George Dubya Bush Finally Gets It. the stats dont lie.

[anarchyboard88 0]

Ok, this is a mixed post, its a vent about stupidity, and its also an agreeal with a article from CNN... check it out Here. its a truely amazing article.. it brightened my day. if you havent realized yet, im very ANTI-Bush, probably because im very liberal (shocking huh?). well anywayz, bush finally got what he deserved, realization that only 37% approve of his presidential actions. i was truely impressed by cnn publishing it, they are good for showing both sides of stories. im now onto venting... The war oversee's is a joke now. im not trying to offend people by saying this because i will explain myself. im glad we took retaliation against a US threat, and im proud of how we executed our plans to take control against them (executed is an ironic term for the war isnt it?). We easily "took over" and aided them along their way to governmential reconstruction, and we have settled the cities down enough to do this.. but one comes to wonder, why the heck we're still over there.. we did our duties, we executed our orders, we accomplished our goals, but why still there.. some pro-war activists explain this is assurence that the revolting will cease and that we will keep aiding them back to health.. extremist anti-war spokesmen talk of emperialism, dominance, colonialism. Then theres people like me, (yes, there are people like me) who feel that the war is over, our battles fought, and now its time to come home.. we dont need to babysit them, its now THEIR problem, i think bush feels guilty now and he is trying to fulfill himself.
First Reason for war? Weapons of mass destruction, haah i think not.. guess what dubya, there WASNT ANY. we lost money over paranoia, or was it, maybe it was all a conspiracy to get us to go to war... but what for?.. OIL, land, economy, PR, world relations, showing of strength.. whats a few US soldiers to a dictato. . ehem... president if he can get what he wants. How many zero's sit left of the decimal in our Debt's.... TOO MANY.. bush in my eyes is a failure as a president. or maybe, just maybe bush isnt to blame, maybe its our corrupted govt system that we say strains SOOO far from the others.... were no different than england... he just uses a different title.. he IS an absolute ruler (aka Master and cheif).. a President (someone with absolute rule (just about)) thats a topic that could take YEARS to cover. but thats my take, critism is acceptable, random hate @ me isnt. i like seeing 2 sides to the story, so plz post yours with some support with it plz. dont vent against my venting,, thats just stupid, and it will be ignored, by me atleast.

[Saint_Michael 3]

thats old news his rating have been going down since he came into office and the war on terrorism made sure it goes lower.

[s243a 0]

I voted no but that doesn?t mean I am totally against the war. Some good may come out of bushes actions but I just don?t think it is worth the cost. I do think though that what the Americans are doing there is good for IRAQ. So I think they are doing some good but again, it is the price. The amount spent on the war is nuts and it is making it difficult for other agencies in the government to get the needed level of funding. Also there is the human cost of the people that go there and although the casualties aren?t that high it is a lot to put people though. And it is hard to tell anyone that lost suns and daughters there that the casualties are low.

[anarchyboard88 0]

I voted no but that doesnt mean I am totally against the war. Some good may come out of bushes actions but I just dont think it is worth the cost. I do think though that what the Americans are doing there is good for IRAQ. So I think they are doing some good but again, it is the price. The amount spent on the war is nuts and it is making it difficult for other agencies in the government to get the needed level of funding. Also there is the human cost of the people that go there and although the casualties arent that high it is a lot to put people though. And it is hard to tell anyone that lost suns and daughters there that the casualties are low.

204995[/snapback]

very true, good may come, but the chance is still there. chance in life is good because great things may come of it, but chancing with such high stakes is not wise. maybe if he was on the front lines, maybe he would see the reality... its a shame so many have to die over this.

[sandbox 0]

I voted no, but the question of "do I approve of the war" is a pretty general one. I mean, are you asking if we think we should immediately remove our troops? Or whether we think the war should ever have been fought in the first place?

 

As for the latter, I say that we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place. Based on the case that the Bush administration tried to make for the war I was not convinced then, and I demonstrated and wrote to my congressmen and everything. But now that we're there and we busted up the country so bad we've got to do something, I wish I knew what it was, but something to help bring about some form of government acceptable to the Iraqi people. Then we should completely withdraw (unless invited to stay ) and assume relations with the new sovereign Iraq.

 

This issue really gets me mad and it's hard not to go off on a huge rant. The Bush administration is a disgrace.

[ongnoai 0]

Well, well, still fail to grasp why and how people gave this man their support at election time. An inspired and original way of beating the bush, perhaps?This great nation has all-too-easily accepted to have political dynaties snugly brought up to run their lethal businesses. If the president's ways to run the country kinda worries you, you should try asking to Yale how many more of his like they still have in store for the next 50 years to come, friend. Fishes always start rotting head first.I used to know an engineer who said, knowingly : nothing's ever so bad that it can't become worse.

