what do you think of bush?

Question

who else thinks that bush is a lieing @$$ HOLE?
my personal opinion is that he is a piece of $hit.

i know six people in iraq and they all hate it.
had a buddy killed there.
for what weapons of masdistruction that were not found.
for 911 bull ****.
that greedy peice of **** is there for oil and has been there for oil since the begining.
all that he is doing is killing americans for oil.

Answer 1

I love the fact that he knows he ****** up and still he has the nerve to smile in the camera at all of us who hate and despise him.....he kills our troops yet still smiles in the camera......i think he don't care who gets killed it isn't his family so he doesn't know how it feels.....I was rootin' for Kerry!

Answer 2

He is also a pathalogical liar. You can I am not jokinking when he says something, you can be sure he'll do the opposite. For that reason I'ld feel safer if he said he was planning on attacking Iran.
You only need see him in action a few minutesto conclude he is a Moron. He is also a sadist and loves to watch people suffer, he gets an even bigger kick to promise and pledge help in front of press for photo op. Then snatch it away later. This he does on an almost daily basis to the troops, hurricane victims, victims of supermassive tax cuts for mostly his few closest friends along with super cronyism pork spending, 2 wars for fake reasons, also making his friend so wealthy it;s more then obscene Cheney's wealth alone has shot up by 8,000% in the last 6 years. Never mind his precios Haliduton and their no bid contracts along with their child KBR in both Iraq, New Orleans and now these half secret 600 consentration camps (gulags inside the United States). Yep he is sadistic as Govenor of Texashe went to more execusions thenany other govenor, he baited prisoners about to die, refused stays when strong indication via new DNA or they could now use the technology came up dubya still refused. Leaving most to beleive at minimum he executrd 9 innocent people. I am not couting Carla, who was guilty but transformed. Born Again, justas the Prez gets annoyed when reporters ask of his dug use etc. He claims it does not matter nor count. It is past, because now he is born again,I guess Jesus meant only George. Let's put it this way my dad tells me when ever I start ranting on the evils og George W. Bush (my dad's a pretty saintly man) that I should pray for my enemies. I refuse on the grounds george just might be the antichrist himself. (that makes my dad laugh though I know he doen't aprove)...Mary.

Answer 3

Obviously, you hate the man. So this question is biased from the start. I neither hate or like him, he's a president. They come and go. The problems with our government is with congress and term limits there. If they only had 8 years, they would try to do more good.

Answer 4

Bush is not as bad as everyone says. It could have been infinitely worse with Gore or Kerry. Actually I thank God for Bush. At least he didn't cave in to the terrorists like they did in Spain, France, and Germany.
I Cr 13;8a

Answer 5

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how screwed up it is:


THIS BOSTON GLOBE ARTICLE IS VERY INTERESTING!

(Well worth the few minutes it takes to read.)


Bush: Grand Strategist
By Tony Blankley .. The Washington Times

The Boston Globe -- the respected, liberal newspaper
owned by the New York Times -- ran an article (in
February of 2004) that Bush critics may wish to read
carefully. It is a report on a new book that argues
that President Bush has developed and is ably
implementing only the third American grand strategy in
our history.


The author of this book, “Surprise, Security, and the
American Experience” (Harvard Press), released in
March of 2004, is John Lewis Gaddis, the Robert A.
Lovett professor of military and naval history at Yale
University.



The Boston Globe describes Mr. Gaddis as "the dean of
Cold War studies and one of the nation's most eminent
diplomatic historians." In other words, this is not
some put-up job by an obscure right-wing author.
This comes from the pinnacle of the liberal Ivy League
academic establishment.


If you hate George W. Bush, you will hate this Boston
Globe story because it makes a strong case that Mr.
Bush stands in a select category with presidents
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and James Monroe (as guided
by his secretary of state, John Q. Adams) in
implementing one of only three grand strategies of
American foreign policy in our two-century history.


As the Globe article describes in an interview with
Mr. Gaddis: "Grand strategy is the blueprint from
which policy follows. It envisions a country's
mission, defines its interests, and sets its
priorities. Part of a grand strategy's grandeur lies
in its durability: A single grand strategy can shape
decades, even centuries of policy."

