Thread: Bush's disapproval rating worst of any president in 70 years

BearFlagRepublic, What would happen if tomorrow you woke up and found out that Syria and Iran just went to war with Saudi Arabia and Oman? Would world economies come to a standstill?

The hard part is wanting to know or to hear the truth about what this war is about. If this war is for national interests, I can deal with that accordingly. Would national interests include keeping the dollar as a currency for trading oil on the world marketplace intact, thus insuring stability? Could national interest include putting forces on the ground to gain info concerning terrorist that have plagued the world for decades now. They have gained in sheer numbers and sophistication over the years with larger and larger targets and force. Would stability in the region of so much of the world's energy needs warrant action? Remember Kuwait? What would it take to wreak havoc to the world's energy needs? If terroristic groups were willing to take down the WTC why not sink a oil tanker in the Straits of Harmuz.

If it is for nefarious reasons, corporate interest alone, global conquest for the sake of international corporations dreams to rule the world.........well then we have a serious problem.

Asfor the borders, we as Americans need to demand that they are secured. War or no war. We do not need nefarious or devious intentions to tell us that our borders should be secured, commonsense should be enough.

On the plus side, Bush has awakened many Americans to take a look at the landscape, a landscape that Bush did not create on his own. Plenty of credit to go around. What do we see............

9/11 was a grim reminder that things had changed forever. It had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Bush started the war. I do indeed blame him, because he is a war monger. We should not attack people who have not attacked us first. It's that simple. The whole concept of preemptive war is insanity.

Let me see, the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Arab. So should we have attached Saudi Arabia instead? After all, they were from Saudi, right?
Regarding preemptive war, should we just cross our fingers and wait for an American city to be vaporized if we have evidence that another country has plans to plant a nuke?

You'll be hard pressed to find a darned thing I have forgotten about the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign nation that attacked nobody.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, a defenseless friendly nation. I guess we should have waited for some other Arab country to stop one of the largest armies in the world.

The weapons that Saddam used on the Kurds came from the United States, by the way. So you're saying we attacked them because we thought they still possessed the weapons that we gave them.

Would it have mattered if the weapons came from Iran? Dead is dead.

The fact that our intelligence was so dreadfully wrong is absolutely no excuse. It just makes the situation that much worse. And it should discredit every case the administration makes for staying there.

Should we abolish our intelligence agencies and trust our "instincts"?

There was no UN resolution for anybody to march into Iraq. The UN did not invade Iraq, and the UN specifically said that the violations did not warrant retribution.

Do you mean the same U.N. that is rife with corruption and a paper tiger? The same U.N. that has done nothing to stop the genocides that have and are now taking place? The same U.N. that can't ever seem to get agreement on anything among its members? That U.N.?

It should absolutely discredit the motivations to march into Iran next.

Should we wait for Iran to drop a nuke on our ally Israel if we evidence of a plan?

Iraq is not our country. We do not belong there. Middle East troubles would stay in the Middle East if the West would stay out of the Middle East.

So, by that logic, we don't belong in S. Korea, Germany, Japan, etc?

Even if it did, Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the United States. We are not the police of the world, and we have no business sticking our noses (and our troops!) into the affairs of sovreign nations.

The U.S. Congress, Great Britain, France and Germany to name a few, thought that Iraq posed a grave threat. This is fact. Perhaps we should have just said...nahhh, you guys are all wrong? I guess hindsight is always 20/20.

Things are improving - 3800 American deaths after "Mission Accomplished."

You're right. We should pull out now and leave Iraq to become the new Cambodian killing fields. After all, it's THEIR war. Iraqi citizens should fend for themselves

Terrorism is always the result of occupation, and it always ceases when the occupation ceases. But we cannot win a war against a tactic.

What middle eastern countries were we occupying when our foreign embassies were bombed? What middle eastern country were we occupying when the USS Cole was bombed? What middle eastern country were we occupying when 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 at the hands of Al Queda?[/i]

ULTIMATE PROOF, BUSH IS A TRAITOR: www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan44.htm

Originally Posted by roundabout

BearFlagRepublic, What would happen if tomorrow you woke up and found out that Syria and Iran just went to war with Saudi Arabia and Oman? Would world economies come to a standstill?

The hard part is wanting to know or to hear the truth about what this war is about. If this war is for national interests, I can deal with that accordingly. Would national interests include keeping the dollar as a currency for trading oil on the world marketplace intact, thus insuring stability? Could national interest include putting forces on the ground to gain info concerning terrorist that have plagued the world for decades now. They have gained in sheer numbers and sophistication over the years with larger and larger targets and force. Would stability in the region of so much of the world's energy needs warrant action? Remember Kuwait? What would it take to wreak havoc to the world's energy needs? If terroristic groups were willing to take down the WTC why not sink a oil tanker in the Straits of Harmuz.

If it is for nefarious reasons, corporate interest alone, global conquest for the sake of international corporations dreams to rule the world.........well then we have a serious problem.

Asfor the borders, we as Americans need to demand that they are secured. War or no war. We do not need nefarious or devious intentions to tell us that our borders should be secured, commonsense should be enough.

On the plus side, Bush has awakened many Americans to take a look at the landscape, a landscape that Bush did not create on his own. Plenty of credit to go around. What do we see............

