What do you think of George W. Bush?

Post Reply New Topic

As I've said elsewhere, all Presidents are merely stuffed suits controlled by the same sinister forces from the shadows. But at least Clinton displayed signs of intelligence and ideas seemingly of his own, and showed signs of wanting to improve the lot of the less fortunate - by contrast, Republican Presidents ever since Nixon have been no more than smiling, waving, motorized mannequins on castors......

Sounds like you are being a bit harsh on all Republicans, especially since the same thing can be said of Democrats if not to a worse degree, but I bet that degree varies with both parties over time, and the Democrats are worse now. I'll grant you Nixon, but Reagan. I have heard from many that believe he was one of the best or the best. I don't know if I would say the best, but I would certainly not say among the worst like you seem to indicate.

I used to buy that hogwash about Clinton having the best interests of all at heart, until about the time he ran for a second term, too many morality questions, too often sending troops out (the very thing you and other Democrat supporters contend as one of Bush's biggest flaws), too often unable to communicate and compromise with Congress and thus stalling government, and several scandals (not just the personal relationship ones) surrounded his administration and him and that was not just a question of morality and law, but of trust and faith of the people in him to uphold the sanctity of the office, the law, and morality. To which he let the people down in all those departments. And before you question whether I think only Republicans have ever done a good job or ones that I liked, remember I used to be a Democrat and supported Clinton, until his betrayal, and I still count several Democratic presidents of past among the best as well as Republican, including Truman, Jefferson, and JFK among Democrats and Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan among Republicans.

You still confuse me, you despise Bush for the same reasons, it seems, you like Clinton. Bush may not always have all the kinks worked out ahead of time, but at least he tries, and unlike say Warren G. Harding in the past, he has a good support network in his cabinent. Clinton did recieve a number of acedemic accolades, so maybe he smarter bookwise or a better planner, but short in one area does not make someone stupid, that would make you sound prejudice against Low Functioning Autism. Again, these arguements are merely window dressing or rants, since he has already been elected again thus indicating a majority of Americans thought he was at least the best candidate among the options.

Oh come on, the guy could hardly even remember his own name for Pete's sake....



Oh no I don't (sorry - panto season ) - I just think that, in stark comparison to Reagan and Bush x2 he was at least intelligent and had ideas of his own. Nixon too fell into that category - I didn't like him either..... No Republican president since Nixon has had a mind of their own - Clinton, at least, did. Its nothing to do with booksmarts: Reagan was a borderline-senile shell: I've nothing against senility - its a terrible condition, but you can't allow people with it to run counties, for obvious reasons. George W. simply has a sparrow-like mind: again, I've no prejudice against such people, but you need to have more to be reasonably allowed to run a country. And of course I've no prejudice against LFA.....

Well, for one, even if that were so (regarding Bush intelligence), that is why he has a cabinet. I believe he does have a mind of his own that is one of the reasons some people get rubbed the wrong way, because he speaks his mind and most people are not used to politicians doing that.

Regarding Republicans not having a mind of their, I could very easily say the same thing about the Democrats, especially lately, everytime I hear one speak, its like hearing them all speak, even when I turn channels or see a different Democrat come on, I do not see any discernable difference.

Reagan may have been senile appearing in public, but how was he in his meetings, giving out orders, and talking to foreign leaders, I don't think he could have gotten half the things done he did if he were always senile, or maybe it was a bit of a act. He was an actor, so that is possible and his motivation might have been, to put opponents at ease in order to set them up for diplomatic outmaneuvering. And again, I say he did have a mind of his own. That was part of his appeal. For like Truman, he was not a typical politician. He was charismatic in speaches blending a sense of humanity, humor, friendliness, and approachability. How do see they did not have a mind of their own, honestly? You make sly remarks about some of my beliefs and you think these guys were lemmings, come on. Nixon was greedy and let the power go to his head, but I don't see him as a pattern person either. And he certainly was nothing like Reagan or either of the Bushes, so where is the mindless oneness and similarity. You talk in groundless riddles to make the Democrats sound less screwed up than they are. That is why the Democrats are having party unity and stability issues. Many left the party, many were not reelected when they probably should have been, if they had their act together, and many rural and southern Democrats don't see they have common ground with urban Democrats anymore. There is definitely something wrong with the party right now. I blame the left ultra extremists who are constantly getting all the media attention and control.
Do you get your news from the BBC, CNN, or CBS exclusively? If so I can see why your views are so skewed and one sided. You don't even give Reagan credit for at least being a decent president.

And don't keep going on about how intelligent Clinton was, there are a few problems with that.

One, the way you say it, you seem to imply he was the only intelligent president we ever had and you seem to imply there are no intelligent Republicans or Republican president. That is ridiculous. I could argue Reagan was intelligent given all he accomplished, even if he were somewhat senile, he could hold together long enough at such an advanced age to get elected twice and win the cold war. And don't forget, as part of the process associated with all ASDs, there is more than one kind of intelligence.

