FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


President bush





DSF-Deathcycle121
Do you think hes a total blow off or a good president. I chose that hes a good president but he can be blowoff at the same time
Soulfire
Overall, he's been an okay president. Not the best, but certainly not the worst.

The problem is, most people try to pin every single little problem in the nation on the president, even if it isn't his fault. Some of the left was blaming him for Hurricane Katrina. Oh yes, Bush just called up mother nature and ordered that one.

And September 11, 2001. It was a tragedy, and again, Bush was blamed for it. Yeah, he called up Al Queda and ordered it (again!). Man, he must really hate this country. Past administrations (democrats) have had just as much of a chance to stop it as anyone else.

So, okay, we keep being attacked. Let's see. Should we sit here and take it? Or should we fight back? Bush wanted to fight back. But no, the left says that that would make things "bad." We should just sit here and accept all terrorist attacks, brush them off, no matter how much blood of the innocent is spilled.

And again, maybe we shouldn't have gone to war. But we are, we did, and we will be for the near future (at least). We cannot simply "pull out" now, as Iraq will collapse on itself. And with the threat of civil war looming, we don't want that.
Vrythramax
Speaking strictly for myself...I don't like him and I think he's more dangerous than your common run of the mill idiot, as he is an idiot with power. I didn't vote for him then and if I had it all over to do again....I STILL wouldn't vote for him! Is he the worst, probably not...but there has certainly been better (just for the record, I didn't like some of them either). I am just glad he going to be leaving office soon enough...maybe the next guy will get us out of this war bullshi*....unless of course there is a profit in keeping it going, then we are screwed again Sad

More and more it seems (to me anyway) that we don't really vote for the guy that's going to the best for the country, we vote for the guy that's going to screw us the least.
Devil
i would say bush is not a great leader , but he has done a amazing job as president , just think what would have happened if kerry was elected , Laughing

Bush has taken the fight to the terrorists in thier own homes , while keeping america safe , let the whole world hate him for going to war , but 10 years later ,the same iraq will thank america ,

to tell the truth ,even today iraqis like the americans , it is the terrorists from other countries ,from other countries who are fighting in iraq's name ,
lyndonray
I will agree with Soulfire that Bush does get blamed for some things that he shouldn't be blamed for. but then again as the president the buck stops with you. And that's what was the deal with Katrina. His administration failed to take the threat seriously enough and then failed to respond quickly enough. Simple.

As for 9/11. It's unfair to blame him for it. it still would have happened if Gore had been president. but what made it bad was the fact that bush was busy vacationing in Crawford, when he was briefed on the threat. You have to agree, that doesn't look too good.

But his biggest screw up is Iraq! And there are people out there who think america is safer. I don't know if it's dillusion or denial. America is the most hated country in the world right now. How can you be safe if practically everyone hates you? homeland security is not where it should be. Containers arriving in US ports are still not being thoroughly checked. It's a mess. And then there is Iraq. Talk about opening a big ol' can filled with nasty worms. That was a monumental screw up! I can't think of a bigger screw up!

I hope that things will get better in Iraq and peace will be found. But it doesn't look that way. There was a string of bombs this past weekend that killed dozens of people. And there are people like Rumsfeld saying that things aren't that bad. What the hell is his definition of bad.

Bush's legacy has a lot to do with Iraq. If Iraq self-destructs, there goes a huge chunk of his legacy. The other chunk is the state of the U.S. economy when he is done. Clinton quite a nice little surplus there. What will Bush leave the next guy?
parentaladvisory
hes not a great president, but he does do something. i mean, a war is not an easy thing to order and control, yet he has a lot of room for improvemnt. he is the lesser of 2 evils. kerry would not have been as good of a president
Soulfire
He didn't respond fast enough to Katrina?

They told citizens a few days in advance to leave, it was going to be catastrophic, that there would be tons of damage, that this was a worst case scenario.

The people ignored him.

Then, when they are stuck in the middle of a flooded city, they blame president Bush for not leaving - when it's their fault. So everyone just goes along with the blame game and keeps pointing fingers.

