DubyaFollow

He doesn't take crap from anyone. It's that he is the guy no one can push into making any decision other than what he believes in.

It has it's good sides and bad sides. Dubya is a mixed bag. I am all for his foreign policy but his domestic policy stinks.

his foreign policy is horrid. he defied the UN, he severed ties with france and germany. he doesnt care what other nations think, he defied the geneva conventions. and thats just the start of it.

Bush is by far the WORST president in american history.

I go with that.

One of the scariest shrubya quotes I've ever heard was when bob woodward asked him how he thought history would view his presidency. his reply was something along the lines of: History? We'll all be dead in 100 years so it doesn't matter

/shudders. Am I the only one that scares the bejeebus out of? I think the term megalomaniacal moron pretty much sums him up.

...gbaji, now paging gbaji...

Seriously, it's like a tree-huggin' convention in here. Damn hippies.

Twiztid

Sure. I'll take a crack at it.

First off, every president has "handlers". What do you think his staff and cabinet are there for? The only real fact here is that if you already don't like a president, you can call him reckless if he ignores his advisors, or call him "handled" (with an implication of a lack of intelligence) if he doesn't.

It's a meaningless point to make. You don't assume a pilot is incompetant because he relies on things like his instruments, and a landing beacon, and ground controllers to land that jumbo jet you're on safely, do you?

Elvaan. You get my FUD award for the week with this post. Lots of rhetoric and innuendo, but not much real fact.




Wow. Reads like a dimestore novel. So, if enough people (Democrats amazingly enough), make *accusations*, that means something? So me calling you guilible 50 times has more weight then just saying it once? Got it.

OMG! And Clinton bot a ******** in the White House. Then he bombed some terrorist group to divert attention away from the proceedings. Oddly, the same group that later flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. Clintons to blame for it all!!!

See how it works? With enough things going on, and enough time, yoiu can string together any accusation you want really. Name me a president that hasn't had a pretty continous string of "bad press" during his administration, then come back and we'll talk.



Yes, and an alluminum hat will help block out the alien mind control rays. Can you be a bit more paranoid? Is this where you tell me that an evil conspiracy that apparently can't keep random US soldiers from doing stupid stuff (or keep them from revealing it if they were supposed to keep it secret), is somehow masterminding this whole thing, apparently with the goal of pissing off a bunch of nations, getting some soldiers killed, and then keeping Iraq (so as to **** off even more people)?

Um? To what purpose? See, there has to be some advantage in it for the Star Chamber folks here. So far, I don't see one. Can it possibly just be that our government really is trying to prevent a threat to the US and maybe actually do something about terrorism in the middle east, but by golly! we're all human and no one is perfect? Thus, people die. We might have less then perfect intelligence about the enemy. We might even have less then absolute control over every single member of the military! Nah? Doesn't sound like a good enough conspiracy...



No. They see pictures of US soldiers posing Irai prisoners in embarassing positions. I haven't actually seen a photo yet showing actual torture. I'm not excusing the photos and the actions they portray at all, but let's call a spade a spade, shall we? Adding hyperbole is just another way of lying, right? Or are you saying that it's ok to stretch the truth and make a mountain out of a molehill as long as it favors your personal beliefs?

It's amazing how hard it is for people to apply their own rules to themselves. You slam the Bush administration for looking at a decade plus of evasiveness on the WMD issue by Iraq (and many many other things) as a sign they've got WMD. Yet, in the same post, you look at photos of Iraqi's being posed and assume torture. Seems to me like you reallly can't claim the high ground.



Hmmm... Barbary States (Where do you think the "Shores of Tripoli" are, anyway?). Spanish/American War? At least try to be accurate.

Technically, Iraq started the fight when they invaded Kuwait 13 years ago. We have existed under a cease-fire since that time, contingent on Iraq meeting several terms (including turning over all documentation of their WMD programs and destroying all existing WMD). They never met any of the terms. We had the legal right according to international law to invade Iraq at any point in the last 13 years. Heck.We probably should have done it back in 91, but we decided to let the UN make the call and see if their way worked. Now, if you want to make a case that Iraq was properly dealt with during the 11 years of UN inspections that were given the run around, and the trade embargoes that were ignored, and the sanctions that did nothing but punish the Iraqi people for the actions of their leaders, then please go ahead.

I'm betting you can't though.


Look. I'm really not a huge bush fan. However, I don't automatically critisize someone for a decision because I don't like them. I don't think Bush is the brightest president we've had. Not by a long shot. But I don't think he's the dumbest either. The guy just doesn't speak well. He's also had a hell of a lot to deal with during his administration. A huge economic collapse, and a number of scandals as a result (the source of which were years old, but only became apparent when the economy turned). He had to deal with the worst terrorist attack on US soil ever, a mere 9 months after taking office. And he had to deal with a UN that decided in the midst of this to lift sanctions on Iraq, forcing us to either chose to let Iraq off the hook, or take action when our forces were already stretched thin (anyone else think the timing of that decision was not an accident?).

I think, given the issues he's had to deal with, he's done pretty well. You may not agree with his policies, but they have been consistent, and he's stuck by them. He could easily have ignored the Iraq thing. He probably would be more popular right now if he had. But it would have been counter to his foreign policy, and someimtes you have to do the unpopular thing because it's necessary. The job of president is not a game show. It's not always about ratings.

Edited, Wed May 26 04:06:09 2004 by gbaji

Keep going back, Grant was the worst.

Read about the French and Indian War..(different context, but we still started it)

along with the namless wars against the Native Tribes, that we don't bother to call wars , cause they were nothing but skermishes to us..

Also read about some of Teddy Roosevelt's Foreign policies...especially Panama... He was a Beast...

oooo can I be a cordless screwdriver?

The independant investigation cost about $40mil. The Monica probe (heh) cost about six and a half million.

I said, when this all came out, that I don't blame Bush for what happened in the prison. I do, however, hold him directly responsible for what the results will be and whose heads will roll and whose heads will remain protected by the President & Co. I don't consider the investigation over yet, so I'm reserving judgement on that as well.

That said, Gbaji's comment that all he's seen is some embarassing photos so all the liberals must be jumping to conclusions was laughable.

Leaving developing nations to polute as much as they like, and supposing developed nations should be able to bear the brunt of the costs. I like Shrubs world view. If you aren't with us, get bent. Kyoto was not with us. Kyoto is dead here.

Maynard, the way you framed your question shows the bias that surrounds this presidency.

As with any decisive leader, holding a strong opinion or position immediately polarizes the constituancy into two or more camps. And considering Bush is likely the most decisive of the last three presidents that we have had, it strikes us in one of two ways: either you admire him or you detest him. If he were a middle of the road sort of person, there'd be grumblings, sure, but the reaction from the general populace would be largely neutral. As it is, he brings out strong emotions in people for good or evil, one way or the other.

Totem

Bush is deciscive? and um I thought you guys were on strike or does that only count in the asylum. If so I think you guys owe me another day off.