What makes you dislike/hate Pres. Bush?

[cleanupguy]

When it comes to American security, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks. Yes, I think we can just make all the rules ourselves. I also think that countries that cave to terrorist pressure, do business with terrorists or just bury their heads in the sand cannot be counted amongst our allies.

Is that why we are suddenly allies with Pakistan because Pakistan is so good at lookinkg after American interests? Um.. who sold the nuclear secrets to N. Korea and Iran? I'm pretty sure in this regard USA is burying its head in the sand.

 

[DurfBarian]

When it comes to American security, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks. Yes, I think we can just make all the rules ourselves. I also think that countries that cave to terrorist pressure, do business with terrorists or just bury their heads in the sand cannot be counted amongst our allies.

I'll guess that "cave to terrorist pressure" refers to Spain, which got attacked by Al Qaeda and is doubling its troop presence in the country where Al Qaeda's leaders actually are. Feel free to whine about the Spanish decision to leave the unrelated fighting two countries over, though.

It's a lonely, violent road you're hoping America will take. Luckily there's plenty of sand to go around . . . room for all our heads if need be.

When it comes to having illegal contracts with Saddam, you bet I will.

Consider, yes. Surrender to, no. I like that Bush doesn't give into to peer pressure. That and he looks beyond his term. Think about that.

No, I am not that stupid. Thanks for asking. :thumbsup:

As I have said time and time again, I am looking to the long term. Maybe his plan wont' work. But what if it does?

Those "illegal contracts" would have been illegal in the eyes of the UN, that august world body that America respects and supports so much these days.

If you think Bush is looking beyond his time in office you must be looking at a different Bush . . . although I will admit that every decision the White House makes for the next half year will be based on looking beyond term #1 and ensuring that he can get term #2 as well. As for "peer pressure," the international community isn't a goddamn high school filled with kids offering cigarettes; it's a complex place with lots of gray tones, and painting it in black and white (and failing to even list the industrialized, democratic members on the white side) strikes me as a dumb idea . . . But hey, maybe Pakistan and the CARs are just the kind of repressive autocracies that America wants on its side since the ones that helped it win the Cold War are such terrible choices as friends now.

I don't think you're stupid. I think Bush is horribly misguided and people who support him blindly are deluded. I wonder how firmly the people with whom I interact here are in that camp.

Turning our back on friends of 50 or more years and flinging American fighting men into unwinnable battles isn't my idea of "looking to the long term."

 

[ash2ash]

I don't hate him.

I just don't agree with his policies, so I won't be voting for him, and I will argue with other people to try to convince them to do the same.

 

[jimmyboy]

I like him as a person, because he's probably a real nice and funny guy. I could ever forgive him for being stupid. But I can't forgive him for being a wimp.

He can't say no to Rumsfeld, Chenney, and his own extreme far right. I wish he could take charge instead of letting people that we never elected run the white house. Get a backbone. Control your people! He should fire Chenney and bring his father in as vice president. THen maybe he'd get my vote.

 

[MithrandirX]

Is that why we are suddenly allies with Pakistan because Pakistan is so good at lookinkg after American interests? Um.. who sold the nuclear secrets to N. Korea and Iran? I'm pretty sure in this regard USA is burying its head in the sand.

We're allies with Pakistan because we need their cooperation to mount continued operations against AQ on the Pakistan-Afghan border. Are you stupid? I thought this was pretty obvious.

Um.. who sold the nuclear secrets to N. Korea and Iran?

Bill Clinton. Those days are over.

 

[MithrandirX]

I'll guess that "cave to terrorist pressure" refers to Spain, which got attacked by Al Qaeda and is doubling its troop presence in the country where Al Qaeda's leaders actually are. Feel free to whine about the Spanish decision to leave the unrelated fighting two countries over, though.

Nope. Try again. I was referring to countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, who allow extremists in their country to dictate national policy. Spain is just weak-willed, but not a willing-ally of terror like the countries above.

 

[maccool]

If Bill Clinton translates into Abdul Qadeer Khan in Urdu, Pashto or one of the 6 other languages they speak in Pakistan, then yes, it's Clinton's fault. If not, you're misinformed, Mith.

 

[Backdoor Bandit]

I can't say I hate him, rather I am scared of his decisions. I clearly see him as a threat to the well-being of many people.

Other than that, I find his lack of intelligence amusing. In addition, it is extremely funny to see how he is convinced of his arguments.
In fact, I change my mind: I do hate him. I don't want to waste my energy on this guy. Little scumbags don't get my attention. Down with this man!

-Backdoor Bandit

 

[MithrandirX]

If Bill Clinton translates into Abdul Qadeer Khan in Urdu, Pashto or one of the 6 other languages they speak in Pakistan, then yes, it's Clinton's fault. If not, you're misinformed, Mith.

It was Bill Clinton's relaxation of security policies concerning dual-use technology (i.e. nuclear power) that allowed the sale and exportation of nuclear secrets and materials to NK. You're misinformed, maccool.

Also, I'm pretty sure "Bill Clinton" translates into "Big Pimpin'" in Pashtu.

 

[maccool]

It was Bill Clinton's relaxation of security policies concerning dual-use technology (i.e. nuclear power) that allowed the sale and exportation of nuclear secrets and materials to NK. You're misinformed, maccool.

In repsonse to the question: who sold the nuclear secrets to N. Korea and Iran?

You responded: Bill Clinton.

That is an incorrect and simplisitc answer. You know that. Especially since most people believe it was Pakistan, and more specifically A.Q. Khan that sold the technology to the DPRK and perhaps Iran.

Here, peep this There's a whole lot more to it than just blaming the Slickster; but, it's always fun to blame him.

Edit: Big Pimpin' = comedy gold!

 

[cleanupguy]

We're allies with Pakistan because we need their cooperation to mount continued operations against AQ on the Pakistan-Afghan border. Are you stupid? I thought this was pretty obvious.



Bill Clinton. Those days are over.

Your simplistic approach to life and politics in general displays your ignorance and is rather laughable. What says about USA to discard old friends and make new friends because we happen to be in need of them? Also, blaming everything that is bad on Clintons is so 1990's and rather tiring.

Lastly, your condescension and outright name calling is rather vexing. Do us a favor and you either argue your points without name calling, or keep your mouth shut. Thank you.

 

[IDupedInMyPants]

Spain is just weak-willed, but not a willing-ally of terror like the countries above.

If Spain were weak-willed, don't you think they would have, I don't know, maybe not doubled their troops hunting AQ members? Or maybe they would have accepted the truce bin Laden offered?

When's the last time you heard about Afghanistan or the hunt for bin Laden in the news, by the way? As far as I'm concerned Spain has a stronger will against terrorism than the US, especially when you consider that Spain's right there waist deep in it and easily vulnerable to more.

 

[Freemason]

The answers given here are pretty much the same given everywhere.

He's hated because of his religious beliefs.
He's hated because he symbolizes the right in the culture war.
He's hated because he understands the terrorists are at war with us and commenced to fight the war.

That sums it up doesn't it?

 

[SuggestiveName]

The answers given here are pretty much the same given everywhere.

He's hated because of his religious beliefs.
He's hated because he symbolizes the right in the culture war.
He's hated because he understands the terrorists are at war with us and commenced to fight the war.

That sums it up doesn't it?

You forgot complaints about environmental and economic policies. Nice colors though.

 

[nnndave]

The answers given here are pretty much the same given everywhere.

He's hated because of his religious beliefs.
He's hated because he symbolizes the right in the culture war.
He's hated because he understands the terrorists are at war with us and commenced to fight the war.

That sums it up doesn't it?

one more,

He's hated because he won the 2000 election!!!

(don't ask why the color :bonk: )

 

[MithrandirX]

Your simplistic approach to life and politics in general displays your ignorance and is rather laughable. What says about USA to discard old friends and make new friends because we happen to be in need of them? Also, blaming everything that is bad on Clintons is so 1990's and rather tiring.

Lastly, your condescension and outright name calling is rather vexing. Do us a favor and you either argue your points without name calling, or keep your mouth shut. Thank you.

The U.S. isn't discarding old friends. If countries like France and Germany don't want to fight the war on terror, that's their business. They will still be huge trading partners and our allies. As for making new friends (i.e. Pakistan and Qatar) I think it is always a good idea to court new allies. It is also heartening to see moderate Arab states take a stand against terrorists.

I don't blame everything on Bill Clinton. I LIKE Bill Clinton. He would be the first guy I wanted in my fraternity! I know that hindsight is 20/20, but relaxing our policy on dual-use technology was a bad idea.

Also, I haven't called anyone a name, doodooface.

Mith

 

[Module88]

He's not attacking it diplomatically. He's declared war on it and is invading every country he thinks terrorists are living. If he were trying to attack its roots, he would change his foreign policy that's pissing everyone off in the first place and is the real root of terrorism.

I wasn't referring to Iraq. I was referring to his former allies such as France and most of Europe. He demands every other nation go along with his crusade and when they express doubts about it suddenly they're on the outs. It's as if he expects every nation to agree with whatever America decides is right.

He doesn't think everyone is subject to his Christian morality? Is that why he's said repeatedly that he'd change the constitution to ban homosexual marriage and why schools that teach sexual education instead of abstinence are refused federal funding? Sure, he never imposes his own morality on the public...

Ah, well I don't see us invading Libya, Iran, etc etc. So then, your first statement is false. The second one, well, what are you going to do? Say the US will pull out of Iraq? No can do (If you really need an explanation, ask, but I'm trying to keep things simple). Trying to attack the roots, well, Bush can't do everything. The United States has already promised to defend Israel, Pakistan, and India. While that causes problems for us, he can't MAKE Israel disappear without invading it, which would in turn reduce the credibility of the United States. There are a lot more implications to doing something than you obviously see, so just because Bush hasn't done something doesn't mean it was because he is stubborn about it (though it may be the case). Bush has made mistakes as a president, and I don't see him fit as one, but calling him a moron because of what he didn't or did do doesn't make any difference at all. Either way, people are going to dislike him.

 

[jmervyn]

To recap:

He's hated because of his religious beliefs.
He's hated because he symbolizes the right in the culture war.
He's hated because he understands the terrorists are at war with us and commenced to fight the war.
complaints about environmental and economic policies
he won the 2000 election!

Of these, only suggestive's item really holds any water IMHO, though obviously there are those on this forum who strongly contend the war issue. Most of the responses are on an emotional level, with people choosing to believe things about Shrub with less than verifiable grounds.

Heck, it isn't inherently evil to do so. I felt the same way about Clinton - after all, none of the things he/she did or probably did resulted in his impeachment. I just think this "through the looking glass" effect is interesting, when the same sort of hand wringing hyperbole is used by the same people who fought against its use with the prior president.

Shame on Shrub for giving so many opportunities, though. Dole would have been far better.