What did you want Bush to do? Knock on every door and personally see that everyone got out?

I really with the libs would let this one go, I mean it's March of the next year and I hear on LIBERAL news "New developments in why Bush was so slow to responding to Katrina."

Okay, what are we, third graders? The city is drained and rebuilding, the hurricane is long gone - what the hell else are you going to do?

Only the lefts.

lyndonray wrote:
But his biggest screw up is Iraq! And there are people out there who think america is safer. I don't know if it's dillusion or denial. America is the most hated country in the world right now. How can you be safe if practically everyone hates you? homeland security is not where it should be. Containers arriving in US ports are still not being thoroughly checked. It's a mess. And then there is Iraq. Talk about opening a big ol' can filled with nasty worms. That was a monumental screw up! I can't think of a bigger screw up!

I hope that things will get better in Iraq and peace will be found. But it doesn't look that way. There was a string of bombs this past weekend that killed dozens of people. And there are people like Rumsfeld saying that things aren't that bad. What the hell is his definition of bad.

Bush's legacy has a lot to do with Iraq. If Iraq self-destructs, there goes a huge chunk of his legacy. The other chunk is the state of the U.S. economy when he is done. Clinton quite a nice little surplus there. What will Bush leave the next guy?

Well, if you had the intelligence that you had (saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction) and that Saddam was a major threat to the United States... would you just sit back and wait for him to nuke us?

My guess would be not.

Now, that is not to say there wasn't a mistake, because the intelligence could've been screwed up, but why blame Bush for that?

There's just so many contributing factors, and people fail to even try to scratch the surface before making up their minds and hating Bush.

I guess the fact that an evil dictator (who would've killed thousands of Americans in the future, if not more) was removed from power counts for nothing.

And the only reason Clinton left us a surplus was because his affair with Monica Lewinski generated so much cash in paparazzi, newspapers, television, and other media. The economy was booming all over that!
Blaster
He is a compleate screw up. He is the first president to go into a country without the UN's approvel. He went into Iraqu (however you spell it) to finish up what his daddy didn't. Hoover got blamed more then Bush and Hoover didn't do as bad as a job. (Hoover was the president during the great depresion). We let an idiot into office and then elected him for another 4 years.

FDR was our best president for shure. He showed that he could run an office even with his disabilty. He lasted through a war too. He lasted 4 terms in office.

Plus FDR didn't fail the thrid grade his first time around. Yes that is the ****** you voted in office. A person that failed thrid grade.
hwwgandolf
If people would read the constituton they woul know that who ever was presidant can't make law, start a war, respond to crisis, etc. without the approvel of the house , senate and congress. The presidant is just a figure head anyway.
nopaniers
I'm not American, so I can only really say what I think about his foreign policy.

Bush is one of the worst leaders in my lifetime. Starting a war in Iraq was a horrible, short-sighted thing to do. He distorted and lied to do it, and has created a problem which will take many years if not decades to fix. I feel sorry for the many thousands of dead and injured Iraqis who are pawns in his game... and now have an unstable and unsafe country to live in and try to repair. His whole policy is misguided. He ignores diplomacy and reaches straight for the gun. Not only are unprovoked invasions immoral, they don't work.

He has also reversed American policy on human rights. Previous US adminstrations (from both sides of US politics) would be appauled at the idea of secret prisons, torture, or Guantanamo. They would have been the first to condemn them, and I respected them for that. I can't believe that these are now US policies, because I feel like I'm talking about the USSR not the USA. That is horrible. What does the US stand for if it violates these principles?

He is completely wrong about greenhouse. I think the US and Australia's position on climate change is unfortunate, and generations in the future will remember our generation as selfish squanderers.

