Any other Democrats sick of the Bush-bashing?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

VertigoGal

Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Messages
9,860
Location
I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
I can't vote yet, but if I could've, I'd have voted for Kerry. I didn't want to go into Iraq, and think Bush should've have sought more advice on post-war planning. When I hear him speak in candid interviews (few and far between, those) I have to doubt his personal intelligence, at least in the art of speech.:wink:

I don't like his designs on social security, because I don't think a two-tiered system will help anyone but the wealthy.

I strongly disagree with him on moral issues, such as gay rights and abortion. I find him a little arrogant, and (right or wrong) roll my eyes when I hear him talking about how his faith helps him in office, etc.

But--and I'd like to know if anyone agrees with me-- I'm getting a little sick of people making him out to be a ruthless dictator. When people talk about how he's murdering innocent civilians in the Iraqi Bloodbath, I wonder if they've ever heard of Saddam Hussein. He's the guy who used to be there, and he liked gassing people for fun. Obviously oil and other US interests played a role, but someone please tell me having Saddam in a cell is a negative. From what I've heard from people who WERE THERE, the majority of Iraqis were thankful for what we did. Yes, they want us out. That's because they have *pride* and nobody wants to be liberated.

So stop acting like Bush is Hitler. My great-grandfather had 10 little brothers and sisters slaughtered at Dachau, and I think the comparisons are absurd and offensive.

I've got tons of other examples, but I guess my point is that I'm sick of people (often from other countries) demonizing Bush and making the Iraq war out to be Rwanda. Of course corporate interests and US interests are involved in decisions, but a) it's always been like that in the presidency and b) it's the same for every other country in the world. In most countries, the leadership is far more corrupt/abusive.

And I'm not saying there shouldn't be dissent just 'cos its not the DRofC...I love a good debate although I'd probably get my ass whooped on here. Just stop with the Hitler comparisons already.
 
I don't like the guy or his policies, but I don't think I'd label him a "ruthless dictator"-maybe by 08 :wink:

I have some personal feelings about the war that I don't want to talk about, but I just wish we could bring everyone home and there would be no more deaths on either side.

And I'm so sorry about the family members you lost in the Holocaust
 
:huh:

you are right, W did not exterminate 6 million Jews.

AND

by comparison he is better than Saddam Hussien.



thanks, if you frame it that way I can agree with your conclusions.
 
I don't think an apt comparison of Bushie is Hitler...I think it's some nameless dimwit.
 
the reason the world hates bush and his administration is that he gave the rest of the world the finger and attacked another country out of the blue, with fabricated evidence.

but i agree that what is done is done, and its pointless to look back. US should leave iraq as soon as possible, and should stop starting stupid wars. the democrats should get their act together and win the 2008 elections. i bet the world will be rooting for it by then. bush will be remembered as the worst president who occupied the white house. only history will be the judge of his actions - because no one else is.

i stand by my opinion though - right now, america is ran by greedy, self righteous idiots.
 
all_i_want said:
the reason the world hates bush and his administration is that he gave the rest of the world the finger and attacked another country out of the blue, with fabricated evidence.
"Out of the blue" would be if Bush just up and decided to attack Canada. Saddam was given 17 UN resolutions which he somehow failed to keep, murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people a year, and was warned repeatedly to shape up, and yet you call it "out of the blue".
 
VertigoGal, I'm sorry for your family's loss. My grandfather served when he was 18 years old during WWII and was part of the group who discovered and liberated (what very little was left of) the Nordhausen camp. He and his peers were responsible for the burrial of over 2000 corpses and helping the few living who remained. His personal photographs from the ordeal are sickening and have haunted me since I first saw them as a child. I agree, Bush-Hitler comparisons are pretty out of line.
 
80sU2isBest said:

"Out of the blue" would be if Bush just up and decided to attack Canada. Saddam was given 17 UN resolutions which he somehow failed to keep, murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people a year, and was warned repeatedly to shape up, and yet you call it "out of the blue".

When he said "out of the blue" i think he meant that Saddam Hussein has been a brutal dictator that murdered people for years....yet Bush didn't attack until 2003, his third year of presidency. That's why it seems 'out of the blue'. There was no specific incident that sparked them to go to war, like Pearl Harbor (for WWII) or 9/11 (for Afghanistan).
 
I agree with a lot of what VertigoGal is saying. It's good that most on HERE would not reduce their argument to such a vague conclusion as Bush = Hitler, and aren't afraid to give it a little thought.
 
deep said:
:huh:

you are right, W did not exterminate 6 million Jews.

AND

by comparison he is better than Saddam Hussien.



thanks, if you frame it that way I can agree with your conclusions.

I've read enough of your posts to make me think this statement might be a little sarcastic:wink: (sorry if I misread that though)

I'm not saying, "Be happy you're not in Sudan, and stop complaining!" Obviously we have to keep complaining aka debating, or we *will* be in Sudan, Nazi Germany, whatever. I just don't see why Bush is so different from Chirac or any other world leader. Chirac didn't want to go in because it wasn't in the interest of him or his country. More people were dying under Saddam and under the sanctions than have in the war, so I guess that puts blood on Chriac's hands due to corporate interests (oil)?
 
do you know the real costs of this Iraq war?

will the out come be worth the costs in dollars and blood?

you said you are too young to vote

perhaps this has no effect on you now



you will be paying for decades

trade offs have been made that will effect you.


and bush is THAT MUCH WORSE than any other president.
 
could you go into a little more detail?

and yeah I can't vote, but obviously my generation's gonna be footing the bill for a lot of this, not to mention the defecit and social security. I understand that.

but what trade-offs, etc are you talking about?
 
80sU2isBest said:

"Out of the blue" would be if Bush just up and decided to attack Canada.

We'd whoop your ass!:wink:


Bush isnt Hitler and really anyone that says that is a dummy. But he is hated more then many of the other presidents that came before him. In Canada he is a real joke, people hate him, and unfortuneatly that is being translated into people hating the US in general. I would never consider moving to the States, for the reason that I just think Canada is much better, but that doesnt mean i think all Americans are evil people. On the whole Americans are good people that look after themselves and do a good job of it.

Canada is liberal on the whole compared to Bush and thats why so many dont like him, not to mention that he never even came to Canada till after his second election, imagine two neighbours with the biggest free border in the world and he doesnt even step foot up here for over 4 years.

He's not Hitler, defineatly, but he does stir anger and hate amoungest people around the world.
 
all_i_want said:
bush will be remembered as the worst president who occupied the white house.

isn't a little early too make that claim, lets see how the new democracies that are forming in the middle east turn out before you say that bush was worse than buchanan, johnson, pierce, hoover, nixon, and harding.
 
You'll always have "nutty Democrats" just like there are "nutty Republicans."

It's time for the reasonable ones on both sides to start being more vocal! I think we'd have a better country, as a result.

Melon
 
President bashing is sport. We had 8 years of Clinton bashing (and a lot of it was hilarious; he was such a friggin' easy target),
now we get 8 years of Bush bashing. I've got a "W stands for Wrong" magnet on my car; the van that parks next to me at work has a "W stands for women." sticker. We both laugh over it. As long as it is not too virulent, it's healthy.

I don't hate Bush, although his actions scare me sometimes.
I don't think he is evil. I also do not think he is too bright. I think he is passionate and loyal and I think he wants what he believes is best for America--it's what he believes is best I take issue with. I believe his religious beliefs are sincere, but shallow. I think he is stubborn and once he gets in a mindset, he is immovable--thinking that if he just keeps beating the same drum, it will prove it is the right rhythm. I think he gets stuck in phrases and cannot get beyond them. (PS, needs new speechwriters). He is symbolism over substance,
the grand gesture over the responsible act, action without full consideration of consequences, favors choreographed support over meaningful dialogue, and I believe he is a man who cannot tolerate being questioned or challenged.

In short, he speaks loudly and carries a little stick.
 
What's disturbing to me is that it is so easy to reduce problems that are essentially all of our problems to the faults of one man.
Bush is a terrible president, but a "good president" is actually an oxmoron.
America is an empire and if we take the long view from the slaughter of Native Americans through Hiroshima, Vietnam, and Iraq, the collective crimes of Americans far exceed those of Saddam Hussein. If we actually listened to what the rest of the world was saying and paid attention to the facts as well as the emotion and ideology, we'd see that the Iraq War was illegal and immoral and based on pure assertion.
Some people think that it was worth killng all those people to impose "democracy." I don't.
love and peace or else,
Anu
 
I'm sick of people who say the same thing over and over and have no evidence to back up the same claim again and again. I'm sick of Democrats who are so close minded that I'm worried if I say, 'Well, you know...' they'll come at me with crowbars, foaming at the mouth, howling, Republican! Republican! I'm sick of people who won't be reasonable when arguing.
Originally posted by melon
You'll always have "nutty Democrats" just like there are "nutty Republicans."

It's time for the reasonable ones on both sides to start being more vocal! I think we'd have a better country, as a result.
:up: Highly agree.
 
I just wish we had a moderate instead of an extremist in the White House. All of these extremists, on both sides, are driving me up a wall.
 
Last edited:
i dont' think blatant Bush-bashing does any good, neither now nor before the election.



but it's still fun, so i plan to continue.
 
BonosSaint said:


I don't hate Bush, although his actions scare me sometimes.
I don't think he is evil. I also do not think he is too bright. I think he is passionate and loyal and I think he wants what he believes is best for America--it's what he believes is best I take issue with. I believe his religious beliefs are sincere, but shallow. I think he is stubborn and once he gets in a mindset, he is immovable--thinking that if he just keeps beating the same drum, it will prove it is the right rhythm. I think he gets stuck in phrases and cannot get beyond them. (PS, needs new speechwriters). He is symbolism over substance,
the grand gesture over the responsible act, action without full consideration of consequences, favors choreographed support over meaningful dialogue, and I believe he is a man who cannot tolerate being questioned or challenged.

In short, he speaks loudly and carries a little stick.

I agree! And yeah, President bashing is fun, and I make fun of Dubya and Daddy Shrub at every chance. That's not really what I meant to say I hate (so maybe Bush-bashing wasn't the right word.)

And I didn't mean to make it sound like my whole big problem was just with the Hitler comparisons. That's just a random thing some people like to mutter when they have nothing else to say fact-wise. It's just the whole demonizing of him and the Iraq war in particular that gets old. People make it sound like the Iraqis were all coexisting peacefully and prospering, when all of the sudden we stormed in there shooting women and children for fun, attempting to wipe out their entire race, and worst of all: force-feeding them McDonalds. Our gov't obviously didn't go in there cos we care about freedom or democracy or anything silly like that! OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation) wasn't out of the goodness of our hearts. But that doesn't change the fact that a true mass murderer's gonna get the chair (or the guillatine probably, lol) and something resembling free & fair elections took place.

and for God's sake, Bush didn't slaughter the Native Americans or bomb Hiroshima. and how the hell is this war more immoral than what was going on with Saddam, sanctions, Oil for Food, etc???
 
Comparing Bush to Hitler is counterproductive.

What Bush's opponents need to focus on is the issues, winning legislative seats at mid-terms and on getting a non-Republican in the White House in 08. Harness your anger, your frustration and do something productive.
 
BonosSaint said:
I don't hate Bush, although his actions scare me sometimes.
I don't think he is evil. I also do not think he is too bright. I think he is passionate and loyal and I think he wants what he believes is best for America--it's what he believes is best I take issue with. I believe his religious beliefs are sincere, but shallow. I think he is stubborn and once he gets in a mindset, he is immovable--thinking that if he just keeps beating the same drum, it will prove it is the right rhythm. I think he gets stuck in phrases and cannot get beyond them. (PS, needs new speechwriters). He is symbolism over substance,
the grand gesture over the responsible act, action without full consideration of consequences, favors choreographed support over meaningful dialogue, and I believe he is a man who cannot tolerate being questioned or challenged.

In short, he speaks loudly and carries a little stick.

What BonosSaint said :up:. Also, personally, even though he's president, I don't think Bush is even the one in charge in this administration-I think he's just going with what everyone around him, people like Cheney and Rumsfeld and them, wants him to do/say. And those people scare me more than Bush.

Also, I've never compared Bush to Hitler, and I don't intend to start now. That's a tad on the extreme side.

Angela
 
Back
Top Bottom