Support President Bush

Part of our problem is that the party out of power wants to impeach the president no matter who he is. I was against impreaching Bill Clinton. To even think of impeaching George Bush is absurd.

No, we are not better off than we were 6 years ago, but we are better off than we would be if Gore or Kerry were president. Bush has risen to the occasion. He has worked tirelessly to keep America safe since 9/11.

This is not Vietnam. All this has happened as a result of 9/11. Muslim fanatics aimed to destroy the heart and soul of America: our economic interests in the Twin Towers and our military strength at the Pentagon. The downed plane was to take out our Capitol and center of government.

Nor is this Vietnam in that no one is being drafted off the streets and forced into combat against his will. The men in Iraq are volunteers, professional soldiers. For my part, if any one of them can not handle the stress, bring him home. We do not need suicides.

Iran is the problem now. I perused the interview Ahmadinejad gave to Time Magazine. Ahmadinejad's world view hinges on his hatred for the United States and Israel. He denies the Nazi holocaust against the Jews in World War II and says that Israel should be "wiped off the map." He resents the U.S. being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council when, in fact, the U.N. owes its existence to the United States.

Iran is developing nuclear plants. Nuclear energy is a wonderful thing when used for peaceful purposes. Every country which has developed nuclear energy also has the atomic bomb. Iran would be no exception. But it might be the one likely to use it or make it available to terrorist groups. We can not trust the fanatic fringe. If the hijackers had nuclear weapons on 9/11, there would be no New York City and no Washington, DC today. George Bush has looked them in the eye and warned them it will not happen on his watch. Let's support our president.

 

People are still confusing stubborness and incompetence of the Bush administration with leadership. This administration is incompetent both with the military and diplomacy. They respond with rash military action and people think that somehow means they have a plan and are intelligent. The Bush administration is like Yosemite Sam being tricked by Bugs Bunny and then blowing off his gun randomly in all directions not knowing what to do.

We need an administration that has at least a little competence in diplomacy and knows the limits of military action. What we have in the White House right now is basically a military coup that doesn't have any respect for domestic or international laws and norms. They've responded to problems by kicking over bee hives overseas which has solved nothing and created more problems, loss of life, and a huge deficit.

Fortunately, much of the U.S. is changing its attitude. The fervor of 911 that the Bush administration capitalized off of has petered out. As a last ditch effort, the Bush administration is now claiming that it should get more support because things have gone so badly in Iraq and it has become a festering ground for terrorism since the U.S. invasion.

.

 

Excellent post, I agree completely. Of course I dont really suport any political party though, I dont get involved but only to state my opinion. Sadly we are stuck in a sad state as the rulers of this world will never be able to bring about true peace and security, Time alone has proven that. We are stuck though with whoever is voted into office. Im glad Im not a part of that vote.

 

Shaggie


The Bush administration is quite competent with both the military and diplomacy. Do you really think you know more than the top people in the government? You are confusing cartoon characters with reality.

Jim

 

Jim

Do you actually believe that the world and the U.S. populace hate Bush simply because he is the current U.S. President?

Shane

 

I believe hardcore Democrats hate Bush because circumstances have turned him into a great president and the current crop of Democrats can not stand to see a great Republican president.


I am independent. I vote the man and the situation.

 

I didn't ask about democrats, i asked about the world and the U.S. populace.

More and more republicans are turning against Bush as well, not just citizens but lawmakers as well...

 

I am part of the U.S. populace, and I do not hate Bush.


Nor does the world hate Bush, only thugs like Chavez and Ahmadinejad. Of course, Bin Laden hates Bush, but he hated Clinton also.

The media tends to take things out of context and distort them in order to dramatize and sell papers and magazines.

 

Do keep track of any opinion polls?
National or International?

I understand that you do not hate Bush, you've made that clear, but you as an individual do not represent the general feeling of both the U.S. and the world populace.

Overall people do not agree with the majority of the policy decisions made by this administration, and the number of people dissatisfied has been growing.

Do you believe that dissatisfaction stems primarily out of Bush's position as U.S. President or primarily out of the decisions the Admin has made?

 

In other words is he hated because he is President or is he hated because of what he has done as President?

 

Bush is not hated except by a small percentage of oddballs who are going to hate no matter what. In general, Bush's policies are working. There has been no second attack on America in 5 years.

Pollsters begin with foregone conclusions. They poll that part of the population which tells them what they want to hear. We can not put faith in polls.

But even 40% approval is high enough for a two-term president.

 

Except

1.) It is clearly not a small percentage that disapproves but the majority, that is why the coming elections are predicted by both parties to be so heated.

2.) The fact that there has not yet been another successful attack on the U.S. is not an indication of anything. If there isn't an attack Bush says it's because he's doing such a good job, and if there is an attack he will say that is why we need to stay the course.

3.) The current method of polling is the most scientific way of gauging a populace's opinion, which is why both U.S. political parties pay such close attention to them, when they show favor they are held up as golden, when they don't show favor the party in question denounces polling in general. Either way, the fact that a person doesn't agree with what a poll reveals says nothing about the validity of that poll.

4.) As far as i know Bush isn't even at 40%...

 

Even the Bush admin has admitted to making military mistakes and underestimating the situation they were getting us into, and diplomatic mistakes as well (ex. Condi's comment on middle east birthing pains), so how can you say they have been "quite competent"?

