Surprise!: Bush ISN'T the anti-christ!

[Mastiker]

I want it noted that if you reply, you understand the following in bold.

I want everyone to note that I am not a Bush-lover. I am not from the South. I am not Republican in any way shape or form. I just think that nobody gives Bush a fair chance, although I live in New England AND I'm a democrat. And I also admit that Bush screws up a lot.

Bush isn't the worst thing that has ever happened to us, and I'm sick and tired of everyone treating him as the worst human ever. He has his faults, and they are big, which means he shouldn't be in the office that he is. But he is. And unless you're going to assassinate him, I doubt that fact will change until 2008.

One of the biggest things I've heard about Bush is that he is dumb. Yes, he does have trouble speaking in public. Why don't you try out his job for a day and see how easy you can talk to your country about what's going on. He has a tough job. (FYI: Bush's GPA was higher than Kerry's, and Bush graduated from Yale. He's not an uneducated hick.)

Another thing I noticed is that people think it's Bush's fault that 9/11 was allowed to happen. That he knew beforehand, there was going to be an attack. NO SHIT. The president gets information constantly that they will be under attack from one group or another. For the most part, those attacks are never completed, otherwise we'd all be a lot more terrified. I guess that's why they call them terrorists...

"It's Bush's fault for the war." Bush did push the 'conflict' on the Middle East. There is no doubting that Bush could definitely NOT sent his troops. And I don't like the way he's handling the 'conflict'. However, the war is not entirely Bush's fault. (not this one at least). First off, we didn't bomb the twin towers, although 2001 is not when this began. Not too long ago, we, and by "we" I mean our government, trained Afghanistan citizens to become soldiers in order to defend themselves from Russia. Over the Clinton administration, things happened that heated the Taliban and fueled their anger for Americans. I know not the exact details, but for the most part, our troops are fighting troops that have been trained BY AMERICANS. So yeah. The war sucks. If you're going to blame it on Bush, however, at least yell at Clinton for showing them how to fight.

[BluZytrix]

Thank you for your opinion. I really appreciate another person from outside of this country commenting on how things are run. I think a thrid party is often an insightful means of looking at what is going on.

[Praetorian]

Thank you for your opinion. I really appreciate another person from outside of this country commenting on how things are run. I think a thrid party is often an insightful means of looking at what is going on.


Uh, last time I checked 'New England' was part of the United States.


Durr.

[hapacheese]

Note: Not starting a flame war here. Just providing counter points. Let's try and keep this civil and somewhat intelligent.

He has his faults, and they are big, which means he shouldn't be in the office that he is. But he is. And unless you're going to assassinate him, I doubt that fact will change until 2008.

I think that this is the fuel behind most people's complaints. The man should not be in office... I don't bring this up because I think Clinton is perfect by any means, but if Clinton can be impeached over sexual issues, why is it Bush has not been impeached for the various things he's done? Granted, it's most likely his administration pulling the strings, and he could probably claim reasonable deniability...

Why don't you try out his job for a day and see how easy you can talk to your country about what's going on. He has a tough job. (FYI: Bush's GPA was higher than Kerry's, and Bush graduated from Yale. He's not an uneducated hick.)

We shouldn't be holding the President to the same standards as the average American citizen. That is the primary flaw in that sort of argument. Bush markets himself as an "everyday man," but as you point out, an "everyday man" is not capable of running the White House. He must be versed in international politics and policies, be able to manage the most convoluted systems in America... which he has proved unable to do (he has never successfully run a business).

As for Ivy League colleges, it is *much* easier for people to get in whose parents are extremely wealth alumni. Not saying that he got in purely on connections, but the simple fact that his father went to Yale as well (from what I've been told... haven't looked up that fact myself) should render that inadmissible.

Another thing I noticed is that people think it's Bush's fault that 9/11 was allowed to happen. That he knew beforehand, there was going to be an attack. NO SHIT. The president gets information constantly that they will be under attack from one group or another. For the most part, those attacks are never completed, otherwise we'd all be a lot more terrified. I guess that's why they call them terrorists...

