Is Bush Competent?

Remove all ads!

I don't even think Bush is running the country. I think he is a puppet for Cheney, Bush, Sr. and the oil companies in the U.S. He has no personal incentive to improve the economic home front - all his money comes from oil. The longer the prices stay high, the better off he, and the people close to him are.

Although, I'm an independent, I've always leaned toward the Republican party, but in the last two years, I've actually thought fondly of the Clintonian era! One good thing has come of this though - I've become more politically active, and my personal goal is to make sure George the 2nd is not re-elected.

 

Fhirn,

I really don't mean to be rude, but what the heck does this have do do with the topic? If you want to rant about the US sticking it's nose in other countries business, start a topic, or find an relevent existing one (though in the example given I have to agree with you).

Back to topic:

As far as Bush making up words, no one every said that he is eloquent. He is in fact not really very good at giving speeches. That has nothing to do with his intelligence.

 

Bush is just ludicrous. For one thing, he may be a Harvard graduate but he still can't form a coherent sentence...he was quoted in an article as saying, "Osama bin Laden is a man who is an evil man". I'm afraid I can't link to this, it was on CNN.com after one of the Anthrax letters this September or October. "We will have the most educated American people in the world." You have the only American people in the world, Mr President. Does anybody know that page of Bush-isms? I assure you, they're genuine quotes. Read them. Laugh. Feel any and all respect for this moron evaporate.

 

There's words, and then there's actions. Personally, I prefer a president who embarrasses me because he talks like a hick over the last one we had. I can respect virtually all of the actions Bush has taken in his presidency, even when I don't agree with them; at least he is behaving as he said he would and sticking with the issues he believes in. Clinton? Every day a new position on issues -- but what gets me worst of all, he lied under oath! Now talk about someone deserving of disrespect -- how can you possibly support a man for leader of your country that behaves in such a shameful, childish manner as that?

 

Much applause for Capstone!

 

The fact is that the media has turned the world against itself. Every morning I read the broadsheet headlines, usually along the lines of :

' BRITAIN BACKS ANTI-TERROR CAMPAIGN '

And then as I progress I see the words merging into such sentences as:

BLAIR, BUSH'S POODLE, AIMS TO SUPPORT AMERICAN EMPIRE BUILDING

When I see such incredible contrast within the words of one shelf load of newspapers I begin to wonder what sort of stories are being force fed to the rest of the world. As a history student, i have a firm belief in the overwhelming power of propaganda. And for this reason i read everything on the subject with an open mind.

It is quite obvious from the conflicts arising in this post that some people are either not very clued up on their current affairs knowledge or have been given differing reports about the president's actions.
Those from Europe seem to have an in built hatred for the man, possibly because his so called 'empire building' makes them feel threatened.
But Americans, in general, seem to imagine him as a great man in a difficult situation.

Both are quite extreme views from the other's point of view, but people still fail to recognise the plain facts.
Is Bush competent?

Yes:
He has managed to prevent widespread panic after the bombing of WTC (or 9/11 or whatever you call it now).
There has been no more evidence of serious Alkieda action. Thus i conclude he must be doing something right.

No:
He has proposed to the UN that he shall go ahead with his plans regardless of their support. This sort of behaiviour is not only disrespectful but a nasty omen of things to come.

Now, taking these recent events into consideration, it is my opinion that the man has succeeded in securing his own country, yet is in very serious danger of turning the nation into the real world security threat. Therefore he is competent. But dangerous.

But this is only what i have read in my newspapers in my country. Sifting through the biased ****e is quite difficult and i hope my opinion seems valid.

 

The United States does not, and hopefully will never recognize the UN as the "World Government". It is a corrupt body that has a multitude of countries all manipulating it for their own gain. I mean for a prime example, the Disarmament Committee of the UN meets next week. Do you know who the Co-Chairs in charge are going to be? Iraq and Iran! What a great organization the UN is!

That said, the UN has NO authority to tell the US or anyone else how they can defend themselves. The UN is an advisory council. It only exists, well I would way at the good will of the member nations, but the fact is that the only reason it exists is because the US provides for it, and is its teeth.

We will eliminate any clear and present danger that we see how we see fit. The UN and the rest of the world can then do what they feel they must. Mark my words though; this is how it is going to play out. Russia will continue to vote against military action against Iraq until the day the US guarantees it will receive the $7 billion it is owed from Iraq. France will continue to vote against military action until they realize that we are going with or without them, and then at the last second, "with much reservation", they will join in because they don't want to be seen as weak, and they always feel that they have a right to stick there noses into the formation of any new government. China will abstain as they always do. This of course assumes that some Iraqi patriot doesn't put a slug in Saddam’s head, or that (please let this happen!) Saddam doesn't accept exile.

Bush is being both a good President, but is failing in some ways as well. The good is that he has 8 European countries signed on supporting our actions in Iraq, so obviously they have seen something we the public haven't. The bad is that he hasn't been able to convince all of us that there is overwhelming evidence that Iraq is a clear and present danger. That creates doubt, and that is not good.

 

Umm...in slight defence of Clinton. I don't approve of cheating on one's wife, or of lying under oath, but let's face it...who a man ****s is his business, not the business of an entire nation. What he did was not a praiseworthy action, but really...let him and Hillary duke it out by themselves, not have a bunch of hyena journalists making it hot media. No matter what he did in his private life, though, he ran the nation well, which is more than I can say for Bush...

