The Irrational Hatred of George W. Bush

[I miss Reagan]

With the polls trending downward it is inevitable that the mudslinging against Bush will reach epic proportions among the intolerant left. What gets me is the irrationality of the hatred. For instance the so called anti-war activists put Kerry on a pedestal as if as by some divine miracle doves will fly and harps will play as radical Islamic groups will seek to understand the US and seek peace, AIDS will be cured, and all children in the US will attain near perfect grades in school. These same folks ignore facts like Bush dedicating 15 billion to AIDS relief, creating an education program which gives unprecedented funding to struggling schools and promises perpetuity if the schools take responsibility and show growth. Regarding the most loudly proclaimed hatred of Bush, that being that he is a "war monger" the litany of double standards are seemingly limitless. It was ok for Clinton to award Halliburton a no-bid contract in Yugoslavia but not for Bush to do the same in Iraq. And where were the protesters when Clinton spent 77 billion on regime change in Serbia? Where were they when innocent Christian Serbs were bombed on behalf of Albanian Muslims? And while Bush suffers character assassination for landing on an aircraft carrier in a jump-suit Clinton is still the champion for the little guy as he shows utter lack of character by his moral ineptitude while in office. And Bush is so often decried as the one responsible for the lack of security on 9-11 while Clinton for previous 8 years cut military and intelligence spending to record low levels. And hardly any mention that Clinton refused to take custody of Bin Laden when given the chance. And today while the US economy is in a remarkable upswing considering the catastrophic events in 2001 the left forgets about the market crash in 2000 under Clinton. But what is most hypocritical about those who are going to vote for Kerry and the Dems is that both Clinton and Kerry acknowledged that Sadam had WMD and was constructing nukes. Kerry voted for the war (or at least before he voted against it?) Clinton also supported the attack on Iraq. So let's face it there was nothing Bush could do that would please those who have an irrational hatred kept so alive by our liberal media.

[Stoker]

Forget the leftist, pinkos for a moment, but I wonder, if given the choice, who would Osama Bin Laden vote for? Bush or Kerry?

[April]

Bush of course!..with most of the world not agreeing

with us,not to speak of the hatred...The BS Iraq war..it serves as a recruiting poster to go after America...

and with Bush in charge it will only get worse...for us

OBL is not a stupid man...he knows one attack in the

states will cause Bush to win...hmmm so does Bush ...

In a short time we just may have that answer....

[Stoker]

with most of the world not agreeing

with us,not to speak of the hatred

Was that any different before the Iraq war?

The BS Iraq war

Same one that Kerry recently said that with the facts of today, he would have still went to war?

it serves as a recruiting poster to go after America...

How so if it wasn't for the Iraq war, the United States wouldn't have to worry about terror?

and with Bush in charge it will only get worse...for us

Like having the lowest unemployment rates since the early 70s? The highest home ownership rate by minorities? A growing economy, in spite of a massavie recession and terror attack? And not to mention, that wave of recent terror attacks within the United States

OBL is not a stupid man...he knows one attack in the

states will cause Bush to win...hmmm so does Bush

How's that? Are you saying that a terror attack would be good for the Bush campagian?

It also looks like you are contradicting yourself, in that you say that OBL would vote Bush, then on the other hand you seem to imply that there has not been a terror attack by OBL because it would cause bush to win

Regardless, today's poll show Bush with almost a ten point lead on Kerry, and winning in the battleground states.......has there been a terror attack?

[The Terrible Sweal]

It's perfectly rational to hate Bush. He's the worst president in history.

[Stoker]

It's perfectly rational to hate Bush. He's the worst president in history.

Based on what?

[I miss Reagan]

It's perfectly rational to hate Bush. He's the worst president in history.

To this need we say more?

[I miss Reagan]

The people protesting the Republican Convention also helped Mr. Bush. With more than a thousand arrests, some cops badly injured, and innocent people harassed, the protestors are looked upon as fanatical and irrational by many Americans. And some of them are. A survey by The New York Sun newspaper found protestors favored a socialistic government more than any other. That kind of attitude is not a help to Senator Kerry.

Night of the Living Dumb

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear stoker,

It also looks like you are contradicting yourself, in that you say that OBL would vote Bush, then on the other hand you seem to imply that there has not been a terror attack by OBL because it would cause bush to win

The apparent contradiction is perfectly plausible. Bush would be favoured by OBL at the polls because he is a slow-witted enemy leader. (I have seen enough 'behind the choreographed scenes' looks at Bush to stand by the slow-witted comment).

