Bush: The American Leader

[Guest Choken One]

I was kind of curious about your thoughts on President George Bush's ability as a American Leader...

[Guest JMA]

I was kind of curious about your thoughts on President George Bush's ability as a American Leader...

Well, he's not a very smart man. His merits are few and far between. His party seems to just be using him to further their own goals. I also don't think he has a very high view of human life (seeing as he executed over one hundred people as govenor of Texas). He doesn't seem very compassionate to me. I personally would never vote for the man.

[Guest Kibagami]

He has no merits to speak of.

 

Also, he doesn't speak when Cheney's drinkin' water.

 

K.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I voted for him in '00, and I'll more than likely vote for him again in '04...

[Guest NoCalMike]

I really don't like him at all.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I don't mind Bush so much, but I absolutely detest guys like Ashcroft. In that respect, I DEFINITELY won't vote for him in 04.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I didn't vote in 00. Had I done so, I would have voted for him. It pains me to say that, but it's true.

 

Assuming the Dems don't put up something crazy like Al Sharpton, and there's no chance I'll be doing that again.

[Zorin Industries]

I can't judge his merits as a domestic leader, but I must say that I think his foreign policy has been a disaster. I don't blame Bush 100% for it, but I think some of the people he has around him are a dead loss i.e Rumsfeld and Cheney.

 

I mean I can't think of a single other President who could have pissed away the good will America enjoyed after Setmeber 11th the way Bush has.

[The Robfather]

I certainly believe in G.W. Bush’s policies. I did vote for him in 2000, didn’t have high hopes because of the weakened state he entered the White House, but have been pleasantly surprised.

 

The important thing in today’s world for anyone seeking the Presidency: Is a candidate completely serious about prosecuting the war on terrorism to the fullest extent? I can’t name a Democratic candidate that I can give a ‘yes’ to that question.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

The important thing in today’s world for anyone seeking the Presidency: Is a candidate completely serious about prosecuting the war on terrorism to the fullest extent? I can’t name a Democratic candidate that I can give a ‘yes’ to that question.

 

I have yet to see anything to support the idea that Bush is prosecuting the war on terrorism to its fullest extent. Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly radical steps in a war on terror. He's shown no signs of condemnation towards Saudi Arabia, which to me makes all his ranting on the danger of Iraq meaningless. Bush is obsessed with the wrong targets and is using the wrong methods.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

I mean I can't think of a single other President who could have pissed away the good will America enjoyed after Setmeber 11th the way Bush has.

Good will? Please explain. Also, tell me how he pissed it away.

 

I also don't think he has a very high view of human life...

As opposed to pro-abortion liberals?

 

 

In my opinion, President Bush is the right man for these times. This "uneducated" nonsense is ridiculous. I could out-speak him without even trying, but that doesn't make me more educated. In fact, he's more educated than any of us in foreign affairs simply based on the intelligence he reviews each day. One of the best judges of a man, is the people with which he surrounds himself. With people such as Dr. Rice, I'd say W is a great leader.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

He's not particular popular with the rest of the world. Which I like, he's most concerned about this country, and not world wide opinion.

[Zorin Industries]

I mean I can't think of a single other President who could have pissed away the good will America enjoyed after Setmeber 11th the way Bush has.

Good will? Please explain. Also, tell me how he pissed it away.

 

The man enjoyed the sympathy of nearly the whole world after Setember 11th, nearly everybody supported an attack on Afgahnistan, and at the time I thought he could sustain it for a very long time.

 

However, the man is not much of a diplomat, and I don't feel there is anyone apart from Powell who is. I think Rumsfeld and his attitude has a major part to play in this as many people see him as arrogant and many of his attacks on European countries have been hamfisted and crude (witness the recent "Old Europe" debacle). Bushs' incistence on an attack at the expense of any other measures is also hitting a sour note and is having the effect of making the US look more and more like a bully than the Worlds policeman.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Almost all European nations are backing the U.S. when it comes to Iraq.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I've got too many qualms with Bush to make mention here, so I'll simply reply to Vern:

 

He's not particular popular with the rest of the world. Which I like, he's most concerned about this country, and not world wide opinion.

 

He's not doing too great a job of helping OUR country, either. He's trying to milk the public ratings (unsuccessfully, but I digress) in order to get himself re-elected. He's giving tax cuts to the rich, and raising the rent for poor people living in government subsidized housing (Renters Recieving US Aid to Pay More Under Budget Proposal). He's pushing faith based politics (which would work better and more efficiently if he simply encouraged the people who ALREADY donate to toss a little more in their church's way... they could give more if the government would raise the tax exemption for donations, but I digress again). He's mongering war instead of seeking peace at all costs. He's a terrible... absolutely DEPLORABLE president when it comes to environmental policy (in his own words, hydrogen-powered car research is "Too little, too late"). He has used such non-issues as the death tax in the past as rallying points for his campaign.