According to this analysis, the first grand strategy
by Monroe/Adams followed the British invasion of
Washington and the burning of the White House in 1814.
They responded to that threat by developing a policy
of gaining future security through territorial
expansion -- filling power vacuums with American
pioneers before hostile powers could get in. That
strategy lasted throughout the 19th and the early 20th
centuries, and accounts for our continental size and
historic security.

FDR's plans for the post-World War II period were the
second grand strategy and gained American security by
establishing free markets and self-determination in
Europe as a safeguard against future European wars,
while creating the United Nations and related agencies
to help us manage the rest of the world and contain
the Soviets.



The end of the Cold War changed that and led,
according to Mr. Gaddis, to President Clinton's
assumption that a new grand strategy was not needed
because globalization and democratization were
inevitable. "Clinton said as much at one point. I
think that was shallow. I think they were asleep at
the switch," Mr. Gaddis observed.

That brings the professor to George W. Bush, who he
describes as undergoing "one of the most surprising
transformations of an underrated national leader since
Prince Hal became Henry V." Clearly, Mr. Gaddis has
not been a long-time admirer of Mr. Bush. But he is
now.

He observes that Mr. Bush "undertook a decisive and
courageous reassessment of American grand strategy
following the shock of the 9/11 attacks. At his
doctrine's center, Bush placed the democratization of
the Middle East and the urgent need to prevent
terrorists and rogue states from getting nuclear
weapons. Bush also boldly rejected the constraints of
an outmoded international system that was really
nothing more that a snapshot of the configuration of
power that existed in 1945."

It is worth noting that John Kerry and the other
Democrats' central criticism of Mr. Bush -- the
prosaic argument that he should have taken no action
without UN approval -- is rejected by Mr. Gaddis as
being a proposed policy that would be constrained by
an "outmoded international system."

In assessing Mr. Bush's progress to date, the Boston
Globe quotes Mr. Gaddis: "So far the military action
in Iraq has produced a modest improvement in American
and global economic conditions; an intensified
dialogue within the Arab world about political reform;
a withdrawal of American forces from Saudi Arabia; and
an increasing nervousness on the part of the Syrian
and Iranian governments as they contemplated the
consequences of being surrounded by American clients
or surrogates. The United States has emerged as a
more powerful and purposeful actor within the
international system than it had been on September
11, 2001."

In another recent article, written before the Iraqi
war, Mr. Gaddis wrote: "[Bush's] grand strategy is
actually looking toward the culmination of the
Wilsonian project of a world safe for Democracy, even
in the Middle East. And this long-term dimension of
it, it seems to me, goes beyond what we've seen in the
thinking of more recent administrations. It is more
characteristic of the kind of thinking, say, that the
Truman administration was doing at the beginning of
the Cold War."

Is Mr. Bush becoming an historic world leader in the
same category as FDR, as the eminent Ivy League
professor argues? Or is he just a lying nitwit, as
the eminent former Democratic Party Chairman and
Clinton fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe argues? You can
put me on the side of the professor.

Answer 6

Why do you believe "he is a peice of $hit"? Most people I happen to meet only say Iraq... and thats it. Further on, they don't know what is actually happening in Iraq. The media portrays it has a hell hole, but most soldiers there think that they are doing good (building schools, helping kids etc.) Bush has cut the federal deficit in half and unemployment is pretty low. I encourage people to have their own opinions, but please... if you have an opinion, please back it up by facts... don't be immature about it.

Answer 7

Get off your bandwagon. Bush does not lie and he does the best he can under trying circumstances.

Answer 8

Lately, I feel he's been doing a fine job of mucking up my country. Who cares? It's going to Hell anyway.

Answer 9

Don't get down in the mud with him , by name calling .
You and I both know what and who he is and so does 99 % of the world .
That's why 1/2 are laughing at him and 1/2 are angry with him , but they all hate him .

Answer 10

I love bush! Everytime I can get near it....I am happy!

Answer 11

bush's economy is unmistakably the best economy we ve had since reagan. his foreign policy is tough and to the point, he s bit weak towards the invading mexicans. well very weak there. but overall, he is a pretty good prez