George Bush

Fine then, and don't make me out to be some amboebic child.

Policies: "I don't know how I got in, I was running against peace, prosperity and incumbency"

The first two he said he was against in that interview are almost universally agreed to be beneficial to any society. The third was not even a real word.

He promised he wouldn't raise taxes. Guess what the first thing he did was, raise taxes.

As well as that, might I remind you that he hardly has an honourable lineage, his grandfather funded Hitler.

He was clearly obsessed with war, he bombed Afghanistan even though he knew Bin Laden had long since evacuated.

He bombed Iraq even though iraq had not lifted so much as a finger against the U.S. Iraq had never been able to access nuclear weaponry as Bush and his staff made clear when he was first elected. Iraq had nover even made a hollow threat to attack America.

On top of this he failed to put America on high alert when the first plane of 9/11 crashed.
 
The Phantarch said:
Fine then, and don't make me out to be some amboebic child.

Policies: "I don't know how I got in, I was running against peace, prosperity and incumbency"

The first two he said he was against in that interview are almost universally agreed to be beneficial to any society. The third was not even a real word.

He promised he wouldn't raise taxes. Guess what the first thing he did was, raise taxes.

As well as that, might I remind you that he hardly has an honourable lineage, his grandfather funded Hitler.

He was clearly obsessed with war, he bombed Afghanistan even though he knew Bin Laden had long since evacuated.

He bombed Iraq even though iraq had not lifted so much as a finger against the U.S. Iraq had never been able to access nuclear weaponry as Bush and his staff made clear when he was first elected. Iraq had nover even made a hollow threat to attack America.

On top of this he failed to put America on high alert when the first plane of 9/11 crashed.
Click to expand...
incumbency is a real word.
also wars are usually very good for America's economy, WW1 and WW2 were absolutely great for America, also he was talking about people's perceptions of the democrat party.

wow his grandfather funded hitler, America funded the Weimar Republic which was germany and they funded the creation of all the industry there 1919-29, which Hitler no doubt used to build tanks and bombs to kill people, what does any of this have to do with Georgy's presidency, well i guess, NOTHING.

You don't think he invaded afghanistan to liberate the people from the taliban, and that the war in afghanistan was very successful, and that it prevented Osama from going back to afghanistan?

You're quite right, Iraq never threatened America, Saddam only committed genocide, but as long as they dont threaten other countries thats cool huh?

And he didnt put America on high alert, call me cynical, but that doesnt actually do anything
 
You are quite right to be cynical about what would happen, but I would have thought if the nation was under attack, it would be the leader's moral obligation to do something about it.

I haven't encountered the word incumbency anywhere. When I saw it I looked for it in every dictionary I could find, yet it did not present itself.

You have got the complete wrong end of the stick about Iraq. Also what's this about the olympic games being held in Beijing, with their atrocious human rights record isn't the U.S. going to use the massive extent of its power to boycott them, I sincerely doubt that. I do not approve of genocide, however it is naive to think you can just go in anywhere and westernisation will save that particular nation.

Also did you not see, the American invasion did nothing but exacerbate what was already terrible.

Whatever triumphs emerged from Afghanisthan, do they justify the amount of people absolutely pulverised. The end does not justify the means here.

Okay the WWII fact was redundant but do you sincerely believe that anything good can come from a man against peace and prosperity. (I will not use' incumbency' as its meaning eludes me).
 
There are many things I saw in this thread I want to reply to, but I'm lazy, so I'll just make a general post.

First off: "Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural in·cum·ben·cies
Date: circa 1608
1 : something that is incumbent : duty
2 : the quality or state of being incumbent
3 : the sphere of action or period of office of an incumbent"

From Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Look harder next time. Also, please do better research. At the time that the United States bombed Afghanistan, the Taliban were still in control of the government.

George Bush is stupid. I don't think there's any getting around that. I think he's stupid and surrounded himself with terrible people who tell him what he would like to hear and manipulate him. That said, I don't think he's a horrible person, per se. I think he has made terrible choices, but not for evil or malicious reasons. The war was handled terribly. The United States just barged in without any tact. They did not have the foresight to realize the consequences of toppling Saddam's Ba'ath regime. BIG, BIG mistake.

To people who are bitching that the war is still going on: You clearly don't understand how this works. What the United States started isn't some one day affair. You don't just go into a country, topple the regime, and then withdraw. That's not how it works. Yes, Saddam is dead. That isn't the point right now. The point is that the country of Iraq is still in complete turmoil. There are insurgencies left and right, fighting American troops or even fighting each other. I don't even want to think about the disaster that would befall Iraq if the United States just pulled out all of their troops and left. That is quite possibly the WORST idea.

Additionally, this isn't about Osama bin Laden. Sure it would be great if the United States could find him and get some justice for what happened on 9/11. But if you think Al Qaeda would shrivel up and die without bin Laden, you're sadly misinformed. There are thousands of men to take his place.

I think he was a terrible president. I think he knowingly lied to the American public. Both he and his cabinet knew that there was no concrete evidence of WMDs in Iraq. According to an interview with a former CIA official that I read, the CIA was constantly pressured by the Bush administration to find evidence of WMDs, and continually ignored intelligence that did not suit their needs. His lack of knowledge about middle eastern history and politics is appalling. That he would even SUGGEST that the taliban and Saddam Hussein were working together is absolutely laughable. That he would tell the American public that is disgusting. It was either a lie or the Bush administration truly does not know a thing about middle eastern politics. (I would believe the former.) Unfortunately, many Americans are completely ignorant of middle eastern politics and would believe such a thing.
 
If he really didn't believe God was telling him to have a war, I still don't think any better of him. He's still a bloody liar.

I know other politicians are dirty liars, but that's also why I don't think much of them either way.
 
I just heard that Bushie came to Croatia 3 days ago.
GET THE FECK OUTTA MY COUNTRY, YOU HYPOCRITE.
Ahem...anyway...
I asked my mum earlier if she liked Bushie. She said that he's president, so if the citizens don't like him, they'll just have to deal with it until they either elect Obama or Hillary.
So I'm guessing she likes Bushie, so that could be a bad thing.
Or maybe foreigners don't have any sense of stupidity to realize that Bushie is stupid, bombing Iraq.
What I see is that Iraq has a great quality of gas and oil tankers, so this might be a reason for bombing Iraq just because after asking Iraq for oil and being refused to have any. But what I know is that if Texas has a large quantity of oil/gas, then why don't they ship the oil/gas from there to other countries? Therefore no war would've broken out at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top