The George W. Bush Thread

[Bozo Erectus]

I dont know Benderino, I see this sort of deep visceral hate starting with the Clinton years. The Right declared total war on the guy from Day 1. I dont see how the case can be made that the Left hates Bush any more than the Right hates Clinton.

 

[carlosMM]

Bush has many places that invite attack: he more openly than most politicians shows he is just a frontman for the rich and mighty.

that means he collects all the 'free hate' towards the political establishment. His smugness about it makes it even easier

just my 2 Cents (and I hate him)

 

[Smaasnekje]

bush er en besj

 

[Archer 007]

All I can say is that to be such a "good Christian" he pays no idea to its ideals.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 signed by President Clinton 1998

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

4a2 refers to the following:


(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE

(A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.


Hmm. This is legal mumbu jumbu to me.

Nevertheless I don't think this act allows the use of US forces. Thus this act is hardly relevant as to Bush's decision to go to war.

 

[The Yankee]

'Tis strange that Bush supporters point to the Liberation Act as the reason we went into Iraq, yet take full credit by the President's bold move to fight terrorism in Iraq that caused Libya to give up their weapons programs. Strange to hear every time.

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
I dont know Benderino, I see this sort of deep visceral hate starting with the Clinton years. The Right declared total war on the guy from Day 1. I dont see how the case can be made that the Left hates Bush any more than the Right hates Clinton.

That's true. I just find it hard to believe that the country was this polarised as it is now, say 6 years ago...or even 10 years ago.

 

[tonberry]

Originally posted by thestonesfan


Well, I hope you speak better than you type.

In french, I'm sure he does

On topic, Bush is on my lifetime, the leader with the less qualities I have seen.

He lie, he's arrogant, he don't speak well, he's not charismatic...

The guy has tremendous international support after september 11. Less than two years after, he has make the US more hated than ever. This is nearly beyond my imagination.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
MrPresident, Clinton was controversial since day one. Immediately upon being sworn in, he jumped head first into the whole, 'dont ask, dont tell' nonsense, and he went reeling from that right into the healthcare debacle. These two things alone were enough to drive the Right berserk, same way that Bushs tax cuts for the rich and invasion of Iraq press all the Lefts buttons. The specifics are of course different, but the gut level loathing generated is exactly the same.

Clinton never took America into a major war that divided the country and the world and causing the commitment of 100,000+ troops. Comparing that with the Lewisky affair in terms of importance is, I think, ridiculous. To make a comparsion one would have to go back as far as LBJ and Vietnam. Also remember that Clinton spent most of his presidency with a Republican-controlled Congress (or at least House of Representatives).

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The Kyoto Protocol was rejected 99-0 in the U.S. Senate?

I didn't think the Kyoto Protocol was ever put to a Senate vote.
Admittedly that was due to the fact that the vote would probably result in a 99-0 verdict as you said. So either contradict me or correct your statement.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
A possible reflection of the fact that maybe the Bush administration anticipated a rise in terror as a direct result of the war

I think it had slightly more to do with scud missiles.

Originally posted by carlosMM
he more openly than most politicians shows he is just a frontman for the rich and mighty.

This is an extremely interesting point. People dislike him because his openness shows his hidden agenda? Why do not people like him for being honest. Even if they think of him as a tool of big business at least his honesity should generate some respect for the man. And if he is considered honest about his ties to big business and the American people still voted for him (admittedly not a majority but still a very large amount) then what does it say about how the people who hate Bush feel about the American people (or at least those people who voted for Bush)? Also are some people inherently opposed to those with wealth and with power regardless of what they say and do?

Originally posted by tonberry
He lie, he's arrogant, he don't speak well, he's not charismatic...

I find it interesting that most people bring up George Bush's poor public speaking, especially considering his recent State of the Union address which, I thought, was excellently delievered. Will Bush be permanently dogged by the impression of poor verbal skills even if he improves? Also, what does arrogance, charisma and public speaking have to do with policies? They are more about the likability of the person itself rather than their political record. So, have we become a society more concerned with image than substance? Do you care more about the delieverance of a policy than the policy itself? If the three personality tracts mentioned in the quote above related to the character of the individual than I would whole-heartly agree they were important in evaluating the candidate. Nothing is more important in politics than character. However arrogance, public speaking skills and charisma are not related to character and more to do with perception of the individual. There have been lots of evil men throughtout the years with lots of charisma and plently of oratory skills.

Originally posted by The Yankee
'Tis strange that Bush supporters point to the Liberation Act as the reason we went into Iraq, yet take full credit by the President's bold move to fight terrorism in Iraq that caused Libya to give up their weapons programs. Strange to hear every time.

Saying something is different to doing something. If I say I'm going to rob your house, will you improve your security? Maybe. If I actually do rob your house then the situation is entirely different. Not too sure about the analogy but I think it works.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Is it though? Clinton did not have the same clearly defined policies as Bush and he certainly did nothing as controversial as the war in Iraq. I think the comparsion is flawed though interesting.

Not true. Hillary's health care plan was at least as controversial as the war in Iraq. Fortunately it was ahorrifically botched attempt, or we might be stuck with some form of its original conception. :shudder: Medicare Reorm is quite bad enough.

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
Yes, he did. Her name was Monica Lewinsky. It might not have been controversial in Europe, but it was here.

Wrong time period. That was 6 years into the sentance.

Originally posted by Benderino
No, I disagree. Though some of that is true, you have to take into account that we haven't been this partisan/polar opposites since the Civil War. Clinton did more to hold this nation together that Bush ever did (or at least less to tear it apart). Not in the last 6 or seven presidents has the encumbent gone into the election year with a 45% disapproval rating. Sure, that may not be half yet, but all the others had at least some moderates. People either love him, or they hate him. This isn't good.

On the contrary, its very good.

Ask Col if he would prefer polite applause to a paper, or a bunch of savage attacks, seekig to gut the thing entirely. Some of you are not able to remember Ronald Reagan's first term in office (I voted Carter BTW). The same kind of rabid hatred/fanatic loyalty infused the situation then as well. SN could tell you that all the good Presidents were savaged in the press, at least some of the time. Read Lincoln's clippings some time.

In fact I think this is convincing evidence of Bush's stature as a great man. Minor Presidents dont get the polarization, not because they are better, but because they are ineffective. Clinton, in comparison, got the hatred, but not the devotion. For example the definitive book on his tenure is called All too Human and talks of how he let his devoted followers down. The landmark of his Presidency, law-wise, was welfare reform, a Republican initiative which his staff begged him to veto. The historical footnote will be as the second President to be impeached.

One of the complaints you will see various places in this forum is that he acts like he has a mandate, rather than as if he squeeked out an extremely close election. That is also a backhand complement. It means that he has done things that hte poster considered safely out of reach. In other words he outperformed the expectations.

Originally posted by Tassadar
He s not able to speak corectly, which mean IMO brain damage.
He is arogant, insuffisant and stuborn.

Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight.
President Andrew Shepherd from The American President.
Stubborn is good in a leader isnt it? It makes him tenacious.

J

PS MrPrez. Could you PLEASE learn to make PARAGRAPHS?

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by onejayhawk

For example the definitive book on his tenure is called All too Human and talks of how he let his devoted followers down. The landmark of his Presidency, law-wise, was welfare reform, a Republican initiative which his staff begged him to veto. The historical footnote will be as the second President to be impeached.

Was Clinton impeached? That is new to me. Regarding the historical footnote. Don't you think that it would rather speak of a prosecutor obsessed with sex and pornography (Kenneth Starr) pandering to the lowest impulses in society and instigating a witchhunt on par with the Salem Witch trials, the McCarthy era and the execution of Ethel Rosenberg? Then again it seems that modern historians are making the case that the war in Vietnam was justified, and won in fact, that Reagan singlehandedly toppled the Soviet Union, so anything can happen.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

Was Clinton impeached? That is new to me.

Yes, he was impeached.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

So when you are impeached you don't have to leave office? What is all this commotion about impeachment then about? Maybe it is just something the opposition can throw at you on a rainy day.

