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

News Your perception of Bush compared to 2001/2002?

  1. Sep 4, 2005 #1
    Conservatives are criticizing bush increasingly. What is interesting (to me) is that they consider him to be "leading us differently" than 4 years ago. I am curious if this sense that the nature of his leadership is changing, is typical among conservatives.

    As a liberal, I feel that he is doing exactly what he has always done. Being unaware of what's really going on, and just bulldozing ahead on things that he wants to bulldoze ahead on, for personal gain. I see *consistency* in his (1) immediate response to 9/11 and (2) delayed response to the katrina disaster.

    A conservative oped has this to say:


    Do you agree or disagree or (insert your opinion here regarding Bush's (ahem) leadership qualities over the last few years, and whether they have changed).
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 4, 2005 #2
    Back then, I was more or less indifferent to Bush. Now, I can't stand the man. The more I find out about him, the more I dislike him. At this point, I can't find a single trait in the man that I consider to be admirable.
  4. Sep 4, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Actually, I was very disappointed to see him win the nomination back in 2000. I voted for him, but mainly because I disliked the idea of Bush less than Gore. By time the election was decided, I wished I'd just not voted. I did like the cabinet Bush assembled, though - I think my biggest disappointment is the job Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell did - I expected so much better.

    I thought he did do a very good job in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. It kind of bothered me that I might actually have to start liking him rather than just tolerating him.

    Since around summer of 2002 on, my opinion of him has steadily dropped. By time 2004 rolled around, I was glad to see Kerry nominated - it would have hurt if I had had the choice of Bush or Dean and I might have been able to vote for Sharpton over Bush. I'm not sure I could have ever brought myself to vote for Kucinich (I remember when he was Cleveland mayor back around 1980 - how could he still be alive in politics?)

    And my opinion of him has just kept on dropping. I'd vote for Nixon before I'd vote for Bush - in spite of the fact that his brain has probably decayed some in the eleven years since his death.
  5. Sep 4, 2005 #4
    Well, it wouldn't be the first time that someone in the administration had lost to a dead man. :) I was extremely proud of Missouri (my home state) when Ashcroft lost to the late Carnahan. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to us, it had the side effect of him becoming Attorney General. :yuck:
  6. Sep 4, 2005 #5
    I liked him better in the first term than the 2nd. The Afghan conflict was handeled in a much better way, and now hostilities are over and one can see a government in afghanistan which is still held up by the US, but will be running it self within the next ten years, with perhaps only special forces advisors in-country.
    He needs to finish the insurgency quickly, and set up border defences to keep terrorists out, but he also needs to let the country run itself, with our millitary in Iraq doing what Iraq's parliament wants it to do, not us doing what we want to do. once that happens, we can slowly pull troops out, until only spec ops advisors remain, and eventually pull them. If the people of Iraq can have that feeling of autonomy, it will help our relations with Iraq greatly.
  7. Sep 4, 2005 #6
    I never liked Bush because of his ties to special interests, especially big oil. When he picked Cheney for his running mate I was hoping that people would see the way that things would be going if Bush won the election.

    They didn't. Four years later and they still didn't. Although the vote was so close in both elections that only pandering the religious right allowed Bush to win.
  8. Sep 4, 2005 #7
    For me the Problem that I had with Bush from the beginning, is that I knew Dick Cheney would be running the country.

    Nothing has changed in that respect.
  9. Sep 4, 2005 #8
    Gotten better actually. I used to see him as an actually intelligent person who was pushing the corporate agenda. Now I'm beginning to consider that maybe he's just being manipulated/forced in some way to lead such an agenda.
  10. Sep 4, 2005 #9
    My view hasn't really changed much at all. I'm not exactly a conservative though.
    Personally I think that the only thing that made Afghanistan any better a move than Iraq was that he had the aproval to do it. I thought Afghanistan was a bad idea and caught flack from both sides when ever I voiced that opinion.
  11. Sep 4, 2005 #10
    I kind of agree with you.....

    The way I see it after 9/11 the US had two choices. We either needed to go full throttle or capitulate. I would have preferred that we simply capitulate....

    The US should have ended all operations in the middle east and apologized to Saddam for the first gulf war and stop supporting Israel. We should have left the middle east to itself.

