Bush doing a good Job

Hello meg

Bush has had a tough road

He is a rich kid from a wealthy and powerful family who got bailed out whenever he got in trouble.

(he) has had to make very tough decisions

That goes with the job but what is more important is if the decisions the person takes (or more likely in this case puts his name to) are seen as any good. So far the Bush admin has been behind some pretty lousy calls.

The military has ended the taliban rule and destroyed terrorists camps in afghan...

The taliban are still around and the warlord that are in place throughout most of the country and there with US support are little better. NGO’s that worked in the country during the taliban regime are finding it harder to operate there now. Poppy and heroin production has sky rocked and heading to western streets.

Now we are in the process of liberating iraq which was under tyrannical rule for decades.

The tyrant was also supported by the west and the US for years. Also the US was a major supporter at the time when he was at his bloodiest.

And we can rest assured that he will not back down to terrorists and insurgents, who blow up school buses to get there message accross.

I think in terms of governments and the US government has been involved with terrorism when it suited them.

The other thing is that for whatever reason the US has virtually withdrawn from Saudi Arabia since this was the main demand of bin Laden it is perceived my many people around the world that Bush’s admin did back down.

Also his admin’s actions and their attitude have been one of the greatest recruiters for anti-American terrorism.

 

As stated above, there is a huge power vacuum in Iraq. Any leader, U.S.-backed or not, will face resistance and coups. That should not be regarded as the fault of the U.S.

 

Well, except for the fact we created that vacuum... and also the government that used to occupy it.

 

Fact1: We saved the people of Iraq from a genocidal maniac who used mass graves and chemical weapons to suppress the dissedents in his country.
Fact2: WE did NOT put saddam on the throne. HE put HIMSELF on the throne, using his gang of thugs. The US would NOT support a murderer, as he was at the time.
Fact3: Most of the Iraqui people are VERY HAPPY to see us in iraq.
Fact4: The current death toll in iraq does not come NEAR that of the pre-war times.


You are SERIOUSLY misinformed. Dont talk about things you obviously dont understand.

 

Come on, you really don't believe all that. My god the U.S goverment supported this guy when he was at his worst. U.S supplied them with weapons during the Iraq and Iran war. When he used these chemical weapons back then against the Iranians and his own people. Did the U.S say anything back then. No i believe its was ignored. Now when its suits them they use it to justify there actions. What about sudan where genecide been going on for years. Hmmm guess what!, no oil, no position of power. So i guess they get to go on dying!

 

Bush is the slimebag who killed 800+ Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis based on a complete lie.
Liberating Iraq? Give me a break, we've bombed their hospitals, water supplies, shot Iraqis who protested the U.S. involvement, looted their museums, and now are torturing prisoners whom the Red Cross says 90% are in there for false charges. This is a criminal war full of atrocities, and Bush gets away with it because the American public are sheep that go along with whatever the government tells them, which is why people always say, "We have to baa-aaaa-aaa-mb this country, we have to baaa-aaaa-aaa-aamb that country, etc."
He's a spoiled, overpriviledged cokeheaded drunk who committed crimes to steal the 2000 election. He's broken just about every one of the Bill of Rights, from his McCarthyist blacklisting of people who criticize his administration to incarcerating people indefinitely without charges or trial.
Of course he allowed 9/11 to happen; the timing is too convenient, he needed something to skyrocket his polls, something like a Pearl Harbor. And he proved he is a sociopath with no morality or conscience at all; he jokes about the deaths in Iraq, the executions he's ordered. Bush and the whores who support him are all about killing and killing and killing and killing. And I have never, never seen someone who is so anxious to start a war that they're coming their pants over it.
Doesn't anyone find it hypocritical that this asshole ducked out of Vietnam, but he has no problem sending other people's children to die?
Why do people admire such a loathsome, despicable creature who has no redeeming qualities whatsoever?

 

People have their opinions and I have mine..I don't like what has become of our country and the reason we are fighting is based on a lie..therefore, my vote won't be for Bush.

If you don't like who is running this country..or if you do..you need to be a part of the voting system and vote for what you want..or it will never change, my opinion is I think we need a serious change, or it will just get worse

I wish there was worldwide peace, but unfortunately there isn't..so we can keep a president, in there that has taken us to Iraq..under false pretenses..or we can try for a change..and vote for the opposite and HOPE that things will change for the better..one things for sure, if we keep our current president, you already see what he has to offer..I say I want change! ~Peace~

 

i belive he's doing what he can do. it's a hard job to be the cheif.

