English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I think he sucks and that he's responsible for the deaths of 3,000 people.What are you thoughts ?

2007-02-04 00:46:09 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

23 answers

What we saw the other night, when he proposed more war against more "foes" was the madman the last six years have created. This time, in his war against Iran, he doesn't even feel the need for minimal PR, as he did before attacking Iraq. All he is bothering with are signals -- ships moving here, admirals moving there, consulates being raided in this other place. He no longer cares about the opinions of the voters, the Congress, the generals, the press, and he especially disdains the opinions of B/S/and B [Bush Sr, Scrowcroft, Baker]. Thanks to Gerson, he identifies his own little ideas with God (a blasphemy, of course, but hey, there's lots of precedent on this), so there's no telling what he will do.

We can tell by the evidence of the last two months that whatever it is, it will be exactly the thing that the majority of the voters do not want him to do, exactly the thing that James Baker himself doesn't want him to do. The propaganda that Bush's sponsors and handlers have poured forth has ceased to persuade the voters but succeeded beyond all measure in convincing the man himself.

He will tell himself that God is talking to him, or that he is possessed of an extra measure of courage, or he that he is simply compelled to do whatever it is. The soldiers will pay the price in blood. We will pay the price in money. The Iraqis will pay the price in horror. The Iranians will pay the price, possibly, in the almost unimaginable terror of nuclear attack. Probably, the Israelis will pay the price, too.

Little George isn't the same guy he was in 2000, the guy described by Gail Sheehy in her Vanity Fair profile -- hyper-competitive and dyslexic, prone to cheat at games, always swinging between screwing up and making up, hating criticism and disagreement, careless of others but often charming. He is no longer the guy who the Republicans thought they could control (unlike, say, McCain).

The small pathologies of Bush the candidate have, thanks to the purposes of the neocons and the religious right, been enhanced and upgraded. We have a bona fide madman now, who thinks of himself in a grandiose way as single-handedly turning the tide of history. Some of his Frankensteins have bailed, some haven't dared to, and others still seem to believe. His actions and his orders, especially about Iran, seem to be telling us that he will stop at nothing to prove his dominance. The elder Bush(es), Scrowcroft, Baker, and their friends, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gerson, and the neocons have made the monster and in the process endangered the country, the Constitution, and the world, not to mention the sanity of wretches like Jose Padilla (for an analysis of the real reason Gitmo continues to exist, see Dahlia Lithwick's article in Slate, [excerpt below].

Maybe the bums planned this mess for their own profit, or maybe they planned to profit without mess; maybe some of them regret what they have wrought. However, they all share the blame for whatever he does next.

2007-02-04 00:49:56 · answer #1 · answered by FOX NEWS WATCHER 1 · 6 2

If I am honest with myself, I'm not sure. I certainly disagree with a wholesale withdrawal of troops. Nor do I agree that an additional 21,000 troops will make much if any of a difference. The war was so badly botched from the start, I do not know if the US has the will to play catch-up. To that extent, my opinion of President Bush is very low.

So, going into Iraq was a mistake, but if the US was to leave now or in the near future, it could leave an horrendous political vacuum possibly leading to all out war in Iraq and perhaps throughout the Mid-East and Central Asian republics. What Bush does during his remaining term in office will define his political legacy. That's what will shape people's opinion of him.

2007-02-04 09:04:08 · answer #2 · answered by Cracker 4 · 0 0

it's so easy to sit and throw out nasty names! it takes time and effort to think a situation through to some rational conclusions. I believe George Bush is a decent, honorable man who has found himself in the middle of a very difficult political war. It is the war that we are unhappy with! stop equating the war to our President as he single handedly did not vote for this original conflict. Be part of the solution not add to the problem!

2007-02-04 10:13:24 · answer #3 · answered by tcbtoday123 5 · 0 0

Johnny, he's responsible for the more than 3,000 deaths honey, but that was not your question.

To tell you the truth, I don't know what to think of the guy anymore. He got Saddam and now he's just ready to pick up his marbles and go home. He can't wait for all of this to be over and I predict he will spend some time in a psych ward trying to clear his head.

2007-02-04 08:58:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

I happen to think he is a good guy who is responsible for making over 50 milion people free in their own countries. He is also responsible for eliminating (despite systematic sabotage from his political enemies) the threat of fundamentalist islamic terror spreading over the world.
IMO he also pays too much attention to his opponents and fuzzy headed idealists who would like to wage war with a hostile lawyer overseeing every US soldier (but no such restrictions on the enemy). Not to mention the traitors and saboteurs masquerading as "civil rights" experts- who somehow never seem to be bothered by the murderous antics of regimes in North Korea, China, Burma, Zimbabwe and countless other places, but will block food supplies to starving children on the grounds of "resisting imperialism".

Have a nice, thoughtful, day.

2007-02-04 09:12:35 · answer #5 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 0 3

I go back and forth about his level of responsibility is for the 3000 American deaths at home. (From full-on purposeful to criminal negligence). But I blame him outright for the next 3000+.deaths and think he and his cronies are some of the worst people to ever live on earth.

2007-02-04 08:56:37 · answer #6 · answered by justagirl33552 4 · 1 1

Mr. Bush and his Administration have kept eight(8) million people in poverty since 1997! They believe you do not deserve an honest days pay for an honest days work! They are saying you don't matter they don't care! The increase they are proposing is $7.25 by 2010! The increase actually amounts to 17.6cents an hour for waiting 12yrs to go from $5.15=1997 2010=$7.25! Would you work 12yrs to receive a 17.6cent an hour increase in your paycheck!! 12yrs,12yrs THATS INSANE!! Thanks for nothing!! Are we suppose to be grateful?

2007-02-04 10:19:39 · answer #7 · answered by dca2003311@yahoo.com 7 · 0 2

With all due respect, he is responsible for the deaths of a whole lot more than 3,000 people.

I personally don't like him, never have, and I doubt I ever will.

2007-02-04 09:25:59 · answer #8 · answered by Saffy 2 · 3 1

I haven't kept up with the news for the last few days, but he was doing okay last that I'm aware of. If he suddenly caused the deaths of 3,000 people in the last couple days then I'd have to say that I don't approve of that though.

2007-02-04 08:53:05 · answer #9 · answered by Tim J 4 · 0 4

u r rite dude! he is the biggest terrorist alive. H e has formal n legal ways of promoting terrorism n the military support to back it. In my opinion he shd be hanged the way saddam was

2007-02-04 09:01:37 · answer #10 · answered by raéf 1 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers