You got my vote to Impeach him , Cheney all their sidekicks.
In my books the only President that would would come close to being any where near him, in being the worst President was Hoover that started the Great Depression.
2007-08-03 12:59:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
12⤋
Where do you get your information? Bush did not "rob" Gore in the election of 2000. The Supreme Court made the final decision and Bush had nothing to do with it. Don't be a sore loser. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with cheap oil despite the propaganda. We went to Iraq to prevent Sadam from developing chemical and nuclear weapons. He had used chemical weapons on his own people in the past and if he had more of them he would undoubtedly use them again. Gas is not "ridiculously expensive". Gas in the US is among the lowest in the world except for in the major oil producing countries. How is Bush to blame for 9-11? Don't tell me you believe that he knew in advance and/or helped plan the attack? And Bush was in a classroom on 9-11, so what? Where should he have been? He didn't know it would happen and was going about his business as he always has. IMPEACH BUSH - why? What crime has been committed by Bush? The answer is none and that is why Congress has never even seriously thought about impeachment.
2007-08-03 13:08:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by Truth is elusive 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
1) The Iraq war was not about "cheap oil," it would have been cheaper to work with Saddam like the French and Russians were.
2) Al Gore lost the election... nobody stole it from him. He lost. He didn't get the votes. And all the recounts showed that.
3) US economic numbers are consistently up during Bush's time in office.
4) The price of gasoline is driven by the increase in global demand (as in supply & demand), primarily by countries like China and India. This is a concept which you would have acquired with a tiny bit of education; you really might want to consider it.
5) Yes, Bush was in a classroom during the 9-11 attacks. However, there is NOTHING he could have accomplished at that point by running about. This, of course, is an argument only made by those who lack the intelligence to come up with anything with substance.
6) Iraq didn't attack the US. And you'd almost have a valid point here if you presented this argument in a more intelligent way. However, the case made for going into Iraq was not that they attacked the US... so your point falls short there as well.
7) Blaming Bush for the 9-11 attacks is another angle often taken by those who lack the intelligence to come up with anything valid. There is simply no basis for believing it.
And no, Bush is not the worst president in US history. He's not even the worst president in this generation; the honor falls to Jimmy Carter.
You're going to have to try harder than that.
2007-08-03 13:12:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
There are so many flaws in your thinking and your lack of facts and knowledge i don't know if i have enough space to address it all
I'm no fan of Bush especially in the last two years but I can find much worse then him lets look at oh i don't know Clinton who sold weapon grade technology to China who are now using it to treaten thier neighbors and our allies with missles and pardoned anyone giving him a sizable donation. Who incouraged terrorist attacks like 9-11 because he never responded to the ones that happened during is time as president.
wither we are at war in Iraq for the right reasons or not it is keeping the terrorist out of here it has also allowed us to find many WMD and yes dispite what the medea has said they have been found and the medea has taken pictures of them I've been there holding them for them but they never publish hmmm maybe becuase they don't want you to know they were wrong. Our economy has had positive growth during the last 7 years most of that time even beyond expectation. Now the gas prices yes they are rediculous but you need to also ask the dems that as well as the repubs because most ranking dems are on the shareholders boards of all the major oil producers hmmm another fact the medea will not mention.
Now we move on the the classroom 9/11 thought the dems were suppose to be compasionate you are right it would have been much better to storm out issue orders and landing air force one in the parking lot scaring the Hell out of those little kids. Good compasionate call.
Now Impeachment this is nothing but a joke do you really think that with a dem controled congress that if he had commited impeachable offenses that the dems wouldn't draw up articles of impeachment of course they would. The fact that the don't tells you no matter what they say even they don't think he has commited impeachable offenses and no not being like by you isn't an impeachable offense
Hope this helps shine at least a little rationality on your irational haterid don't get me wrong hate all you want but hate for real reasons not talking points
Please get some new questions answering the same old tiring questions is getting old
this one has been on more then a dozen times this week
think for your self and a whole new world will open for you
2007-08-03 13:14:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by tgatecrasher2003 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
So many remarks, were to begin. Okay, you are correct we did go into Iraq to protect our (the country as a whole) interest, Oil. Everything else (wmd's, ect.,. are secondary, but there).