I suspect that Bush as a person is not so bad. His policies are terrible though. The world united behind the US after 9/11 (which nobody could foresee), but even this unity they managed to destroy. The Bush administration has been terrible for the world. I can only hope that the next US president brings back some sanity to a once respected country.
hwwgandolf
I kind of doubt that will happen. It's all about the money anymore. Who can pay the most to get what they want. I dont see anything good happening to this country as long as money is the controling factor in what gets done and how it uis.
lyndonray
Soulfire wrote:

Well, if you had the intelligence that you had (saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction) and that Saddam was a major threat to the United States... would you just sit back and wait for him to nuke us?

My guess would be not.


You see that's the problem right there, the administration cherry-picked the intelligence to suit their agenda. They said Saddam was looking for material to help with his nuclear program in Niger, when ambassador Joe Wilson already had told them there was no such thing. And then they went even further and included it in the State of the Union Address. They wouldn't listen to weapons inspectors such as Scott Ritter, who was there in 1998, when he told them Saddam didn't have wmd. He told them it was practiaclly impossible for Saddam to re-constitute his weapons program without the US knowing. For goodness sakes man, they controlled most of the air space over Iraq!! Remeber the north and south no-fly zones? Yeah, the US controlled those!!

instead they got their intelligence from idoits like Ahmed Chalabi, who sold his own mother for a 1988 Nissan Skyline! (OK he didn't, but he probably would) They told counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke to look for a link between 9/11 and Saddam after the attacks. After he repeatedly told them there was no link they simply ignored him. I could go on and on and on.

These guys, your guys screwed it up. I wish you would all just stop denying it. When that war drum beat started banging in the summer of 2002, I knew something fishy was up. How did they suddenly go from kicking a** in Afghanistan to talk of another war in Iraq?? Come on man. These guys had and have an agenda and they just twisted the intelligence to suit that agenda. But I didn't buy it. not for a second. neither did the millions, literally, who protested and marched against the war the in the spring of 2003. You guys got taken for a ride! And some of you are still on it, refusing to get off!

Soulfire wrote:

And the only reason Clinton left us a surplus was because his affair with Monica Lewinski generated so much cash in paparazzi, newspapers, television, and other media. The economy was booming all over that!


No way!! I thought it was because of Clinton's great team of economic advisors that the u.s experienced its biggest economic expansion. You mean to tell me it was because of Monica all along??!!! Oh my god!! I seriously need to go back to Syracuse and redo my undergrad!!! Better yet, they should give me my money back!! Thanks for enlightening me dude!!! Wink Wink Wink
rwojick
I think President Bush responded poorly to 9-11, but then, who wouldn't?

The war in Iraq was a mistake, and it was made because we did not follow our own system.

If Bush had evidence, as he said on TV, then it was his "burden of proof" to package the evidence and present it to Saddam and to a Court. Had he done this first (of course, this would have been impossible as the evidence never materialized) then we would not have gone to Iraq.

I have said it before and I will say it again. There are inherent wisdoms in our legal system that you can only become aware of IF, and this is a very big if, you are willing to set your prejudices aside and run the the system.

We did not do that and we did the world a disservice in the process
ocalhoun
DSF-Deathcycle121 wrote:
Do you think hes a total blow off or a good president. I chose that hes a good president but he can be blowoff at the same time

Question 1: What does this have to do with world news?
Question 2: Where is the link to the source?
SunburnedCactus
ocalhoun wrote:
Question 1: What does this have to do with world news?
Question 2: Where is the link to the source?


Answer 1: Not much
Answer 2: <insert liberal blog here>

Wink
Blaster
It doesn't have to deal with world news but it is an interesting topic.
Soulfire
Yes, well, regardless of your views on the President and/or the war in Iraq, He still is the President, and we're still in Iraq. Nothing you can really do. How about, instead of crossing your arms, pouting, and complaining about it - you come up with a withdrawl strategy or something.

To just completely leave Iraq would be senseless now, it would collapse onto itself.
Jeslyn
As much as I would love to wave the "President Bush sucks" flag and blame him for every little thing, I can't. Yes, there has been numerous problems under his administration, but he is not the "supreme" ruler of the country. He is more of a figurehead.
The country is based on balances, the president cannot do anything, beit "good or bad" without getting majority approval from other government officals - who are at the moment, using the president as a scapegoat.
Lennon
Yes exactly, you have your vote, he has the majority vote. Live with it.

