Everyone Who Dislikes/Likes George W. Bush, Tell Us Why In Your Own Words (1 Viewer)

[Goatman Saint]

He spends money like a drunken sailor. He has violated almost every conservative principle from smaller government to states rights. He has stuck his cronies in postitons of power that they have no idea how to deal with. He fought a war based on BS reasons and he knew it ahead of time, making up evidence to justify on the way. The one person responsible for a mass attack on the US is still running free, and he has said essentially it is no big deal to get him. His buddies are making huge money off the way while Americans are being hit by higher energy prices, and where is the energy policy to help deal with this?

 

[ra]

Because he still owes me 30 bucks from that BOC concert in 81.

 

[gavinj]

I dislike GB because he pandered to religious fundamentalists and social conservatives in order to win the Presidency when, imo, he's neither religious nor socially conservative in his heart of hearts.

-and-

I like GB because he pandered to religious fundamentalists and social conservatives in order to win the Presidency when, imo, he's neither religious nor socially conservative in his heart of hearts.

 

[Saint Mike]

I like him on a personal level. He's an amicable guy and has a good sense of humor. As Sandman stated, I like that he is firm in his views in the face of criticism and unpopularity. I don't like the fact that he has expanded the size of government and increased government spending, and has generally abandoned the idea of governing based on conservative principals.

 

[primadox]

I don't like him because I believe there was a chance to reform the tax code and switch our system sales tax rather than income tax. He did nothing to push this forward at all. Plus, he spends like a drunken sailor. He isn't a fiscal conservative.

I like the fact that he is not swayed by opinion polls. While he may be dead wrong, he undoubtedly has more information than any of us could possibly possess. The down side to this is that he has trouble recognizing when his ideas don't work and doesn't change when it is required.

Overall, I view his presidency as a negative, but not as much as some on this board.

I tend to agree with this; overall I like Bush but I don't like many things he's done. I'd go a bit farther to say that I view his first term as a positive, even going to war in Iraq, but his second term has been a negative, primarily as a result of going into Iraq without a workable plan in place as to what should be done with the government there in order to stabilize the country. We're literally "stuck" there with no good way to get out without the country falling into a state of chaos.

 

[tenordas]

I like the fact that he is not swayed by opinion polls. While he may be dead wrong, he undoubtedly has more information than any of us could possibly possess. The down side to this is that he has trouble recognizing when his ideas don't work and doesn't change when it is required.

Sandman, this sums it up for me. The real problem is he won't listen to those who are "in the know" and give him advice. He is like Rehoboam who only listened to advice he wanted to hear and refused to those who were wise; then was shocked when the people rebelled against him.
Unfortunately, there are many examples of this, but the biggest one for me is 3 Star Lt. Gen. John Riggs who was demoted 1 star and forced to retire within a 24 hour period shortly after he had publicly declared that the Army was overstretched in Afghanistan and Iraq and needed more troops immediately to stabilize both countries enough to effect a peace that could lead to permenant withdrawal. He was the first (and only) high ranking official to publicly disagree with Donald Rumsfeld about the state of things in Iraq and Afghanistan and say that the current plan was a losing one. For this, he was demoted and forced to retire. Then, nearly three years later, Bush finally realizes Iraq can't be won with the current plan and calls for more troops and money to pump up the Iraqi economy - something that should have been in done in the summer of 2003. Four years too late, Bush sees what should have been done despite the fact he was advised about it (remember that General Tommy Franks threatened to fire General William Wallace when he stated the enemy they faced in Iraq was not the one they'd prepared for and they would need to change their tactics to defeat this enemy [that being the Fedayeen fighters and other religious militant groups]).
That's why I think G.W. has run a bad White House (much the same reason I felt the former president ran a poor White House: he, too, had a long list of "retirements" among his advisors who disagreed with him on certain policies). I can respect trying to do what is right despite prevailing public opinion (see my many posts on Rudi Giuliani and how he cleaned up NYC, both physically and fiscally, despite strong protests from some corners), but when one refuses to listen to advice from those who are "in the know" on particular situations, choosing instead to push ahead one's own agenda despite the informed warnings of impending failure, the crash that follows is completely on that person's own head.

EDIT: I also despise his fiscal policy. It's a bizarre irony that the three "conservative" icons of the Republican Party (Nixon, Reagan, and GW) were all irresponsible in their fiscal policies. I have a hard time calling any of them "conservative" because of that.

 

[purvis_guy]

I agree completely with everybody who say they didn't like his fiscal spending policies, his tax cuts helped the economy recover from the slight recession at the start of his Presidency, but would have worked alot better if he had worked to keep spending down. The fact that it took 5 years for him to use his first veto(on stem cell funding) shows that he let congress have a free hand, which hurt this country.
I don't feel he is dumb, you don't get a MBA from Harvard by being a moran. But his inability to articulate his thoughts and policies have definitely hurt him. He always looks like he's reading off a teleprompter that is written in another language and is having problems with vertical hold. LOL!
I support the War on Terror, but of course, as other posters have said, mistakes were made. The kind of mistakes that cost lives and prolonged the Iraq situation. But the MSM and dems demonizing him and his administration over every little thing gets old. There has been scandals and cronism in every Presidential adminstration. History will judge him better, Reagan was demonized just as bad and now his time in office is thought of as one of the better Presidencys in American history.
Overall, he has protected this country from attacks on American soil and has kept the economy strong, so I wouldn't say his Presidency has been a failure, but he could have been so much better.

