What do you think of George W. Bush?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes - Mr. Hussein was a very naughty man and all that, and the world is better off without him unreservedly but that isn't the point!! !!There are lots of other world leaders that are just as bad or worse, and I don't see American tanks rolling into Harare at the moment pour example.... Mr. Doubleya didn't invade Iraq to promote World Peace, or stability, or because he's a warm loving person who just wants the best for everyone (or even, God forbid, for WMDs) - he did it because he's a right wing nutcase with an agenda..... Just accept it, people.... Whatever the eventual outcome of the Iraq situation (and its hard to imagine how it could end up any way other than disastrously at the moment), there are no valid justifications for it.....

Here endeth the sermon

Personally, I have this theory that George W. was the result of a bet at Republican Party headquarters - "Let's elect somebody even stupider and more incompetent than Reagan and see if we can get away with it - that'll be a laugh". Well, it weren't easy, but somehow they managed it

Easy there. Just remember: Bush's term only lasts for four years. Four years is not forever! As soon as his second term ends, we shall rejoice! Then we will make sure someone is elected who is less war-hungry.

This is a great thread by the way! I think I'll probably dump a stream of invective here after every bad day - it'll make for great catharsis.... and a lot of streams

I HATE GEORGE W. BUSH!! !

I know that his term only lasts for 4 years, but that still isn't comforting. The reason I think he won the last election is the U.S. is in a 'cultural civil war'. Bush won the election not because of foreign policy or the economy (i.e. things that actually matter), but because of abortion, gay marriage, and prayer in schools. People who are right-wing generally claim that these are moral values. If they want to discuss moral values, how about the fact that Bush was friends with some of the Enron guys? I've also spoken with Republicans who support him because he is a strong leader. They obviously think being a strong leader is the same as being a good leader. Wasn't Adolf Hitler also a strong leader?

In my opinion, if things don't drastically change about what the citizens of the U.S. think is important, in another 4 years, the U.S. will have another president just like George W. Bush. I feel very fortunate that my mum and I are Australian citizens so we can leave if necessary!

For Republicans who use the argument that Bill Clinton wasn't any better this is all I have to say: NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED!

It is unbelievable to me that someone so inarticulate could be President. He is a total idiot, who became a candidate., b/c he is backed by big corporations and big money. I hate what he has single-handedly done to our reputation around the world, which wasn't all that great to begin with. With the internet and other technologies, it is very apparent how globalized and at the same time interdependent we are on one another.

Diplomacy may be slow and mundane, but it should always be the first line of offense and not the last.

Obviously, he shouldn't admit the war was a mistake, b/c then that would be demeaning the lives of everyone who has lost them, as well as their families.

Also, being an Aspie, I cannot stand lying and he and his administration clearly lied to all of us.

That SOB has stated in his speeches, that he feels he has a mandate from G-d for war. That he is destined to bring freedom to the world. We are seeing the beginnings of despotism.

Now the Repubs. want us to do the same thing we did in Iraq, to Iran. Bush has stated that his presidencies will be about bringing democracy to the Middle East.

Bush and his cohorts are scary individuals that will and have sacrificed the lives of thousands for money and for their evangelical agendas.

I am now stepping off of my soap box.

Tallgirl.

I will abstain from voting because the options are too polarized. I will say that Bush is not an excellent president, he is half-decent -- not too bad, not too good. He isn't as bad as many people make him out to be. I don't really support the war in Iraq, although it is good that they were able to remove Saddam from power. I am unsure about Bush's motives for going to war. Maybe he went to war in Iraq to break up the big U.S. currency conterfeiting activities taking place there, or maybe he just used the excuse of terrorism to remove Saddam. Who knows... It is too late to pull out, once you start a war you must finish it.

This is an interesting statement. Is it true? Where have you heard this? If it is true, Bush would be impeached, but I have not heard any proceedings and the way the democrats work, I am sure they would jump on this.

I actually heard it was kind of the other way around. Maybe not intentionally, but the information his agencies fed him convinced him and his staff of a threat. I also heard that many of our allies intelligence services found the same information to idicate a threat. Are most of the news networks, which already lean left broadcasting false information?

