Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News So tell me, just why do you hate Bush?

  1. Oct 31, 2008 #1
    Within my own circle of friends, many of them have an extreme hatred for George W. Bush, but when I ask them why, exactly, it is that they hate him they have given some pretty wild answers. So my challenge to you is, tell me why you hate/dislike/have a problem with him without having to look it up or fact check yourself; I am curious as to what the support for his hatred is. Some will be legitimate some will not, lets discuss.

  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 31, 2008 #2
    1) The Patriot Act
    2) The Iraq War
    3) Spewing propaganda to news outlets such as Fox News.
    4) U.S. citizen eavesdropping
    5) Worsening our economic status by giving the rich of all people a tax break.
  4. Oct 31, 2008 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Lord, another one.

    Stolen election [fraud]
    Swift Boat scam
    Rush to an unnecessary war based on misleading if not false information
    Reckless, arrogant, inept foreign policy that left the US isolated
    Abuse of the military [hyper-extended tours of duty, for example]
    Abuse of the National Guard [used to fight a war abroad during a time of domestic threat]
    Katrina - mind boggling incompetence. National Guard equipment needed was in Iraq
    Lies lies lies lies lies - any day on the news
    Illegal wire taps
    Enemy combatant [new status with no legal protections]
    secret prisons
    patriot act
    Effort to pursue the use of tactical nukes for bunker busters
    Dubai ports deal - selling our national security to a foreign country during a time of war
    Failure to protect the borders during a time of war - well over 2 million people have entered the US illegally since 911.
    Invocation of executive privilege to hide crimes
    Refusal to cooperate with Congress

    That was just what I could think of off the top of my head. We have at least hudreds of discussion about these and more topics. But generally speaking, it amounts to severe abuse of power, an illegal war, supreme arrogance and incompetence, and above all, war crimes.
  5. Oct 31, 2008 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh yes, not only has he doubled the national debt to over ten trillion dollars, but we now have an economy in tatters.

    Hopefully the mythical association between Republicans and prosperity is debunked forever!

    His abusive Rovian tactics have left us a nation more divided that I have seen in my lifetime.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2008
  6. Oct 31, 2008 #5
    So lets start talkings about lightbulbs points:
    1.) The Patriot Act: I agree with you, I don't like this policy and I think it has an unbelievable susceptibility to being taken advantage of, which would also apply to 4.) Civilian Eavesdropping which goes hand in hand as I believe you are referring to the domestic terrorism clause of the Patriot Act.
    2.) To be honest, I created this thread to bait people into this specific discussion. Do you think the WMD argument is false? It has clearly been proven so from the liberals and regurgitated on CNN that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. Or has it? How about the enriched uranium, sarin, and cyclosarin that were found in Iraq. There are also reports of ricin and other WMDs that have been found in the country.
    The point that I am trying to get across is that a huge number, if not the majority of people, that hate Bush hate him based on false beliefs and a fundamental misunderstanding of the term WMD.
    3.) Get real, you hate George Bush because he spews propaganda to news outlets? My first instinct is to ask for a particular case, my second is to point out that it is customary of a president to spew propaganda (Immediately after the infamous, "I did not have sex with that woman" stunt by Clinton, what did he do? Invaded Yugoslavia to distract voters from the scandal and the impeachment that would soon follow. And don't even try to go into the human rights argument because the same could be used for Iraq. Politics is an image which politicians must hone and refine.
    5.) Worsening our economic situation was based on a number of factors which least of all had to do with said tax cuts for the rich. Lets look at the downturn in the economy shortly after Bush took office which was considered the crash of the dot com bubble. Since the bubble began to burst before GB took office it can hardly be attributed to him. Then there was the economic turmoil after 9/11 which would also not be GB's fault and it surely wasnt due to said "giving rich people a tax break." The third major economic problem during his tenure would be the current crisis which current knowledge of the situation shows that it was caused by sub-prime loans predominantly and had a ripple effect throughout. I guess I should point out that sub-prime lending is a concept that was strongly pushed by the democrats.

    Like in many of my posts, there is a caveat. I am not some huge Bush fan or neo-con, although I do tend to side with many conservative policies I also side with numerous liberal ideas also. It just really irks me when people gang up on someone because it is the popular thing to do. This is what I feel has happened to Bush. Yes, he has made bad decisions, yes he often sounds like a buffoon, but the main reason people dislike him (in my opinion and personal experience) is the war on Iraq and the urban legend that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. I guess I also should have pointed out the prominent democrats that were in favor of the war to begin with but later jumped shipped.