Two, if Clinton was so smart, how could he be so stupid as to have an affair while president, let it get out, while married to an intelligent wife, lie about it publically, then in court, then get caught and proven to have lied in court?
How could he have been dumb enough not to know something was up in Yugoslavia way sooner than he did and not realize how many people were being killed and yet do little to come to a solution quickly when speed was so badly needed?
How could he have been dumb enough to let the intelligence services slip and worse not notify anyone upon leaving?
How could someone intelligent possibly think bombing or missle strikes would solve any problem by themselves, especially since he was supposed to know history?
How could he so ineptly handle Mogadishu?
How could he not communicate efffectively and come with some solution in handling Congress, even if there were more Republicans? Many presidents have successfully handled an opposing Congress without locking up the government. Reagan, Bush, Sr., and Nixon had to do it.
I could go on and on. I am merely trying to prove a point, intelligence is subjective, and even the least appearing intelligent person on earth can lack even common sense and still be a genius at some subject or field for which the smartest person on earth is totally inept. For many of the points you keep bringing up, especially the ones praising Clinton and chastising Bush, I can easily mirror from the Democrat side. Of course, I should expect as much, I see so many examples of this hippocracy in Democrats.

He's a man....



He's a politician....



They didn't have any oil....



Where do you get that from? All I said is you haven't had a Republican President with any intellect and ideas of their own since Nixon - this is a true statement, so what's the problem?



Reagan didn't get anything done - that's the point: he was purely a front for the real men who made the decisions....



Well, there's his famous one-on-one meeting with Gorbachev...... after spending 45 minutes alone together with him, he was asked what he and the Soviet Premier had talked about all that time: "I can't remember" he replied....



....which is why the Republicans won't let anybody with their own ideas get to be President again....



My 3 year old nephew has a mind of his own, and isn't afraid to speak it either - I don't think that qualifies him as a prospective Prime Minister in the upcoming general elections (I find his political views are still a little.... unfocussed shall we say ).... (I'd still prefer him to Howard though <shiver>) What's any of that got to do with the price of artechokes?

Look, look, look - at the end of the day, your whole political system stinks even worse than ours does.... I find the Republicans slightly nearer my own views than the Republicans, but that's like saying Proxima Centauri is nearer to me than Sirius..... I still won't be going there for a pint of milk and a newspaper. I wouldn't vote for either of your parties as they are just both the same..... You seem to think I'm doing a Democratic PPB or something - I don't know where you got that from?

Uh, excuse me?! THIS IS A RABID NASCAR FAN YOU'RE TALKIN' TO!! !! !!

NASCAR.... that's that thing that's kind of like car racing, but without any racing isn't it?

So you are say Clinton thinks the same way as you claim Bush does, that his decisions whether to intervene or not are based purely on resources and specifically oil.

You are not giving America much credit. Anyway, the U.S. tried the isolation thing for mostly the first 140 years or so as a nation. That did not work too well, especially after we got into the 20th Century, lack of any acition on the world stage set a massive worldwide explosion (WWI) of aggression, thus a little fighting now and then is better than a lot every 40 or 50 years. Or about the rate of major wars before WWII.



Like I said I find that totally untrue, there was nothing leming like or the same about the Republican presidents of the last century, and if you are refering to Bush, Sr. and Reagan, that was a general party direction with several of the same staffers staying on, but they were still not exactly the same or mindless. So I suppose the Soviets just went bankrupt because they wanted to spend all their money on Nuclear buildup and the U.S. was building up purely by coincidence. I don't know where you get your resources but it seems to me whatever they are they are obviously severely biased against the U.S. and especially the Republicans.

So if it is a British resource, I can understand, as British media have been more anti american and republican for the 5 or 6 years anyway and probably longer. You should find better rescources.



Oh and you obviously know Reagan personally and his state of mind. Have you ever thought that could have been a ploy so he would not have to talk to reporters while he could concentrate better on getting the job done behind the scenes? Kind of like the later, "No Comment".



This is still a rather pointless analogy, as some 3 year olds are quite intelligent and capable. Anyway that is no comparison, even if Bush, Jr. were less book smart or intelligent as you "claim" (since apparently you had known him personally while you both attended high school high school in the 1960's, and looked at the score of every I.Q. test he ever took and every performance and multiple intelligence test), he would still have much more experience than your three year old nephew. Yes you would not vote for either party, but instead would be one to sit by and do nothing and yet complain about the political system and who was elected. It is awefully presumptious and prejudice of you to say our whole political system stinks. I could, once again, say the same about the British political system. Seeing as how they policed the world for what about 200 years or so, and fought agains the same kind of tyranny found in Iraq and now some complain about it and your media is wholly biased against and is antiamerican. Your arguements still seem weak and of a minority oppinion, at least where the U.S. is concerned.