    I am not being sarcastic either....I mean that 100%
  12. Sep 5, 2005 #11
    :confused: I don't get it. Does he think he's being clever or something?? :confused:

    http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-09-04-voa21.cfm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  13. Sep 5, 2005 #12
    I opposed Afghanistan too. No real surprise there.
  14. Sep 5, 2005 #13

    That is a popular bumper sticker around the Bay Area.

    I did support the Afghan invasion however and I will explain later. First I would like to explain my feelings about Bush.

    I am registered as decline to state because California allows me to. In 2000 I was in Ohio and registered as an independent. I watched the Republican primary and was considering registering Republican to support John McCain. I didn't know a lot about him but from listening to him speak I thought he was the better choice. I knew Gore would win the Democratic ticket so I wanted to vote where I had a choice. When it was obvious Bush was going to win because he had all the money behind him I remained independent.

    I have an uncle 5 years older than me. When I was 5 years old I found a nickel. He offered to give me a ride to the store on his bike so I could buy a candy bar. I had never been to town without my parents so this was a big adventure for me. I took one bite of the candy bar and then handed it to him because I agreed to share in exchange for the ride. My uncle ate the rest of the candy bar.

    He grew into a strong handsome and charming man. He is 6'2" curly brown hair, brown eyes, and dimples. He turns on the charm and women just fall at his feet. He uses them and then discards them. He befriends people weaker than him and uses charm and intimidation to take advantage of them. George Bush reminds me of that uncle. (Except my uncle is no coward he would have gone to Vietnam if he had been older.)

    I remember the 2000 election, Al Gore won the popular vote. Florida was a statistical tie. I had just read in the newspaper that the Bush campaign had filed a lawsuit to stop the recount in Florida. Then on my TV Jim Baker, lawyer and friend of the Bush family said that Al Gore was trying to tie the results of the election up in the courts. :eek: :surprised The media let him say it when the opposite was true. Al Gore wanted to selectively recount certain counties, which I thought was wrong, but it was Bush who was filing lawsuits, thereby involving the courts. My belief in American democracy at that moment changed, I became disillusioned.

    The next day people were repeating how Al Gore was a sore loser, and was tying the election up in the courts. Well the rest is history. I became somewhat despondent I had always known that politicians were slippery because they are slimy, but I had trusted the press and media to hold to journalistic standards and always seek the truth.

    I remained despondent and just went through the motions of living, didn't care to much anymore. Then came Sept. 11 2001. I remember my first thought after the second plane hit was. Oh my God that building will collapse! My second thought was Bush & Co. will not respond properly.

    But I wanted to believe, so I supported everything they were doing. Including Afghanistan. I thought we should have gone after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in March or April after we knew for certain that it was Al-Qaeda that bombed the USS Cole. Whether doing that would have changed 9/11 is a moot point.

    When they started selling the Iraq war I knew we were in trouble and now here we are.

    My opinion of Bush has not changed, and neither has he. He is still that nasty little boy who likes to blow up frogs with firecrackers. He thrives on the misery of others, whether he is inflicting it or consoling it. I think he may do very well now that he finally understands the scope of the Katrina hurricane. He is in his element although comforting is not as much fun for him as inflicting, It is obvious in the way he talks and the terms he uses.
    (tidal wave of compassion...weapon analogy for the hurricane...and he doesn't stutter when he talks about war and death.)

    Remember this is a man who thinks that executing a woman is funny!
  15. Sep 5, 2005 #14
    :uhh: Border defenses? :uhh:

    This is not a game of Risk.

    Have you any idea how naive your comments sound?

    You should read up on the history and geography of the region before making such statements.
  16. Sep 5, 2005 #15
    You know, when he gave that campaign rally in 2000 at that white supremacist camp (Bob Jones University), I knew he was a joke and was going to be a real f*ck up in office.