An attack by OBL might indeed cause Bush to win as he would, by default, gain center-stage to condemn the attack and rally the 'American electorate' through further propaganda and mis-information. But, neither influencing the election nor 'attacking freedom and democracy', is OBL's aim.

[Stoker]

The apparent contradiction is perfectly plausible. Bush would be favoured by OBL at the polls because he is a slow-witted enemy leader. (I have seen enough 'behind the choreographed scenes' looks at Bush to stand by the slow-witted comment).

Slow-witted compared to who? Paul Martin? John Kerry? Ronald Reagan? JFK? Churchill? Who?

An attack by OBL might indeed cause Bush to win as he would, by default, gain center-stage to condemn the attack and rally the 'American electorate' through further propaganda and mis-information. But, neither influencing the election nor 'attacking freedom and democracy', is OBL's aim.

Or couldn't an attack collapse Bush's biggest "point"? IOW, if somebody that prides them selves with protecting the American people, were to see a terror attack on his watch, how would that help Bush in the polls?

Also, I decided to bite........what is OBL aim?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear stoker,

Slow-witted compared to who? Paul Martin? John Kerry? Ronald Reagan? JFK? Churchill? Who?

All of the above, with the possible exception of Reagan, who was just George Sr.'s marionette. I think George Jr.'s refusal to publicly debate Saddam Hussein arose in part because Saddam would have cut him to pieces.

Bin Laden has written open letters (as did Saddam) to the people of the US stating their motives, intentions and dogma. Most of it never makes western Media because it is not in line with what the US wants it's people to believe. However, if you can take what these people say as their true intentions, it is open for some debate.

Bin Laden has openly stated he wants to end 6 specific US foriegn policies, according to 'anonymous', author of 'Imperial Hubris' which OBL calls 'anti-muslim.

1. US support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israeli's thrall

2. US and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula

3. US occupation if Iraq and Afghanistan

4. US support for Russia, India and China against their Muslim militants

5. US pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices (artificially) low

6. US support for apostate, corrupt and tyrannical Muslim governments.

Keep in mind, OBL has said himself, the US is not hated for their values, but for their actions.

[Stoker]

All of the above, with the possible exception of Reagan, who was just George Sr.'s marionette. I think George Jr.'s refusal to publicly debate Saddam Hussein arose in part because Saddam would have cut him to pieces.

Do you think any leader of a First world nation would debate a dictator?

Your example sounds akin to a convict asking to "debate" a judge.

Bin Laden has written open letters (as did Saddam) to the people of the US stating their motives, intentions and dogma. Most of it never makes western Media because it is not in line with what the US wants it's people to believe. However, if you can take what these people say as their true intentions, it is open for some debate.

Bin Laden has openly stated he wants to end 6 specific US foriegn policies, according to 'anonymous', author of 'Imperial Hubris' which OBL calls 'anti-muslim.

1. US support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israeli's thrall

2. US and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula

3. US occupation if Iraq and Afghanistan

4. US support for Russia, India and China against their Muslim militants

5. US pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices (artificially) low

6. US support for apostate, corrupt and tyrannical Muslim governments.

Keep in mind, OBL has said himself, the US is not hated for their values, but for their actions.

So what does any of that have to do with George W. Bush and his level of intelligence? ........

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear stoker,

Do you think any leader of a First world nation would debate a dictator?

Your example sounds akin to a convict asking to "debate" a judge.

I would expect the judge to win. Bear in mind, Saddam's offer was a couple of years ago, (well before 9/11) while he was still in power, so it would have been from one 'leader' to another.

So what does any of that have to do with George W. Bush and his level of intelligence? ........

Nothing whatsoever. it was a response to

Also, I decided to bite........what is OBL aim?

[Stoker]

I would expect the judge to win. Bear in mind, Saddam's offer was a couple of years ago, (well before 9/11) while he was still in power, so it would have been from one 'leader' to another

Do you remember when his offer was? Bush had only been president for 8+ months before 9/11.

Nothing whatsoever. it was a response to

And what was I responding to?

But, neither influencing the election nor 'attacking freedom and democracy', is OBL's aim.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear stoker,

Do you remember when his offer was? Bush had only been president for 8+ months before 9/11.

