Poll: Is George W. Bush becoming unpopular???????????? - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-04-2003, 09:25 AM   #61
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Danospano
What happened to the "Anti-Bush"/"Pro-Bush" idea?

This whole thread has been hijacked!!!!!

So far I've seen about a dozen true responses, yet nearly 60 replies! I was mislead into reading all of the responses!?! Damn it!!!
We stole your thread!! I was just wondering what it'd be like if a smarter Republican was in the White House. I'm afraid one thing I dislike about Bush is his mediocre intelligence.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 10:00 AM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:48 PM
i dont think mr bush is concerned as much about his minute by minute popularity rating then as concerned about making the world a safer place.

diamond
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 11:42 AM   #63
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,567
Local Time: 02:48 PM
re: making the world a safer place

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 11:45 AM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:48 PM
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 12:47 PM   #65
Bono's Belly Dancing Friend
 
Mrs. Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Torontonian in Maryland
Posts: 2,913
Local Time: 03:48 PM
`Bullying' Bush hard to stomach for some
Friends, enemies alike see Bush as arrogant Even allies telling president to tone down the rhetoric



WASHINGTON—Why can't President George W. Bush seem to win friends and influence people these days?

Is he a bully at the head of an imperial presidency?

Or a no-holds-barred, straight-shootin' Texan whose friends — including Canada's Jean Chrétien and Mexico's Vicente Fox — just don't like how he's talking about Iraq?

A debate over the president's style, long simmering in anti-war capitals, finally has erupted in Washington. Friends, enemies and pundits alike are weighing in, as Bush seems to plow headlong to war, with fewer allies and greater setbacks.

What really appears to irritate is that he does it so grandly, without apology.

It's one thing for leading anti-war advocate Nelson Mandela to call Bush "arrogant," as the former South African president did so recently in Johannesburg.

Now it's coming from senior Republicans on Capitol Hill.

"The responsibility of leadership is to persuade, not to impugn the motives of those who disagree with you," senior Republican Senator Charles Hagel of Nebraska told congressional hearings last week.

"(The administration) is seen as bullying people. You can't do that to democracies. You can't do that to partners and allies. It isn't going to work."

The Bush administration is smarting from Turkey's refusal to allow U.S. troops to invade Iraq from its soil. And, at the U.N., key Security Council members remain opposed to the U.S. arm-twisting push for a clear declaration of war against Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

Even Bush's "coalition of the willing" is frayed. Last week, Spain's Jose Maria Aznar, who is a staunch ally of Bush, was practically on his knees begging Bush to tone down the war rhetoric in Europe.

At heart, though, is a simple question. What does style matter? If Bush walked more softly, would he have more countries onside for war?

No, says Allan Lichtman, professor emeritus of history at American University in Washington.

"With Bush, what you see is what you get," he told the Star. "But even a more toned-down style would not change recalcitrant nations because there is a fundamental difference of substance and culture."

Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think-tank, agrees.

"These are serious representatives of their countries. It's not some private club. They have likes and dislikes, of course, but it doesn't affect the bottom line," he said last night.

Political analyst Lewis Wolfson thinks Bush's "Texas style is one Americans are not used to in the presidency.

"But I think that anyone in politics has to sort of tone things down at certain moments. I don't think that's out of the question," he added.

It's not as if Bush has made a secret of his beliefs.

"You've probably learned by now I don't believe there are many shades of gray in this war," he said last year.

"You're either with us or against us.

"You're either evil, or you're good."

Still, Bush's friends are symbolically tearing their hair out.

Chrétien is trying to broker a U.N. compromise that would give Iraq more time to disarm. In Mexico City Saturday, he appeared impatient with the latest White House insistence that there must be "regime change" as well as disarmament in Iraq.

Former Chrétien press secretary Peter Donolo said the Turkish vote shows the limitations of "megaphone diplomacy."

"But I can see Bush's frustration," he added.

"He's getting tired of (Saddam's) excuses. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now. The trend lines seem to be moving away from him, and I'm sure he's exasperated."

Maybe so. But tone it down, Aznar told Bush last week.

"I did tell the president that we need a lot of Powell and not much of Rumsfeld," said Aznar, referring to Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld has Europeans — especially Security Council opponents France and Germany — fuming over his remarks that characterized France and Germany as part of an "old Europe" out of sync with the rest of the European Union and NATO.

"The more Powell speaks and the less Rumsfeld speaks, that wouldn't be a bad thing altogether," said Aznar.

And, in the coup de grâce of public criticism, even George H.W. Bush, the 41st president of the United States, last week gave his son's foreign policy a subtle kick.