 

Did someone actually say the economy was rising? PAH!
Dubya is an ignorant human being who has way to much control for his own good. This war bull is a waste of money, time, and lives. America cries wolf at far too many things nowdays. Bush says we went in there to show them America won't take attacks lying down. When that reason grew tired, Saddam was the target. I find it so amusing Bush goes after the same man his DAD didn't get....trying to prove the family name there, Dubya? If you're so worried about your precious country, you won't vote the idiot back in. You've seen what this bafoon has to offer. You've seen what he can do for your country.
True...you elected the man when you thought his opinions were nice, he was fair, and you didn't see his true ignorance as a result of the speeches written FOR him, not BY him. That is to be forgiven...but, if you DO reelect *the man* you deserve every bit of suffering and pain done upon you. Everytime your taxes go UP and your SS goes down...you have yourselves to thank.

 

Complete lie? We went to war on the evidence garnered by intelligence agencies the world over as well as the knowledge that Sadam had not dismantled his weapons programs under international supervision as the UN mandated (see www.un.org for the resolutions). Indeed he kicked the weapons inspectors out in 1998, but the UN didnt have the balls to do anything about it. Additionally, I'd invite you to read this article: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html demonstrating that Saddam did have the weapons, but hid them and shipped them out as the war approached. Thats what happens when you tell the enemy when you're going to come for him.

We have not bombed hospitals etc as you say. This was the most selectively and precicely targeted campaign in the history of the world. We even tiptoed around powerplants as long as we could so that the people would have electricity during the war. The US does NOT target civilians. If a military commander orders that innocents be killed, the troops are required to disobey the command and report it up the chain. That commander will be court martialed.

As for the collateral damage issue, yes, innocent people die in war. However, once again, we do not target innocents. Saddam knew that putting women and children near Iraqi combatants would make us hesitate to shoot, so thats one of the tactics they employ. And again, all of the ordinance dropped was precision guided to minimize collateral damage. Look at it this way: You agree that World War II was necessary right? In that war both sides bombed the hell out of the major cities of europe for five years. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians died. But I dont see you criticizing FDR. We bombed with precision guided weapons for less than a month and a half.

Bush did NOT order the torture of Iraqi prisoners. That was the command of one disgruntled military commander and the fault of several guards for not reporting it sooner. They are all being court martialed. The process to court martial them had begun long before the pictures found their way to the media.

As for the 2000 election, go study the electoral college process. A total of nine presidents have been elected in the past century without winning the majority popular vote.

Bush did not allow Sep. 11 to happen. A telegram that says "something may happen involving the airlines this month" does not constitute foreknowledge of the attack. Besides, if he had known about it and prevented it, it would appear as a great vindication for the CIA which people seemed to think doesnt need to exist anymore. And of course we all know how much Bush and the CIA plot and scheme together... Give me a break.

I suppose if Gore were president the "timing was just too perfect" would not be an issue. If Bush wanted to boost the polls he would have done it this year with the impending election.

Sorry for the long post, but I can't stand when some idiot posts ignorant rhetoric as if it were God's own truth. Try doing some research for a change.

 

The US does NOT target civilians.

Generally that's true. We did target a series of "abandoned buildings" in the middle of heavily populated civilian areas, in cases where there was no allegation that "bad guyz" (as our moron President calls them) were using them. I think the Pentagon later said it would stop doing that, since homeless people tend to live in such places. Ooops. Can't expect millionaires to know that, I guess. What's worse is that there have been reliable reports that hospitals were ordered specifically to NOT count civilian casualties. So we really won't ever know- the military has made certain we will never know.

I've also seen letters sent from Iraq in which some rather extreme things are described. In one instance, a soldier stops cars full of people, at gunpoint, on a busy highway, just to show them he can terrorize them for no reason but to cross the street. Americans working for Halliburton have described some pretty extreme things, being beaten and held at gunpoint, diplomats assaulted, etc. One guy talked about how they'd machine-gun carfuls of people they suspected as "bad guys" but had yet to find so much as a slingshot in any car they blasted to bits. But that stuff happens in war- one reason why you pick wars more carefully. Of course, we've seen the torture pics, at least the less extreme ones- and the orders to carry out those tortures came right from the office of the President (he even admitted it in public just yesterday!).

No, we're not out killing babies for kicks, but anything can and does happen in war. Worse than "anything" Americans can imagine, with Bush in charge. If you're not okay with machinegunning carfuls of civilians because you're too busy to ask questions, then you really shouldn't be fighting the war in the first place.

I might address your points in more detail later, I'm out of time now...

 

Do you have links or proof of any of this, or are we supposed to just believe what "you heard" as truth?

 

The US does not target civilians eh? Tell that to the some 500,000 innocent civilians which we carpet baombed into perdition in Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War.

Our own history of rampant warmongering and utter destruction makes anything claimed against Saddam look like child's play.

 

Wrong war. Don't try to attack this president using the actions that other leader took over 30 years ago.

 

By that token, don't try to justify an illegal war against a country which did not attack us nor threaten us based on, at best, highly questionable claims about deaths that occurred during another war nearly 20 years ago. Especially when it is far more likely that any deaths in Halabja were the work of Iran not Iraq.

Fact is the claim that the "US does not target civilians" is a blanket claim with no time frame attached. The US has targetted and does target civilians both directly and through its prolific funding of guerilla death squads in many theatres of conflict.

 

Man, this is pathetic, i would expect a lot better out of this forum when the topic of George W. Bush is brought up. You guys seem to be all kissing his ass and saying he did a good job, its bullshit. People in America are so blind to the fact that the Bush's have an OBVIOUS hatred for Saddam and Iraq and it is all a family matter. Soldiers were sent there to die for Bush's families personal gain, how can you say he is a good president, how can you even THINK about saying that when he took basically ALL the money for rebuilding and helping afghanistan, and put it into invading Iraq. ALSO, Osama Bin Laden, the supposed leader of the 9/11 attacks has not been found, nor do we have any clue to where he is. Also, a president who right after 9/11, let's Osama Bin Laden's family and many other Saudi's leave the country on airplanes while the rest of the entire country was banned from flying any plane whatsoever, even when Osama Bin Laden's family probably had information that could help us find Osama, and other terrorists who are part of his organization (Osama Bin Laden's Family DID disown him, but soppusubly they still did talk to him and visit him on occasion). And lastly, EVERY official involved in the least with 9/11 was put under oath and televised during their testimony, but NOT Bush and Cheney, they testified behind closed doors, with No Cameras, and nobody was a llowed to write down a single word, sound like a good trustworthy president to you? Bush needs to get out of the white house, but Kerry won't be any better, Kerry is a joke, and the republicans couldn't love him more because all he does is keep his mouth shut about his issues.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

His families' personal gain? How does Bush himself benefit from this war, apart from dividing the nation and stirring up hatred for his presidency? Nobody questions Bush's hatred for Saddam; hell, my hatred for Saddam and people like him probably far surpasses Bush's. What does Bush's family have to gain from this war? Are his daughters going to be better off? His wife? Who?

Took the money from rebuilding Afganistan? What? Nothing was "taken away" from rebuilding Afganistan, or else we wouldn't be in this unrealistically huge deficit.

And who said anyone here said Bush is a good president? Not me, that's for damn sure. I hate him. He put my country billions of dollars into debt and made the world hate us even more than they already do. BUT at the same time, I do see the good in what he is doing instead of blindly following the "OMG Bush is teh evil!!!111!!" bandwagon that a lot of other people have.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say about Osama and his family due to bad grammar, but Bush testified behind closed doors to avoid the media hounds that would have torn apart his testimony and spun anything that he said out of realism. If you remember, Clinton did it once or twice during his presidency as well. On most issues, a president can deal with the spin that the media puts on stories and bring the story back to it's original context, but on an issue as volatile as this he didn't want to take any chances (especially since we all know how much of a brilliant liguist Bush is).

 

And how about a country that was training terrorists for the PLO and numerous other terrorist organization throughout the Arab world to attack us and our allies? Wouls a war on such a country be "legal"?

And the U.S. does not target civilians directly. The guerilla wars you're talking about all occured during the Cold War, when our #1 priority was to stop the spread of communism and in doing so prevent a nuclear war. Would you rather have had WWIII fought and billions of people die in the nuclear holocaust, or have a few Saddams in power (and I agree that it was a bad idea but at the time there was no alternative. Which is why I think that now, all people like Saddam sould be removed from power)?

 

i only read the 1st page so i dont know what else has been said but i think he has done a good job with the war. im sure he was just llooking for a good reason to go n get saddam, and he did i guess. if the u.s. didnt go to war im sure we wouldve been attacked more cuz the terrorists or the taliban or whoever wouldve seen that they can attack the U.S without being retaliated against. in my opinion hes done a good job with the war, but hes done a horrible job with our country. i forgot how many ppl have lost jobs since he came into office, but i read it somewhere. he needs to worry more about the american people, cuz if he doesnt then hes not gonna reelected(i dont think he will but id vote for him if i could just cuz john kerry is very scary looking)

 

Wanna know why we dont casualties other than our own soldiers'? In Vietnam the war was conducted based on body count. We thought that we would win as long as we killed more of them than they did of us. It turned out to be the worst possible way to conduct a war. Tactics have evolved since then, and we no longer use that approach. If we dont do official counts, that removes even the possibility that a commander will fall into that mindset.