iul89 iul89

George W. Bush "Our Worst President Yet"

George W. Bush "Our Worst President Yet"

Name one reason you guys are voting for W? Please don't be one of those "Republicans" who only votes on the issue of abortion. I just would like to know.
28,927 views 76 replies
Reply #51 Top
When I cast my ballot I will be sure to vote for Bush. I will do so for a few well planned reasons. Number one I like plants, number two he is sexy and number three I'd like to see a chinese man run our country. It will benifit every american citizen if they vote for King George.

Sir Quaker Oats™ and Czar Aunt Jamima™
Reply #52 Top
If you want a Chinese man to run the U.S., shouldn't you vote for Kerry, or do you not believe he'll uphold the same virtues as Clinton did?
Reply #53 Top
If you want a Chinese man to run the U.S., shouldn't you vote for Kerry, or do you not believe he'll uphold the same virtues as Clinton did?


Confucius say: Man with hand in pocket feel cocky all day.
Reply #54 Top
I just love how people who hate Bush won't even say why they particularly enjoy Kerry. His whole campaign has been 'Get Bush Out.' If he gets elected, let me tell you how fun it's going to be when we have no idea what he's going to do in the White House. People bring up the Iraq war 'failure' and I have to say that's crap. There was a tyrannical dictator there who was throwing kids in jail (not 17 year-olds, 7 year-olds), and we ousted him. The last time we didn't remove a dictator from power WWII broke out. I like how people say there's no point to this war, and to them I say, "Name one reason why we went to Kosovo."
Reply #55 Top
Bush is an arrogant fool and has manages to get most of the European country against him and the US. I am against the war in Iraq and so is the whole world. Who supported the Iraq war, yes USA, UK and Spain and look what this US policies has cost the Spanish people over 200 dead and over 1500 are wounded and I am sure that there is more terror to come both in Europe and USA.
Get Bush out of the office.
Reply #56 Top
I just love how people who hate Bush won't even say why they particularly enjoy Kerry.


We don't particularly enjoy Kerry. We just hate Bush enough to want him out.


His whole campaign has been 'Get Bush Out.'


A fine and admirable cause.


People bring up the Iraq war 'failure' and I have to say that's crap.


Well, the war itself was obviously not a failure in that we won, but that was never really in doubt. We'll see what becomes of Iraq in the near future.


The last time we didn't remove a dictator from power WWII broke out.


What planet are you on? Did you think Saddam was the only dictator around when we got rid of him? Dictators are in power in Cuba, China, North Korea, and a number of less consequential places, and I don't think anyone wants to start invading them all. At present, North Korea presents a tremendous danger, far greater than Iraq EVER did. Bush's progress on that front so far...?


I like how people say there's no point to this war


The people would have been much more unified about this war if (1) it had a clear cause and purpose, (2) Bush and the Administration didn't lie about that purpose. You can't deceive a country into a war and then, while you're still mopping up your mess, look back and say, "Sure, we lied and all, but it turned out all right, sort of."
Reply #57 Top
Ok, there are other dictators in power. But do they have a habit of throwing children in jail? Torturing and even murdering Olympic soccer team members? We've found mass graves in Iraq, and that's more than we can say in Kosovo. Please, tell me what Kerry will do when he's president?
Reply #58 Top
But do they have a habit of throwing children in jail? Torturing and even murdering Olympic soccer team members?


I'm sure they have equally heinous crimes to their names. North Korea's Kim is a lunatic; it wouldn't surprise me if he eats children. China puts people in jail almost as a hobby and likely tortures certain enemies of the ruling party. Saddam was a nasty guy, sure, but it's not like he's unique, and he was not ever the most dangerous man in the world.


Please, tell me what Kerry will do when he's president?


Well, he has to clean up Bush's messes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he has to figure out what to do about North Korea. Mostly, though, I'm looking forward to not being lied to about why we're doing what we're doing overseas.
Reply #59 Top
I will vote for Bush because:

1. Lower taxes
2. Safer Country
3. World leadership
4. Economic growth
5. Excellent Administration
6. Christian ethics
7. Conservative Judicial appointments

Hate is such a blinding emotion, I feel pity for those among us that have been manipulated into such a fury of disdain for our President.
OUR President has committed no offense worthy of such hatred, yet, the politics of division has lowered the standard.

It seems obvious to me that the Democrats cannot field a truly viable candidate ( leaving the opening for Hillary in "08 ) so a
campaign of hate is launched to destroy national unity, and the disgruntled puppets mouth the words, fommenting anger, despair
and antipathy.

They all sound like Al Sharpton, now that's a figurehead to rally around and imulate.
Come on folks, think how you and your anger are being used...................
Reply #60 Top
Sounds like the US needs a new election system where hatred of A does not mean voting for B.

maybe a none of the above option which forces both out of politics?