So what is your ideal political system anyway, anarchy? Ours and even yours may not be perfect but they are still the best systems either of our nations have at this point, and simply griping about them will accomplish nothing. If you are so disappointed in these systems why not find a constructive and pleasant way to change them. I say pleasant because if you go around saying how bad everyone is, you will not get anywhere. Politics is like Hollywood, its who you know, and who you impress that gets you anywhere. Namecalling may even alienate the opposing parties as they will think, at the very least, you have no idea how to play the politic game.

I don't get that you find Republicans more like your views than Republicans statement.

URGH!! !! I'm watching the State of the Union Address right now. I think I'm going to vomit...or throw something at my TV.

Just had to get that off my chest.

My apologies to you, Archmage.

I'd still say I support Bush. I don't know if I really wanna go into all the details because I've done it ad nauseum in other places but I think he's handling some real ugly issues, staying on point despite what the UN, France, Germany, Hollywood, and california college profs wanna say, and if certain things seem a little machievellian about his foreign policy - he's up against a fanatical group of people who too machevellian themselves for there to be another way.

The good thing is it looks like Saudi Arabia is really starting to examine itself, examine what's been going on in schools since the early 80's, and trying to curb the Wahabi movement so that they can move into the future. Hopefully the ripple effects of what have gone on world-wide (whether over there or over here) will have enough momentum to make changes for the better, demoralize the terrorists, prove to them that their methods will gain nothing, and in time these problems will iron themselves out via the will of the people who live in these countries rather than our Warthogs, MOABs, and Bradleys.

When Dubya first became president (I wont say "elected" as I am sure we all remember hanging chads!) The rest of the world was sniggering behind their hand thinking
"Oh my god! What have the yanks done now!"
Last year after 4 years experience of the administartion there were new elections.
we all held our breath.

When you elected Dubya we all said now in shock
"OH MY GOD!! !! WHAT HAVE THE YANKS DONE NOW!! !!

Most americans have been conned by the Neocons in office into believing that Saddam had some connection to the Sptember 11 attacks.
He didn't.

So why did they attack Iraq?

Saddam was contained, he hadn't attacked any of his neighbours since the last war, indeed was incapable of doing so.
but he had Iran as one of those neighbours, a country dominated by religious fanatics who had good reason to bear him a grudge.
This is why he pretended, yes pretended, to still have WMD (a phrase only brought into common parlance as Dubya cant say "Nuclear" "nukuler" dont cut it).
Iraq had a shattered military and was in no position to defend itself against invasion from Iran or from missile attack (possibly even nuclear) from Israel.
he was trying to play the "west" and the local threats against him.

BUT HE WAS NO THREAT AND WE KNEW IT

so why did the US attack.

ummmm........

could it perhaps be the second largest oil reserves in the world?
about a quarter of the entire supply


Under Reagan the US at least had the respect of the rest of the world
Under Clinton you actually got some of us to like you
Under Dubya you are hated

Even if you feel that Saddam would pose a future threat (one of the many shifting justifications given for the illegal war), you cant just attack a country for what it might do.

They may attack us in future so we attack them now

what does that remind me of?.....

oh yes! Its was the Japanese justification for the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Wasn't that "a day that will live in infamy" but when the US does the same its ok.

The US always claims to act in the best interests of the world, deciding who to attack who to support and who to ignore.
All the rest of the world wants is for all these interventions to have some kind of consistancy beyond whats good for you lot.

Internation law allows military action only in self defence or under the sanction of a UN security Council Resolution.
The Iraq War was neither.

And it shames me that bLIAR went along with it.

Ooooh, and you were doing so well until that point. Blair is the best Prime Minister we've had in a very long while (even if it is only by default) and the alternative is just simply too horrifying to have to comprehend..... Prime Minister Howard...... <shudder>

Yes, Blair dropped a big one supporting that Godforsaken American Special Interest War, but the Prince of Darkness on the other side of the House was in full support of it too remember.....

Yawn....

Umm... Hello! How can you compare Iraq to Pearl, we gave Saddam 11 years of prior notice to change his policies. Yes, thats it, Japan actually planned to attack Pearl in 1930 when they were still attacking China, riiiight....hehe. You are right about the election its a good thing the republicans did not allow the Democrats to STEAL the election.

I already explained many of the REAL reasons for attacking Iraq in earlier posts if you bother to read them, which you must not have since you keep using the same argument with no modifications.

We did not decide who to attack, Saddam did that for us. Hello. He lost a war after ATTACKING a neighbor, and FAILED to live up to the PEACE TERMS. Not another Neville Chamberlain is Bush.

Who was Saddam's main supplier of WMD's in the 80s?

Where are Iraq's WMDs? Can you tell of a specific incident in 2002-2003, in which Saddam defied the weapons inspectors?

Why did we, for more than eleven years, constantly bomb and besiege a country and cut off its trade? Why did we opt to establish an Oil-for-food program?

Why exactly did we invade and occupy Iraq? Why did we impose strict gun controls on Iraq?