Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy or Reagan would LAUGH at the neo-Republicans claim that Bush somehow did NOT inherit a largely peaceful and prosperous nation.

Truman inherited a country in a WORLD WAR, fighting both Europe and Japan, had to drop an atom bomb and fight in Korea.

Eisenhower had to end the Korean War and came into office with a recession handed to him on a silver platter.

Reagan inherited a country in the midst of an international hostage crisis.

George W. Bush inherited a country with a balanced budget, a large, strong military TRAINED in peace-keeping and nation-building (something Dumbya assumed he wouldn't need), a war concluded in Kosovo, a peace process LAID OUT for him in Israel, and a terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) that we were starting to bomb.

He was also specifically INSTRUCTED and briefed that Al Qaeda would be his biggest threat. In NINE MONTHS Bushie then proceeded to do nothing, dittered, ignored Colin Powell, listened to every word Dick Cheney had to say, and allowed his National Security Advisor to IGNORE a memo stating EXPLICITLY that Osama Bin Laden was determined to attack inside the United States.

In nine months he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prepare for this.

In response to this, after the entire world rallied around him, the idiot then launched a PREEMTIVE attack on the only bulwark IN the region against a neo-Iranian sphere of influence AND a known rival to Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein.

Following Mr. Hussein's death, Al Qaeda (which had then been let OFF the hook in Afghanistan) came INTO Iraq and Iran seized a measure of power we are just NOW beginning to realize.

Give me a break. A two-year old would have screwed this thing up less than Bush.

For the "conservatives" out there; did you know that some of your conservative friends are SO angry at bush, they are calling him a LIBERAL?

Hilarious! You can't make this stuff up!

What hit the Pentagon? I'd sure like to see some of the video from any the many security cameras, maybe even from the cameras from other nearby non-military properties (which were all confiscated by the FBI). If it's an airliner, so be it. But I doubt it; something is rotten and I wonder if we'll EVER know the truth. LET'S SEE WHAT'S ON THOSE CAMERAS!

What was to be accomplished by invading a sovereign nation and killing ONE MILLION of it's inhabitants (yes, 1 million is correct) while claiming a "crusade" which further enraged ALL arab peoples? And how about all of those no-bid contracts given to cheney's company Haliburton, on which he made 1300 percent profit? Of course cheney DISGRACEFULLY made these profits not only over the Iraqi deaths, but also over the deaths of 4,222(and counting) U.S. military personnel, plus about 30,000 wounded, who by the way received and are STILL receiving SUBSTANDARD MEDICAL CARE AND SUBSTANDARD BENEFITS. (And PLEASE conservatives, do not further denigrate yourselves by repeating the stupid old chestnut, "Well, they they knew what they were in for when they VOLUNTEERED!" So it's OK to WASTE their lives?! THEY WERE/ARE EXPENDABLE? My god, how f*cking HEARTLESS).

How about not sending enough troops and the troops who were sent not having proper armor and equipment? How about NAMING the invasion, "Shock and Awe?" How about a couple of months before the invasion bush standing at the dais stating with a big, stupid grin on his face; "Don't you see? They have weapons of mass destruction?! Yeah, real funny bush; declaring war with a big smile on your face; the jokes on US. It's more than just shameful, it's GODDAM*N SHAMEFUL.

And let's not forget about TORTURING PRISONERS OF WAR. Then of course as a token gesture of "justice" court-martialing the enlisted people(only) who were following orders from on high.

How about ILLEGALLY spying on your own citizens?

How about outing a CIA agent who was actively performing some very important duties? Isn't this called TREASON?

The bush administration reads like a perverted boy scout's oath; CRIMINAL, DISGRACEFUL, INEPT, CORRUPT, LAZY, STUPID, ARROGANT, HORRIFIC, MURDEROUS, EMPTY, GREEDY, TREASONOUS, TREACHEROUS and DESTRUCTIVE.

There is ONE big thing EVERYONE can see about the bush administration in comparison to Clinton's that really isn't debatable. Clinton was constructive. bush was DESTRUCTIVE. All the bush administration did was DESTROY.

When bush retires to his 100,000 acre estate in

Paraguay, I hope a jaguar rips his lungs out!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/23/mainsection.tomphillips

"Also as I seem to recall Clinton DID retaliate and right-wingers simultaenously whined about him both "wagging-the-dog" by launching an unnecessary attack and not doing enough by merely "bombing aspirin factories.""

This is a blatant falsehood. There was not a single member of the GOP leadership who did not express support for Clinton.

When Clinton retaliated against al Qaeda after they bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa in August 1998, the Republican leadership offered nothing but support for Clinton. According to an August 21, 1998 Washington Post article, "President Clinton won warm support for ordering anti-terrorist bombing attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday from many of the same lawmakers who have criticized him harshly as a leader critically weakened by poor judgment and reckless behavior in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal."

According to the article, House Speaker Newt Gingrich said, "I think the president did exactly the right thing. By doing this we’re sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm

Gingrich also worked to make sure other conservatives did not question the timing of Clinton’s retaliation.* The Boston Globe reported the following on August 23, 1998:

"Indeed, Gingrich even saw to it that one of his political associates, Rich Galen, sent a blast-Fax to conservative talk radio hosts urging them to lay off the president on the missile strikes, and making sure they knew of Gingrich’s strong support.

"That’s the same Rich Galen, by the way, who is openly urging Republican congressional candidates to try to take political advantage of the president’s sex scandal in their television advertising this fall."

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott called the attacks "appropriate and just," and House Majority Leader Richard Armey said "the American people stand united in the face of terrorism."

And, contrary to the Clinton’s claim that Republicans thought he was doing too much to counter al Qaeda, Sen. Orrin Hatch said, "In the past I was worried that this administration didn’t take this threat seriously enough, and didn’t take Osama bin Laden seriously enough; I’m going to support him, wish him well and back him up."

Porter J. Goss, who was then chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, echoed Hatch. "If anything, this was somewhat overdue, and I’m not talking days, but months and years. This needs to be the first punch we land. We need to land more."

Unfortunately, this so-called first punch against al Qaeda would also be the last punch that Clinton threw at al Qaeda. Even with Republican support and support from two-thirds of all Americans, Clinton decided to throw no additional punches at al Qaeda. Instead, he opted to throw a few punches at Saddam Hussein in December 1998 during the preemptive attack known as Operation Desert Fox. After throwing those punches, he then decided, without congressional or UN approval, to throw punches at Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo during the spring of 1999.

* Of course, there were those who did criticize the timing of Clinton’s retaliation. One such critic was Scott Ritter, a chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 and hero amongst the anti-Bush left. Christopher Hitchens in "No One Left To Lie To" quotes Ritter as telling him the following: "Of course, though [Operation Desert Fox] is, it isn’t quite like Sudan and Afghanistan in August, which were Wag the Dog pure and simple."