 

Okay, so perhaps that turned into a rant about why I don't like Bush. Shoot me.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Oh yeah, and our economy fucking sucks.

 

Ahem.

[Guest JMA]

As opposed to pro-abortion liberals?

Pro-abortion? Listen, I know you're Catholic and all, but that was over the line. Being pro-choice is not the same as being "pro-abortion." Despite what the anti-choice people would have you think. I don't believe a fetus is alive, and I don't think a woman should be forced to carry something she doesn't want to. I wish there were less abortions, but for now it is needed. And I would rather have a liberal than a bible-thumper conservative.

[Rob E Dangerously]

From the filling thru news that I've done with Google News searches.

 

European states with the US:

 

Albania

Bulgaria

Poland

I think Slovakia might be with us

England

 

European states with us, but not gonna fight with us:

 

Hungary

 

European states against war at this time:

 

France

Germany

Belgium

[Guest Vern Gagne]

As opposed to pro-abortion liberals?

Pro-abortion? Listen, I know you're Catholic and all, but that was over the line. Being pro-choice is not the same as being "pro-abortion." Despite what the anti-choice people would have you think. I don't believe a fetus is alive, and I don't think a woman should be forced to carry something she doesn't want to. I wish there were less abortions, but for now it is needed. And I would rather have a liberal than a bible-thumper conservative.

Guys can we please not turn this into another abortion thread. People have their opinions on the matter, and a thread devoted to the topic was made last week.

 

Rob. Not many countries will be involved in any actual fighting. I read something like 16 european countries are on board. I'll try to find a list.

[Rob E Dangerously]

I'm sure those European countries won't do jack for the US but just say they're ok with the measure.

 

If those leaders had guts, they'd send a small token force with the US. But there is always the chance that their people won't be so enthusiastic, so they have to play both sides of the field.

 

It is nice to have Albania abroad the "USS Running with the Devil" warmobile.

 

What about the Czechs? we deserve to let them kill Saddam since they never got the chance to execute Hitler. It's only fair. Plus, we can just blame it on them later! Ha..

[Guest JMA]

Guys can we please not turn this into another abortion thread. People have their opinions on the matter, and a thread devoted to the topic was made last week.

To use a grade school excuse--he started it! Well, he did.

[Guest Danny Dubya v 2.0]

I'm sure those European countries won't do jack for the US but just say they're ok with the measure.

 

If those leaders had guts, they'd send a small token force with the US. But there is always the chance that their people won't be so enthusiastic, so they have to play both sides of the field.

I think that right now it's more a question of "how many Europeans have balls to stand up to Bush and say no to starting another war pushing America's power around to get oil and money?"

 

World War 3... one way or another.

[Guest Kingpk]

I think that right now it's more a question of "how many Europeans have balls to stand up to Bush and say no to starting another war pushing America's power around to get oil and money?"

 

World War 3... one way or another.

*Sigh* and how exactly will an invasion of Iraq, eliminating a leader the Arab world doesn't particularly like anyway, pissing off a country who's military folds faster than Superman on laundry day and freeing an oppressed people who have been squashed under the thumb of a rogue asshole going to touch off WW3, hmmm?

 

Oh, and NATO has more balls than the UN since they actually get off their asses and do things instead of passing 3,000 "resolutions" that are nothing but slaps on the wrist.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

how exactly will an invasion of Iraq, eliminating a leader the Arab world doesn't particularly like anyway

 

Why do they oppose war if they don't like him?

 

pissing off a country who's military folds faster than Superman

 

And, if our "intelligence" is correct, has nuclear and biological weapons.

 

freeing an oppressed people who have been squashed under the thumb of a rogue asshole

 

And yet, there is also a fierce nationalist population there, too.

 

going to touch off WW3, hmmm?

 

Simply. Wait for the Arab world to declare war on us... and watch as Russia takes their side.

[Guest Danny Dubya v 2.0]

I think that right now it's more a question of "how many Europeans have balls to stand up to Bush and say no to starting another war pushing America's power around to get oil and money?"

 

World War 3... one way or another.

*Sigh* and how exactly will an invasion of Iraq, eliminating a leader the Arab world doesn't particularly like anyway, pissing off a country who's military folds faster than Superman on laundry day and freeing an oppressed people who have been squashed under the thumb of a rogue asshole going to touch off WW3, hmmm?