In a speech at Tufts University, the senior Bush talked about the "unprecedented international coalition" he built before attacking Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

That coalition does not exist today. But, according to the New York Times, the elder Bush said it was "totally false" to accuse his son of wanting to "go it alone, rush to war" with Iraq.

It was easier to build a coalition back then, he said, in what the Times described as a "nuanced" answer.

"The objective was clearer."

In diplo-speak, that's pretty potent language.
__________________
Mrs. Edge is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 12:58 PM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:48 PM
here's the deal.

presently some ridicule GW.
he still has more friends than not.

hes a principled man not caught up in the 'poll of the moment'..

that said my interpretation is that by his actions he is leading..as he was elected to do
he was not elected to worry about his popularity day to day.

thru out history real leaders have led even when it wasnt the popular mindset in the present time.

what is needed my the more intellegent members is perspective, not knee jerk reactions to latest bleep by a disgruntled lukewarm allies..

Diamond
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 01:24 PM   #67
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:48 PM
For what it's worth my academic background is in history. We historians have a saying that "time is the least subjective of judges". Perhaps we'll be judging Bush more objectively in years to come. Whether or not he gets re-elected next year he will eventually leave office. Then let's see what the opinions are. Right now we are going on the information we have from the media. I have my opinion based on this, and everyone else has theirs.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 02:27 PM   #68
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 09:48 PM
joyfulgirl: *rotfl*

verte76: well if you go back in time you allways get the "winners history" - so i don't think it's biased.
Why not take the informations you can get (not only the ones you like) and make up your own mind?

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 02:30 PM   #69
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,271
Local Time: 02:48 PM
it's like sting said: history will teach us nothing.
__________________

"Because a senator - a politician - a person - who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot - has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States." -- Keith Olbermann
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 02:34 PM   #70
Acrobat
 
Zooropa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 421
Local Time: 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
For what it's worth my academic background is in history. We historians have a saying that "time is the least subjective of judges". Perhaps we'll be judging Bush more objectively in years to come. Whether or not he gets re-elected next year he will eventually leave office. Then let's see what the opinions are. Right now we are going on the information we have from the media. I have my opinion based on this, and everyone else has theirs.
I agree w/ you. As a student majoring in history, time is the ultimate judge here. Time gives you more avenues to explore the different angles & rasmifications of an individuals or groups actions.
__________________
Zooropa is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 02:36 PM   #71
Acrobat
 
Zooropa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 421
Local Time: 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
joyfulgirl: *rotfl*

verte76: well if you go back in time you allways get the "winners history" - so i don't think it's biased.
Why not take the informations you can get (not only the ones you like) and make up your own mind?

Klaus
hmmm, well certainly popular history is wriiten by the winners, but historians look for the truth by looking at other historys. "Social History" I guess would be a way of discribing it. Looking at the totality of the subject rather than just a small part.
__________________
Zooropa is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 02:45 PM   #72
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 03:48 PM
Did anyone catch the Whitehouse press briefing today? Somebody asked Ari a question about one of the probably appointees to the intermediate board, gov't, or whatever for Iraq. I only heard a little, but it was someone with some kind of Israeli ties and them not being appropriate for an Arab nation. The answer was - Noone has been appointed at this time.
Any help appreciated.
Thanks.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 02:57 PM   #73
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 03:48 PM
Adding to the discussion of how history treats political leaders: If historians explore both sides of the story, we must assume that you (Zooropa) said this because the average person will not explore the details from both perspectives. Right?

This being said I think that while intellectuals may delve deeper into the knowledge tree, the average American or whoever will read the mass-marketed textbooks that reflect a rosey painting of all its leaders from the past. How often do we hear about the scandals and crimes of Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, etc. We may know bits of their unglorious past, but if you look at what the high schools are teaching there is an absence of dirt.

I think Bushie will be remembered as the guy who was president when the two tower fell and the guy who furter postponed important decisions dealing with the environment, the stocks and exchange regulation, and the issue of world poverty.

His legacy will be honored by some idiots, but his record is his true legacy. What has he done for America? What has he done for the rest of human civilization?

Can anyone name 5 major decisions this administration has made that has propelled our democratic freedoms? Our civil liberties? Our pursute of life and liberty?

Oh, and by the way....I'm still Anti-Bush....
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 03:06 PM   #74
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:48 PM
yes
danno to many here u are still mistaken now and will b a hundred yrs from now

diamond
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 03:12 PM   #75
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,309
Local Time: 12:48 PM
a broken clock is gives coreect information twice every 24 hours

Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
here's the deal.

presently some ridicule GW.

he was not elected




Diamond
between the lines, db9 sneeks in the truth.
__________________

__________________
deep is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com