Paul.
Reply #61 Top
1. Lower taxes


Yeah, they did wonders for the economy and the deficit.


2. Safer Country


Highly debatable. As usual, the Bush people want it both ways. "We're safer, but you shouldn't FEEL safer, you need to stay scared. Yellow alert!"


3. World leadership


No, world bullying. Forcing the rest of the globe to go from sympathizing deeply with your pain to hating your arrogant antagonism is not "leadership."


4. Economic growth


I guess that technically this is true recently, but only because there was little place to go but up.


5. Excellent Administration


Well, that's like saying "the President is good because he's good." What do you find excellent about the administration? Was it Ari Fleischer's daily dose of lies? Or was it the lies in the State of the Union? Or was it the exile of Colin Powell, the only person in the inner circle with a hint of sense?


6. Christian ethics


Pfft. I guessed I missed Sunday school when they taught us the Gospel verses where Jesus said, "Bring 'em on."


7. Conservative Judicial appointments


I.e., people who might reverse Roe v. Wade and end gay marriages so we don't have to fuck with the Constitution directly.


Hate is such a blinding emotion, I feel pity for those among us that have been manipulated into such a fury of disdain for our President.


I don't hate the President personally; I just hate his Presidency and want it to end. And I haven't been manipulated to dislike him any more than you've been manipulated by Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft to adore him.


a campaign of hate is launched to destroy national unity


No, the unraveling of the President's ball of lies has cost him some of his followers. The national unity was originally based on common sorrow over September 11, and Bush tried to keep it going by having the people rally around a fake Iraq situation.


hey all sound like Al Sharpton, now that's a figurehead to rally around and imulate


Nobody really takes Al Sharpton seriously. About anything.


Come on folks, think how you and your anger are being used...................


Yours was used to blow the living hell out of Iraqi cities and towns. Mine's only being used to try to unseat an incumbent Executive.
Reply #62 Top
I'll vote for Bush

1. lower taxes
2. Clear Global policies
3. Strong defense
4. Future conservative
Judicial appointments
5. Christian ethics
Reply #64 Top
Then read some more and learn about kerry.



Most Media Refused to Expose Kerry's Anti-War Cohort
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 03, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - If not for a conservative magazine, the complete investigation into John Kerry's anti-war associate Al Hubbard and Hubbard's fabricated Vietnam War record would not have been published in 1971.

Former CBS News reporter William Overend, a writer for the network's anchorman Walter Cronkite, investigated the military background claims of Hubbard, then executive director of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and found the claims to be fraudulent. Hubbard had appeared with Kerry on NBC's Meet the Press on April 18, 1971 and was featured in Kerry's anti-war book The New Soldier .

Overend's investigation into Hubbard revealed that Hubbard not only lied about his Air Force military rank, but also about his alleged war injuries and whether he even served in Vietnam.

"As a liberally-oriented newsman, sympathetic to the Vietnam vets and impressed by Hubbard's leadership qualities, that came as something of a jolt," Overend wrote in 1971.

Overend's story ended up appearing in the conservative National Review magazine because, he said, several prominent liberal publications turned it down.

"As a liberal, it had occurred to me that raising questions about Al Hubbard might hurt the anti-war movement, but as a journalist, it didn't seem that should be a factor. I was wrong. No one would touch the story. Not David Sanford of the New Republic; not any other editor of any liberal publication I contacted," Overend wrote in his article titled "Who is Al Hubbard" in the June 1, 1971 issue of National Review .

In an interview with CNSNews.com , Overend said the liberal magazine The Nation also refused to run his piece.

"I tried to write it for The Nation initially. But Carey McWilliams, who was the editor then, basically, said 'Why should we run it? We're on the other side,'" Overend recalled.

Overend also tried reporting details of his investigation for his primary employer at the time, CBS News. "But the story required a longer telling than broadcast permits," he wrote in National Review . Overend had written a two-minute radio commentary for Walter Cronkite following Hubbard's initial admission that he had lied about his military rank.

Overend said he was then forced to contact a publication with which he would not ordinarily involve himself.

"I wrote it for National Review because it was a very political time and I had written other stuff for The Nation . And in fact, the week National Review came out with my story, I had another story in the Nation the same week," Overend said.

Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, said he is not surprised that Overend had such a difficult time trying to publish his article on Hubbard.

"Anyone who studies the media coverage of John Kerry in 1971 will see it's about as one-sided and promotional as John Kerry coverage in 2004, perhaps more so," Graham said.

Referring to the lack of interest shown by news outlets other than National Review, Graham noted that, "bias by omission is a powerful media tool."