  7. Oct 31, 2008 #6
    Source for WMD claim?

    Asking mainly because I assume I will hit several links refering to lack thereof if I search myself.

    By the by I defended the admin from what I found to be overzealous attacks on here myself many times. Primarily I try to poke holes in what I see as bad arguements because I feel that liberals and democrats making bad arguements makes them (and myself by association) look bad.
  8. Oct 31, 2008 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The Bush claim was not that there were WMDs left over from the 80s, but that Saddam had started new WMD programs.

    See, for example:

    Please do name them, along with specific quotes where they expressed such favor. If you don't have any actual quotes, don't bother.

    PS: A few things that were missed by others - the 2000 Republican Primary campaign, nearly peeing (in) his pants on the morning of 9/11, ignoring the repeated recommendations of counter terrorism czar Richard Clarke for the political ideology of PNAC, lying to the public on the rationale for the war, not knowing who a Sunni is before invading Iraq, staffing the CPA with unqualified nutjobs based on religio-political litmus tests, lying to the public about warrantless wiretaps, the corruption of the Justice Dept, staffing administrative positions with unqualified cronies (resulting in gross negligence/subversion by EPA, HSA, FDA, NOAA and several other agencies), signing statements, and the rape of science, reason and competence at the altar of political loyalty are a few that come to mind.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2008
  9. Oct 31, 2008 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Medline, there are lengthy threads on this topic already. Did you bother to read any of them?
  10. Oct 31, 2008 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    to quote a line from sleepless in seattle, "how long is your show?".
  11. Oct 31, 2008 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Unsubstantiated claims and misinformation.

    One should provide the evidence to support these statements.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2008
  12. Oct 31, 2008 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Defining WMD has become as illusive as defining the Bush Doctrine?

    Per Powell's address to the UN, WMD are:
    Powell's comments on a nuclear program were weaker and more indirect (and did not include any mention of Nigerian yellow-cake uranium). Powell also clearly stated the Bush administration's second point - that Iraq's WMD program was directly tied to Al-Qaida terrorist operations:

    You also overstate the support of Democrats in Congress (and several Republicans, as well, for that matter) for the war. It would be more properly called "tap dancing to avoid any sort of accountability for anything I do in Congress" than being in favor of the war. Actually, that's even more reprehensible than being wrong, but claiming they were in favor of the war and later jumped ship is technically incorrect, none the less.
  13. Oct 31, 2008 #12
    As far as Saddam restarting his WMD program is concerned, yes I think that has turned out to be false.

    I am not a nuclear physics expert so I cannot comment on this part.

    There were a couple of Ivan's points that I forgot to mention in my original post, but I think my five alone stand as enough ground for hating the guy.

    You cannot compare the two.

    From Late April 2008:

    I'd like to see some evidence for this. My stepfather even thinks that Bush was the least likely cause for the economic crisis which I think is pure bunk. Doubling our national debt shows some serious incompetence on his part.
  14. Oct 31, 2008 #13
    Quoting from memory:

    The enriched uranium was actually there under UN supervision until the weapons inspectors left, so the war made proliferation actually a BIGGER risk Fortunately, it wasn't looted and even if it was, it was not all that highly enriched and I think enough for only half a critical mass.

    There were some mustard, sarin and cyclosarin shells found, in a number less than a dozen I believe. These may have been administratively lost or remnants from the Iran-Iraq war, all shells were in pretty bad state and the cyclosarin one was at least highly degraded after so many years, cyclosarin does have a rather limited shelf life I believe.

    I also remember a botulinum vial found in a fridge of an Iraqi scientist, maybe some ricin there too (?). However, the botulinum strain wasn't one of the more weaponizable ones (maybe Saddam needed some botox shots), the vial was kept in the scientists home refridgerator and were ordered to be kept by him by the regime in 1991 or 2 or so, after which he never heard from the regime again, so they might have forgot. Also a not so useful part of a uranium centrifuge was hidden in a rosebush in his garden or so.

    But some rightwing media trumped all of this up a lot bigger than it was and never bothered with retractions or corrections. Same thing of those "biowarfare trailers" that were most likely hydrogen generators for weather balloons for wind information for field artillery and probably even delivered to Iraq by the British.

    In short, other than in some people's mind who WANT to believe the lies they were told, nothing really turned up.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 31, 2008
  15. Oct 31, 2008 #14
    It's irrelevant: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Waltz/waltz-con6.html

    A bigger question is why GWB flip-flopped from his anti-nation building mantra in the 2000 election to the pro-nation building mantra which lasted until 2006 (at least). I'm reminded of the instability in and breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
  16. Oct 31, 2008 #15
    Several of you have questioned the economic part of my argument any im not sure what exactly you are questioning. If you dont think that this current problem was largely started by the sub-prime market collapse and subsequent foreclosures than a quick google search should put your doubt to rest. If it is my claim that the democrats are the problem behind the subprime loan lending, take the Clinton Administration's push to expand the subprime market. You should also consider that the Bush adminstration tried to reign in the subprime market several times only to be met with considerable opposition from Barney Franks et al.

    The first piece is about the Franks issue:
    Democratic Fingerprints are all over crisis

    This one is an old piece from 1999 about the Clinton administrations push for subprime lending:
    Thank you Clinton for the subprime boom!

    Unfortunately thats all the time I have right now. Have a good weekend everyone!

    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 31, 2008
  17. Oct 31, 2008 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Everyone blames Clinton because he pushed Fannie and Freddie to make more subprime loans, and then subprime loans are what caused the crisis. Except that most subprime loans weren't purchased by Fannie and Freddie. Private investment banks found that subprime loans were profitable, and started doing it to the extent of possibly even breaking laws in order to make more loans, because they thought it was good money.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html [Broken]

    It was banks taking advantage of regulatory lapses to overextend themselves that brought upon the crisis

    Furthermore, Bush never really did anything to reign in the subprime market. He had six years of a Republican Congress, what was he waiting for? It's ironic that Bush

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060407-1.html [Broken]

    took credit for rising home ownership rates that were due to subprime loans being given out

    He spent years telling us that rising home ownership rates was due to his tax cuts, but now that the **** has hit the fan Republicans are blaming Democrats for pushing higher home ownership rates. Does that make sense Nobody's innocent in this mess, but to say the Democrats caused all of it (some people even blame Jimmy Carter... because nobody ever had a chance to repeal any of his laws) while the Republicans were trying to fight it is pretty disingenuous
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  18. Oct 31, 2008 #17
    Maybe that came across wrong, of course the Republicans arent innocent here but due to the Democrats proactive role in pushing subprime loans, they take the brunt of the criticism.

  19. Oct 31, 2008 #18


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That is incorrect. Fannie and Freddie totally dominated the mortgage secondary market of the US,including less than prime loans, except for one or two years mentioned in the misleading McLatchy piece. By 2007 they were once again leading the pack:

    Incorrect. The administration attempted to rein in the GSE's through legislative proposals, though they didn't try hard enough; IMO Bush could have taken direct executive action through the Treasury to stop them.
    Statements in 2003 by Sec Treasury Snow, Chairman CEA Mankiw
    See S.190
    That's nearly exactly backwards. I'm unaware of any political leader saying the 'democrats caused all of it.' However, from the other side, the reverse:
  20. Oct 31, 2008 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Did you read this?

    It's almost like it says Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't prefer subprime mortgages in the article. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. It goes on to say how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't get mired in the subprime mortgage crisis that was afflicting some banks. I never said they didn't hold a lot of mortgage debt, just that they clearly weren't forced into buying up debt that they didn't want, and a lot of the subprime mortgages were given out because they were believed to be proiftable, not because a government agency was forced to pick up the debt.

    Well, the Treasury department took direct action... to limit states from reigning in predatory lending practices (read: subprime mortgages) via the OCC
    http://www.realtor.org/government_affairs/gapublic/occanalysis [Broken]


    There are plenty of people saying the democrats caused it all. Just because Pelosi doesn't say that (why would she? That would be a juicy soundbite) doesn't mean everyone thinks like her
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  21. Oct 31, 2008 #20


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Again you are singling out one or two years when other players outpaced Frannie and Freddie. Before, and especially after, as the graph and article make clear the GSE's dominated mortagages in the US. Cumulatively over the last 15 years the GSEs bought FAR more mortgages prime and subprime than anyone else. Certainly the GSE's were not forced to buy subprime, they trumpeted the fact in 2007 that they were buying subprime to help us all out! They willingly 'trampled' into the market, as the piece says, to make money. In addition, because of their auto documentation practices that became common practice, many of the loans they bought (on paper) as prime could easily be, and probably were, subprime.

    That OCC rule preempted some state rules with federal ones for national banks. If there's evidence that the federal restrictions were poorer, and not better, than the several states, then that was a blunder.

    The GSE's were the cause celeb of the Democrats in Congress, they encouraged the madness. But this mostly went down on the Bush administration's and R. Congress's watch; they more or less had the power to stop this and failed to do so. But it is dangerous to pretend that the GSE's were not a primary cause of this mess, otherwise we're doomed to see more of the same.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook