Does anyone have anything positive to say about president Bush?

Sure.

He is not afraid to do what he believes is right.

He sticks to his convictions.

He does not try to run his administration based on polls.

Like it or not, he will act on something.

Examining those 4 points, he is a much better President than the one before him.


I don't agree with everything he has done but I certainly don't believe all hate filled rhetoric that is thrown at him is justified, either. But people who display conviction are often times villified. Some of his opponents claim that he is the worst President ever. They are entitled to their opinions but only time will tell how his Presidency will be remembered.

Boy Eric, I usually can find alot of common ground with you until right here. To even mention Bush's administration in the same breath as Clinton's is, in my opinion, somewhat agregious. Our current Prez is, for lack of a better term, awful, and sits there in the pantheon of Prez's at the bottom with Andrew Johnson and Herbert Hoover. There is nothing positive to talk about when it comes to Bush except for all of the punchlines he gives us on a daily bases

While I don't agree with everything Bush has done or said, I agree with what Eric has stated. With what Bush has had to deal with I think he has done an ok job.

Sorry Tebow, I have to disagree with your comments of Clinton, he was one of the worst, surpassed by Carter of course.

If Clinton had had a little more Texas bull in him and a little less Arkansas chicken, we may not have even gotten to this war. Clinton's presidency saw us attacked on several occasions, and never did anything about it.

Oh and lets not forget Monica.

This post has been edited by Vicki: Apr 9 2008, 07:42 AM

Why should one expect a President to be a saint or a devil when he is, after all, a person. Surely much of Bush's actions (whether one thinks them good or bad, effective or not) can be seen as reactions to the defining, critical moment in recent American history---one must give him credit for understanding how 9/11 changed our world.
Z

I don't think he gets how the world has changed at all. I think he's made us less safe from future terrorism and he has no clue about the middle east. He's a Prez who is self-serving for the oil companies and should be charged with war crimes. To think that anyone could defend him at this point absolutely scares me. Just my opinion

You initial comment about what we should expect I completely agree which is why I didn't care, at all, about the Monica Lewinsky situation. The Prez is not my "moral compass" my parents are.

I wasn't judging his morals, I'd be hard pressed to find a president who stayed on the right side of the sheets. HE LIED! That I can't condone.

Relying on bad information, is alot different than a bald faced lie.

I am going to ask you something and please be honest in your response.

The US Congress is controlled by the Democrats. Bush is their punching bag. I see people in interviews, blogs and all over the internet talking about how Bush has violated this, violated that ...blah, blah, blah.... Do you honestly think that if he was guilty of any of the things he is blamed with, that the US Congress wouldn't have his butt up on impeachment charges? It would be a pirranah feeding frenzy and Bush would be the entree'. If there was even a chance that he was guilty of any of the stuff he is being blamed with doing, there would be all kinds of stuff hitting the fan. If nothing else, that single point should really make anyone question the validity of any of these tossed around accusations.

If he is guilty of something, then someone present the facts and the evidence. Let's put the impeachment process in motion. That is why it is there. If he is guilty, then lets impeach him and remove him from office. If he is guilty of something, I think he should be impeached. Where is all of the evidence? Not rhetoric but evidence. Surely if he is guilty of just a fraction of what he is accused of, the evidence should be abundant. And if he is guilty and has not been charged with anything, what does that tell you? Tells me that the Dems on Capitol Hill are either too incompetent to do their job or they are complicit in the accusations. Where is the public outcry for all of this?

From the first day of his administration, leftists hated Bush. It would not have mattered what he did during his administration, to them it would have been wrong. Just because you disagree with someones policies and ideology doesn't make them evil, doesn't make them sinister and doesn't make them criminal. This is a common leftist tactic though. It is certainly your right to literally despise the man. You can call him a war criminal and all the other things that MoveOn and the other hate organizations can toss around. I hope that makes you feel better. But in the end, it is about facts and evidence. Not emotionally charged rhetoric about someone who was hated before he ever took office.

I like him when he's being goofy, he's a lot more likable that way.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6...500/6595517.stm


Get funkay, white boy.



Good luck getting through the locked door, Chief.




The problem with the administration is that they take the attitude that their directives can supersede or replace the realities of any given situation, no matter how dire they may be.
That and the various human rights violations.

The Congress now is controlled by the Democrats, but wasn't in 02-06 when all of his initial decisions on Iraq can easily be seen as war crimes. Simply put, in my opinion, Geroge Bush is a disgrace as a person and as a President and Kanye West may have been out of line saying what he said but he was absolutely right.

And you said that the left has hated Bush since the beginning, and I ask you, "why do you think that is?" Maybe because there is very little to like about him excpet for his goofiness

Tebow, we all now understand that you HATE George Bush, thats your right. Why do you hate? Is it because of the war? Is it because of Katrina? Is it because he is a republican?

That much anger is usually reserved for someone who does something personal to a person.

You really must remember, a president is just a little more than a figure head, there is a whole lot of other people involved in decision making, you must remember there is a House and a Senate. Many things are decided before it even reaches the presidents desk.

There is not a single President including the original George, that has not made unpopular decisions, or even wrong ones.

Just something to chew on.

But you did not answer the question....Do you honestly think that if he was guilty of any of the things he is blamed with, that the US Congress wouldn't have his butt up on impeachment charges? The point is that no matter when he may have committed anything, Congress can bring him up on charges. So, it makes no difference when the Democratic control of Congress began. Don't you think that they would bring him up on charges? Come on, be honest. You and I both know they would have roasted his butt alive.

As I said before, you are certainly free to dislike him. I will agree that he does not have great charisma and in the modern era of politics where every move you make is coveredy by either audio or video, that is certainly not a plus. Perhaps for some, that is enough reason to not like him. But that is based on emotion, not fact. And being short on charisma does not make him guilty of all the things for which he is accused. Don't you think the fact that he was a Bush and he was a Republician is probably the main reason leftists hate him so much? More often than not, leftists base their politics on emotion, not fact. So, if you simply do not like someone, then he must be guilty of X or Y and he must be evil. That type of ideology makes no sense.

Eric - as a tv-er from 'down under' I'm not too knowledgeable about a lot of US politics and personna, but I definitely agree that any judgement on whatever grounds about any person, place or thing has to be based on evidential fact to be acceptable for fair minded assessment. We have certain pollies that I really, really dislike and consider to be real 'sleazebags'.

This is based on my perception of various actions of theirs (particularly "smear and dirt" tactics used in the pre-election nausea) but also coloured emotionally by my reaction to their blatant lies and insincerity in many of their public "reasons" (read excuses) for the lack of action in so many vital areas of public needs.

Trouble is, if you stood them up in front of a tribunal that said "please explain" why the hospital and health care systems are so run down, why forward planning on traffic flows and public transport are so neglected etc., they would, and do, point to, and talk up, the miserable little that they have done in these areas, when it is so blatantly obvious that more 'politically expedient', short term projects have been given priority. And this is where it is so hard to gather the concrete facts that could really put them on the spot; cronyism, cover-ups, spin doctors and misdirection pretty much bamboozle the populace, while the "higher ups" of course stick together where there are areas of potential blame that they may be involved in sometime.

I guess it's the same world over - I suppose we must be glad that we haven't the incredible fiasco of "democracy" that some African Nations are suffering and that, while it may take time, we generally do eventually see some sort of retribution for pollies actual wrongdoing!

Mike, you do make some good points and I understand what you are saying. And you're probably right...Most likely it is this way the world over.

What you are describing is a politician avoiding issues that should be addressed. Basically, not doing the job that the people think he/she was elected to do. The point I was addressing is that many are calling Bush a criminal and that he has committed all sorts of atrocities. There is a big difference in the two. If you were a politician and I didn't think you were doing your job, I would certainly be correct in saying so because that is how I percieve it to be. But when you accuse someone of criminal activity, you need to have proof, not perceptions. If Bush is guilty of some criminal activity, then show the proof. If he is found guilty, then he should be punished. No person is above the law. But to call someone a war criminal without any evidence at all is nothing more than emotionally charged rhetoric and it is wrong. How would you feel if you were accused of something without proof?

Isn't it ironic that the very people who claim to be the ultimate champion of people's rights are the ones who are acting in this manner? Oh that's right, I forgot...It doesn't work that way if you don't agree with them.