It's not entirely Bush's fault, but the administration as a whole's fault. And, it's Bush's fault for picking the wrong people to run everything. And again, you're holding the administration to the same level of responsibility of the average person. There is obviously a difference between terrorist plans that get followed through on, and those that don't. We had very specific information on the methods the terrorists were planning on using, yet nothing was done. And the security that's been implemented since then is pretty inadequate, as well.

"It's Bush's fault for the war." Bush did push the 'conflict' on the Middle East. There is no doubting that Bush could definitely NOT sent his troops. And I don't like the way he's handling the 'conflict'. However, the war is not entirely Bush's fault. (not this one at least). First off, we didn't bomb the twin towers, although 2001 is not when this began. Not too long ago, we, and by "we" I mean our government, trained Afghanistan citizens to become soldiers in order to defend themselves from Russia. Over the Clinton administration, things happened that heated the Taliban and fueled their anger for Americans. I know not the exact details, but for the most part, our troops are fighting troops that have been trained BY AMERICANS. So yeah. The war sucks. If you're going to blame it on Bush, however, at least yell at Clinton for showing them how to fight.

...what exactly does Afghanistan have to do with Iraq again?

[Mastiker]

Uh, last time I checked 'New England' was part of the United States.


Durr.

Thank god someone pays attention when I talk.

BluZytrix, when someone tells you to recheck the words in bold before you reply, make sure you understand all those big words in there.

[nice gaijin]

o_O last I checked, New England was still a part of the US... (edit//wow looks like i need to post quicker)

my theory, in short, is that he is either completely incompetant and doesn't realize what he is doing to the country, or he has an intricate plan to destroy us all. Only 3 more years till we know for sure.

[h2orowe]

Bush isn't the anti-christ, he's just a jackass.

[Mastiker]

...what exactly does Afghanistan have to do with Iraq again?

yay someone who isn't stupid!

okay, before i type anything else, I want to mention that I am a kid. My opinions are that of a teenager. And my resources are limited seeing as how I rarely watch TV.

I had assumed that since we were hunting the Taliban which were, last time I checked, in Afghanistan, that was where the war was being held. Whatever. The war is being done wrong, if there is a right way to begin with.

[hapacheese]

Heh... I don't know whether to laugh or not :D

Well, we have no proof of connection between the Taliban or Saddam. We had no solid proof that Saddam was harboring weapons. Our government made implicative statements to the public that the two were somehow related, and that we needed to bring down Saddam to be safe from terror. Then it was the WMDs. Then it was to free the people of Iraq.

Now, I don't like Saddam. He's kinda funny looking, and he does a lot of bad things. But, we have no business to go in and take out a sovereign nation of our own volition. Iraq did that to Kuwait last time, and remember how we kicked their asses?

We are still hunting the Taliban, but it seems strange that we would take on such a tenuous task as a "war on terror," then get involved in a war that would obviously drain military resources for an undeterminable time.

Seems like a dumb move for a Commander in Chief to make, to me...

[Mastiker]

This is great! Most of my friends hate talking about politics~ I have to come on this site more often.

Yeah. We went to war looking for Osama Bin Laden... so how the hell did we end up capturing Saddam?

And if we have Saddam, then why is the war getting worse? Without a leader, shouldn't Iraq virtually be decimated by now?

All I have to say, is the Osama is playing the biggest game of hide-and-seek..... and winning.

[hapacheese]

Hence, the meaninglessness of the "war on terror."

Did we ever win the "war on drugs"? Same thing =\

As for Iraq, it's difficult to hit small targets that know the land better than you, are entrenched, and have humongous targets to hit.

[BluZytrix]

I'm sorry. I stand corrected. I misread the part about the new stuck in there before England. I am sorry.

[Praetorian]

I'm sorry. I stand corrected. I misread the part about the new stuck in there before England. I am sorry.


And even if he was from England, how would that make his opinion worth anything less?

