In my opinion President George W. Bush is a wonderful president. He is doing the best he can in regards to the War Against Terror and everything that has happened to our country since September 11, 2001. I understand that people may not like him and that's okay because we can have our own opinion, but when it comes to calling him names and disrespecting him, it's completely unacceptable. HE IS THE PRESDIENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND HE DESERVES RESPECT!!!!! It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with him, you still need to treat him with the utmost respect because he is the Commander In Chief of the United States and the majority of Americans voted for him in 2004. Calling the President of the United States a foul word or comparing him to Hitler or Satan is completely unacceptable.
And why do people blame Bush for September 11 and say that he is the reason it happened? The only reason I could think of is that the peole who think that are completely ignorant and naive. Bush hadn't even been in office for eight months when the attacks occured. How the heck could he have been at fault? The terrorists had been planning the attacks WAY before Bush was probably even considering running for president. They were already in the United States in flight training before Bush even took office. So basically they were planning on running planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and only God know what else before Bush could have done anything to tick them off. Nothing Bush could have done or couldn't have done would have changed the terrorists' minds. How the heck is he at fault? Bill Clinton was president most of the period that all the preparation was taking place for September 11. He's more at fault than Bush is.
I don't agree with everything Bush has done but I agree with most of him actions including the War Against Terror. He is a man of integrity and he deeply cares for our wonderful country of America. I, for one, was extremely thankful that God blessed American with this man as our Commander In Chief until 2008. He is doing the best he can in the mist of people spitting hateful comments at him day-in and day-out. He continues to do what's best for American in spite of the fact that no matter what his actions he is still ridiculed. Bush is a great president!
Even if you don't care for Bush or his actions please give him the respect that he deserves. If John Kerry was our president right now I wouldn't like it at all but I would still respect him because of the office he would have held. And to all of you who say Bush is not your president, he is your president if you are a citizen of the United States.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I will not give somebody respect just because the majority of the country voted him to a certain position. That is no reason to respect someone. Popularity does not equal respect, no matter what position you get because of that popularity. Don't forget though, every president gets made fun of. Right around the 60's and 70's people started distrusting the government and holding them in less respect because the government was doing bad things. More and more middle class people grew up involved in criminal activity because the things they were doing became illegal. Then of course there was Watergate, perpetrated by a Republican with the same, "I do what I want," attitude as Bush.
I think Bush does what he honestly thinks is good for the country. I don't dispute that he seems to be doing what is right by him. I just think that his ideas are really, really wrong. He thinks the President can do whatever he wants, just like Nixon. Nothing the President does is illegal. He is immature, "I am the decider," honestly, that is just childish. I don't like his ideas about the way the country should be run, or the way he lies and promotes torture.
I would love to sit down with Bush and have a couple beers and have some good old amoral fun, but I don't want the dude running the country.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
Bush doesn't think that he can do anything because of his position. He doesn't have that kind of attitude. If anyone had that kind of attitude it was Clinton. And tell me why his ideas are so wrong. I'd like to know why the War Against Terrorism is wrong when the terrorists are the ones threatening us and I'd like to know why reducing taxes is so wrong. And I don't care if you didn't vote for Bush as president he still deserves your respect because of the office he holds. You don't disrespect a policeman if he pulls you over for something even if you don't agree with the reason he gives for pulling you over, do you? And he's not immature. How the heck is he immature. If anyone is immature it's Clinton because he's the one who screwed Monica in the White House. Just tell me why Bush is so immature and why his actions are so wrong!
First off, stop whining about Clinton. It is over people, he isn't president anymore, and by your logic the fact that he held that position means that you should show him the utmost respect. If I should respect Bush, then you should respect Clinton, but we don't. I don't think Clinton was a perfect president, but Monica isn't really addressing his abilities as a such. It is quite obvious that being a good person is not a requirement for being president, or even a good president.
I just really don't think winning a popularity contest means I have to respect a person. Not that campaigning is pure popularity, but just because a lot of people like someone doesn't mean I should show them respect. I don't think that any position is society deserves respect just because of the title. I don't care what uniform or badge you wear. You must earn my respect.
