Nothing has changed, the USA stands has always been: "All terrorists and dictators are bad, except those that we support."
I think the biggest beneficiary of Bush presidency was Carter. He was probably known as the worst U.S. president in modern time before Bush coming along and showing to the Americans and the world that any moron can become a U.S. president.
Actually, Carter had to compete with Nixon for that honor and, of course, it depends completely on who you ask. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents The top chart shows how professors ranked him, though you have to allow for their left leanings. You'll see Carter managed to peg the charts right after his term in office as well. His scores settled down a bit over the years, but in the cool light of history, he is still at the bottom of the list. Its a very subjective thing, but having lived and worked through the Carter years, anyone who thinks he was a better president is smoking crack, in my opinion.
A lot of popele don't realise that the thick mick o'potato bombers were funded largly by america, so it's understandably that they would be reluctant to condemn these cowards. Then, a few years later, america get a slap and the world has to come to a stand still. I never had a problem with the paddies wanting a fight. I just wish they could grow a pair of bollocks, put on a uniform and come out into the open and give us somethign to shoot at.
It just shows how much Americans know. Nixon was a drunk but also a strong and knowledgeable president. Carter bad rep was partly due to the fact that Reagan side paid Iranians to keep the hostages, so Carter will look weak and Reagan could become president. On the other hand, Bush needed nobody help to look and act like a moron, he could manage it all by himself.
Both facts are pretty well documented, you just need to do a little research. Nixon was also a anti-Semite and used to call Kissinger his little Jew when he got drunk.
So now you want me to do the research to find evidence to back your ridiculous claims? That must be convenient.
I forgot that you are not capable of doing simple research, so here it is: Nixon was loaded Partners in Crime Is there anything else about American history that you would like me to teach you?
Actually, when you make allegations, the job of doing research is yours. Regarding your "evidence", you cited one occasion of drunkenness. You are obviously going to have to come up with more than that to call the man a "Drunk". I won't even go into the second hit-job piece you put out. There will always be someone who has an axe to grind after any relationship and will be more than happy to share their personal opinions on the subject, reality based or otherwise. Maybe we should talk to some of your ex-girlfriends/ex-wives. How about the evidence Reagan paid the Iranians? Still waiting for you to "teach me" about US history.
: till you work for american (rather zionist) interests all is well if you don't than the same 'freedom fighters' will turn to 'terrorists' here is an interesting (but old) article read more http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html
LOL. So now Henry Kissinger is Nixon ex-girlfriend. I don't think Kissinger would call him "our drunken friend", if Nixon was drunk only once. At least Nixon called him his little Jew but you are ready to make Kissinger to Nixon's bitch to save a Republican president. In regard to Reagan, making deal with Iraninas. Did Iran Delay Hostages Release To Ensure Reagan's Election? Your Ignorance about modern American history is amazing but I can always teach you some more any time you are ready.
Ex-Girlfriend was an analogy for a close relationship. Do you really need me to explain every analogy? In regard to your analogy, you are now saying because Kissenger used the "our drunken friend" once or more, we are to assume Nixon was a drunk? I guess you have, so I won't bother to ask. Personally, I could give two shits whether he was a drunk or not, Republican or otherwise. He is a disgraced President caught by his own paranoia. The drunken allegation is just, well, random, and apparently groundless. Regarding Reagan, is that all the evidence you have? By its own admission, the article acknowledges it doesn't have evidence. I'm seriously hoping you have something more than that. Its no wonder you buy into Palestinian ideology. Is there any conspiracy theory you don't buy into? Don't you think you should set the bar for evidence prior to belief a bit higher? If not, I have a bridge to sell you.
Inside Nixon presidency It is OK, continue and I can spank you all the day long about your ignorance of modern American history.
The next paragraph from your link: Perhaps you need me to explain to you what the meaning of the words "unknown veracity" mean? Scandal sells books, regardless of how true it is, just ask Scott Mcclellan. As much as I am perfectly happy to accept the idea of a chronically drunk Nixon, I'll wait until you produce some verifiable evidence. Any luck on the Reagan payoff? Please, I'm just waiting to be "spanked" again.
BlackWater appears to be a way of putting more troops into a zone than what we are claiming are actually there. I would guess it is another way of channeling US taxpayer dollars into the hands of special interests without direct government oversight. The paranoid claim they are there to circumvent Military rules of engagement, responsibility, and the rules of the Geneva convention. Given that the primary purpose of terrorism is to destabilize a region and make it ungovernable, if the BlackWater folks were participating in such activities, they would unquestionably be prosecuted, since that goes in direct contradiction to our goals in the region.
i knw taht before aghan and iraq war the blackwater went there ( a few years back ) and people began to die in terrorist activities and then war started. How am i comming to this decision? 1. Afganistans situation 2. Iraq situation 3. Now Pakistan. Since official blackwater arival news from channels if media etc ref. http://www.geo.tv/11-19-2009/53244.htm and http://www.geo.tv/11-11-2009/52748.htm Since its presence in pak over 30 blasts in cities esp peshawar killing thousands of people.