Tallgirl - If he is lying it is not that clear. And I hate to break it to you but Bush was not the only Pres. candidate supported by big corporations, Kerry was too, I saw a breakdown chart for both parties, there was not much difference.
If he said that about God, then he maybe pushing in the wrong direction. Separation of Church and state - though I think some have taken that thing too far, for example God is too general a term to be considered a church, the Greeks and Romans had gods was that considered a church or it is used to describe mortals sometimes. Therefore instances where such things appear on coins does not bother me, and anyway I see it in more of a historical context.

Bec - I would only say to you, in reference to the Enron buddies thing, it would only be a problem if he used his power or influence to unfair advantage. I don't if that happened as I never heard that it did.

One other thing, I used to think Reagan was absent minded, but not really dumb, after that SNL episode, I wondered if he had not exaggerated or faked this to get an upper hand on opponents. I reason there maybe truth to that possibility because under Reagan communism in Europe and The Soviet Union collasped.

Last edited by Epimonandas on 27 Jan 2005, 2:44 am, edited 2 times in total.

Perhaps, but do they actually attack or invade neighbors? Would the same feelings about noncompliance with peace accords apply if Germany, say decided to reoccupy Silesia and Prussia, or Cuba decided to try again to import nuclear missles and Russia decided to send them, or Mexico reclaim California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada? This was part of the problem. The world dealt with Saddam before, he does not listen. How many nations do not communicate and attack neighbors, even if they have common religion and governments (that implies no one is safe)?

That would exclude Democrats like Bill Clinton, he sent troops overseas and warzones more than anyone else. This is an example of hippocracy, Clinton is allowed to do this and George Bush is not.

I have not heard much as of yet that is any better than what Clinton did. I hear a lot of "Bush lied", if most of his agencies and those of his allies tells him something, there is good reason to believe it especially when coupled with Saddam's deceptions, I don't whether he knew before or not, but I have never heard of anyone definitively proving it. This still sounds a lot like bitterness talking. You could make similar arguements about many presidents. Can it be a lie if Bush really believed Iraq had WMDs? Saddam did have several months before the attack, is it certain that something did not get smuggled out? I would see more reason to give weight to arguments that did not have so many hate words in them and answered questions posed from both sides or directed at them or that did not seem to ignore valid points made like I see politicians do to often when interviewed on tv. Most of what I see are repititive remanufactured old points with few or little statements of fact or examples and when a serious charge, argument, or point is made I would like to know the validity of it.

Perhaps we just need two new parties.
I don't know if Bush is great or so so, but he seems generally more straight forward than most politicians. He did admit the WMD hunt did not go well. More than what I see from a lot of politicians. I don't know if I want to say I totally trust in George either, as I once thought that way about Bill Clinton, and he let me down.

I never contended that Kerry was any different, but since the topic was GW, I spoke to GW's "political" influences, not Kerry's. I could go on all day about Kerry's lack of touch with reality and us "regular" folk. Also, I am not speaking to "Separation of Church and State," since that phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution, although people like to think it is there. I know that historicallly, our Presidents have called upon G-d, publicly. However, when one starts speaking of having G-d's mandate, of heavenly destinies and rewards for war, it smells suspiciously like fanatical Muslim propaganda, who slaughter b/c they have a mandate from Allah, or Nazis who believed G-d created Aryans, the superior race who had a mandate to wipe out all of the Jews, mentally disabled and homosexuals.

Clinton could not be responsible, alone, for an underfunded intelligence network. Since 1994, Republicans controlled the House which ultimately controls all funding bills. If they wanted a lot more money going to that, they could have appropriated the funds. If they chose not to, even at the bidding of the White House, they must share the blame. Just because the spin doctors out there say it was all Bill Clinton's fault does not make it so.

Bush, as the head of the government, should take full and total responsibility for the mistakes it makes under his watch. It is nice and easy to hide under the cover of "bad intelligence", but too many people have died for that to be enough. Now we are faced with our military 'delivering freedom' to Afghanistan and Iraq, with the absence of any exit strategy from either. Al-Qaeda is still active, perhaps even more active than before. Osama bin Laden has not been captured, and is feeling confident and secure enough to release statements much more often now than over the past couple of years. Bush's Administration has argued that it should be able to detain American citizens, arrested on US soil, indefinitely without charging them, allowing them a hearing, or even allowing contact with an attorney or their family. This is a safer place? This is a safer world?