Thank God I don't have to put up with him in Ireland though Razz
Billy Hill
He's a damn sight better than anything the Dems have thrown into the mix in the last several elections. Wink
Kris1972
Billy Hill wrote:
He's a damn sight better than anything the Dems have thrown into the mix in the last several elections. Wink


IMHO he is the greater of 2 evils. He is what is know as a warmonger. His financial protfolio is stocked full of oil companies and defense contract so he tends to guide foreign policy in the directions that allow his partners to profit. His father once told hime to make sure his time in office left the offfice of the president stronger than it was when he took office.

now the country has a bad/fragile ecoenmy, at war on 2 fronts and is scorned by the rest of the world. I grew up in the USA and served in Gulf War v1.0 then moved overseas and was shocked to learn that no one else really likes the USA or wants to live there other than to earn some fast cash then go back home.

Dubya ( G.Bush Jr.) has taken a strong economy and a somewhat improved world reputation and screwwed it up again. I personally will vote and have voted against him in every election and am glad he will be gone soon. But then again he might just change the rules....
pefaja
many different points of view.
I think he's a lil bit funny (does anyone remember how he almost get choked? Laughing ).
But all in all every president, king or prime minister had bad and good aspects while ruling.

ps. i don't really like when ppl say "George W. Bush? He's so merciful! God may bless him!"
Biodiesel
So much hate for liberals. Last time I checked my liberal friends were still Americans. Maybe I just don't read enough politics to work up a nasty hate for my countrymen.
r_y_e_20
Bushes policies were all sucks, especially in Iraq. Bushes coz Father and son were both warfreak. So what happened with their invasion of iraq? Its really easy to convince people with CNN on your side, but behind all are iraqis being abused as well as their resources. Iraq is bettter when Saddam is there.
Blaster
I honestly think bush likes seeing people get killed. Really he has messed up america so bad right now. It was reasonble to go to afganistain but not Iraq. He is just a screw up trying to fix what his dad messed up.
Srs2388
I think he is a bad president and at times a good one
like soulfire said every problem in the nation can't be pinned upon the president....
but... however some can... this war that the US is in I think he wants more oil... and to make more money and to drain the pockets of the average ameican and to fill his...
i am not an anarchist though by all means if chaney would have been elected i think it would have been worse...
he was for alot of things i am against
one thing (abortion) ======= do not get into this subject just saying thats one thing... that would lead to alot of violent protest's
the oil issue might not of been as bad though...
if you think about it oil should be alot cheaper not just because you want it to be because they have so damn much in the reserve
but im going to laugh my ass off when there is a car that needs 0 oil to run the companys will be begging for bussiness then......
lyndonray
I feel sorry for the next president. Poor guy (or gal for that matter) is going to have quite a mess to clean up while Dubya is relaxing at crawford hunting armadillas and deciding on the colour scheme for his presidential library.
Diebels
I think he is a complete muppet with an iq below a slice of bread. Bush is not in control of his goverment. It΄s more like his advisers (Rumsfeld & co) who is controlling the country. They are political heavyweight and worked before with Bush sen. George W. damaged the reputation of the US in such a huge scale that it will take a long time to restore
Scorpio
parentaladvisory wrote:
hes not a great president, but he does do something. i mean, a war is not an easy thing to order and control, yet he has a lot of room for improvemnt. he is the lesser of 2 evils. kerry would not have been as good of a president


He may be the lesser of 2 evils, but an evil nevertheless.

Americans are so proud of their country that they perceive everything what the country does is right.

Well, I aint no preacher and I aint gonna try and change that.

But nobody knows what kerry might have done if he had become the president. He may have done somethings better and somethings worse but the fact is that both are Politicians and do what they want to.