[StormShadow]

"It's Bush's fault for the war." Bush did push the 'conflict' on the Middle East. There is no doubting that Bush could definitely NOT sent his troops. And I don't like the way he's handling the 'conflict'. However, the war is not entirely Bush's fault. (not this one at least). First off, we didn't bomb the twin towers, although 2001 is not when this began. Not too long ago, we, and by "we" I mean our government, trained Afghanistan citizens to become soldiers in order to defend themselves from Russia. Over the Clinton administration, things happened that heated the Taliban and fueled their anger for Americans. I know not the exact details, but for the most part, our troops are fighting troops that have been trained BY AMERICANS. So yeah. The war sucks. If you're going to blame it on Bush, however, at least yell at Clinton for showing them how to fight.

The Northern Allience are the main onces trained by the US. The Talibans main forces came from out of country. Also, their secondary foarces, Al Queda, were mostly Yemenis and Saudis. That being said.....

PEOPLE! There were bands above and below Iraq that U.S planes would patrol to make sure Iraq wasn't up to sneaky things. All the time, pilots wer shot at. Doesn't cause alarm? Hasn't countries gone to war over stuff like that before? Clinton felt that Iraq was a dnager, and that is why he bombed the crap out of them in 98. Rmember that? SO has is actually going in to do things right instead of half-assing things worse?
People don't elect due to ability to speak, they hire a president based on thinking ability and problem solving skills. Things like integrity come up, things like honor and loyalty. I don't want to rehash the past election, but I still think the better candidate got in.

About the security failure for 9/11. The president doesn't go through each indivual report and inspect every bit of information. He has a staff. Clinton thought that Osama was just some thug, and so Clinton never really went after him. Clinton had oppurtunities to get Osama before he left Africa to go to Afghanistan, but he never used them for fear of another Somolia type situation.

[GTARob]

Over the Clinton administration, things happened that heated the Taliban and fueled their anger for Americans. I know not the exact details, but for the most part, our troops are fighting troops that have been trained BY AMERICANS. So yeah. The war sucks. If you're going to blame it on Bush, however, at least yell at Clinton for showing them how to fight.

Clinton had nothing to do with the taliban or the training of Ahfgan fighters. The U.S. helped Ahfganistan out in the 80's as a way of getting back at Russia for , what we percieved to have been, helping to make Vietnam such a bitch for us. One of the many reasons they are angry at us is because after we helped to supply them for war, we bailed on them when it came time to clean up. Unfortunatly the U.S. has a history of that sort of thing.

[KujiInRetsu]

... Of course Bush isn't the anti-Christ. He's too stupid to be the anti-Christ. If there's anyone to point the finger at (index OR middle), it's Karl Rove. He just has that "evil sheen" in his eyes. :D

[setrict]

Am I the only one who feels we could take a random 10 people, give em a current events / ethics / IQ test, give the top two Pres and Vice president, and end up with better decisions?

We could call it a Roulettocracy.

I'm seriously disillusioned with the capability of our government to lead, and with our parties to provide qualified and ethical leaders to vote for.

[StormShadow]

I'm seriously disillusioned with the capability of our government to lead, and with our parties to provide qualified and ethical leaders to vote for.

The purpose of the political party is to gain control of power by holding as many offices aas possible. That's it. So in order to attain these goals they must pick somebody that can be 'of the people'. No need to alienate anybody. By doing this, however, you cannot choose people that will be intelligent, as some people will be frightened by that, and you cannot have certain other traits as well. Essentially, I think that the party system now hinders the process. You had great candidates back in the day like McCain and Clark, why didn't they make it?

[setrict]

Good point. It's like the Lowest-Common-Denominator explanation for a lot of the crappy music and entertainment from another thread - but applied to politics.

/prays for the political equivalent of a the old Metallica, or Zeppelin

[StormShadow]

I think that if you took Great presidents form the past, changed their looks, gave 'em a new name, they would not win an election. Too much change, too much of this or that, the parties would not nominate them.