Jump to content

Home

Why is Bush a bad president?


JediKnight707

Recommended Posts

I've always wondered why people think that Bush is a bad president. I was too young to really care about any of this in his first term, and I'm just curious why everyone seems to hate him.

 

For the record, I'm not a Bush supporter/hater. I don't know anything about what he's done to lean towards one way or another.

 

So where does the hatred come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Well... the first and foremost reason is that the Electoral College saved his butt in his first term because Al Gore outright spanked his @$$ in the popular vote. So essentially, a lot of people believe him to be a cheat...

Second, teachers hate him mostly because he refuses to increase their income and wages... which was something that his wife had worked on in Texas for a number of years.

Third, many people view him as overly religious. Stem cell research, abortion, etc...

Fourth, Many believe that he's stayed in Iraq for much too long without a good exuse...

 

Okay... Suddam's dead... so why are we there now? Globalization of American culture and National Interests.

We want a share in the Iraqi government... we want to influence the way they do things... and we want a share in the Oil.

 

Last... hehehe... I think it's time for a Visas quote.

 

"Politics is filled with people who react."

Bush IS someone who reacts.

Plus... the rest of the world hates him and he's run up an even bigger national debt.

During his presidency, the economy has also suffered greatly compared to Clinton's presidency.

 

EDIT: Oh... and in addition to the teacher thing... there are VERY few teachers who support his "No Child Left Behind".

It's mostly a waste of time and a waste of money and it doesn't address why our educational system is weakening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that with most people it stems toward his current foreign policy and the way he has handled or perhaps mishandled the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. His first term actually went fairly and many cited his handling of the 9/11 attacks as the reason he was reelected. Well that and there are some who would classify his opponenet as an idiot.

 

He has also made inaccurate statements to the public regarding intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq as well as the man tends not to sound too intelligent when he speaks period.

 

So, those are some of the most common reasons you will hear I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much what was said above. To be honest I thought some of his reasons were a bunch of bull. To be honest even though I am not avid coverer of the war, I found myself lost in a web of confusion. I knew why we were going into Afghanistan but then to turn around and go into Iraq? That really had me going 'what in the world?'

 

Then again this is coming from someone who doesn't really trust the govt. His latest creation of warrantless wiretapping really has my buttons pushed. Come on people, he can now hear what you are saying about him...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of Bush's big problems is that he's repeating Johnson's guns 'n butter approach to government, but is borrowing heavily to do so. Still, it's Congress that controls the budget, not the president (just ask the various departments that are forced by congress to allocate their budgets for specific projects). Then there's the manner in which he's handled the border issue. Couple this with the left's paranoia about how Bush "beat them" at their own game in 2000/2004 (and their pathological hatred of any politician that isn't a secular/progressive dem) and you begin to see where all the hate comes from. It also doesn't help him that his public speaking skills are virtually nonexistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I think Bush has done more to undermine the sanctity of the Constitution than any president in the last 150 years. The only President to have taken such sweeping "emergency" powers was Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, but Bush doesn't seem content with what powers his congress-on-a-leash has given him.

 

Honestly, he had a few shining moments, like right after 9/11, but the passage of the Patriot Act (what a beautiful euphemism that name is...) started his administration on the road downhill.

 

Iraq, which we basically invaded because Bush thought god told him to, has become a quagmire and a money pit, and we still haven't found any WMD's either (I'm not talkin' empty anthrax shells, the rhetoric implied nukes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Uh. I like Bush.

 

Well, he promised never to get us into forigen adventures in that one debate with Al Gore. He seen the effects of the wars in Somaila and Serbia, and vowed never to waste our money that would be better spent helping America, paying off the national debt, granting tax cuts, and defending against nuclear missles. For example, unlike our current President, George W. Bush would have NEVER bombed Iraq or Afghanistan, wasting our resources in far off lands. He would instead resort to diplomacy, special operations, and all that good stuff to make sure we never get stuck in a quamire fighting against people who hate us."---Silentscope001, Kavar's Corner, 2000

 

To be fair, I think this is a pretty biased thread. Not that I care about Bush or anything, but there are 30% of Americans who do approve of Bush. IMHO, I think, in the end, Bush lost his popularity due to Iraq. A Democratic friend of mine actually said to me, "I'm glad Bush invaded Iraq." Why? Because eventually, America would have gone to Iraq anyway, with all this speculation of Iraq having WMDs (even Clinton believed it), and the lobby against Iraq. And eventually, when America did invade Iraq, it would have turned into the quamire it did today. Had the Democrats invaded Iraq, then the Republicans would sweep into power, and Al Gore would be seen as a bad president.