[DreamCore 0]

Im deffenintley against the F_king war that Bush started. First what has he of kind of problems to get involved in other countries problems. And the second Bush is a F____ fool, idio_ and much more and I dont know why over 50% choosed him?? Anyway Im almost against all hes actions so its easy to that I hate him. America was going to be an peace countery before Bush came, but then when Bush came then first started the terrorist being angry at him and then the peapole booth on the president and on the terorists. Trorist crashed two planes in World Trade Center and made it to collapse. Thw whole f_cki_ng starting was bush wrong, the terorist attack maybe not would happen if not bush got to be president. SO DOWN WITH F_K_ING BUSH!!!!!

[lacking_imagination 0]

Well, I'm not going to bash you... I'm conservative, and although we may diasgree on some points, I somewhat agree with you here. While I feel the "better safe than sorry" approach was better at first, we're done in iraq, we don't need to lose any more soldiers. I will disagree with people's points on the war on oil, as gas prices have only went up since the war started.You can't blame GW for going to war with the intelligence that was given to him. He, just like most other presidents, are politicians, not military experts. He can only go off of the information that his advisors tell him. If you were in his shoes, and your top military advisors told you that a country may be a threat to your country, you would probably have done the same thing.

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

Unless I'm mistaken, the intelligence advisors are a side-order that comes with the presidental meal, so the finger in the bean chili is part of the meal, and thus the meal that was ordered can be to blame, especially when the toy that comes with the meal is less than satisfactory (toy being the problems that have come to pass because of Bush being president).

[sandbox 0]

You can't blame GW for going to war with the intelligence that was given to him. He, just like most other presidents, are politicians, not military experts. He can only go off of the information that his advisors tell him. If you were in his shoes, and your top military advisors told you that a country may be a threat to your country, you would probably have done the same thing.

207993[/snapback]

I don't buy this. Have you heard of the downing street memos and the office of special plans in the pentagon? Look them up. The administration made a concerted effort to make the intelligence fit their burning desire to invade Iraq. Then they used the CIA as their scapegoat. D. Cheney was at the CIA daily in the leading up to war. I think he was putting a lot of pressure on them to produce something that made Iraq look like more of a threat than it really was.

[Cain 0]

Alright, I'll start from the top. anarchyboard88, you make a valid point that Mr. Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low of 37% and you provided an excellent source for that fact. I do feel that you perhaps failed to read the rest of the article where it lists various ratings for past presidents.

-Truman: 22% mid-February, 1952

-Eisenhower: 49% mid-July, 1960

-Kennedy: 56% mid-September, 1963

-Johnson: 35% early August, 1968

-Nixon: 24% mid-July, 1974, and early August, 1974

-Ford: 37% early January, 1975, and late March, 1975

-Carter: 28% late June, 1979

-Reagan: 35% late January, 1983

-George H.W. Bush: 29% late July, 1992

-Clinton: 37% early June, 1993

-George W. Bush: 37%* mid-November, 2005

As you may notice, Mr. Bush's rating is equal to that of President Clinton's rating. Now, I am not using this as reason to refute anything you have said as these are just opinion polls of each president and in no way reflect my own opinions of them (or your own). I am simply allowing others to see the different approval ratings for other presidents as well.

As for America having already accomplished its goals in Iraq, I do not agree. I understand that it's open to interpretation of what you felt our goals were, but my understanding was that we would not leave until the Iraqi government was well-established and stable. I feel that we are close to accomplishing this, but we have not yet achieved it.

Weapons of mass destruction - Perhaps you do not realize this but while Saddam Hussein was in power, he attacked the Shiite people with various chemical and biological weapons (weapons of mass destruction). There is proof of this in both the areas in Iraq devastated by the weapons and in the caracasses of the murdered. So there certainly were weapons of mass destruction used by Hussein. Here is a definition of 'weapons of mass destruction' - DEFINITION. If you want a different source, just say so.

As for America's debt, I fear you have a poor perception. Perhaps you preferred the excellent economy under Clinton? But maybe you do not realize that it was only such because of the tax reforms initiated under Reagan's presidency. What many people don't seem to grasp is that economic reforms and changes require time to take effect. The good economy under Clinton was simply the result of Reagan's changes. The reason why the economy was poor when President Bush entered office was because of the legislature passed under Clinton's term. If you have not noticed, the economy has been improving during recent months, results of Bush's first term.

ongnoai, your comment about "political dynasties" being bred was somewhat silly. "You should try asking to Yale how many more of his like they still have in store." Do you not realize that Kerry too attended Yale University? Now if you support neither candidate then I stand corrected, but if you do/did support Kerry, well then you have insulted your own candidate.