But we concern ourselves with bush alone because he is ruling
Scorpio
Quote:
Bush has taken the fight to the terrorists in thier own homes , while keeping america safe , let the whole world hate him for going to war , but 10 years later ,the same iraq will thank america ,


Quote:
to tell the truth ,even today iraqis like the americans , it is the terrorists from other countries ,from other countries who are fighting in iraq's name ,

Coming to the topic, George Bush has not made America any safer than it was during 9/11. in fact, worse.


Iraq will never thank Bush, not in the next millenium.
Motherland is important for every person. Even if the motherland is ruled by a tyrant, they might hate the tyrant but not their country.

Bush has not liberated Iraq, he is only trying to make America Richer.

Nobody liberates a country and in the process causes bloodshed and loss of life which, as a matter of fact is more than what had been caused by the tyrant regime
tonk
Only Bush sign in India a document to colaborate in nuclera resesarch, and then make an oficial visit to Iran.

Iran and India have been enemies, so if Bush sign that document means USA is vs Iran and then he goes there.

Is so stupid, and he also said that he has never seen Osama, is that he forgot that everyone see they together in farenheit 911?

He is making an empire in all the world, killing people for this.
And what is doing in the south border?. All these migrants are who really move USA.

I am disappointed with his politics.
TurkishGamer
I think that Bush might be hiding something. He goes to Iraq to stop nuclear weapons but nothing there. Takes the oil. Pretends to destroy some of it so the prices would go up.and controls media to stop anybody from questioning.

-just opinion
thpn
Sure, Bush may be a good guy and he might me a good politician but one thing goes stright: Bush Should Never Be President.

1. Septmber 11, 2001: Our President, George Walker Bush, is sitting in his helicopter with the thought of 'I don't know what the f*** to do!'.
2. August 30, 2005: Our President, George Walker Bush, is surveying the damage from the Hurricane Katrina and thinking 'S***, who can I blame?'.
3. February 21, 2006: Our President, George Walker Bush, vows to veto any law denying his plan to sell US ports to known Arab Terrorists.

In ending, Bush is a complete and total dushbag.

But, you can't blame me...I voted for Kerry!
diverden
Bush is the most divisive and destructive president in recent memory. He has two modes which are inter-connected, hunker down and stay the course. Hunker down is what a buffalo does when they get into a circle to protect their young, just in case you think that is a great defense, look at what happened to the bison or buffalo. " Stay the course" is equally inane and insane. It is the same quote that was attributed to Custer, the commander at San Juan Hill, the captain of the Titanic and other commanders of note, even LBJ during Vietnam wanted to stay the course because we were winning. His idea of environmental progress is changing the clean air act to allow more pollution not less. His idea for fuel savings is to drill in the Anwar, which at best would give us about a year of fuel, easier to give business another oil windfall than to provide meaningful funding for alternative fuels, but as a Texan and republican I am sure he has a lot of friends in the oil business. Lest we forget that he wants to make the tax cuts permanent so that the wealthiest 2% who are helping to export US jobs to other countries can continue to flourish. I could go on but I guess I have bashed him enough, and remember his latest fiasco, long live NAFTA, good for America.
Soulfire
Is there a point to bashing Bush? Your comments have no purpose, your comments are mostly unjustified, and at the end of the day... Bush is still in the White House.

What does it matter? Democrats... wait 'till 2008, start your bashing and mudslinging then. Nothing can change who is in power, and I would like to see any of you do better, faced with the circumstances Bush has been faced with.

But whatever, just my opinion.
ralphbefree
Personally, I ethically have to disagree with many descisions that the Bush Administration have made. The fact-of-the-matter is that I don't know the man personally and therefore I don't know how we interact personally so I cannot comment on if I like him or not. But on the matter of do I trust him, especially in the capacity of my president: H*LL No!
George Herbert Walker Bush
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Herbert_Walker )
patriarch of the Bush Legacy started his business in the 1930's and located it at #1 Wall St. New York. influential in the modern 20th century corporate revolution he, as well as his grandson George Herbert Walker Bush, was also heavily involved with a "secret" society called Skull and Bones in which they call themselves "bonesmen". Fellow members of this society seem to be leading world business and political leaders. The close ties with the huge multi-corp Haliburton and the Bush administration as well with thier ties to a "society" that is not publically monitored leads me to my distrust of the current president.
Sebaci
Some sources say that Bush is son of Satan... maybe it's truth. Bush is one of the reasons of wars
Soulfire
Sebaci wrote:
Some sources say that Bush is son of Satan... maybe it's truth. Bush is one of the reasons of wars