 

And to you guys shouting about how the electroal college put Bush into power, remember that if John Kerry won 300,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won power with only 48% of the Popular Vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay! I finally get to educate a member of Generation Next! :)

 

As was mentioned earlier, it all started in the year 2000 when America's Electoral College and the Supreme Court declared Bush to be the winner of the election. In many people's eyes, this was seen as fraudulent. Therefore, they view Bush as a cheat. I personally voted for Gore in my very first presidential election, but that's beside the point. Regardless, the 2000 elections got the Bush hateball rolling.

 

Then came September 11th. Bush did an excellent job at first of telling us to quit playing the "blame game" and pointing fingers at each other ("The World Trade Center buildings weren't secure enough! The emergency personnel didn't react fast enough!, etc.), and he also shifted the blame where it belonged: to al-Qaeda and Afghanistan. I supported Bush during our invasion of Afghanistan, because Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were the masterminds behind 9/11 and they needed to be brought to justice.

 

By the way, we still haven't found bin Laden; thus, we haven't captured or killed him. We have captured and killed several other members of al-Qaeda, however, on the plus side. We drove the Taliban out of power as well, though they are making a comeback.

 

Then President Bush, for reasons unknown to me, turned his sights on Iraq after two fruitless years of searching for bin Laden. He said that Saddam Hussein was developing WMD's, or Weapons of Mass Destruction, which we have not found significant amounts of in order to declare this to be a fact. If Saddam was indeed developing WMD's, he was an imminent threat to us, and thus we had to go to war.

 

Only one problem, though--Saddam is dead, we still haven't found the mother lode of WMD's, and we're still in Iraq. Why, I wonder? There is an Iraqi government in place, with a Constitution, and there is an Iraqi army being trained right now. We've done all we've set out to accomplish, and now the Iraqi government needs to learn how to stand on its own and fight the insurgency on its own terms. We're not there to babysit. I still don't get why we don't pull our troops out of there, but, oh, well...

 

And the Patriot Act. This legalizes warrantless wiretapping and the like. Supposedly, it's to be used only to eavesdrop on potential terrorists, but what if the definitions of "terrorist" and "potential terrorist" become so weak and watered down that they coudl apply to any one of us under certain vague circumstances? On "3", shall we?

 

One, two, three: "1984!!!!"

 

So that's why some people hate Bush. Oh, and the economy, too. It's kind of flagging, despite the Dow Jones Industrials hitting the big 14,000 a little bit ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the opinions that he had been explained above. I also think Bush is a not a good president because he made the wrong call when he decided upon himself to send the Army to Afghanistan and also for not having a plan for the retrieval of the troops. For him, its only a mistake, but for the soldiers its a live or die situation.

 

And I think he went to for for the oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, teachers hate him mostly because he refuses to increase their income and wages...

 

 

That's not really why we teachers tend to dislike him. Its his "No Child Left Behind" fiasco that has ruffled our feathers. But, for the record, I think the guy gets a bum rap. Is he a great president....no. Is he the worst president....I would deny that as well. My vote for the worst president is William Howard Taft and best president is Teddy Roosevelt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay! I finally get to educate a member of Generation Next!

 

Just so you know, I wanted to vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but am not in any way a Bush loyalist. I do dislike Bush, but for different reasons, and he is not a bad President. As Midnight said, calling the President you hate as "bad" does a disservice to the word "bad".

 

1) The Electoral College exist because the Founding Fathers hated democracy. They didn't want a mob to elect a dictator, after all. So instead, the states would choose delegates who would easily vote for who should become President. It was a good idea, but it failed. So I like the Electoral College. Still, there was a time when I did think that Gore should have won the Popular Vote, but in the end, in 2004, Bush won, for real, with the popular vote (and Kerry almost wining the electoral voting), cementing the greatest irony.

 

2) Endless recounts are fun. While I am a Bush supporter, I wanted the recounts. But in the end, when will the recounts end? What if the orignal count said Al Gore won? Then Bush would call for a recount. When Bush wins in the recount, Al Gore would call for a recount. So on and so forth. There has to be an end. Besides, the whole election in Flordia was near-on inaccurate anyway...since the margin of error is FAR higher than the 300 votes that seperate between Bush and Al Gore, it is impossible to figure out who would have really won. So, better to flip a coin?