DreamCore, your comment is just a heaping bale of ignorance. "America was going to be an peace countery before Bush came, but then when Bush came then first started the terrorist being angry at him and then the peapole booth on the president and on the terorists. Trorist crashed two planes in World Trade Center and made it to collapse." From what you wrote, I understand that you blame Bush for the terrorist attacks and for the lack of peace in America. Well, I could go into the history of how the Taliban were left to dry during the Cold War by America in our attempts to prevent the Soviet Union's spread into Afghanistan, but I will save you this enlightment because as it seems you enjoy your ignorance. However, just to provide an example, if you did not already know, there were terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center during Clinton's term too. Now, is he to blame for these attacks? Or perhaps it was George W. Bush's fault again? To make sure you do not actually think either of these to be true I will tell you. The attacks weren't Bush's fault and they weren't Clinton's fault either, I'm sure any knowledgeable person can at least agree on that.

Please do not see my references to other posters or their posts as attempts to bash, I was simply using their comments as a guideline for discussion - topics that I felt needed representation from perhaps another angle. I encourage everyone to post their ideas; I would like to see what people think.

[ongnoai 0]

ongnoai, your comment about "political dynasties" being bred was somewhat silly.  "You should try asking to Yale how many more of his like they still have in store."  Do you not realize that Kerry too attended Yale University?  Now if you support neither candidate then I stand corrected, but if you do/did support Kerry, well then you have insulted your own candidate.

 

208260[/snapback]

Cain, it may appear somewhat silly, and I'm not sorry for that, mind you but I can't bring myself to believing in political dynasties. I'm still one of those who admire what Ole' Abe said in his Gettysburg address, you know, that old-fashioned "government of the people, by the people, for the people" type-thing. Whatever, the future will tell it all. And, yes, I was for Kerry if it means I have to abide by the voters' decision without being particularly happy about it. And, no, I don't think I'm insulting the Kerry candidate, because he proved to be a man knowing quite well the alleys of power and much less the blind alleys of day-to-day life in this country. Reason why I was for Kerry is I thought he'd learn, is all.

 

Nonetheless, you are to the point in quoting some polls about other presidents' popularity. I kinda dislike these things, because I think a REAL states(wo)man HAS to take the risk of going against the general opinion sometimes for the good of all. So far as it doesn't give me the feeling of being cheated, it's quite all right with me to have a (wo)man willing to steer the thing without requiring to be popular for it.

 

Have a good WE all

[edmarkcore 0]

I kind of sit in the middle of this whole thing. I can see why Bush decided to go in there...Saddam was an A-hole....no one wanted him around. Understandable. The goal that we were told was to get him out of there (actually,the original goal was Osama, but I think we gave on looking for one guy riding a camel somewhere). So now, we're still there, making sure they can have a good start with their new government. They have their new president, or whatever political title he has, they have their new government in place.....now what? What are we still doing there?? We're taking care of the ones that still cause problems??? WHY???? We've got people in our own country here that don't follow the law, that are killing off people.....do you see other countries sending support over to us? Nope.

Also there is the human cost of the people that go there and although the casualties arent that high it is a lot to put people though.

We've lost 2000 of our troops so far over there. That's not a high casualty number?

I just think we need to get the heck out of there. We're trying to make their country perfect....aka make them work just the way our government does....but yet we don't have perfection over here......why dosn't Bush pay this much attention to the problems and violence on his own home turf before trying to mow someone elses lawn

[s243a 0]

We've lost 2000 of our troops so far over there. That's not a high casualty number?

 

It depends what you compare it to. It is much less then that was lost in major battles of past wars. It is less then the amount of people that die in ATV accidents each year and it is a fairly small percentage of the American population. I am not saying that each loss isn?t tragic and I am not saying that the American people should sacrifice this many of their youth for a conflict in another country. But historically speaking it is not one of the more major events in terms of lives lost.

I just think we need to get the heck out of there. We're trying to make their country perfect....aka make them work just the way our government does....but yet we don't have perfection over here......why dosn't Bush pay this much attention to the problems and violence on his own home turf before trying to mow someone elses lawn

208898[/snapback]

Well, the violence in IRAQ and America aren?t really comparable. I am not sure how well IRAQ would deal with the violence when America leaves. Perhaps they would do just fine. I do agree that it is a perfectly rational position to take care of your own first especially considering the very high price paid for this war.

[wild20 0]

My take on the war? Well,:1. We went in there for several reasons. We are trying to acomplish those.2. We are trying to liberate a suppressed country, it is not the people who are killing our troops, but the terrorists.3. We got rid of Sadam, that is enough for me to support the war.4. We are establishing Democracy, one of the best forms of government.5. But, Bush gets blamed for it. Why? He had no choice but to go in and get rid of the terrorists, if not, then who is to stop those people from coming in and causing more havoc?What am I coming to? I believe that the war, although not always benefiting us, is liberating a people who have lived with murder and violence. what we are doing is great. We needed to go in. the price is high, but the price without it is even higher. Although I don't support war itself, I do support the casue of what we are doing. I believe that we are taking longer than we should, but if we got into high gear, I think we would be out soon.