 

[DadsDream]

Last time I looked, Congress votes to spend the money, not George.

I don't like that he allowed his Republican majority Congress to increase the power of government in a fiscally irresponsible manner, while curtailing the liberties of the average American. Whatever happened to "government is best which governs least"?

In one of the most crucial moments in American history, Bush failed to lead from the front.

I don't like his initial response to Katrina. Total abdication of the power at his disposal. He kept up fluff piece meetings with political groups and remained technically "on vacation" in Crawford. Horrible, horrible symbolic message to send to the American public.

He sat there in Crawford for three days with the most expensive and elaborate mobile command post in the history of man at his disposal. He should have parked Air Force One at the New Orleans airport, invited Blanco to join him and led the efforts from the front.

My wife takes it one step futher and says he should have flown to Baton Rouge, picked up Blanco, set up a couple of folding chairs with her at the Superdome and sat there...waiting. He should have then insisted on being the last person to be evacuated. Stuff would have happened instantly. It would have sent a strong message too.

But, as TPS has noted, Bush has since caused money and aid to flow into people who need it, often despite the bungling and obstruction of the state and city government.

He doesn't get much credit for that on a national level. The image of him looking out the window of Air Force One when he should have been on the ground, leading from the front, is etched in everyone's mind.

 

[texasjefe]

Good thread. And for fun, here's my take.

Truly, the only words I can create here are metaphorical.

I see George Bush as a sociopath, with a maturity level of a 10 year old, who is basically good at stealing firecrackers. He was hand-picked for his role by an older gang of outlaws (Rove and Cheney) who are good at making George the nice storefront face of their gang, while they wipe out everything oppositional in their path, and then take the people's money to cyclically "rebuild" and "redestroy" turf as needed, but always at their profit.

To help build a firewall around their operation, they engaged enemies, while artificially elevating the capacity of damage those enemies could create, rallying the masses to be convinced that only they could protect them and mitigate the artificial fear they created.

Meanwhile, because George, the ten year old, was given all the primary power that goes with his perch lookout and front-door face role, he protects his sponsoring gang by acting out his socio-pathology and destroying the very core infrastructure that this country's strength was built upon over two-plus centuries, namely, Constitutional Rule of Law, Checks and Balances Among Three Branches, Fair Elections, a Strong Military, a Strong Middle Class, and Separation of Church and State.

Any discussion of his "policy" is really a discussion of Programmatic Propaganda, and, the ultimate privatization scam -- who's buying and selling power and resources that are supposed to be owned by the republic, but no longer are.

His Presidency is the evolved iteration of Nixon, and the Nixonians who held power at that time.

 

[DadsDream]

So, what about Iraq?

In the wake of 9/11, the American public demanded a response on our part. Everybody went along with striking the al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan and eliminating the Taliban which supported them. I had no probem with that.

I'll give George a GO on Afghanistan, although was offset somewhat when we tried to use proxies to take out Bin Laden. Instead Osama and his people were able to bribe our proxies into letting him slip away to Pakistan. George gets a NO GO in my book for that bonehead play.

Regarding Iraq, I really think Bush wanted to send a stronger message, establish a bigger regional presence and make an example of Saddam Hussain and Iraq. For the invasion and military conquest, I'd give him a GO.

For totally disbanding the Iraqi Army and excluding the Baathists, I give him a NO GO. Big mistake. He threw thousands of men into unemployment and they took up arms against us.

I saw a news piece yesterday about a town on the Syrian border where the Baathists fought us at every turn for three years. Finally, the CIA and the Pentagon cut a deal with the local Baath Party leader. Guess who's running the town now, with our blessing and with arms and ammo we're giving them? Yep.

George gets a huge NO GO for the entire occupation.

I'm reluctant to assign a GO or NO GO to George for the entire Iraq strategy. We simply don't know all the facts and we won't know them for 20 to 30 years when most everything gets declassified.

I've often cited the example of LBJ's Tonkin Gulf ploy as an example of a president keeping something classified for 30 years. The vote for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in the Senate was 98 - 2.

Wayne Morse (D. Oregon) and Ernest Gruening (D. Alaska) voted no. They knew the real deal, but couldn't reveal it. J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI would have thrown them in jail for violating national security classifications.

 

[whoah whoah]

I never had personal reasons to hate him. The Presidency is a hard job, and no matter what you will not make everyone happy. There will always be critics.

All of that changed after Katrina. I realize now that his only agenda was Iraq and Sadaam. He wants billions more for that cause. What kind of President does not even mention the biggest Natural Disaster in US history 2 years after it happened at his State of the Union Address? He does not seem to care about the American people, all he cares about are his agendas. by the way, what ever happened to Afghanistan? you do not ever hear anyhting about it anymore....

 

[sandiego_dre]

Worst president ever.


I'm ashamed to admit that I voted for him the first time.
Please forgive me.

 

[Redlands Saints]

So, what about Iraq?

we should have hauled butt when we captured Saddam and left the rest of this *&@# to them. now we are in a fight thats older than our country with two group of people that didn't like us to start with. I don't like George Bush because he is trying to give our country away to every one at no cost and his friends are profiting. He acts tough when he talks about Iraq and terrorist and then bends over and takes it from the mexican president to let more illegals in. in the last election I voted for him because I thought he was the lesser of two evils, I think I made a mistake.

 

[DadsDream]

Worst president ever.

Tell Us Why In Your Own Words :hookline:

 

[sandiego_dre]

Anyone ever see this:

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/