 

3) I'm not like most Americans, but I'm personally somewhat against the Afghanistan War as well. Not that I saw it as bad, it may have been necessary, but I am against it because it would lead to a quamire...like right now. We are fighting an insurgency, defending warlords, letting the drug trade go on, and overall, um, nothing really is accomplished. I'm not calling for a withdrawal, I'm just stating that there was a possibility of failure, and that's why I am opposed to it.

 

4) The Iraq Lobby, led by Iraqi exiles led to this. Oil plays a huge role in politics, but it is also the rumors of WMDs, the fact that Iraq was a regional power in the 1980's and 1990's, and overall general paranoia led to this war. President Clinton, who I mentioned in that false quote, actually bombed Iraq during his last days as President. He bombed Sudan as well as Afghanistan, to stop terrorists, or to stop the production of chemical weapons, or whatever. I think it was inevitlbe that America would have had tensions with Iraq and gone off to war. But that's my view, maybe a secret nudge would have just had Saddam Hussien killed off and then a civil war occuring in Iraq.

 

5) The Patroit Act is 1984sque, but the problem is that the majority of Americans want it. We can't violate Democracy.

 

Our civil liberties has been violated day after day...Google collecting private information, spyware placed on our computer, security cameras are everywhere...We are losing our ability to move around in private. Before 9/11 even occured, there was the "secret testinomy". The government could deport people by presenting evidence, but because that evidence is very secret, the government doesn't need to actually show the evidence to the defendant. Immigration groups was trying to get rid of the law...and then 9/11 happened.

 

It is common. We're losing our rights. But it is all being done for our safety. "Those who give up a bit of their freedom for security deserve neither," said Ben Franklin. Bad news Ben, just because you don't deserve it doesn't mean we won't get it anyway. And besides, if we are going to lose our freedoms eventually, we might as well get prepared to live in 1984 than resist futiely.

 

Don't forget, in the end, Democrats voted for the Bill as well as Republicans. The American people want 1984. Why not?

 

6) The economy isn't really flagging until now. Before, Bush was presiding over an economic boom, altough there was unemployment and discontent. I subscribe under the economic theory that the President has little, if anything, to do with economy. That means Bush never caused the boom nor the bust (his tax cuts may have something to do with it, but I oppose it nevertheless).

 

The Feds loosened up interest rates (the rates by which banks borrow from the Feds to fill up their reserve), thereby causing the housing market boom, which helped the economy. This interst rates also cause businesses to borrow money as well, and with more borrowed money comes more investment and more economic progress. Then the Feds was worried of the economy growing TOO FAST, causing huge inflation. Inflation is bad, without price stablity, our money would be worthless. So they raised interest rates to try and make the economy grow slower and maybe even suffer from higher unemployment, to stop inflation rates from going up (See, economy is the dismal science!). This was pretty unpopular with the Stock Market. However, at the same time, demand in the housing market begin to go off, and now the defaults are coming in, causing for many mortages to foreclose, and soon loaning companies are begining to shut down, meaning that now even businesses fear losing capital to invest. So, now the economy is in big trouble. The Feds hope that this is a soft landing, as they throw money at loaning banks to hopefully save them from doomsday.

 

Bush had nothing to do with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh...yeah! Could I see a link to that, or is there a link to that anywhere? *furtive look*
Google much? :xp:

Link

The Act has also been denounced by critics who assert that its wording makes possible the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President.
Oh and before I forget, let's not forget the prodigious use of signing statements.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way Jediknight707, if you use anybody (here or anywhere else...including news sources) to tell you why Bush is a "bad" president, all you will get is non-reliable biased answers, so you're best bet is to just listen to the news, and decide for yourself if he really is a "bad" president at all...believe me...no one here or anywhere else can give you a straight answer because "bad" is in the opinion of a person, and bad to one person, is good to another...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seen the effects of the wars in Somaila and Serbia, and vowed never to waste our money that would be better spent helping America, paying off the national debt, granting tax cuts, and defending against nuclear missles.
Well that's one promise he broke considering that the national deficit is four times than what it was when Reagan started all of his spending. Also add that the majority is owned by China.

 

By the way, we still haven't found bin Laden;
Maybe we already did and they are waiting until the right moment like they did with Suddaam. :D

 

...the Founding Fathers hated democracy...
Poor choice in words since they did believe in that concept. They were fearful of the new nation becoming like England so when they wrote the Articles of Confederation, it was not effective because each state had its own say and the federal govt couldn't raise money for things like the navy. So they had the convention in Philly to write the Constitution which implemented the checks and balances system. They didn't hate democracy kid but they had Ben Martin's words in mind. I mean the ones where he says, "Please, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away. A legislation can trample a man's rights as easily as the king can."

 

The Patroit Act is 1984sque, but the problem is that the majority of Americans want it. We can't violate Democracy.

Actually it is more remeniscent of the Japanese internment in 44.' The major difference is that our detainees in Getmo have no right to habeas corpus which the Japanese did. It also gives the govt right to see if the little old ladies down the street are really terrorists because they disagree with the bill.

 

"Those who give up a bit of their freedom for security deserve neither," said Ben Franklin. Bad news Ben, just because you don't deserve it doesn't mean we won't get it anyway. And besides, if we are going to lose our freedoms eventually, we might as well get prepared to live in 1984 than resist futiely.

Deserve is not the same as getting. Franklin had the right idea. What he was talking of was of people not willing to take a chance for something worth fighting for like freedom. What the founding fathers did was considered treason. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor that they would fight for independence. It is not a little thing to want freedom. Unfortunately ever since Nixon, we have gotten into the habit of letting the govt do whatever they want. Nixon wasn't the first, he was just the first to be uncovered. We are heading to a 1984 because we are letting it.

 

Rebuilding America's Defenses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bush is just a complete idiot

 

Where's your proof? I don't like when people say Bush, or anyone for that matter, is anything ( positive or negative) without proof. I don't like everything Bush has done, but that doesn't mean I "hate" him.

 

So where does the hatred come from?

 

Ignorance. I remember when Bush was running for his second term I was listening to the radio when I heard a segment where a reporter went to the street of NY and asked questions about the election. When asked, one person actually agreed that the Kerry was running with a man named Stu-pid. Yes, the reporter was trying to trick the person and it worker. I feel people shouldn't listen to news alone, but rather, listen to the news and research. Nothing is truly unbiased, and finding it out by your self is the best way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's your proof?

 

I don't believe President Bush is a complete idiot, but this video does not support that belief.

 

Is he a great president....no. Is he the worst president....I would deny that as well. My vote for the worst president is William Howard Taft and best president is

Completely agree with everthing MdKnightR wrote except the best president. So I'll go with Washington there, at least he started the 2 term only for the President until FDR went around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe President Bush is a complete idiot, but this video does not support that belief.

 

I've known of what happen when Bush first heard of the news since '01. I don't know what people expected. He had to keep calm, and he couldn't personally go down to the Twin Towers themselves and help dig. I think he did what he could do with what time he had and the shock factor. I couldn't had done any better, and I was in NY when it happened!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've known of what happen when Bush first heard of the news since '01. I don't know what people expected. He had to keep calm, and he couldn't personally go down to the Twin Towers themselves and help dig. I think he did what he could do with what time he had and the shock factor. I couldn't had done any better, and I was in NY when it happened!

 

First and foremost I expect the President of the United States to act like the Commander and Chief of the most powerful country on the planet. Yes you are correct he needed to keep calm, but he could have done that and still excused himself from the classroom in an orderly matter. The President needed to be in communication with his commanders not setting in a classroom listening to children read. What if there had been more hijacked planes in the air? Who do you suppose has to give the order that allows the military to open fire on an unarmed commercial airline?

 

I'm not saying I would have done better, honestly I’d done much worst and we’d probably be in the midst of World War III by now. But I’m not now nor will I ever be the President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but he could have done that and still excused himself from the classroom in an orderly matter. The President needed to be in communication with his commanders not setting in a classroom listen to children read. What if there had been more hijacked planes in the air? Who do you suppose has to give the order that allows the military to open fire on an unarmed commercial airline?

 

I was led to believe he was updated on what was going on, and he knew that there were no other planes. I could be wrong about that though. You're right though, he did need to at least be in communication with the Pentagon. It's been so long since I've heard what happen, but I still say I couldn't do any better, but like you said, we aren't the Commander In Chiefs of the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...