What I am having a hard time understanding is that if Congress is worse than Bush himself (according to polls, and quite frankly I agree), what in the heck are we doing having 3 of them running for office trying to replace him if they're part of the problem? Is there some kind of mass schizophrenia going on here?
Bush most unpopular president in history
- Thread starter Buzzcook
- Start date
I still am a fan of Bush, even though I don't support the war in Iraq.
Try comparing him with Clinton. Bill Clinton can lick his shoes.
According to National Rifleman, February 2008 Issue, Clinton pardoned 16 extremely violent federal felons at the same time he was giving a speech on more gun control.
Try comparing him with Clinton. Bill Clinton can lick his shoes.
According to National Rifleman, February 2008 Issue, Clinton pardoned 16 extremely violent federal felons at the same time he was giving a speech on more gun control.
I personally don't mind bush....He messed up in getting into Iraq, but I give him credit for sticking to it and not saying "OH I change my mind" like some other ones would....AND I like him because he is clearly setting the line between conservative, moderate and liberal views....There is a clearer line now.
My award of worst president goes to Mister Clinton...Not for his GC topics, but come on....HOW can people like him so much? His escapades in office, SHOULD have shamed him for the rest of his life, and gave the presidential position a black eye.
You can't (SHouldn't) go by public opinions polls...Should be a PERSONAL viewpoint and a un-biased look at their jobs....
My award of worst president goes to Mister Clinton...Not for his GC topics, but come on....HOW can people like him so much? His escapades in office, SHOULD have shamed him for the rest of his life, and gave the presidential position a black eye.
You can't (SHouldn't) go by public opinions polls...Should be a PERSONAL viewpoint and a un-biased look at their jobs....
I think Colbert at the corressponant's dinner a few years ago had the best take on that: "What he believes on Tuesday, he believes on Thursday, no matter what happens [or information is obtained] on Wednesday"
So which is it? Your personal opinion on his escapades or an unbiased look at his job in office?
leadcounsel
Moderator
Nonsense!!!!!
I think history will judge him as a very good president who inherited very unfortunate circumstances and steered the nation in the right direction.
Let's look at the facts:
In 1999-2000 the internet bubble burst and the economy started a collapse. Bush inherited that collapse and has tried to fix it. The American people became WAY too consumer driven during those years of pork and spending and have had a hard time scaling back.
Between 1992-2000 during Clinton's administration American was subject to repeated foreign and domestic terrorist attacks for which the administration responded inadequately. In 1998 the 9/11 terrorists BEGAN their plots. It wasn't until 9 months into Bush's presidency they were ready (training, funding, etc.) to execute their plan. Bush inherited the 9/11 attacks from Clinton's "asleep at the wheel" administration.
Bush has led us into conflicts resulting in basically the anihilation of the Al Quida network and has removed one of the most evil dictators in the history of the world from power: something the Iranians couldn't do in 10 years. We have liberated millions of people in that region, and made life HERE in America safer. We have not been attacked by terrorists here (despite terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world).
Yes, times are tough. But were are in an unavoidable war folks!
I think history will judge him as a very good president who inherited very unfortunate circumstances and steered the nation in the right direction.
Let's look at the facts:
In 1999-2000 the internet bubble burst and the economy started a collapse. Bush inherited that collapse and has tried to fix it. The American people became WAY too consumer driven during those years of pork and spending and have had a hard time scaling back.
Between 1992-2000 during Clinton's administration American was subject to repeated foreign and domestic terrorist attacks for which the administration responded inadequately. In 1998 the 9/11 terrorists BEGAN their plots. It wasn't until 9 months into Bush's presidency they were ready (training, funding, etc.) to execute their plan. Bush inherited the 9/11 attacks from Clinton's "asleep at the wheel" administration.
Bush has led us into conflicts resulting in basically the anihilation of the Al Quida network and has removed one of the most evil dictators in the history of the world from power: something the Iranians couldn't do in 10 years. We have liberated millions of people in that region, and made life HERE in America safer. We have not been attacked by terrorists here (despite terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world).
Yes, times are tough. But were are in an unavoidable war folks!
leadcounsel
Moderator
And half of the nation thought Abe Lincoln was a criminal too.
History will judge Bush as helping to create a democracy in the middle east.
History will judge Bush as helping to create a democracy in the middle east.
RiverRider
New member
There are many things Bush has done to that drive me up a wall, but he surely was a better choice than either of his opponents from the democratic socialist party.
All this bleating over Iraq is just that---a bunch of bleating. Not three days after we began operations, the slogans started and the drive to seek the defeat of the USA in the middle east for political gain was on.
What some people are too obtuse to recognize is that Bush saw that America needed to take the initiative in the middle east. We tried to engage the terrorists in Afghanistan, but they weren't interested. Saddam had been misbehaving since the cease fire of 1991 and violated the terms as a matter of routine. The man was an idiot and made a target of himself, and made Iraq the perfect place to engage radical Islam.
I know some of us think it would have been far better to just sit on our hands and wait for the next attack. The DNC would have loved that, no?
Bush took the initiative and took the fight to them, in a place and at a time of our choosing---not theirs.
I would have preferred that there was no war at all, but guess what: radical Islam declared war on us, and brought it to our soil. Maybe we should have sat on our hands after Pearl Harbor, huh?
It scares me that so many people are so easily led to think what the liberal, mainstream media wants them to think. It scares me even more that they might vote.
If a democrat is elected president and the dems retain control of the congress, we will be s-c-r-e-w-e-d. Welcome to the USSA.