Bush does believe he can do whatever he wants. When the whole warrantless wiretap thing came to light part of his argument for not clearing it with anybody was that the President can do whatever he wants. He said that nothing the President does can be illegal. That is not right. He constantly puts forth legislation to allow the President to circumvent oversight or trys to make legal the illegal things he supports like torture and warrantless wiretaps.
A War on Terror just doesn't work. Seriously it is impossible to have a war on ideas or tactics. America loves to have wars on ideas and states of being and they just can't be won. The harder you clench your fist, the more terrorists get through or come into being. It is just as futile as the War on Drugs. Not to mention he used old intellignece that he knew was out of date and inaccurate to justify Iraq. I feel like Afghanistan was justified, but the evidence he presented to support Iraq was known to be wrong.
Let's stick to my example of, "I am the decider, and I decide what is good for America." I am pretty sure that is the quote, or at least the gist of it. It was in response to the idea that Rumsfeld should quit. THis kind of attitude, that he is the one who makes decisions, and when they are questioned he stomps his feet and tells you to shut up.
When he gets a question he doesn't want to answer he pretends not to hear it. He has big, extravagant photoshoots on aircraft carriers to celebrate the beginning of a long occupation. These are immature attitudes.
As to taxes, that is more political opinion than me thinking he is a bad President, or a bad person. I happen to agree with a graduated tax and I think that taxes spent properly are not a bad thing. I also understand arguments for a flatter tax and the whole "trickle down" theory. I just don't happen to agree.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
Okay, just because I said that stuff about Clinton doesn't mean that i didn't or don't give him respect. What I mean about respect means that you shouldn't call him a foul word or compare him to Hitler and Satan. I didn't call Clinton a foul word and wouldn't so I wasn't disrespecting him. I was simply not agreeing with what he did.
Also I'm not whining. It sounds like you're whining more than me. the Democrats are the ones whining.
And as for Bush having an "I can do whatever I want mentality", that's a bunch of crap. He doesn't feel that way at all. I'd like to know why the heck you think that because he hasn't made decisions without the consent of others because he can't. If you're educated with a president's responsibilities and what he can and can't do than you would know that. A President really can't do much at all without the consent of others. So get your facts straight on that.
And tell me why the War In Iraq isn't justified if the terrorists are the ones who attacked us first. We are over there to keep it from happening again. They were pissed and wanted to end America way before we set off the first bomb in Iraq. They don't care what we did or do, they will still hate us with every fiber of their being. I've seen actual clips of terrorists who say that they don't want to negotiate. So how the heck can we negotiate with them if they don't want to. It doesn't matter what we do they will still kill us. If we leave Iraq now then all the deaths of soldiers thus far will have been for nothing and the attacks will more than likely get worse. If we leave now then it'll show that we are a weak country and that we're scared of them. And to the old intelligence comment...we didn't just go to Iraq because of nuclear capability and Hussein. We went there because of September 11. Or did you forget about what those barbarians did on AMERICAN SOIL five years ago?
And Bush doesn't support torture!!!!! Tell me how he promotes torture. Please I would like to know!!! He doesn't support or promote it. There may be a VERY SMALL percentage of troops who torture in Iraq but Bush doesn't make them do it. He isn't the one who tortures; Hussein is the one who tortures or did torture. BUSH IS NOT A TORTURER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please get your facts straight before you comment on here again! Thank you!
Bush flat out admitted that the CIA has secret prisons where "alternative interrogation techniques" i.e. torture are used. He then supported and signed a bill that allows "alternative interrogation" to be used on SUSPECTED terrorists. This is torture. On top of that he and his administration have been pretty clear that they will do anything at all in the name of fighting terror. Is that clear enough to say that Bush supports torture?
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Not even Bush was crazy enough to say that. He said that they supported terrorists, not the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. People like you hear terrorist and immediately jump to 9/11. Afghanistan is the country we invaded because they directly supported the terrorist organization that commited 9/11. Get your facts straight. Not all terrorists are the same. There are certain ideals of justice that must be applied, and attacking everybody with certain views is not the way to suppot justice.
Furthermore, pouring bodies down a bottomless pit can't be justified because if we don't the people we poured down it before will have died in vain. That is the least valid justification for war I have ever heard.
I am perfectly aware of the duties and restrictions on Presidential power, which is why I think Bush flaunts those restrictions.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
"Not all terrorists are the same."
I have to disagree with you there.
Terrorists have one goal - to put fear into the hearts of those whom they feel deserve it and to kill those whom they feel deserve to die. They did a pretty good job of that on September 11th. Yes, I'm jumping straight to September 11th because it was a terrorist attack. I support any government action to prevent future terrorist attacks. Clearly the government is doing a good job so far since there hasn't been one since.
This is almost straight from the mouths of the administration.
"Terrorists have one goal - to put fear into the hearts of those whom they feel deserve it and to kill those whom they feel deserve to die." These are the goals of any military organization. We (America) want the terrorists to fear us. We constantly say that what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is to make the terrorists fear us so that they don't attack us again. We also kill terrorists quite often because we feel that they deserve to die.
There are Sunni terrorists, Shiite terrorists, Christian terrorists and Hindu terrorists. While their tactics may be similar, their goals quite often aren't except at the most basic level you describe. At that basic level almost any grouping of organizations caould be called "all the same."
I could say "all corporations are the same, they want to make money." Now, this is basically true, but it is so basic that it is essentially meaningless. There are so many different ways and perspectives used to make money that the basic goal of "making money" isn't a particularly strong unifying factor.
You say that we haven't had any more terrorist attacks. I am sure that what you meant to say was that we haven't had any more foreign terrorist attacks on American soil. England and Spain have been targeted by terrorists. American soldiers are attacked on a daily basis by people whom we dub "terrorists." So, yes, you are safe and sound in your home, but the terrorists ability to attack the West has not been hindered much.
Before 9/11 when was the last time that foreign terrorists managed an attack on American soil? The lack of another large terrorist attack isn't necessarily because of our "war on terror" but because it has always been very difficult to mount terrorist attacks. They are not a monthly occurence in America, or a regular occurence on any time scale, so the lack of one since 9/11 isn't any indication of success or failure anyway.
"Terrorist" is a loaded term used to lump together groups that range from little more than street gangs to internationally funded and politically savvy organizations. And, as I said, their goals are those of any military organization. The media focuses on the suicide bombers and children with AK-47's because those are foreign concepts to Western thinking. Each organization has its own goals and methods and beliefs and targets.
Even within the Al-Quadea organization there is dissent as to whether only Jews and Westerners should be targeted or simply all those of differing faith.
THis is a big kid world with big kid problems. The news is not a Saturday morning cartoon show with "good guys" and "bad guys." Terrorism and war are more complicated than GI Joes and the evil Cobra. While the terrorists are certainly what I would consider "bad" in most cases,they are not all the same, and they are not pure evil.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principals."
If the terrorists didn't attack us on 9/11 then who the hell did attack us? Osama Bin Laden is a friggin terrorist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And there are facts that Iraq is linked to terrorism and 9/11. And all terrorists are the same. They all hate Americans and will do anything to harm us. Did you mean to say that not all Muslims are the same because that's more logical.
I'm also not saying that I like war. I think that it's horrible and heinous but sometimes it's necessary like in the situation right now. And my justification of the war isn't the least valid justification of the war regarding the deaths of soldiers. I was basically saying that if we leave now and don't finish what we set out to do then everything will go back to the way if was before we arrived in Iraq, and it'll probably even be worse. So if nothing is accomplished then the soldiers who have died will have died for nothing. Don't you dare tell me that's not a valid justification!
BUSH CAN'T FLAUNT HIS RESTRICTIONS!!!! He can't because the Senate and the House wouldn't let him!