If China, or North Korea, attacked another country after insisting that country had WMDs and was going to use them, would we accept that as willingly as we expect everyone to buy our story? Would we allow them to hide behind the cover of "bad intelligence" when those WMDs were never found? If the answer is no, then any objective person must share the same view of the actions of the US government. If Syria or Iran attacked Israel claiming an immediate threat from Israeli WMDs, would that be acceptable? Our government has, unfortunately for the entire world, now made it clear that pre-emptive strikes, even on the basis of faulty intelligence, are acceptable actions. The damage this will cause to our credibility going into the future could be more significant than we can imagine.

The most obvious example that Bush was lying was his use (in the State of the Union address) of the story about Iraq trying to get uranium from Africa. This story had been debunked months earlier, but he used it anyway. In order to cover himself, he said that "he had information that ...", or some such disclaimer, rather than just "Iraq has been trying to get uranium," so that no one could formally charge him with lying. This linguistic device was often used to shield him from formal charges.

The Democrats couldn't impeach him themselves anyway, they are a minority, but more than that, their candidate (Kerry) had voted for the war, based on Bush's statements. If they accused Bush of lying, then their candidate would have to admit he had been snookered by Bush. No one would want a President who could be hoodwinked that easily.

Good point, but I am confused. You say Clinton could not be solely responsible, but then you say a leader should take full responsibility for mistakes. Isn't that a contradiction?



I would have a problem with that, but I do not know to what degree such a thing is carried out and how it has been defined in any law that grants said power, or if it is definitely true or at least so in such a loose form. Are you refering to the Patriot Act? Its amazing to what fear can lead?





I don't see quite an equal comparison. And I never believed that WMDs was actually the sole reason for going int? They did not comply with the peace from the first war. Don't forget Iraq attacked several neighbors, so there was a pattern of aggressive behavior and they were all recent and under Saddam's authority. We never invaded Pakistan or India just because they got Nukes, other WMDs are harder to detect though, so many nations could have them. Why do keep insisting that WMDs was the sole reason? Sure it was an important part of it and it did appear he had something or was hiding something based NOT just on intelligence but upon the behavior and noncompliance and delays of Saddam and his officials. I got the impression that it was NOT just nukes he was hiding. He failed to show or account for all the Chemical and Biological he already had as having been destroyed. Of course one would wonder where they went. Technically too they DID find small amounts of chemical weapons and bio and chem weapon components. I was interested in that if not more so than nukes, because I knew he had them, he used them often against Iran and his own people. The only questions were did he still have them and if not did he in fact destroy them. Another potential threat more likely than an all out nuke weapon was the so called "dirty bomb", radioactive matter detonated by conventional explosives.


Tallgirl, I would have to concur about those extremist fears. It seems that both parties are moving toward the extreme ends. I think though that some Democrats are further extreme, but there are probably some less extreme than most Republicans. Hence the diversity in the relative union of the parties.

I don't think Arnold should be allowed to run for president. Not because I don't like him, but I don't want to see the constitution changed for that position. It helps protect the most singlurly influenctial position from among other things sleeper spies.

Ed- Did Bush say that deliberately or by mistake? He sounds like he could be sending mixed messages.


Good use of argument though on the last few posts.

I wonder though what form of news resources and their biases are from where you get your information. I applaude those that diversify.

News outlets I can name that are biased for the Left are: CNN, CBS, BBC, NPR, New York Times. Ones that are more or less moderate or in the middle (though these may diverge more one way or the other depending on the reporter): NBC, ABC, Washington Post. Right Biased: Fox News. (Sorry but I can only think of one). Mind you these are just examples found in each catagory of bias, so if you watch one of CBS then you should watch one hour of Fox to equal out the bias. I would recommend retrieving information from each of the three bias fields anyway and multiple sources with each field, but with relatively balanced time in each field. This would give you the broadest view and help filter out the most bias from the news reported. Always be even more cautious of editorials any form where personal views are injected into the reports.

Of course after the Florida miscalculation by several news networks, "memogate", (I stopped trusting Dan Rather several years before I departed the Democratic side), and such I am starting wonder how trustworthy any news is.

Last edited by Epimonandas on 27 Jan 2005, 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This statement about African uranium had been known to the administration to be groundless since the previous November (at least). There was no mistake.

Why would he be impeached? It isn't against the law to lie.