I'm not claiming to know what this war is about. Just that I do not believe that it has anything to do with American security. Its possible that geopolitically/ecomonically this war is in our interests. However, even then the point has to be made that somehow geopolitics and economic interests in Third World countries thousands of miles away is far greater a concern than the destruction of America's sovereignty, middle-class, and the balkanization of our nation. That Bush seems so concerned about the former, and not at all concerned for the latter, makes me skeptical that this war is in any way fought for American interests. I am not making any connection between the driving forces of the Iraq War and the driving forces for illegal immigration -- outside of lobbies and political interest groups generally speaking. I think the forces in favor of the war, and the forces in favor of open borders are largely different interests. The fact that our time, money, energy, men, and resources are being used thousands of miles away rather than on our own border is very telling as to where the loyalty of this administration stands. And that loyalty is clearly not with the American people and the American republic.

Originally Posted by Molly

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

What I do not understand, is that if Bush cared oh so much for American security, the threats of WMD, terrorists etc, that he is willing to sacrifice thousands of our best young men and squander half a trillion dollars......Why has he left the border wide open for over 7 years

I just don't buy that he had our best interests in the invasion of Iraq. He does not have our best interests at heart in anything he does. Something besides American security was/is driving this war, as our government has blatenly shown that they do not care about American security where it counts -- on our own soil.

Well Said!

I second that!

BearFlagRepublic, A very respectable and easily understood position.

I too wonder about President Bush's contadictions between national security abroad issues vs homeland security issues.

Bush bashing by itself is fine and warranted in many areas. If Bush bashing is to promote the dems and Hillary or Obama, count me out.

I still say, on the plus side, Bush has awakened many a sleepy headed Americans, and is forcing them to look around. Bush is not alone at painting the landscaped scenery that has come to view. To just bash Bush would be a mistake in my opinion. Let us bash the many that have helped to paint the portrait.

Perhaps Bush could be akin to a heavy pair of shears and a cup of coffee. The shears are needed to cut the blinders and the coffee to wake up the eyes.

Originally Posted by roundabout

BearFlagRepublic, A very respectable and easily understood position.

I too wonder about President Bush's contadictions between national security abroad issues vs homeland security issues.

Bush bashing by itself is fine and warranted in many areas. If Bush bashing is to promote the dems and Hillary or Obama, count me out.

I still say, on the plus side, Bush has awakened many a sleepy headed Americans, and is forcing them to look around. Bush is not alone at painting the landscaped scenery that has come to view. To just bash Bush would be a mistake in my opinion. Let us bash the many that have helped to paint the portrait.


Perhaps Bush could be akin to a heavy pair of shears and a cup of coffee. The shears are needed to cut the blinders and the coffee to wake up the eyes.

I bash everyone equally. Ted Kennedy is my favorite pick.

Americanpatriot, cheers!

So many Ron Paul talking points, so little time for response. Guess I'll just ignore them for now.

9/11 was a grim reminder that things had changed forever. It had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Bush started the war. I do indeed blame him, because he is a war monger. We should not attack people who have not attacked us first. It's that simple. The whole concept of preemptive war is insanity.

Let me see, the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Arab. So should we have attached Saudi Arabia instead? After all, they were from Saudi, right?
Regarding preemptive war, should we just cross our fingers and wait for an American city to be vaporized if we have evidence that another country has plans to plant a nuke?

You'll be hard pressed to find a darned thing I have forgotten about the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign nation that attacked nobody.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, a defenseless friendly nation. I guess we should have waited for some other Arab country to stop one of the largest armies in the world.

The weapons that Saddam used on the Kurds came from the United States, by the way. So you're saying we attacked them because we thought they still possessed the weapons that we gave them.

Would it have mattered if the weapons came from Iran? Dead is dead.

The fact that our intelligence was so dreadfully wrong is absolutely no excuse. It just makes the situation that much worse. And it should discredit every case the administration makes for staying there.

Should we abolish our intelligence agencies and trust our "instincts"?

There was no UN resolution for anybody to march into Iraq. The UN did not invade Iraq, and the UN specifically said that the violations did not warrant retribution.

Do you mean the same U.N. that is rife with corruption and a paper tiger? The same U.N. that has done nothing to stop the genocides that have and are now taking place? The same U.N. that can't ever seem to get agreement on anything among its members? That U.N.?

It should absolutely discredit the motivations to march into Iran next.

Should we wait for Iran to drop a nuke on our ally Israel if we evidence of a plan?

Iraq is not our country. We do not belong there. Middle East troubles would stay in the Middle East if the West would stay out of the Middle East.

So, by that logic, we don't belong in S. Korea, Germany, Japan, etc?

Even if it did, Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the United States. We are not the police of the world, and we have no business sticking our noses (and our troops!) into the affairs of sovreign nations.

The U.S. Congress, Great Britain, France and Germany to name a few, thought that Iraq posed a grave threat. This is fact. Perhaps we should have just said...nahhh, you guys are all wrong? I guess hindsight is always 20/20.

Things are improving - 3800 American deaths after "Mission Accomplished."

You're right. We should pull out now and leave Iraq to become the new Cambodian killing fields. After all, it's THEIR war. Iraqi citizens should fend for themselves

Terrorism is always the result of occupation, and it always ceases when the occupation ceases. But we cannot win a war against a tactic.

What middle eastern countries were we occupying when our foreign embassies were bombed? What middle eastern country were we occupying when the USS Cole was bombed? What middle eastern country were we occupying when 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 at the hands of Al Queda?[/i]

You made some very good points, TexasBorn.

He makes me sick I am just sick of the whole thing.....