    During the 2000 election, I wasn't too worried about who would win. Sure, I wanted Gore to win, but I figured that if Bush won, he'd **** things up so bad there'd never be a Republican in office again. Of course, that was before he stole the election, 9-11, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I had no idea he'd be that bad. I just thought he'd be a lame duck and incredibly stupid. Embarassingliy stupid. Well, it's starting to look like my original theory about him being an enormous embarassment to the GOP (and the country, and the world) is finally starting to come to fruition. Even his own party is turning against him. Rats fleeing a ship. It's a shame it's come at such an awful price to human life.
  17. Sep 5, 2005 #16
    Heh, you should read up on his previous comments. SOP.
  18. Sep 5, 2005 #17
    Wow, I'm different here. Back in 2000, before I actually did my own research on the government and what actually goes on, I couldn't even fathom having Gore as president. I supported Bush 100%. Well, times have changed. Now, i can't stand Bush. I can't stand his administration and every corrupt thing they do. The problem is that I don't see anything worthy coimg out of the Democratic party and since this really is a two-party system, we really only have 2 people to choose from.
    For about 2 years following Bush's election I bought into his propaganda. I bought into all the lies the media told me. But then I read a single sentence out of one book about CLinton and his drug cartel in Mena, Arkansas. I hated Clinton, but still couldn't believe he would be doing this. Well after researching this I realized that the world isn't the way its portrayed on tv. Since then I've decided to investigate everything that goes on independently and use the best possible evidence to form my own opinions. What I found was appalling and unbelieveable to what I had known. Needless to say, I now hate just about everything Bush does. i cannot stand what happened on 9-11, the Iraq war, the attack on civil liberties, or what's going on in New Orleans...a place I once called home a couple years back. I think our overall system is totally messed up and with a govt our founding fathers created (which is totally disassembled today) Bush should've been impeached a long time ago. Along with Cheney as well and many members of his administration. Since Bush has taken office, I believe that America has been led down a horrible downward spiraling path and historians in the future, up to present day, will state that Bush is the worst president we've had to date.
  19. Sep 5, 2005 #18
    What do you suggest, pull out now so they fall a month after we leave!
    Leave the borders open so that terrorists can travel into/out of the country freely! What's wrong with letting the Iraqi government having more power over how the war is run?
    How about you present some real solutions to your issues, instead of giving those smartass comments!
  20. Sep 5, 2005 #19


    User Avatar

    I believe the point being made was that Iraq's borders are so extensive it is impossible to fully control them. Terrorists and insurgents are seldom obliging enough to only cross the border at the gov't designated checkpoints.
    On the basis of Iraq having greater responsibility for Iraq do you therefore believe America was wrong to interfere a few weeks back when they stopped the new shi'ite dominated Iraqi gov't from agreeing a mutual defence pact with the shi'ite gov't of Iran?

    To address the OP my opinion of Bush hasn't changed. He's as bad as I expected him to be. My worry is that the republican party appear to have started a process of personalising the problems, pushing the blame onto Bush and thus clearing the slate for whoever is the next GOP candidate for president. I think it is important for the electorate to remember the whole GOP leadership is to blame and to not let themselves be fooled yet again.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2005
  21. Sep 5, 2005 #20
    Yes. Three words: not my problem. You may say that Iraq is our responsibility, but you know what? It's not mine, and it's not the responsibility of those who opposed the war (even if we involuntarily bankrolled it). You're advocating an irrational viewpoint. If we stay, the insurgency's numbers will continue to increase and get more organized (as the past has shown us). We'll never be able to leave! And don't tell me that you're buying into the assertion that they're in their "last throes," because if you look at a graph of average insurgent attacks per day, you'll see that the graph is clearly concave up.

    And frankly, I couldn't care if "the terrorists" can travel in and out of Iraq freely, so long as they can't do so in the U.S. In fact, even preventing that is impossible, since it's incredibly easy for someone to cross over here from Mexico. As the past week has clearly shown us, our overemphasis on eliminating the infinitesmal threat that is terrorism is stupid, plain and simple. Hey, I've got a rock here that keeps away tigers. I know that it works because there are no tigers here in the room with me. Believe it or not, al-Qaeda accomplished its goals on 9/11. They got everyone so worked up that people would be willing to support a baseless war on the word of a borderline schizophrenic and drug addict. This is the man that believes that God told him to smite Iraq, and that the world was created 6000 years ago. Oh yeah, he was also pretty much either high or drunk all the time for the first 40 years of his life, and I wouldn't be surprised if he snorts cocaine in the Oval Office. The point of terrorism is to irrationally scare people, and apparently it has worked, because we have been sending our young men and women to Crete to be sacrificed to the Minotaur, in order to prevent people from dying. Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook