.
The iguanas are threatened with extinction because of habitat loss and are considered an endangered species.
That's cool....now if his leg LOOKED like an iguana...that would be cooler.
:hehe:
Tu_triky wrote:That's cool....now if his leg LOOKED like an iguana...that would be cooler.
:hehe:
LOL! :lol:
Yeah, the news story is backward: he was smuggling a leg inside an iguana. :hehe: :rofl:
bmwracer wrote:
LOL! :lol:
Yeah, the news story is backward: he was smuggling a leg inside an iguana. :hehe: :rofl:
Piracy at its best. :P
bmwracer wrote:From Yahoo! News:
Man faces jail for smuggling iguanas in fake leg
A California man faces jail after being convicted of smuggling stolen rare iguanas into the United States inside his prosthetic leg, justice officials said Friday.
Jereme James, 34, was convicted on two counts of smuggling and possessing endangered animals and is due to be sentenced on July 14, a statement from the US Attorney's Office in Los Angeles said.
Prosecutors said James stole three baby Fiji Island banded iguanas from an ecological preserve while on a trip to the South Pacific islands in 2002 and smuggled them by concealing them in the compartment of a prosthetic leg.
The iguanas are threatened with extinction because of habitat loss and are considered an endangered species.
don't beileve
wow the thing and the length people would go to get what they need :shocked: :shocked:
straight from the horse's mouth.
===================================
Pentagon institute calls Iraq war 'a major debacle' with outcome 'in doubt'
By Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott,
WASHINGTON - The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.
The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush 's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.
The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins , a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.
It was published by the university's National Institute for Strategic Studies , a Defense Department research center.
"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle," says the report's opening line.
At the time the report was written last fall, more than 4,000 U.S. and foreign troops, more than 7,500 Iraqi security forces and as many as 82,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed and tens of thousands of others wounded, while the cost of the war since March 2003 was estimated at $450 billion .
"No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations.
The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.
"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq ) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East ," the report continued.
The addition of 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq last year to halt the country's descent into all-out civil war has improved security, but not enough to ensure that the country emerges as a stable democracy at peace with its neighbors, the report said.
"Despite impressive progress in security, the outcome of the war is in doubt," said the report. "Strong majorities of both Iraqis and Americans favor some sort of U.S. withdrawal. Intelligence analysts, however, remind us that the only thing worse than an Iraq with an American army may be an Iraq after a rapid withdrawal of that army."
"For many analysts (including this one), Iraq remains a 'must win,' but for many others, despite obvious progress under General David Petraeus and the surge, it now looks like a 'can't win.'"
The report lays much of the blame for what went wrong in Iraq after the initial U.S. victory at the feet of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld . It says that in November 2001 , before the war in Afghanistan was over, President Bush asked Rumsfeld "to begin planning in secret for potential military operations against Iraq ."
Rumsfeld, who was closely allied with Vice President Dick Cheney , bypassed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the report says, and became "the direct supervisor of the combatant commanders."
" . . . the aggressive, hands-on Rumsfeld," it continues, "cajoled and pushed his way toward a small force and a lightning fast operation." Later, he shut down the military's computerized deployment system, "questioning, delaying or deleting units on the numerous deployment orders that came across his desk."
In part because "long, costly, manpower-intensive post-combat operations were anathema to Rumsfeld," the report says, the U.S. was unprepared to fight what Collins calls "War B," the battle against insurgents and sectarian violence that began in mid-2003, shortly after "War A," the fight against Saddam Hussein's forces, ended.
Compounding the problem was a series of faulty assumptions made by Bush's top aides, among them an expectation fed by Iraqi exiles that Iraqis would be grateful to America for liberating them from Saddam's dictatorship. The administration also expected that " Iraq without Saddam could manage and fund its own reconstruction."
The report also singles out the Bush administration's national security apparatus and implicitly President Bush and both of his national security advisers, Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley , saying that "senior national security officials exhibited in many instances an imperious attitude, exerting power and pressure where diplomacy and bargaining might have had a better effect."
Collins ends his report by quoting Winston Churchill , who said: "Let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. . . . Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think that he also had a chance."
To read the report:
www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf
===================================
Pentagon institute calls Iraq war 'a major debacle' with outcome 'in doubt'
By Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott,
WASHINGTON - The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.
The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush 's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.
The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins , a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.
It was published by the university's National Institute for Strategic Studies , a Defense Department research center.
"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle," says the report's opening line.
At the time the report was written last fall, more than 4,000 U.S. and foreign troops, more than 7,500 Iraqi security forces and as many as 82,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed and tens of thousands of others wounded, while the cost of the war since March 2003 was estimated at $450 billion .
"No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations.
The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.
"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq ) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East ," the report continued.
The addition of 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq last year to halt the country's descent into all-out civil war has improved security, but not enough to ensure that the country emerges as a stable democracy at peace with its neighbors, the report said.
"Despite impressive progress in security, the outcome of the war is in doubt," said the report. "Strong majorities of both Iraqis and Americans favor some sort of U.S. withdrawal. Intelligence analysts, however, remind us that the only thing worse than an Iraq with an American army may be an Iraq after a rapid withdrawal of that army."
"For many analysts (including this one), Iraq remains a 'must win,' but for many others, despite obvious progress under General David Petraeus and the surge, it now looks like a 'can't win.'"
The report lays much of the blame for what went wrong in Iraq after the initial U.S. victory at the feet of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld . It says that in November 2001 , before the war in Afghanistan was over, President Bush asked Rumsfeld "to begin planning in secret for potential military operations against Iraq ."
Rumsfeld, who was closely allied with Vice President Dick Cheney , bypassed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the report says, and became "the direct supervisor of the combatant commanders."
" . . . the aggressive, hands-on Rumsfeld," it continues, "cajoled and pushed his way toward a small force and a lightning fast operation." Later, he shut down the military's computerized deployment system, "questioning, delaying or deleting units on the numerous deployment orders that came across his desk."
In part because "long, costly, manpower-intensive post-combat operations were anathema to Rumsfeld," the report says, the U.S. was unprepared to fight what Collins calls "War B," the battle against insurgents and sectarian violence that began in mid-2003, shortly after "War A," the fight against Saddam Hussein's forces, ended.
Compounding the problem was a series of faulty assumptions made by Bush's top aides, among them an expectation fed by Iraqi exiles that Iraqis would be grateful to America for liberating them from Saddam's dictatorship. The administration also expected that " Iraq without Saddam could manage and fund its own reconstruction."
The report also singles out the Bush administration's national security apparatus and implicitly President Bush and both of his national security advisers, Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley , saying that "senior national security officials exhibited in many instances an imperious attitude, exerting power and pressure where diplomacy and bargaining might have had a better effect."
Collins ends his report by quoting Winston Churchill , who said: "Let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. . . . Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think that he also had a chance."
To read the report:
www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf
Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst
By Robert S. McElvaine
gAs far as history goes and all of these quotes about people trying to guess what the history of the Bush administration is going to be, you know, I take great comfort in knowing that they donft know what they are talking about, because history takes a long time for us to reach.h— George W. Bush, Fox News Sunday, Feb10, 2008
A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.
An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.
In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nationfs history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. gHe is easily one of the 10-worst of all time and—if the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matter—then probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce,h wrote another historian.
The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the gnearly the worsth group, was well expressed by another historian who said, gIt is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title. Without a doubt, it is among the worst.h
In a similar survey of historians I conducted for HNN four years ago, Mr. Bush had fared somewhat better, with 19 percent rating his presidency a success and 81 percent classifying it as a failure. More striking is the dramatic increase in the percentage of historians who rate the Bush presidency the worst ever. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the respondents rated Bushfs presidency last. That conclusion is now reached by nearly six times as large a fraction of historians.
There are at least two obvious criticisms of such a survey. It is in no sense a scientific sample of historians. The participants are self-selected, although participation was open to all historians. Among those who responded are several of the nationfs most respected historians, including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners.
The second criticism that is often raised of historians making such assessments of a current president is that it is far too early. We do not yet know how the things that Mr. Bush has done will work out in the future. As the only respondent who classified the current presidency among the ten best noted, gAny judgment of his esuccessf or lack thereof is premature in that the ultimate effects of his policies are not yet known.h True enough. But this historian went on to make his current evaluation, giving Bush ghigh marks for courage in his willingness to attack intractable problems in the Near East and to touch the Social Security eThird Rail.f h
Historians are in a better position than others to make judgments about how a current presidentfs policies and actions compare with those of his predecessors. Those judgments are always subject to change in light of future developments. But that is no reason not to make them now.
The comments that many of the respondents included with their evaluations provide a clear sense of the reasons behind the overwhelming consensus that George W. Bushfs presidency is among the worst in American history.
gNo individual president can compare to the second Bush,h wrote one. gGlib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the worldfs goodwill. In short, no other presidentfs faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.h
gWith his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,h said another historian. gWhen future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.h
One historian indicated that his reason for rating Bush as worst is that the current president combines traits of some of his failed predecessors: gthe paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover. . . . . God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics.h Another classified Bush as gan ideologue who got the nation into a totally unnecessary war, and has broken the Constitution more often than even Nixon. He is not a conservative, nor a Christian, just an immoral man . . . .h Still another remarked that Bushfs gdenial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly.h
gIt would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,h concluded one respondent. gHis domestic policies,h another noted, ghave had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nationfs economic base.h
gGeorge Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States,h wrote one of the historians, echoing the assessments of many of his professional colleagues. gBush does only two things well,h said one of the most distinguished historians. gHe knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches. His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.h
Four years ago I rated George W. Bushfs presidency as the second worst, a bit above that of James Buchanan. Now, however, like so many other professional historians, I see the administration of the second Bush as clearly the worst in our history. My reasons are similar to those cited by other historians: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed enormous support around the world. President Bush squandered that goodwill by taking the country into an unnecessary war of choice and misleading the American people to gain support for that war. And he failed utterly to have a plan to deal with Iraq after the invasion. He further undermined the international reputation of the United States by justifying torture.
Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy. By pushing through huge tax cuts for the rich while increasing federal spending at a rapid rate, Bush transformed the surplus into a massive deficit. The tax cuts and other policies accelerated the concentration of wealth and income among the very richest Americans. These policies combined with unwavering opposition to necessary government regulations have produced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Then there is the incredible shrinking dollar, the appointment of incompetent cronies, the totally inexcusable failure to react properly to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the blatant disregard for the Constitution—and on and on.
Like a majority of other historians who participated in this poll, my conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence now indicates that, while this nation has had at least its share of failed presidencies, no previous presidency was as large a failure in so many areas as the current one.
source: http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
By Robert S. McElvaine
gAs far as history goes and all of these quotes about people trying to guess what the history of the Bush administration is going to be, you know, I take great comfort in knowing that they donft know what they are talking about, because history takes a long time for us to reach.h— George W. Bush, Fox News Sunday, Feb10, 2008
A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.
An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.
In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nationfs history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. gHe is easily one of the 10-worst of all time and—if the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matter—then probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce,h wrote another historian.
The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the gnearly the worsth group, was well expressed by another historian who said, gIt is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title. Without a doubt, it is among the worst.h
In a similar survey of historians I conducted for HNN four years ago, Mr. Bush had fared somewhat better, with 19 percent rating his presidency a success and 81 percent classifying it as a failure. More striking is the dramatic increase in the percentage of historians who rate the Bush presidency the worst ever. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the respondents rated Bushfs presidency last. That conclusion is now reached by nearly six times as large a fraction of historians.