Your claims are outrageous and completely unjustified. Bush didn't cause the war, but it's easy to point fingers, isn't it.
Sebaci
Soulfire wrote:
Sebaci wrote:
Some sources say that Bush is son of Satan... maybe it's truth. Bush is one of the reasons of wars

Your claims are outrageous and completely unjustified. Bush didn't cause the war, but it's easy to point fingers, isn't it.

He shouldn't send the soldiers to Iraq, it begins more wars. USA will be attacked soon, so USA will attack too.

PS: Sory that style of my post is poor, but I'm polish and my engish es weak
Soulfire
Sebaci wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
Sebaci wrote:
Some sources say that Bush is son of Satan... maybe it's truth. Bush is one of the reasons of wars

Your claims are outrageous and completely unjustified. Bush didn't cause the war, but it's easy to point fingers, isn't it.

He shouldn't send the soldiers to Iraq, it begins more wars. USA will be attacked soon, so USA will attack too.

PS: Sory that style of my post is poor, but I'm polish and my engish es weak

So you're telling me that, based on the information we had (intelligence was saying that there were nuclear weapons), we should have just sat here and done nothing about it?

Bush sending soldiers did not cause the war, the cause of the war was the intelligence that the various agencies had, although not accurate (yet), that is the best they could do. Based on what they were saying (nuclear weapons, dangerous!) we went to war there.

And, a lot of people seem to "overlook" the removal of a tyrannical dictator who tortured his own population.
i_am_mine
Bush has probably(and I'm saying "probably" just to be nice ) been the worst President of The United States of America to date.After having the entire World's sympathy, he worked incredibly hard around the clock to make sure that not only was that sympathy lost ( which also means "support" ), but also a reversal: a growing feeling of hate and discontent with a nation that was ONCE the torch bearer of the principle of freedom and liberty...reduced a torch bearer ( pun intended with reference to the oil ) of steroid-capitalism and the quest for the greater profit margin.
Nixon, Clinton...they were all consumed by they're individual urges to satisfy themselves ( pun intended ), albeit in different ways.But Bush has done what neither could...brought the equivalent of a Global Press Conference and then shown himself ( and this nation ) off as a hideous nation of bulls and bears from the stock exchange going to war.
The truth is that Bush has been the worst, but he signifies the state of this country today...a country that is controlled not by the men and women working in its cities and towns, but by the men in the Enron , Exxon, Bechtel, buildings that stretch straight into the heavens...trying perhaps to signify America's brilliant foreign policy in the past few decades: the middle finger.
A nation where evangelical TV meets MTv in the quest to control the mind of the youth.
The question is...

...is it in your name.

not in mine.

not in my name.
lyndonray
Bush is going to need a miracle to save his presidency. His approval ratings are about as low as they have ever been. Even his strong point of national security is at an all time low here. Even republicans are starting to distance themselves from him as much as possible. Iraq won't become peaceful and prosperous in two years. So the place will probably still be a mess when he leaves. Maybe not. who knows. But if that is the case then republicans will have a tough time arguing a good legacy for him. His father's was being able to liberate Kuwait. Reagan's was ending the cold war. Nixon's was... Ok, let's leave Millhouse out of this. So what would Bush's be? Indebting a country while fighting pointless wars?

He needs help.
HoboPelican
Soulfire wrote:

Bush sending soldiers did not cause the war, the cause of the war was the intelligence that the various agencies had, although not accurate (yet), that is the best they could do. Based on what they were saying (nuclear weapons, dangerous!) we went to war there.

And, a lot of people seem to "overlook" the removal of a tyrannical dictator who tortured his own population.