 

Oh, and NATO has more balls than the UN since they actually get off their asses and do things instead of passing 3,000 "resolutions" that are nothing but slaps on the wrist.

Iraq isn't the only factor here.

 

- The US and Britain want to invade Iraq and oust Saddam... and you can't say that's absolutely happening

- France, Germany and Belgium are against another war starting and against US foreign policy in general

- Thousands of lives could be lost, both innocent Iraqis and our military, if Saddam were to use chemical warfare as his defense

- North Korea... whom I consider more volatile than Iraq, could trigger a war distraction (or worse) in Asia

- Terrorist networks taking advantage of such a situation to make their biggest moves against the west and maybe Israel, and a *possible* alliance with Iraq

 

I went too far by saying it'd happen "one way or another", but WWI was expected to just be a summer vacation for the big powers. And it started over just Austria and Serbia. I just want to be credited for being the first here to say it'd happen if it does =P

[Guest Kingpk]

- France, Germany and Belgium are against another war starting and against US foreign policy in general

 

Gee, three countries out of the many European countries that support the US. How I don't care. France is opposed to EVERYTHING the US does.

 

- Thousands of lives could be lost, both innocent Iraqis and our military, if Saddam were to use chemical warfare as his defense

 

The ones that he "might" have? You don't think the first targets of the war would be those facilities that house said weapons so something like that wouldn't happen, hmm?

 

- North Korea... whom I consider more volatile than Iraq, could trigger a war distraction (or worse) in Asia

 

Is it a concrete fact that NK has nukes? Seems like this is the same stunt they pulled with Clinton after they stated they would not honor the Korean War armistice in order to get more foreign assistance.

 

Simply. Wait for the Arab world to declare war on us... and watch as Russia takes their side.

 

And Russia would support them because?

 

I just don't get why Bush's policy of being proactive instead of reactive is such a problem. Someone care to enlighten me?

 

I agree with what Cavuto said today: once the US takes care of things, pull out their forces from every country that doesn't want them, pull out of the UN and tell them that if a problem crops up in another country, let THEM take care of it.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Well, I was impressed how Bush did handle 9-11. But, I am not impressed with his environmental record, which I think his administration, has gutted many regulations. His policy to thin trees, through the logging industry, reminds me of the fox guarding the hen-house. I don't like how he cut a 34 million program, which provided many birth control methods, including abortion, and instead intitiated a 100 million absitnence-only program. Like I said in another post, teaching only one way will not solve all the problems.

 

I am really curious to hear how he plans to pay for all these programs he has spoken of, and still provide a hefty tax cut, which will benifit the rich, more than the working class.

 

And I am a little curious why we are so eager to go to war with another country, when the threat if Al-Queda is still looming large, even with bin-ladin dead(a presumption, not proven). From what I have read, Afganistan has been dropped like the plague, and is in even worse disamay, then they were under the Taliban. Now, I trully believe Saddam is a complete bastard, and if we do go to war, I hope that it is short and sweet, so to cut back on casualities (ours and theirs). And it is for regime change, and not just to control the oil in that region. But, I have feeling that Saddam will torch all the oil fields and launch all the weapons he does have, going down in a blaze of glory.

 

I sometimes feel Bush focuses on one thing, loses intrest, and focuses on another thing. Bush is in the most important year of his presidency. If our economy doesn't improve due to tax cuts. If the war in Iraq goes terribly wrong. If Al-Queda attacks us again. And if Bush gets a Democratic opponent that creams him in the '04 debates (unlike Gore). Bush will have no one one to blame, since the Republicans control both Houses. And Bush will lose. If all I mention does improve, then he will get reelected, even though I am not going to vote for him, he really has never impressed me that much.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Russia has always supported the Arab world, and they're currently showing that they oppose war with Iraq, so there's little to suggest that is going to change. They're not going to remain neutral, you can guarantee that... and they're not likely to take our side over their kin.

[Guest JMA]

Well, I say we gas Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Tony Snow and drop them in Iraq. Then, we tape them trying to get out. It will make for great reality TV. It can be a Fox/Fox News joint effort. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What? You say that won't help? True, but it will be entertaining.

[Guest Dangerous A]

Well, I say we gas Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Tony Snow and drop them in Iraq. Then, we tape them trying to get out. It will make for great reality TV. It can be a Fox/Fox News joint effort. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What? You say that won't help? True, but it will be entertaining.

Do you plan on throwing in people on the extreme left who are as worthless as those on the right you just mentioned? Far left is as lame as far right. As long as Alan Colmes, Donohue, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and other left leaning, non productive, rhetoric spewing people are there with Coulter and co. count me in.