 

Is Bush competent? One word answer - No

 

At least Bush hasn't asked someone to define "is" for him. I also think that he understands that oral sex does equal sexual relations.

[ February 02, 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Tiamat
Who a politician has sex would be his own business, if this relationship would not have an effect on the way he is running his country or doing his job. History has proved that almost always the sexual partner of a politician affects his decisions. Just remember Pericles and Aspasia, Philip and Olympiada, Justinian and Theodora, Napoleon and Joshephin or, something more familiar to you and me, Papandreou and Liani. Also, don't forget that a politician, who has an illegal or unmoral relationship, can be blackmailed very easily.

As for the topic, I don't know if Bush is competent, but I don't think that this matters. I don't believe that he is the one, who takes the decisions.

 

Umm...I do believe Justinian owes his reign to Theodora, considering that she saved his arse during the Nika riots. And, I agree, he should not have lied under oath - that doesn't change the fact that he was FAR more competent a politician than Bush.

 

Tiamat,

Being called a more competent politician in the US is a backhanded complement at best. It is kind of like being called a better smelling piece of feces. In the US, politicians are held in about the same esteem as used car salesmen.

If you mean that Clinton was better at fooling people, lying, cheating, and stealing, you are absolutely correct. He is one of the best con artists to ever demean the office of President of the United States.

 

I think that Bush is not enough competent. If think that he knows how to play on peoples feelings. But he decided to become a world leader, and he is doing everything to reach this goal, even if some of his actions don't seem to be a reasonable ones. Time will show up if his capable of bearing such a burden as a world Leadership.He will win everything or lose everything....

 

As stated, it's the perjury more than anything that bothers me from a world leader. But anyway, this is supposed to be about Bush....

So, to be perfectly frank, I'm not all that easy about Bush invading Iraq regardless of the world stance and established evidence. In response to the comments about the UN, I'd like to point out that we are a member, and it seems rather hypocritical to join in a discussion on the issue by an advisory council that we support, only to ignore any advice that they might give. But we shall see what happens.

 

While that may be true, according to Bush,

Source: http://politics.slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=76886

 

Oh boy, aren't we having fun now. You can post a link to stupid things Bush 43 has said.

Now I can post a link to stupid things Clinton said.

http://www.gargaro.com/clintonquotes.html

Now you post another link to stupid things Bush 43 said. Or gee, lets really get out there, maybe you get really smart and post a link to stupid things that Bush 41 said, and then just to one up you I go find a post of stupid things that Jimmy Carter said.

Wow, there is one recurring theme to all this posting of stupid things that Presidents have said. It really is stupid!

 

I don't get this Iraq thing. Why do they have to disarm their weapons when America doesn't? I'm confused.....

 

The point is that Iraq, when it lost the gulf war (where it pounced upon his smaller neighbour Kuwait), had to oblige to disarm it's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Iraq didn't meet this obligation and obstructed the controls by the UN inspectors massively, eventually driving them out of the country.

For a couple of years the world watched and nothing happened. Iraq indeed smuggled material into the country and indeed hid some of it's WMD arsenal. The demand that Iraq has to disarm its WMDs is justified and it would be very good for the credibility of the UN if this project would be eventually finished. The UN, however, as a child of the WW-II era, has the 5 permanent members and not all of them agreed to further pressure on Iraq as its people seriously suffered from the sanctions already and because disarmamanet has been done to a good point so that Iraq with or without a remainder of WMDs was more or less "contained" and no longer dangerous for its neighbours.

The major problem is that the US, btw the founders and a permanent member of the UN, are seemingly willing to do a war at all costs. The point is that the US demand proof and evidence that Iraq has WMDs hidden - whis is unproblematic if there won't be any found - then they will likely claim that Iraq is still hiding some of them (smart move: You cannot find something that's perhaps not in existence) and have a reason for war.

That's the major problem with the US and the reason for the massive criticism on the US: The lack of credible evidence from their side that a war, ultima ratio of international law, is justified and necessary. Till now the US haven't broght up much credible evidence for that, only broad and rather diffuse accusations and reference to Saddam's bloody reign in the past. Usually the attacker should be able to bring up proof to justify why he starts a war. Instead the US demand that Iraq has to proof its innocence, which is practically impossible since he simply cannot counter the accusation that he is a iar because he has lied in the past .... imagine that in court

The US claim Saddam has supplied WMDs, biological weapons especially, to Al Quaida is kinda unlikely since Saddam, as a thoroughly saecular leader, has always displayed a clear dislike for religious motications and fanatics. Saddam and Al Quaida as allies just don't fit - since the secular butcher Saddam likely isn't much lower on Bin Laden's list of "devils" than the US and Bush.

The US tendency to give a sh@# about the UN and international law weakens the UN and weakens global stability. Therefor, this approach is not only illegal but irresponsible.

I think that Bush is an ill-advised simpleton listening and obeying to hawks starting the clash of the cultures, unlike his father who was a long year CIA vet and therefor much better able to judge things.

[ February 04, 2003, 10:52: Message edited by: Ragusa ]