Bush.

I thought this would be a good way to start off this forum.

What is wrong with Bush?

Would Kerry have been better?

My opinion is that whoever we have as president will make mistakes. Is Bush doing good as a 'war-president'?

I think Bush rushes into things. In my opinion Kerry wouldn't have been any better. I think niether of them would have made good presidents.

As much as I despise Bush, it's a difficult choice when it comes to removing an incumbent during war-time...

Nonetheless....I believe ANYONE could have handeled this war better - much less, prevented it from ever happeneing due to personal motives...

What's wrong with Bush? Perhaps we should ask, what isn't wrong with him?! He has a head, a torso, 10 fingers......

It's true that any president we have will make mistakes, but I believe there is a clear difference between screwing something up by mistake and botching things b/c you stand to benefit from it....

[edit on 12/2/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

Originally posted my MacKiller
What is wrong with Bush?

In my opinion, there's something wrong with Bush because of the way he rushed into the Iraq war. He didn't wait for the inspectors to finish their job. He dind't wait to try to gather more international support, but then again how could he? There was no evidence of WMD that would get them to join in...

Would Kerry have been better?

Probably not, as MacKiller said whoever is president will still make mistakes and decisions that some, maybe most, people will not like or agree with.

Is Bush doing good as a 'war-president'?

Well, hard for me to tell..I mean, he did show support for the troops by calling some of them on Thanksgiving and I'm glad he could do that. However, I have to wonder if he really knows what it feels like to be over there and under fire. I mean, he wasn't in Vietnam so does he really know what it's like to be a soldier?

These are just my opinions..

Would Kerry have been better?

Bush nor Kerry seem beneficial for U.S./global politics.

Is Bush doing good as a 'war-president'?

Anyone claiming themselves a "war president" is a dangerous man.

Buch could have gone through the war in a much better fashion, undeniably. i trust kerry to have taken more care, to have more tact, and to have done a better, more thorough job. however, i DO NOT trust kerry to make the best of the current situation. the absolute worst thing we could do would be to pull tropps from Iraq, and i know he wouldnt do that. Anything close, however, is dangerous. We are there, we need to commit fully, whether we like it or not.

The best part about kerry would have been the international community. Bush has tried, with mild success, and will continue to try, to get the international community to help out in Iraq. 80% of the debt owed was a huge victory. Kerry would do a better job, i think the world respects him more (tell me if im wrong, i dont know).

Bush, however, wins on one major subject (IMO), and that is the israeli/'palestinian' conflict. kerry's support of a palestinian state is, especially now, one of the more important, developing issues in the world. i only wish powell could have been there to see it.

I will said that when a leader of any country takes his country into war it should be done when not other ways to fix the problem has been exhausted and the reason into going to war should be clear and defined and the people of the nation that is going into war should be satisfy with the decisions of the leader, not a few but the majority of the nation.

Wars cost lives and cost money and a nation should be able to look back in time and said "it was a reason why" but as we know the invasion of Iraq was shady and built on lies with faulty intelligence.

Originally posted by marg6043
I will said that when a leader of any country takes his country into war it should be done when not other ways to fix the problem has been exhausted and the reason into going to war should be clear and defined and the people of the nation that is going into war should be satisfy with the decisions of the leader, not a few but the majority of the nation.

Wars cost lives and cost money and a nation should be able to look back in time and said "it was a reason why" but as we know the invasion of Iraq was shady and built on lies with faulty intelligence.

definitely. now, however, is not the time to dwell on the mistakes. remember them, take them into account if need be, but i think it would be very, very poor judgement to remove him at this stage.

Click image Flash required

IMHO:
I see it as Bush or Kerry are on the same chapter as far as doing what the political handlers need done Bush is going one route and Kerry another. Either one will try to gain as much as they can to turn America into a third world prison camp, maybe I might sound extreme.

Heck look at the PATROIT ACT I, and II, this goes beyond Liberal / conservative, Republican / Democrat crap, The high jacking of the Western Democracy�s it goes beyond the politic, it�s enslavement of the masses, mans freedom, it�s going on world wide just look around. Britain, Canada, Australia giving away their freedoms just like their cousins the Americans. FEMEA pre-built prison camps.

Briton�s Queen Elizabeth telling her subjects from the Throne Speech of ties to Organized Crime and Terrorism to her subjects in her so they can implement BIO-metric identification cards and a few other incidental rights and freedoms.

In Australia I have read it�s against the law to have stones in your pocket. Hehehe seems the Ausies like to chuck rocks at times on mass. I read somewhere about Australia building a new to Parliament Building that is apparently from what I had read is that it is way to large for the Australian Government?
NWO will need a new place to Govern / rule from.

Canada has laws in place similar to the US PATROIT ACT I, II, and has developed the
BIO-metric passport and for the dissenters send us off to lumber camps that you have to fly into to get to. Anyway I�ve rambled on enough IMHO
oh the war : The War is just a moneymaking distraction

[edit on 2/12/2004 by Sauron]

Oh, it has never been in my mind that Bush should be removed, he is the "president" and he will remind president until the end of his term. But I post as a general view and then make and example of the Iraq invasion.

I want to stay in this new board as fair as possible.

Kerry would have been better than Bush, and i'm sure someone else would have been better than Kerry and so on...

Not much this year in the way of political pickins..

thanks Sauron, I see what you mean the resemblance is great.

We will see how the politics of the present administration will play in the next 4 years.

Everything I learned about Kerry indicated to me that he wouldn't be any better than Bush, and that he might even be weaker. His constant shifting of position on the issues depending on where he was standing and record in the senate turned me away, but really I don't think he would have been much worse.

I really liked Bush until the reconstruction began in Iraq and no WMD's turned up. I'm not sure which is worse: he's a liar, or his administration is incompetent. And admittedly I find it... troubling(?) that so many members of his administration have resigned since his re-election. These developements haven't really changed my about the issues, but they've certainly caused me to loose a little faith in my government.

I think Bush will certainly be remembered for years to come, both positively and negatively. (Out of fairness: he'll be despised by many for years to come.)