Sorry; but he does deserve it. The secrecy, the lies, the wars, the death. Before you start ranting about what a liberal I must be, I am pretty conservative. Balanced budget, non-aggression, small federal government, with states rights, environmental protections and personal freedoms are traditional conservative issues. All of which are missing these days. Do any of you know the ramifications of the Military Commissions Act? I also believe a government should be open and truthful. I was in American intelligence for 7 years and saw things that would turn your hair white. So, I have earned the right to my opinions.
Calicoboy
I don't have a problem with people criticizing his policies. What I don't like are the personal attacks on his character.
Every chief executive earns a certain amount of enmity from the "loyal" opposition. Throw enough of that against the wall and most certainly some will stick. History tends to even out the feeling. In Dubya's case, I believe history will exonerate him, if there is history available 30 years hence that isn't written by Mahmoud, Mohammed, Abdul or whomever.
The problem I have with both parties is in that there seems to be no loyal opposition. It's been a long time since anyone on either side argued that "this" is the way to solve the problem, as opposed to "that." Or, for that matter, on whether there is a problem in the first place.
It seems that the primary political environment is involved in pandering to the wherewithal of re-election and not in recognizing and solving problems that are growing in potential harm to the nation.
This is a CW discussion forum. The adolescent nation erupted, to a great extent, because neither political house addressed the "approaching storm." They were more focused and passionate in those days than we are, but they still managed to avoid the most important questions: "Where are we going?" And: "How do we get there?"
Have we learned nothing? "GB mismanaged and maybe even instigated 9/11." Or, "If we're especially nice, they will have no reason to be mad at us." Or, "Killl them all and let God or Allah sort them out."
Somewhere in there is a thread of logic we should be following, as we acknowledge that, 200 years ago, there should have been some gurus who would have foreseen the Civil War, as we should have had agents who should have foreseen the current war.
This one is not, however, a "civil" war. That kind of war is between one politically determined faction over the control of an entity. This one is for an ideology, that the entire world should be ruled by the writings of one man, who set down some similar rules to the earlier version, but added a few caveats of his own -- namely, you don't join, you die. (Lordy! Do I wish we could turn back that, "If you're not with us, you're against us.) There are a few other aspects for the modern mind to contemplate, but it remains that you are to have no thoughts of your own. Whatever was written is the law.
I'd kinda thought that we'd gotten past that shxt somewhere after WWII. We're totally involved in "*****, The Peaceful Religion." Could be true , but in an occasional flatulent moment, a jihadist person occasionally emerges who doesn't much mind strapping on some bad shxt and takng out a dozen or two infidels. (You didn't know you are one? Think again.)
But, I digress. Let's try to apply our lessons.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I just hope everyone else is not at the shallow end of the pond.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
It is interesting that George W. Bush has emerged from the back of the pack to one of the top 4. Don't count him out, he may, as a uniter not a divider, hit the top.
I want to address Lincoln as the current #1, Mr. Lincoln.
Let me engage in a bit of perhaps "Clintonesque" (if you may) argument about "Was" vs. "Is". Did you all make that distinction when you voted?
At the time of Lincoln's presidency he was held in low regard in the North as well as vilified in the South.
For the Northerners he did not do enough, or did too much, rarely regarded as 'just right'.
Of course to the South he was the "Tyrant"!
Might also qualify the "Was' question as being 'at the time' or 'over times'.
Anywell, makes me think of Jefferson Davis (apparently disqualified) who was wildly popular for a while at the beginning of that conflict, but was very much criticized and also vilified as a 'despot' and a 'tyrant' by his own people as the fortunes of the South diminished: and that after his death, much like Lincoln, was elevated to a saintly status.
__________________
-
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
Ain't nobody gonna please everybody. Lincoln said it better, but it will do. I tend to get exercised when the opposition has nothing to add to the pot but opposition. Whatever happened to "we have a problem -- shouldn't we figure out a way to solve it"? It boggles and frustrates and goes nowhere. Gonna take a real revolution to smack 'em upside the head and get them back to their real work -- fixing it. All things are fixable, but it will certainly be painful for a great many people. Wouldn't want to be in their place, but don't mind tossing a stone or two in their direction.
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I am going to throw my hat in the ring and pull for Nixon on this one. The fact that Lincoln was re-elected in 1864 over McClellan shows that he had a great following in the North. The South hated him, but then again, they pulled themselves out, so to speak, and weren't voting. So can they be counted? They were, by some people's definitions, a separate country. So by reviled, are we talking by his own countrymen, or internationally? I think Nixon was hated more, by a United States populace, than any other president.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
I believe that Jimmy Carter was the worst overall President this nation ever had. He was inept, gave away one of the most strategic places concerning this
country (The Panama Canal), and seemed totally helpless during the Iran Hostage crisis. And look at some of the comments he has made since and also some of the books he has written. I believe history will back me up.
The fact that Lincoln was re-elected in 1864 over McClellan shows that he had a great following in the North. The South hated him, but then again, they pulled themselves out, so to speak, and weren't voting. So can they be counted?
Can't know if he was actually hated or not. He was kept off the ballot for most, if not all, of the deep South.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