You've said this before. But I don't believe this is a fact.
Check out this link.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justifindex.htm

Summary of the text-
Unproven: The Controversy over Justifying War in Iraq (June 2003)
The Fourth Freedom Forum presents publicly available data purposely ignored by US and UK leaders. It asserts that the main problem in the scandal surrounding Iraq is not the intelligence, but the way it was selectively interpreted and misrepresented. This raises doubts about the integrity of political decision-making.


Any sources you'd like to offer up to conclusivly proof your "fact"?
nopaniers
Soulfire wrote:

So you're telling me that, based on the information we had (intelligence was saying that there were nuclear weapons), we should have just sat here and done nothing about it?


The IAEA had confirmed and El Baradei reported to the security council that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program. This "intelligence" had already proved wrong before the war, which would lead any reasonable person to question the intelligence. The vast majority of the world did exactly that...
mike1reynolds
Soulfire wrote:
Bush sending soldiers did not cause the war, the cause of the war was the intelligence that the various agencies had, although not accurate (yet), that is the best they could do. Based on what they were saying (nuclear weapons, dangerous!) we went to war there.

And, a lot of people seem to "overlook" the removal of a tyrannical dictator who tortured his own population.


Right-wing fascist Repulicans use to take great delight in SUPPORTING "tyrannical dictators who torture their own population", like Pinoche, Peron, Suharto, Pol Pot and Saddam himself 20 years prior. What changed?

Why did Reagen heap financial and military support on Saddam if he was such a dangerous and objectionable leader? Either it is a distorted lie that Saddam was so immoral and henous, or Reagan was a heavily invovled accomplice to Saddam's immorality. So Repulicans either lied now, or committed the worst kind of immorality then. Either way, the "morality" of Repulbicans is bankrupt and Hell-bound.

The REAL Republican moral fiber is an appeal to selfishness and greed coupled with a completele lack of sympathy for the poor and suffering. Their platform is the very OPPOSITE of what Christ taught, and if Jesus were here today he would put Pat Robertson and George Bush to the whip, just like he did with the money changers. That is exactly what they are doing, using the cover of religion to extort personal gain, using religion to politically manipulate the ignorant and uneducated religious fanatics.

There are very few things that made Jesus turn livid with rage, but Repulicans pretending to speak for him would really do the trick, I'm quite certain. Republcians have vastly more in common with the Sadducees and Pharisees than to Jesus.
xrprod
Almost all the world hate american policies against the other countries. It doesn't matter if is Bush or Clinton (or any other) who is leading the American Goverment, it's just because their way of doing things.

But the great difference now is that Bush is over the limit, I mean, he is not taking care of others, just the rich americans, not even black o poor people. How mistaken he is!!

UN was against Irak's war. 90% of the world was against as well as it was not proven that Irak had mass destruction weapons and all the other lies they used to justify their acts. Everybody knew about the manipulation and there were strikes all around the world against their proposal of war... but once more, Bush didn't hear people and just followed his animal instints and his aim of power and money.

Now, we have heard the news that say all he said was a lie, something we knew... but the worst thing is that he has destroyed a country, killed thousands, make world hate americans... and he will never be prosecuted or jailed because of his acts.

I don't hate americans, but I will never visit the USA until his people learn to respect the other countries, Bush is in jailed or paying for his sins and people start voting their president not just for his money but for his policy to improve the world by respecting and helping the others with no search of money in the background.

Sorry if I have harmed somebody, but I can't stand this way of doing things.
Related topics
bush and condi talking...
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
MLK Jr's 'Bash Bush' event omitted some vital information.
Oops! - Bush Unaware Mikes Were Still On
Articles of Impeachment for President Bush
President Bush...
Bush Praises Iraqi Gov't, Asks for Patience
Bush's Border Buffoonery
Bush Broke the Law?!?
Bush raves about the deficit, only $300 billion this year!!
Death of a president shows Bush assassination
Bush "Plays Dirty Trick" Declassifies More NIE
Bush: last chance to reward the oil companies.
President Bush
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.