He did not "rob" Albert (6) Arnold (6) Gore Jr (6), the Supreme Court of the United States gave him the job.
Done nothing for he economy? Um, Best economy in US history-stats do not lie, only liberals.
High gas prices..There's a few factors there, did you know the federal govt. makes more off a gallon of gas than "big oil".
True, he sat in a class room while the WTC were being attacked, so as not to alarm the children..You seem to be a liberal, isn't it all about the children?
We would not be in Iraq, if there were not people their firing upon us. I could try to give you a logical, strait forward answer to this, but along with confusing you-you would not believe me anyway, you've already made your mind up on this one.
However, I agree..Impeach Bush. Cheney has bigger balls and wouldn't have a second thought about turning the entire middle east into on big sheet of glass.
2007-08-03 13:05:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by crknapp79 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
President Bush is a very good president. Also, about the election:
On Nov. 12, 2001, The New York Times ran a front page article that began: "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward."
Another Times article that day by Richard L. Berke said that the "comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots solidifies George W. Bush's legal claim on the White House because it concludes that he would have won under the ground rules prescribed by the Democrats."
On Nov. 18, 2001, notorious pro-abortion zealot Linda Greenhouse wrote in the Times that the media consortium's count of all the disputed Florida ballots -- in which the Times participated -- concluded "that George W. Bush would have won the 2000 presidential election even had the court not cut the final recount short."
2007-08-03 13:04:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by The_Overlord 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
LOUIE, please grow up. Nobody robbed anyone.The economy is the best it has been in years. Unemployment is the lowest in years. 64,000 new jobs last quarter.What was he suppose to do when told of 9/11. Run screaming out of the school to his car, scaring the kids??please remember, If you can , that years before Clinton could have had BIN on a silver platter but choose to not go get him. You sound like the doves of WW2 who wondered why we were at war with Germany & Italy when it was Japan who attacked us. Iraq trained terriost, maybe not the ones who attacked us but If Saddem had been left to himself he would have tried it sooner or later. he announced that he was helping anyone who destroyed Isreal & it allies. Who did that mean. The good old U.S. We just got him before he got us.. where is all that cheap oil from Iraq. I havent seen a drop, have YOU??
2007-08-03 13:12:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by BUTCH 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
As a conservative it baffles me why you liberals hate bush so much. He is the most liberal Republican in history! From my point of view I get frustrated with Bush being made out to be such a horrible person just for being not as far left as the nuts out there. Goodbye rational debate on the issues, now all we have is endless Bush bashing.
I'm sick of it, and I think many Americans are starting to realize what the left is all about by their latest tantrums.
2007-08-03 13:30:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Eric578 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
why don't you stop a think for a second. The president is not as powerful as you think. if the president really had the power that you think he has, Nixon would have offed alot of people back then. And this is all your opinion, i mean i dont like some of his decisions, and the whole gas thing bugs me. But honestly, you ca't just judge one person who had to face a recount election, low aproval ratings, 9/11, the MILITARY OCUPATION of Iraq, and people hating him just because they are following others. i would rate both bushes in the bottom 10, but you guys need to grow a brain, or STFU about politics, because you don't understand **** exect bush sucks. why dont you blame others, like Nancy polosi, carl levin, ted kenedy, john kerry, hildog, cheney, gonzalas, rove, macain. this list can go on, just dont blame all of the worlds problems on one man, and lastely STFU you retarded morons, you have your right to free speech, but at least explain yoursleves before you state you opinion
2007-08-03 13:10:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by AvatarMike 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
No, he's not the worst president ever. History will show his ranking. I think he did make SOME good decisions. If you think one of his decisions were bad, then YOU think of what the solution should be. You think you should give more money/support to one area, but then you'd be taking it from another. Don't be so quick to judge unless you've been in that hot seat. All the same, I do however think it is very necessary to be critical.
2007-08-03 13:11:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
No, that would be Jimmy Carter, followed closely by Bill Clinton.
Where is all this cheap oil you libs are always talking about????
Grow up and look at the real facts or haven't you learned how to read yet, I bet you get all your news from Daily Kos don't you?
2007-08-03 13:18:11
·
answer #11
·
answered by Linda S 5
·
2⤊
0⤋