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

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

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?

Attacking Saudi Arabia made more sense than attacking Saddam, who absolutely hated Al Qaeda. The concept that he would ever supply them with weapons would be laughable if so many people hadn't died. There was never any indication that Saddam had a nuclear weapon. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.



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.[/quote]

You forget that Iraq invaded Kuwait after we told Saddam that we would not get involved if he did. We could have prevented that war just by telling him "No." Yes, I do believe that the Middle East should fight their own battles. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia can both easily afford to hire mercernary fighters if they can't be bothered to sustain their own armies. It was absolutely none of our business. We were not attacked.

[quote:20r1rgx9]
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.[/quote:20r1rgx9] Apparently it wouldn't matter to you. And if the weapons had come from Iran, it would not be appropriate for America to invade. The problems in the Middle East are not out concern. We are not the police of the world.

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

There was actually plenty of intelligence that said Iraq did not have weapons. We could have let the inspectors continue to inspect. Instead Bush ordered them out and attacked with absolutely no provocation.

This should serve as an absolute example as to why we should not attack unless we are attacked first. It absolutely means that we should never wage war because intelligence "instictively" thinks something bad "might" happen.

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.?

You don't get it both ways. You can't say that an attack on the UN forces is grounds for an invasion, then discount the significance of the UN. But either way, it doesn't change the bottom line. America was not attacked. By the way, I am all for pulling out of the UN for the reasons you listed, but I would never use them as a secondary excuse to bomb a third world country that had not attacked anybody.

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

Yes. I absolutely think that we should not attack yet another country that has not attacked us. Note that Iran has never, in it's entire history, been the aggressor in any of the conflicts it has been involved in. I'll say it again = attacking Iran would mean we would be attacking a country that has never attacked another country. That doesn't mean anything to you?

As for Israel....Isreal has more than enough nuclear power to defend herself. Additionally, the 3rd holiest Muslim site in the world is in Israel. If you think there's any chance at all the Muslims would nuke the Dome of the Rock, you really don't have a clue what Islam is all about. (Of course, that makes peddling the war easier for the administration) Again and again, America does not need to be meddling in the internal affairs of the Middle East.

[quote:20r1rgx9]
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?
[/quote:20r1rgx9] You are correct. We do not belong in any of those countries. How many countries have bases here in America? In fact, now that I think of it, how many countries have bases in other countries?

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.

DOn't forget that Tony Blair fired a senior intelligence official who publically disagreed with Blair's "expert" assessmentof the situation. Again, there was plenty of intelligence insisting that Saddam had no weapons, most publically visible in the UN Inspectors who continually found absolutely nothing. Yes, it would have indeed apparently been far, far better to wait and see what happened, because nothing would have happened. Saddam had no WMDs and his army was still severly depleted from the spanking he got in the Gulf war. We invaded a third world country, with practically no real defenses, for absolutely no good reason. There's no good defense.

And let's not forget that we started bombing Iraq on Clinton's watch, as an attempted distraction from the Lewinski scandal. It's not hard to imagine why they're pretty hostile to the thought of us living there now.

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

Yep. They've been slaughtering each other for thousands of years, No reason to think they're going to stop now. Leave the office equipment, cut through Kuwait, and bring our troops all home. That country is not worth a single American dollar, much less a single American life. And if I might quote General Odom: [b]Second, it is insisted that chaos will follow our withdrawal. We heard that argument as the “domino theoryâ€

Originally Posted by MW

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

Ron Paul started predicting this in the early '80's. You can't find anything he was wrong about. Bush should be so lucky. 4,000 dead soldiers should have been so lucky.

After all, we've seen, it's hard to make a case for Bush being right about anything, and there's no reason to think he's going to start being concerned with accuracy now that he's on his way out of office.

Perhaps the experts Paul has had on his side ( like the 9/11 Commission, Scott Ritter and Michael Scheurer to start with) are the people we should be listening to.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

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]

Great points, Texasborn! Bush did a good job on Iraq and Afghanistan, staying firm in the face of the liberal shrieking for withrawal which would let Iran take over and make that country even worse than it was under Sadam. He deserves credit for bringing the USA victory in Iraq, and democracy for Iraqis.

But his refusal to enforce our immigration laws pretty much negates that credit, so he deseves the lousy approval rating he got.

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.

Roundabout,

When Clinton was president, I was unsparing in criticizing his treasonous actions. The knee-jerk Clinton apologists referred to this as "Clinton-bashing" I am criticizing Bush now, because he is the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvqnia Ave., Washington, D.C.

Were you urging people not to "bash" Clinton when he was president?

Bush has caused a lot of people to awaken, because of his treasonous actions, as Clinton and Poppa Bush did before him.

While we are ostensibnly in a "War on Terrorism" Bush has looked the other way, when intelligence data shows our southern border has been breached by people from the ME, connected to terrorist organizations.

Because Bush isn't the only one to betray our nation, is no reason to mute valid criticism of him.

POTUS,

Well stated and I agree. I too went after Clinton wholeheartedly. I also attacked any and all others who went along with Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Brady Bill and a myraid of other issues. With no respect to party lines.

Bush deserves a beating, no doubt. Others do as well, that is were I try and instigate.

Glad we all got these things off our chest. In the end, at least the ONE thing we can all agree on is that our borders have been and are still wide open for invasion. Let's stop the invasion and get rid of those invaders still in the country. Let's stay focused on our ALIPAC mission and do what we do best!

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Glad we all got these things off our chest. In the end, at least the ONE thing we can all agree on is that our borders have been and are still wide open for invasion. Let's stop the invasion and get rid of those invaders still in the country. Let's stay focused on our ALIPAC mission and do what we do best!

Agreed. Let's also not hesitate to criticize traitors, who are doing their level best to deliver America to the world government crowd, regardless of whether they have a "D" or an "R" after their name.

ANGELATC AND AIRBORNESAPPER7, GREAT POSTS!!! I am ashamed because I voted for Bush twice also. I used to be lead by the MSM too! I feel duped and I will never have my eyes closed EVER again! Thank you everyone here! We are all in this together.

I'll be ecstatic to see BUSH gone and I am life long GOP....guaranteed not to make the mistake of voting for McSame....

The Constitution Party actually believes in the Constitution!! That's something the GOP and Dems have forgotten about a long time ago...Poor Reagan had the right ideas they just didn't get voted for.

Liberty never did come by accident or without a high price. Time to either pay up or watch it all disintegrate before your very eyes.

Bye Bye Georgie you globalist scum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo

Could it be that Bush's legacy was to be, saving the Republican Party ? He promised Fox and Calderone he would get "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" passed. Mexico would love him. The IA's would then turn away from the Democrats, and vote Republican in 08.