Reply #65 Top




Most Media Refused to Expose Kerry's Anti-War Cohort
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 03, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - If not for a conservative magazine, the complete investigation into John Kerry's anti-war associate Al Hubbard and Hubbard's fabricated Vietnam War record would not have been published in 1971.

Former CBS News reporter William Overend, a writer for the network's anchorman Walter Cronkite, investigated the military background claims of Hubbard, then executive director of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and found the claims to be fraudulent. Hubbard had appeared with Kerry on NBC's Meet the Press on April 18, 1971 and was featured in Kerry's anti-war book The New Soldier .

Overend's investigation into Hubbard revealed that Hubbard not only lied about his Air Force military rank, but also about his alleged war injuries and whether he even served in Vietnam.

"As a liberally-oriented newsman, sympathetic to the Vietnam vets and impressed by Hubbard's leadership qualities, that came as something of a jolt," Overend wrote in 1971.

Overend's story ended up appearing in the conservative National Review magazine because, he said, several prominent liberal publications turned it down.

"As a liberal, it had occurred to me that raising questions about Al Hubbard might hurt the anti-war movement, but as a journalist, it didn't seem that should be a factor. I was wrong. No one would touch the story. Not David Sanford of the New Republic; not any other editor of any liberal publication I contacted," Overend wrote in his article titled "Who is Al Hubbard" in the June 1, 1971 issue of National Review .

In an interview with CNSNews.com , Overend said the liberal magazine The Nation also refused to run his piece.

"I tried to write it for The Nation initially. But Carey McWilliams, who was the editor then, basically, said 'Why should we run it? We're on the other side,'" Overend recalled.

Overend also tried reporting details of his investigation for his primary employer at the time, CBS News. "But the story required a longer telling than broadcast permits," he wrote in National Review . Overend had written a two-minute radio commentary for Walter Cronkite following Hubbard's initial admission that he had lied about his military rank.

Overend said he was then forced to contact a publication with which he would not ordinarily involve himself.

"I wrote it for National Review because it was a very political time and I had written other stuff for The Nation . And in fact, the week National Review came out with my story, I had another story in the Nation the same week," Overend said.

Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, said he is not surprised that Overend had such a difficult time trying to publish his article on Hubbard.

"Anyone who studies the media coverage of John Kerry in 1971 will see it's about as one-sided and promotional as John Kerry coverage in 2004, perhaps more so," Graham said.

Referring to the lack of interest shown by news outlets other than National Review, Graham noted that, "bias by omission is a powerful media tool."


Reply #66 Top
"Bias by omission"

would that include Bush not telling the US people that Saddam had niothing to do with 9/11?

Goodness me, you mean all politians do this?

Seriously though, Could someone please enlighten me as to who Hubbard is and why him lying about his Vietnam record has anythnig to do with Kerry? I don't understand why the above article tells me anything about Kerry?

Paul.

Reply #67 Top
Hate is such a blinding emotion, I feel pity for those among us that have been manipulated into such a fury of disdain for our President.


And yet that stopped very few republicans from feeling that emotion towards Clinton.

Sad
Reply #68 Top
I've stated my positions on things here on several occasions. You wanna know why I dislike Kerry more and more? He's a jerk.
Now I do disagree with the president on many things, but Kerry has been getting very close to pulling a "Dean". I also don't like that apparently someone voting for George Bush is now suddenly not credible. I guess Kerry doesn't want any of the voters from 2000 who voted for Bush voting for him. I'm sorry, I'm getting sick of political debates, why don't I just run for president. I don't feel either candidate is really handling the current situation very well. I also don't think Bush has done a good job over the last year supporting his case.
Reply #69 Top
You want to talk about Kerry's flip-flops. Go Listen to Dick Cheney's speech at the Reagan Public Library. Cheney lists all of Kerry's idiosynconcies.
Reply #70 Top
And none of his own. Vice Presidents, nor presidents should stoop to making campaign speeches and pitching them to CNN and others as press confrences.

Cheers
Reply #71 Top
BulbousHead, you don't like people lying to you about our overseas affairs. Please tell me, then, how you were able to stand Clinton's 2 terms?
Reply #72 Top
BulbousHead, you don't like people lying to you about our overseas affairs. Please tell me, then, how you were able to stand Clinton's 2 terms?
Reply #74 Top
Party politics is a thing of the past. Focus on the individual and the things that are affecting the U.S. people.. Personally, if we don't fix No Child Left Behind, we'll all be left by the wayside. So, what about the issues? We already know that no one in office is going to do the job we want him or her to do, because everyone has his/her own agenda (including me).
Reply #75 Top
Definitely more money and better administrators for No Child Left Behind!

Cheers