There are at least two obvious criticisms of such a survey. It is in no sense a scientific sample of historians. The participants are self-selected, although participation was open to all historians. Among those who responded are several of the nationfs most respected historians, including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners.
The second criticism that is often raised of historians making such assessments of a current president is that it is far too early. We do not yet know how the things that Mr. Bush has done will work out in the future. As the only respondent who classified the current presidency among the ten best noted, gAny judgment of his esuccessf or lack thereof is premature in that the ultimate effects of his policies are not yet known.h True enough. But this historian went on to make his current evaluation, giving Bush ghigh marks for courage in his willingness to attack intractable problems in the Near East and to touch the Social Security eThird Rail.f h
Historians are in a better position than others to make judgments about how a current presidentfs policies and actions compare with those of his predecessors. Those judgments are always subject to change in light of future developments. But that is no reason not to make them now.
The comments that many of the respondents included with their evaluations provide a clear sense of the reasons behind the overwhelming consensus that George W. Bushfs presidency is among the worst in American history.
gNo individual president can compare to the second Bush,h wrote one. gGlib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the worldfs goodwill. In short, no other presidentfs faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.h
gWith his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,h said another historian. gWhen future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.h
One historian indicated that his reason for rating Bush as worst is that the current president combines traits of some of his failed predecessors: gthe paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover. . . . . God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics.h Another classified Bush as gan ideologue who got the nation into a totally unnecessary war, and has broken the Constitution more often than even Nixon. He is not a conservative, nor a Christian, just an immoral man . . . .h Still another remarked that Bushfs gdenial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly.h
gIt would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,h concluded one respondent. gHis domestic policies,h another noted, ghave had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nationfs economic base.h
gGeorge Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States,h wrote one of the historians, echoing the assessments of many of his professional colleagues. gBush does only two things well,h said one of the most distinguished historians. gHe knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches. His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.h
Four years ago I rated George W. Bushfs presidency as the second worst, a bit above that of James Buchanan. Now, however, like so many other professional historians, I see the administration of the second Bush as clearly the worst in our history. My reasons are similar to those cited by other historians: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed enormous support around the world. President Bush squandered that goodwill by taking the country into an unnecessary war of choice and misleading the American people to gain support for that war. And he failed utterly to have a plan to deal with Iraq after the invasion. He further undermined the international reputation of the United States by justifying torture.
Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy. By pushing through huge tax cuts for the rich while increasing federal spending at a rapid rate, Bush transformed the surplus into a massive deficit. The tax cuts and other policies accelerated the concentration of wealth and income among the very richest Americans. These policies combined with unwavering opposition to necessary government regulations have produced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Then there is the incredible shrinking dollar, the appointment of incompetent cronies, the totally inexcusable failure to react properly to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the blatant disregard for the Constitution—and on and on.
Like a majority of other historians who participated in this poll, my conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence now indicates that, while this nation has had at least its share of failed presidencies, no previous presidency was as large a failure in so many areas as the current one.
source: http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
Tu_triky wrote:Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst
Time for a Gomer Pyle imitation: "Surprise, surprise, surprise...!!" :hehe:
Tu_triky wrote:Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worstoh please likw he was going to get anything high than that
By Robert S. McElvaine
gAs far as history goes and all of these quotes about people trying to guess what the history of the Bush administration is going to be, you know, I take great comfort in knowing that they donft know what they are talking about, because history takes a long time for us to reach.h— George W. Bush, Fox News Sunday, Feb10, 2008
he will wait on what
:shakehead: :shakehead:
bmwracer wrote:
Time for a Gomer Pyle imitation: "Surprise, surprise, surprise...!!" :hehe:
I love some of the historians' comments on why they voted the way they did.
Tu_triky wrote:I love some of the historians' comments on why they voted the way they did.
Great article, great reading. :victory: :hehe:
bmwracer wrote:
Great article, great reading. :victory: :hehe:
Yeah, I thought it was worth sharing. :)
Replying needs an account. Registration opens soon.