President's Bush comments on golf

[pjsnyc]

...Let me know what you guys think.

Wanna know what I think? Dubbyah is a lying douche and is probably hitting the links as we type

[shortgame85]

While not a fan of Bush the Younger, I can see no relationship between a leader recreating and his feeling toward anyone about anything. Winston Churchill often recreated during WWII. Franklin Roosevelt religously maintained his cocktail hour throughout the war. As Eisenhower commanded the greatest invasion force in history, he blew off a bit of steam smoking and playing bridge. Anyone in a stressfull job needs to relax and have a bit of fun. Perhaps Bush should just wale away more often and as a result of a more relaxed disposition, he will perform better at the tasks for which he was elected. His performance, by most standards of measurement, has fallen woefully short of that which is considered acceptable.

However, the fact that Bush thinks that giving up golf has symbolic meaning to the parents of our country's soldiers is just fatuous thinking; worse, it is an insult to the intelligence of those parents with whom he seeks to connect. The fact that he even thinks that anyone might believe that giving up a form of recreation equates to solidarity with or empathy for soldiers speaks volumes about how Bush believes we citizens think; I find his approach, in the most positive light, cynical. But then cynicism is a hallmark of the Bush the Younger's presidency ( see reasons for going to war with Iraq ).

One distinction Bush may enjoy, unlike his father who really was a prudent ( no pun intended, Dana Carvey ), thoughtful and patrician leader, is that history may well regard him as one of the poorest leaders our great country has ever had to endure. While that may provide some consolation that history will provide no comfort or succor to the incompetent, it is little consolation to the parents of those who have sacrificed their lives in defense of a foolish expedition into the country of a paper tiger made under false pretenses under the leadership of George W. Bush.

[mikelz]

I was checking my e-mail this morning on AOL and I saw a little article about of "lovely" president.

It's another pandering lie.

Sue me, dubyah.

[BASHERBAKER69]

Its easy to criticise the Leading Classes, but running a country and making tough decisions is a very difficult thing to undertake- But George Bush jnr does warrant criticism i think.

Although his repsonse to the initial terrorist attacks was justified- attacking al qaeda in Afghanistan- i do think going after Iraq and Saddam in the manner in which he did was a major faux pas. Giving the regime 2 months notice before a 'pre emptive strike' and a subsequent invasion gave Saddam ample time to move the Weapons of Mass Destruction East or West across the border- thus this was a fruitless project and has only inflamed the central problem.

As for Bush giving up golf in a time of conflict- i don't think that this will help to promote an empathetic image of him. Bush recruits infantrymen from underpriviliged neighbourhoods and sends them in to conflict. They become cannon fodder unfortunately, and the idea that he has an affinity with this group in society is unrealistic. Most of the Presidents of the US have played golf- it is meant to be a sign of nobility, gentleness, sophistication and intelligence. Perhaps Dubyah should give up golf as his Presidency has embodied none of these qualities. We will all be a lot safer when George has gone, as his presence, behaviour, ideologies and general mentality makes the world a more dangerous place- he is more dangerous than islamic fundamentalism. Letting him run a country like the US is like allowing my dog to drive my Lamborghini Countach QV.

[ugapug5150]

Ah, to be young and brainwashed by the liberal media. Yep, everything bad is George W.'s fault. Never mind that the corrupt government of Louisiana failed to fix the levees for 4 decades, the governor of Louisiana dragged around putting out the SOS for help, and Ray Nagin left school buses sitting in the bus yards when he could've bused folks out. It's all Bush's fault.

Never mind that there actually WERE weapons of mass destruction found (bet you haven't seen that on CNN). Never mind that Saddam Hussein violated every U.N. sanction. Never mind that. It's all Bush's fault.

If lying, arrogant douchebags like Michael Moore are what it means to be a modern Democrat, sign me up for the Right, please.

[mutadayen]

Ah, to be young and brainwashed by the liberal media. Yep, everything bad is George W.'s fault. Never mind that the corrupt government of Louisiana failed to fix the levees for 4 decades, the governor of Louisiana dragged around putting out the SOS for help, and Ray Nagin left school buses sitting in the bus yards when he could've bused folks out. It's all Bush's fault.

Ur kidding right? No one here is saying it's all bush's fault, but if you sit here and say he's a good president and that the war on Iraq was justified (again, still no link between 9/11 and Iraq, yet HE still decided to invade the country), then you're smoking good gonja down there and in Georgia. Can't deny Saddam as was a horrible dictator, but you're going off on tangents that dont have anything to with this. I'll go on one too...where's the money to help N.O....oh that's right, it's in Iraq.

Also, show us the video on CNN please (dont you think that if weapons were found, Bush would run on TV screaming to the world I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO!) Think about it logically for a second...he hasnt. The government hasnt. Every news channel include right-winged middle-eastern hating Fox News has reported they have no weapons. Please, show us the report and/or video from CNN...

[JKilgore44]

I'm just glad this thread is still active. I thought Iacas had deleted it the same day I started it!

[shortgame85]

Ah, to be young and brainwashed by the liberal media. Yep, everything bad is George W.'s fault. Never mind that the corrupt government of Louisiana failed to fix the levees for 4 decades, the governor of Louisiana dragged around putting out the SOS for help, and Ray Nagin left school buses sitting in the bus yards when he could've bused folks out. It's all Bush's fault.

I am neither young nor, by the vulgar use of the term, liberal. I have voted in 8 presidential elections, I have served on a number of government boards, and I have been appointed to those boards by both Republicans and Democrats. In my experience, I have found it to be fatuous, at best, to suggest that any one person is responsible for the shape of our government, or the consequences of its actions, no matter his style or personality. Nothing is all Bush's fault.

However, the executive does set the tone of our government's policy and, to a large extent, appoint the people who run the government. The executive takes a lead role in our foreign policy. By almost all historical measurement, President Bush has diminished our standing in the world by virtue of a poorly thought out foreign policy. We are neither feared nor respected as much as we have been in the past. This fact has a pejorative effect on our ability to persuade, by whatever means, our enemies as well as our allies. It is foolish to ignore this fact. Correcting the result of what is clearly a poor foreign policy may take years, if not decades. On the domestic side, things do not appear to be much better: gas prices are rising on almost a daily basis, we have a profound problem in the financial sector of our economy that has permeated almost all economic strata of our society, food prices escalate and the gap between the poor and wealthy grows ever larger, and our manufacturing ability continues to dwindle as jobs leave our shores for the short term lure of cheap labor abroad. Now are every one of these issues all G. W. Bush's fault? Would a better leader still have to contend with terrorists, oil issues, natural disasters, foolish city mayors, or a recession? Of course. We have had all of these problems before. And worse. We have had leaders who have been successful in managing these crises, others who have been less capable and, consequently, less successful. One doesn't have to be either a Republican, a Democrat or an Independant to view one's government with a critical eye; one does however have to use one's capacity and avoid becoming a syncophant for any particular ideology.

[Eore]

Ur kidding right? No one here is saying it's all bush's fault, but if you sit here and say he's a good president and that the war on Iraq was justified (again, still no link between 9/11 and Iraq, yet HE still decided to invade the country), then you're smoking good gonja down there and in Georgia. Can't deny Saddam as was a horrible dictator, but you're going off on tangents that dont have anything to with this. I'll go on one too...where's the money to help N.O....oh that's right, it's in Iraq.

bush wasn't the only one who said they would have invaded iraq. i believe it was ms. clinton who said she would have also invaded. of course now she said if she had know what she did now, she wouldn't have gone. obama and clinton both voted to NOT withdraw troops from iraq back in august, i think. so obviously they thought we should be there. of course, now its elections and politicians only say what gets them votes i think the link between 9/11 and iraq is that repubs and democrats BOTH thought that saddam was going to give his weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups. i understand we didn't find any, but would you rather have not gone over to look and then ended up having chemical weapons dropped on you?? hindsight is 20/20, if we had just left iraq like we did with dubbyah senior junior would have gotten attacked for abandoning the citizens of iraq. also, there are troops in other places like afghanistan still looking for other terrorist groups

[mutadayen]

bush wasn't the only one who said they would have invaded iraq. i believe it was ms. clinton who said she would have also invaded. of course now she said if she had know what she did now, she wouldn't have gone. obama and clinton both voted to NOT withdraw troops from iraq back in august, i think. so obviously they thought we should be there. of course, now its elections and politicians only say what gets them votes i think the link between 9/11 and iraq is that repubs and democrats BOTH thought that saddam was going to give his weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups.

To look? If you remember, the UN sent investigators over to Iraq to search and they initially found nothing. Then, when Bush threatened of military action, the UN and Iraq agreed to allow US investigators to come into the country with UN officials to look. The US never gave an explanation, they just started bombing and this operation commenced, this "war", this bully fight. Label it what you'd like, but Bush had every intent of invading. I cannot recall which of his staff went in front of Congress under a sworn testimony and stated that after 9/11, Bush's aides were asking if the bombings linked up to Iraq, and to find a link (I believe it was general Richard Clarke).

Let's also look at hindsight for a minute. Hell yes every single one of them voted for the war because our country just experienced a horrific and mind numbing attack, and government was out for revenge, retaliation, payback, etc. So hell yeah they all voted for it, but the public could see it was with a blind eye. I dont think anyone can argue with me when i say that all of congress had to stand behind the presidnets decision to bomb away because it presented a unified front of the United States of America, and if there was a sense of split decision or wavering, the world would have viewed the US in a completely different light (weaker, divided). Now in regards to pulling out the troops...you cant. In a revelation to everyone reading this post, i'm muslim and if i were congress, it would be hard to pull out the troops now. Of course they voted against it. Imagine you a construction worker and youre building a 70 foot sky scraper and simply lay in the foundation and the skeleton structure of the building and said "Ok, we're done, you can occupy it and finish it yourself." The residents would be in an uproar and not know where to begin. Well this is a country that's been invaded and if you're not living on mars, is being taking advantage of (yes, the oil reserves are now being pumped by private US companies). Unfortunately, the US cant withdraw. There has to be a transition to the UN or the people of Iraq to see this entire thing through, but who are we kidding. If we would have left Iraq, there probably wouldnt be a war, there'd be sanctions like every other country has. The little North Korean ruler (Kim) flat out threatened the US back then, while Saddam, at the time, denied having weapons and invited the UN and US to come search and test as they pleased (that was widely reported again by every major news channel). The countries road, bridges, social security, veterans, levies, schools would all have more money and our infrastructure would be better funded and supported. I find it funny with less than a year left that finally the President and his men finally are looking at social security and some domestic issues. His legacy for 6 straight years has been war on terror, and now, seemingly, in the past couple of months, the nation matters again. Im not an angry person nor am i bitter, but these are the facts. This is reality. These have been the countries actions for the past 6 years. And this is what's going on today... Fear is a beautiful thing and can win elections. This was true when it was written by the Daily Mirror in England after the elections in 2004, and it still stand true today: http://www.slate.com/id/2109242/ With that being said, and a bit of my mind being spoken, watch this drive http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3p9y_OEAdc

[Eore]

you made a very good post mutadayen!!! i was sort of playing devils advocate, but it bothers me when people say we need to leave iraq NOW (like obama and clinton have said) i agree now with most of what you said, and am glad that you also agree that just leaving the war now is a bad idea

[shortgame85]

Oh my, oh dear.

[Ruari]

Never mind that there actually WERE weapons of mass destruction found.

What, where and when.

This is a political discussion so politix is OK but that simply isn't true - not in any way, shape or form, and cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

[ugapug5150]

What, where and when.

Here's just one such link.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38213 I stand behind my previous statements.

[NI4NI]

Bush probably sucks at golf, just as he does at everything else.

Another reason to hate Yankees fans.

[Bourbon and Coke]

Let's also look at hindsight for a minute. Hell yes every single one of them voted for the war because our country just experienced a horrific and mind numbing attack, and government was out for revenge, retaliation, payback, etc. So hell yeah they all voted for it, but the public could see it was with a blind eye. I dont think anyone can argue with me when i say that all of congress had to stand behind the presidnets decision to bomb away because it presented a unified front of the United States of America, and if there was a sense of split decision or wavering, the world would have viewed the US in a completely different light (weaker, divided).

Well that's conveniently selective politics.

Everyone wanted blood but we'll blame it all on one man. You can say what you will about the way we've handled it since it started, our strategy, and our success in Iraq, but it's simple revisionist history to blame on Bush what 90+% of the country and 100% of Congress was gungho about doing. Was it a good idea? Argue if you want to, but it wasn't anything that one person in the White House put into motion.

[immts007]

Well that's conveniently selective politics.

B&C;, I think it's fair to say that Americans where unified in the response to 9/11 when we went into Afghanistan, and after OBL and Al Qaida.

Iraq is another matter. There was never any truly unified support for that... it was more like a nation shellshocked, who where too dumbfounded to digest all the implications and unable to make a stand in the face of all the misinformation and deception - many of us were muttering in disbelief as the bombs went off in Baghdad: "Whaaat??? Hey... wait a... wait a minute , we're doing whaaat??? Wait, I don't think... oh damn. Shit" I for one, will never forget the fact that I watched my president lie (there are no other words for it) on national TV about Saddam disallowing inspectors. I couldn't believe my ears. Hans Blix and his teams had been there the whole time. The only reason they left was that the Bush administration told them to get out because they were going to start bombing. That was the turning point for me.

[mikelz]

Blatant pandering and he probably can't squash a grape anyway.