Imagine a world without Bush...

I thought this was very good, especailly considering the looming elections...

doonesbury.msn.com...

A world without Bush? Where would my sausage go too hide?

I wish I had that kind of narrow view of the world. Where removing one man from one office changed everything.

Alas I live in the real world. Where a Congress of elected officials from all 50 states voted for the Patriot Act that caused Guantanamo. Where that same body sent us to war in Iraq. If nothing else the 2000 elections were very close in popular vote so half this country did want Bush in office and a large portion still do.

So, while I myself am not a Bush supporter, I will step up to point out that what has become of america is not only due to our votes for Bush and hundres of other elected officials, but that a huge amount of Americans STILL want it this way.

So, before it becomes as simple as "Bush caused this!" take a second to consider how he got there and why over 40% of polled voters want to keep him there.

Still, you have to admit, knowing what we know now....It would be nice to have a world without Bush.

BTW....hey y'all...been a while, eh?

Now, now, be nice.

No Bush? There is a God and he loves us.

Originally posted by Quest
I wish I had that kind of narrow view of the world. Where removing one man from one office changed everything.

Alas I live in the real world. Where a Congress of elected officials from all 50 states voted for the Patriot Act that caused Guantanamo. Where that same body sent us to war in Iraq. If nothing else the 2000 elections were very close in popular vote so half this country did want Bush in office and a large portion still do.

So, while I myself am not a Bush supporter, I will step up to point out that what has become of america is not only due to our votes for Bush and hundres of other elected officials, but that a huge amount of Americans STILL want it this way.

So, before it becomes as simple as "Bush caused this!" take a second to consider how he got there and why over 40% of polled voters want to keep him there.

Ya know.. you are absolutly right. Bush has nothing to do with the problems that have arisen over the last 4 years, and with that same mindset he has nothign to do with the good that has come inthe last 4 years... ... ohh wait.. I can't seem to think of anything good that has happened in the last 4 years... but reguardless according to your logic he would not be responcible for it anyway. Infact with your logic why should we have a presedent at all since that position has absolutly no sway over events anyway.

It also does not matter that Bush got less votes over all back in 2000 hell as long as your close to 50% thats good enough right? Almost the majority of the USA voted for him. So it is just fine that a few several thousend votes against him didn't really matter.

even if bush wasn't in office, i'm sure somebody else would find a way to f@#$ up the country.

Do the majority of the people in this site actuallt believe that Bush is the source of all evil in the world?

Are you all that narrow minded or just on the bandwagon?

Hugo Chvez is throwing Venzuela into true chaos. Not just "Unemployment."

The Iranian Imams want nukes for what... Fun? They want to threaten the Arabian sea and the oil flow and Israel and Suadi Arabia. And let me guess...command and control will be great on those nukes. They wouldn't THINK of giving a nuke or two to and enemy of the West right?

The Syrian Leader is an avowed trouble maker doing anything he can to hit/kill/ mess up the west.

NORTH KOREA? HELLO?

There are right now terrorist trying to sneek over the Mexican border and they don't want a job.

Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers out of good will right? He never thought once about the fact that this encourages new suicide bombers.

People, all things considered Bush is doing a great job keeping the lid on the kettle. He is not trying to stel civil rights, he does not want to steal oil or gas prices would be $1 a barrel. We own Iraq remember?

Lets consider Gore was in office! What would he have done better? Under the best circumstance given 9/11 and The stock scandals (which all started under his and clintons watch by the way) Gore could not have done better!

I have to agree.....it's not as if we've become a third world nation or that all of our American values have been lost simply b/c of Bush....and hey...look at my avatar...I'm a democrat! I don't like Bush anymore than most people....I like the wit of this Doonesbury, but it seems he should have sharpened the pencil a little more to get the whole picture onto this 8-cell ad....

Originally posted by crmanager
Do the majority of the people in this site actuallt believe that Bush is the source of all evil in the world?

Are you all that narrow minded or just on the bandwagon?

Hugo Chvez is throwing Venzuela into true chaos. Not just "Unemployment."