All this bleating over Iraq is just that---a bunch of bleating. Not three days after we began operations, the slogans started and the drive to seek the defeat of the USA in the middle east for political gain was on.
What some people are too obtuse to recognize is that Bush saw that America needed to take the initiative in the middle east. We tried to engage the terrorists in Afghanistan, but they weren't interested. Saddam had been misbehaving since the cease fire of 1991 and violated the terms as a matter of routine. The man was an idiot and made a target of himself, and made Iraq the perfect place to engage radical Islam.
I know some of us think it would have been far better to just sit on our hands and wait for the next attack. The DNC would have loved that, no?
Bush took the initiative and took the fight to them, in a place and at a time of our choosing---not theirs.
I would have preferred that there was no war at all, but guess what: radical Islam declared war on us, and brought it to our soil. Maybe we should have sat on our hands after Pearl Harbor, huh?
It scares me that so many people are so easily led to think what the liberal, mainstream media wants them to think. It scares me even more that they might vote.
If a democrat is elected president and the dems retain control of the congress, we will be s-c-r-e-w-e-d. Welcome to the USSA.
So it's "bleating" to be upset over an illegal war that actually enabled Al Qaeda and Iran power
George W. Bush's pure incompetence, along with Israel's influence in the White House is destroying our position and security in the world. You have no right to call it bleating unless you're willing to leave the keyboard and go on a few tours of duty in Iraq.
Bunch of bleating?
There were plenty of us that were against it before it even started. It's not about "seeking the defeat of the USA in the middle east"
It's about doing the right things the right way.
Saddam was one of the biggest enemies of Islam, squelching it at every turn.
Invading a country because it's oh-so-convenient is just plain wrong.
We're pretty s-c-r-e-w-e-d as it stands and the Republicans are equally as guilty as any Democrat.
Not only that it's wrong right out of the gate. These guys don't realize that the US congress voted to go, that makes it legal whether they like it or not. The legality of domestic or overseas operations isn't determined by MTV or Air America unless you have the mind of a child.
As somebody who is over here in Iraq for the third time, I think I know the people and the mindset pretty well.
I can say with confidence that nothing we are doing here can possibly create a lasting democracy here in the middle east. These people do not have a mindset conducive to democracy (why would we want to promote DEMOCRACY anyway?)
I am not saying that they are in any way inferior to us..just different. Our ways are not their ways and never will be.
I can say with confidence that nothing we are doing here can possibly create a lasting democracy here in the middle east. These people do not have a mindset conducive to democracy (why would we want to promote DEMOCRACY anyway?)
I am not saying that they are in any way inferior to us..just different. Our ways are not their ways and never will be.
RiverRider
New member
"...an illegal war that actually enabled Al Qaeda and Iran power."
The democratic socialists' party line, to be sure, and absolute gibberish. A rational explanation of these assertions would be impossible, but it's really all about putting a democratic socialist in the White House so how can the truth be relevant?
It amazes me how easily the collectivist ideologues have persuaded the American people that it would be better to allow totalitarian aggression free reign the world over.
If you think that just because the name of this place is "America" you will always have economic freedom, freedom of speech, and firearms freedom, then you are fooling yourself. Bury your head in the sand and the world will leave you alone, right?
There are generations of men buried in the ground who gave their lives for liberty, and this generation of GUTLESS WIMPS is ready to throw it all away. The evil one is already standing on your necks as you read your principles of the day in the New York Times, and you're crying like little girls.
Meanwhile others, whose principles reside in their hearts, are fighting desperately to hold on to what we have left.
Before any of you intellectual giants rises up to tell me I should volunteer to carry a rifle in Iraq, I'll have you know I have already served. I did my part to bring down the Soviet Union and my flesh and blood does carry a rifle in Iraq...and some of that blood is in the Iraqi sand.
Get ready to praise Allah and turn in your guns, you whose "principles" are derived from the New York Times op ed page. It's gonna happen if you keep listening to and believing the same lies. You'll be living on your knees.
The democratic socialists' party line, to be sure, and absolute gibberish. A rational explanation of these assertions would be impossible, but it's really all about putting a democratic socialist in the White House so how can the truth be relevant?
It amazes me how easily the collectivist ideologues have persuaded the American people that it would be better to allow totalitarian aggression free reign the world over.
If you think that just because the name of this place is "America" you will always have economic freedom, freedom of speech, and firearms freedom, then you are fooling yourself. Bury your head in the sand and the world will leave you alone, right?
There are generations of men buried in the ground who gave their lives for liberty, and this generation of GUTLESS WIMPS is ready to throw it all away. The evil one is already standing on your necks as you read your principles of the day in the New York Times, and you're crying like little girls.
Meanwhile others, whose principles reside in their hearts, are fighting desperately to hold on to what we have left.
Before any of you intellectual giants rises up to tell me I should volunteer to carry a rifle in Iraq, I'll have you know I have already served. I did my part to bring down the Soviet Union and my flesh and blood does carry a rifle in Iraq...and some of that blood is in the Iraqi sand.
Get ready to praise Allah and turn in your guns, you whose "principles" are derived from the New York Times op ed page. It's gonna happen if you keep listening to and believing the same lies. You'll be living on your knees.
I have no illusions about what Congress voted for. I view every Aye vote for the authorization equally as culpable for the crapstorm as Bush himself.
It's not the legality that bothers me but the entire concept of interventionism that has been going on for decades and gives terrorists a reason to attack us in the first place.