Sorry, I thought you were implying that the offer came after Saddam was in custody.

As to the rest of your post, I am not sure what you mean.

[Stoker]

As to the rest of your post, I am not sure what you mean.

Good, the feeling is mutual

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear stoker,

Lol. Ok, I will clarify. These two things go together...

Also, I decided to bite........what is OBL aim?

Bin Laden has openly stated he wants to end 6 specific US foriegn policies, according to 'anonymous', author of 'Imperial Hubris' which OBL calls 'anti-muslim.

1. US support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israeli's thrall

2. US and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula

3. US occupation if Iraq and Afghanistan

4. US support for Russia, India and China against their Muslim militants

5. US pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices (artificially) low

6. US support for apostate, corrupt and tyrannical Muslim governments.

Keep in mind, OBL has said himself, the US is not hated for their values, but for their actions.

[kaper1999]

issues to think about when voting for bush. economy, education, envoirment, civil rights of american citizens, prescription drugs, the hunt for Osama bin Laden, nation-building in Afghanistan, war and occupation in Iraq.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It's perfectly rational to hate Bush. He's the worst president in history.

Based on what?

Destruction of wealth.

[Black Dog]

With the polls trending downward it is inevitable that the mudslinging against Bush will reach epic proportions among the intolerant left.

Bush bounce ends with a thud

Last week's GOP convention in New York City appears to have given President Bush a modest bounce and a small lead among likely voters, according to a poll released Monday.

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,018 adult Americans, including 778 likely voters and 926 registered voters, was conducted by telephone September 3-5.

Bush's convention bounce appeared to be 2 percentage points.

The latest polls have Bush at 47%, Kerry 46%.

And I must point out that "irrational hatred" is by no merans the sole purvue of the "liberal Democrats". Witness Dem turncoat Zell Miller's vitriolic assault on his party. Or the daily screeds of the right-wing punditiocracy accussing Democtrats and leftists of treason. Harken back to the fits of rage and hatred levelled at Clinton during his presidency.

It seems the "poor Bush" hand-wringing yet another example of the right's inability to take what it dishes out on a regular basis.

[I miss Reagan]

Coming out of the Republican National Convention in New York, President George W. Bush now holds a 11-point lead over Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry (52 percent to 41 percent) in a three-way race, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. The poll was taken over two nights, both before and after Bush’s acceptance speech. Respondents who were queried only on Friday, after Bush’s speech, gave the Republican a 16-point lead over Kerry.

Bush's big Bounce

[Black Dog]

Uh, your poll is three days old. The current Gallup poll has a 7 point Bush lead, while The Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows a dead heat, with each candidate at 47 per cent.

[Bushmustgo]

Why I dislike Bush:

Forced an Iraq war, didn't get enough money or troops

from abroad, didn't fire Tenet and forgot about Bin Laden.

Tax cut will do more harm than good.

Everything is an excuse from 9-11.

Biggest divider, nationally and internationally.

Uses faith for judgement, i.e, stem cell, gay marriage, etc.

Makes the position look dumb by not articulating properly.

Enviromental sellout for corporate greed/ contributors.

Got the position for who he is and not what he is.

[I miss Reagan]

You make some decent arguments but I hope you would hold other leaders to the same standards. For instance Kerry supported this war. Clinton supported the war. And it did cost a lot but how much would have been enough money from other sources to satisfy you? I don't know how "everything" could be an "excuse" for 9-11. It was a pretty big event that changed the world. Russia seems to have awakened to the reality of the battle we're up against in the world today. It seems they have decided to adopt some of the Bush doctrine. That being to seek out the terrorists where ever they are and not wait for them to attack.

As for being a polarizing President, this is true but Clinton was quite a divider himself. As for Bush's faith well most Americans share the same faith, it isn't Canada. I'm not sure how he sells out the environment for corporate greed. And this business of getting the position of president because of who he is is the lamest argument in the Bush haters handbook.

[Black Dog]

Choosing between Bush and Kerry is very much a case of choosing the lesser of two evils (*coughKerrycough*).

The best analogy is the U.S. is a corporation. Every four years, the shareholders vote to change C.E.O.s, but the direction and objectives of the company don't change significantly. Unfortunately, Bush is running the country the same way he ran his businesses: into the ground.