The Iranian Imams want nukes for what... Fun? They want to threaten the Arabian sea and the oil flow and Israel and Suadi Arabia. And let me guess...command and control will be great on those nukes. They wouldn't THINK of giving a nuke or two to and enemy of the West right?

The Syrian Leader is an avowed trouble maker doing anything he can to hit/kill/ mess up the west.

NORTH KOREA? HELLO?

There are right now terrorist trying to sneek over the Mexican border and they don't want a job.

Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers out of good will right? He never thought once about the fact that this encourages new suicide bombers.

People, all things considered Bush is doing a great job keeping the lid on the kettle. He is not trying to stel civil rights, he does not want to steal oil or gas prices would be $1 a barrel. We own Iraq remember?

Lets consider Gore was in office! What would he have done better? Under the best circumstance given 9/11 and The stock scandals (which all started under his and clintons watch by the way) Gore could not have done better!

Just as a point of correction, 9/11 technicly started under the Regan administration when Bin Laden was armed and payed by our government to run terrorist attacks against the communist factions. The Regan administration also put Sadam into Iraq in teh first place and sold him the weapons that were used against us a decade later.

Point of interst actualy is that all of the attention we gave to Sadam is what first cause annimosity of Bin Laden against us as his fight was that of a religious zelot and the Regan administration gave more attention and finacial backing to Sadams secular regiem. Bin Laden actualy considered both us and Sadam as infidels.


But you are right Bush is not responcible for all teh worlds problems, though being the US presendent who has taken more vacation days than any other in history including those who served with more than one term has not helped.

and as for what would Gore have done.. we will never know.. but at least Gore can pronounce "Nuclear" properly.

Wraith

[edit on 9-8-2004 by wraith30]

Bush gave all the orders no one else could have. The president gave the orders to invade Iraq. America deserves better than Bush. I am not sure if Kerry is better, or not, but Kerry did not send our troops on flimsy evidence, Bush did. Amercia deserves better leadership than that. For this mistake I will vote against Bush as president.

I find it hard to beleive that 40%+ of americans dont care if there president does not take the time to ensure his actions are justified before sending our troops to war and for some, their deaths. It is inexcusible yet there he sits.

Sad
X

God knows I do not want to open this can of worms but...

"Flimsy Evidence?"

You mean the news that Putin gave us that Saddam was going to perform terrorist acts in America?

The fact that the U.N. had evidence of weapons from the first Iraq war and now was unwilling to let the U.N see anything?

France, China, Russia, the U.N all thought that the WMD'S were there and just didn't want to go in '"YET?"

The evidence that our CIA chief said was a "Slam Dunk?" You know the CIA chief whos job it was to tell Bush this info?

The evidence that Atta, the leader of 9/11 was at the same meeting as an Iraqi intelligence official?

You mean that flimsy evidence?

Originally posted by wraith30

.... The Regan administration also put Sadam into Iraq in teh first place and sold him the weapons that were used against us a decade later.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by wraith30]

Not unless the REAGAN administration you are referring to was while he was Governor of California:

Saddam finally came to power successfully in 1968 as Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. This was TWELVE years before Ronald Reagan became president.

A little googling could have taught ya that.

So, Wraith, if you made up Saddam's rise to power, what other facts did you make up?

Sorry to said but when bush came to power he brought the sins of his father with him. Now we are paying the price I think Al-queda turning point for attacking Iraq and risking everything was to take revenge on the father through the son.

And this my point of view.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Not unless the REAGAN administration you are referring to was while he was Governor of California:

Saddam finally came to power successfully in 1968 as Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. This was TWELVE years before Ronald Reagan became president.

A little googling could have taught ya that.

So, Wraith, if you made up Saddam's rise to power, what other facts did you make up?

Quite right I did mis-speak I should have said that Saddam's position in Iraq was Solidified by the Regan administration. Granted in 1982 France also sold a good deal of arms to Iraq and Germany sold trucks and transport hardware. We sold them UH-1H helicopters and Hughes MD-500 Defender helicopters which were approved by Washington. Though sold as civilian aircraft, nobody objected when they were quickly converted for military use.

(www.commondreams.org...)

So yes, you are correct that I was wrong in saying that he was placed in power. But I am quite right that lacked the level military power he achieved before the trade and policies of Regan between 1982 and 1984

I do apologize for my mistake.

Wraith

But can someone explain me then what so good about Bush? why did 40% of the American people voted for him? (the rest he stole from what i've heard)

Why still 40% are probably going to vote for him again?

I as an European can't understand that, especially with what we read and see on tv, people still vote for him. Do you see other kind of news? For me personally he and his administration is responsible for lots of mess in the world.

Originally posted by rai76
Do you see other kind of news?

Have you never seen FoxNews? You don't even understand.

rai, go back to the start and reread the post. Bush is NOT responsible for most of the mess in the world. That is simply naive and illinformed to say.

Did Bush start the genocide in Sudan?
Did Bush start the Muslim seperatist movement in Indonesia?
Did Bush start the fighting in SriLanka?
Did Bush cause North Korea to start back up their nuke program?
Did Bush cause the Somali conflict?
Did Bush plant that bomb in that Spainish train?

No,NO,No,NO,No,No

People voted and will vote for him because he is clear. Black and white. They are bad and we are good.

People need clearity in times of trouble.

Originally posted by rai76
But can someone explain me then what so good about Bush? why did 40% of the American people voted for him? (the rest he stole from what i've heard)

Why still 40% are probably going to vote for him again?

I as an European can't understand that, especially with what we read and see on tv, people still vote for him. Do you see other kind of news? For me personally he and his administration is responsible for lots of mess in the world.

Why, well I know a large number of people who care more about a Republican rep in the presidency more than the man himself. It's much like somone voting for the Labor party and not caring who the specific labor party rep is.

There are others who have grown up violently believing only what they have been told, they refuse to accept any other truths reguardless of other evidence. They will blame anything and everything that is contriditory to their imidiate belief. This is very much akin to the Nazi mindset jsut prior to Germany's invasion of Poland. This is found in both political groups, although to be compleatly honest it seems to be more concentrated in the Replubican party.

Then there are the people who just dont care.

Finaly there are those who honestly believe he is doing a good job and is doing the right thing. Then again, Terrorists probibly think that they are doing the right thing. I am not saying that REplubicans and terrors are one in the same.. just that in all extreems you will find those who honeslty believe what they are doing is right.

Wraith

Originally posted by crmanager
rai, go back to the start and reread the post. Bush is NOT responsible for most of the mess in the world. That is simply naive and illinformed to say.

Did Bush start the genocide in Sudan?
Did Bush start the Muslim seperatist movement in Indonesia?
Did Bush start the fighting in SriLanka?
Did Bush cause North Korea to start back up their nuke program?
Did Bush cause the Somali conflict?
Did Bush plant that bomb in that Spainish train?

No,NO,No,NO,No,No

People voted and will vote for him because he is clear. Black and white. They are bad and we are good.

People need clearity in times of trouble.

To answer your list...

no
no
no
no
no
Yes - I saw him and tried to stop it but it was too late. (anyone who takes this seriously needs to be kicked in the beanbag)

People do need clarity, and I would say that when you use terms like good or bad you must be very careful. They are not bad, and we are not good. They are doing what they feel is right and therefor good and bad becomes muddled.

The trouble in the Sudan is far from new. All of the conflits you mention earlier are not directly caused by Bus.. no of course not. However, one could argue what has he done in the international community to help to stop it? The answer there is nothing.

Is it the job of the USA to stop these thigns.. no of course not, no more than it is the responcibility of the Welsh, or Germany, or France. However perhaps it is now time for responcibility of all the world powers to work together to stop such extreem action. Not long ago the UN was in a position to really do some good and perhaps with that multi national support somethign could have been done.

Bush has done one thing.. he has ensured that it will be a long time before we are in such a position again.

Wraith