You claim to be an independent, but won't even admitt to what the Admin has admitted (reluctantly)...

 

Yes, I do. I would have been more competent at emergency management than the incompetent jackass Mike Brown that Bush put in charge of FEMA (Bush: You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie! a couple days before Cheney fired him). There's an administration where everyone is on the same page!

You know how Brown got that high level position? He was a college buddy with Bush's campaign manager. Great way to pick people for critical high level positions that will be needed to respond to terrorism. Why not just do a crap shoot.

Bush is the person confusing reality with cartoon world. He got tricked by a group of people and responded by invading the wrong country. You're doing a heck of a job, Bushie! Like a litte kid getting beat up on the playground and coming home and kicking his dog because it's an easy target. Bush couldn't do that right either, like someone getting mauled by the dog after kicking it out of frustration.
.

 

There wasn't a foreign attack in the U.S. from 1993 to 2001. Therefore, we can claim with stilted logic that Clinton had a great anti-terrorism policy. Much like Bush, he did nothing about the problem, even after that guy flew his plane into the White House around 1994. That was an example of a terror threat that arises from within the country itself using aircraft as missiles, yet the government didn't prepare for it after seeing a glaring example of it.

Then there's airhead academic Condi Rice post-911: "Oh! We couldn't have possibly have known that someone would use an aircraft as a missile!" What would it take Condi? An aircraft into your house before you would be aware of the problem?

It's nothing but incompetence. Having the most powerful military in the world doesn't do any good with people who don't know how to use it properly. Most of America is finally coming around and realizing this. It took a while for the 911 emotions and fear tactics of the administration to wear off.

P.S. We're all still waiting for the mighty U.S. Air Force to respond to 911. I could have gotten to NY and DC faster on my bicycle. I could have gotten to NOLA faster too. The media beat the government to NOLA by about a week.

.

 

Still no flag-waving rhetoric by the Bush administration about the lack of democracy in Pakistan, and they're totally quiet about Saudi Arabia. SA is another breeding ground for terrorism and the source of the groups that did 911. The lid is going to blow off over there not too long from now, as people have had enough of the phony prince system.

.

 

I just can't let that go without at least asking for some clarification.

It is clear that the number of terrorist organization and the membership in those organizations has increased. Not only common sense, but all the 'experts' are saying the same. I've seen no one, in or out of Washington say otherwise. And this is because of Bush Administration policies. For example spending over $300,000,000,000 on the "War in Iraq". If instead, half as much had been spent, over the same time, across Africa, the Middle and Near East on improving the clean water supplies, basic health care and education for the children we would now have more friends and fewer enimies. Not more enimies. And $150,000,000,000 less deficit spending, would mean the U.S. be much better for the long run of the U.S economy. I hate to think of the interest that'll have to be paid on the Bush Administration's ocean of red ink.

So the clearification I request is, with Bush Administration policies helping our enemies, and hurting our economy ...How is that "Bush's policies are working"?

Also, "40% approval is high enough ", how does that fit together with the idea of a representative form of government?

In addition, I like to differenciate between the stupid things Mr. G. Bush says/does and the distructive things the Bush Administration does. I also like to not just say bad things about him/them but offer alternitives.

Peace,
poor_old_dad

 

I'd like to say something about the original post. Jim coyler said that Ahmadinejad wants to destroy america, and he got this information from Time Magazine. well, i'm holding the magazine in front of me now, and that cleary was not the message i got. here is a little peice of it:
Time: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weopons?
Ahmadinejad:We are opposed to nuclear weopens. we think it has been developed just to kill human beings. it is not in the service of human beings. for that reason, last year in my address to the U. N. General Assembly, i suggested that a committee should be set up in order to disarm all the countries that possess nuclear weapons.
Time: But you were attacked with weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. you say the U.S. threatens you, and you are surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad: Today nuclear weapons are a blunt instrument. we don't have any problems with pakistan or india. actually they are friends of iran, and throughout history they have been friends. the zionist regime is not capable of using nuclear weapons. problems cannot be solved through bombs. bombs are of little use today. we need logic.

does that really sound like a man who is ready to blow up the world? he goes on to say that he thinks the palestinians should be giving back their land, and then the government of isreal should be voted for by everyone. if the jews want their own country, they should be voted in by the entire populace. his views on the holocaust are sceptical. he wants private research done. don't get me wrong. i know the holocaust was a real event. but just because Ahmadinejad doesn't beleive it happened, does that really make him a "bad" man? people always quibble over historical events. and if he doesn't beleive in it, does that mean he is a dangerous man that just HAS to be stopped? o, and i hate our president too. for a multitude of reasons. but Ahmadinejad invited Bush to a televised debate. and of course our president declined. why? because he would get his ass handed to him. if he had any real shot and at least holding our side up, he would do it. that way he could prove to the world that iran is a problem. but it isn't as big of a problem as we seem to think.

 

Jim Colyer:
Statements like: "Bush is not hated except by a small percentage of oddballs who are going to hate no matter what." invalidates all other of your opinions stated in your posts.

 

Bullshit!

A look at your recent posts from your profile reveal your beliefs.

Support bush if that's your position, but don't lie to make it seem okay....