 

[delsully]

Originally posted by Benderino


No, I disagree. Though some of that is true, you have to take into account that we haven't been this partisan/polar opposites since the Civil War. Clinton did more to hold this nation together that Bush ever did (or at least less to tear it apart). Not in the last 6 or seven presidents has the encumbent gone into the election year with a 45% disapproval rating. Sure, that may not be half yet, but all the others had at least some moderates. People either love him, or they hate him. This isn't good.

With an attitude of your either "with us, or against us", is it any wonder why people don't gravitate towards him?

 

[Yago]

So when you are impeached you don't have to leave office? What is all this commotion about impeachment then about? Maybe it is just something the opposition can throw at you on a rainy day.

I think "impeachment" means the whole process. He was impeached, that means the process started. Not that he had to leave office.

"a peaceful civil war" I've read on some american site, that's what the Americans are in for some time. That description seems accurate to me, from what I've seen/read/heard.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Hellooo Sharpo.

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
So when you are impeached you don't have to leave office? What is all this commotion about impeachment then about? Maybe it is just something the opposition can throw at you on a rainy day.

Yago is correct.

When a President is impeached, it means only that the House of Representatives has charged him with a "high crime or misdemeanor".

He is then put on trial in the Senate, where 2/3 of the members must find him guilty for him to be removed from power. The Republicans did not have 2/3 of the Senate in their hands (they were pretty close, but not quite there) and they knew they couldn't get Clinton removed -- it was done solely to damage his credibilty, which it largely didn't.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Yago


I think "impeachment" means the whole process. He was impeached, that means the process started. Not that he had to leave office.

I see. Clinton was impeached. But the prosecutors case was too weak, so the charges had no consequences. Hmm. Maybe the footnote should say: "the republicans wasted a lot of taxpayers time and money on accusations which led nowhere".

 

[wildWolverine]

I acknowledge that this is encouraging the ongoing off topic debate here, but there seems to exist a major misconception dealing with the impeachment of President Clinton. While engaging in sexual acts with a subordinate is generally frowned upon in all areas of employment (military, business, government, etc.), and could result in the termination of a "normal" term of employment, it is most definitely not illegal. I strongly believe in the sanctity of marriage, and believe that cheating on a spouse is a very low and base act. However, again, it is not grounds for criminal proceedings (that pesky separation of church and state thing <sarcasm>). That said, perjury is illegal. President Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. Per our laws, such an act must be prosecuted. According to our system of government, no one person, including the President, is above the law. While it seemed like a cheap shot by congressional Republicans (and probably was a cheap shot by Kenneth Starr), what kind of precedent would it set if we did not enforce our laws equally and for everyone? We've left the horrors of the Bosses behind us. Let's not resurrect them.

Actually on topic: I consider myself to be nonpartisan with slight leanings toward the moderate right. I do not think that President Bush is fantastic, nor do I think that he is horrible; I rate him as above average. I find it very interesting that the supporters of Bush in this thread, i.e. rmsharpe, onejayhawk, et al have posted thoughtful, point by point arguments, while Bush's detractors seem to be fixated on inane points like bad public speaking skills or "I just have a bad feeling about him. No reason."

I think that much of the anger and hatred towards Bush stems from the outcome of the election in 2000. I find this perplexing. This is not the first time that the winner of the popular vote has not won the presidency (see John Quincy Adams vs. Andrew Jackson). An argument for the electoral college as is: without it, the city of Los Angeles would have the same voting power as the state of Michigan. I find that slightly scary (not least because I live in Michigan!). Many Bush opponents cite his apparent "disregard for the Constitution" in one breath while shouting in the next that we should have changed our election laws in the middle of an election just so the candidate that they supported (Gore) could win. I think the electoral college is a good thing. If you don't, and we change it, fine. I can live with that. But if we change in the midst of an election, our Constitution becomes a joke and we become no better than the "democracies" in Africa.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by MrPresident
I didn't think the Kyoto Protocol was ever put to a Senate vote. Admittedly that was due to the fact that the vote would probably result in a 99-0 verdict as you said. So either contradict me or correct your statement.

Sadly, I don't know where to find the exact number from U.S. Senate votes, but online it is listed as either being rejected 95 to 0 or 99 to 0. I've seen and heard it both ways (I would have said 95 earlier if I had remembered it) but am not sure which is correct.