OT: Rating the President

[Atrocities]

Do you approve or disapprove of how George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

38% Strongly approve 131,351
32% Strongly disapprove 111,595
16% Disapprove 54,625
14% Approve 48,533
1% No opinion 3,730
Total votes: 349,834

Do you think President Bush understands the problems of ordinary Americans?

50% No 175,519
46% Yes 159,232
4% Not sure 14,562
Total votes: 349,313

[mottlee]

Be glad I'm not in office.....BOOM! fight terror with terror!

[Arkcon]

Meh ... I may be getting old and cynical, but you need a rating of barely approve. If I disapproved even slightly, my conscience as a member of a democracy would require me to do something, and I don't wanna -- I only know I don't have the answers.

I only hope the military can take care of itself and make good decisions to secure the safety of all those volunteers -- I've never thought thought any president made a good commander in chief. Well, maybe Eisenhower, but that's way beforre my time.

[ January 14, 2003, 23:35: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

[Atrocities]

George Bush -
"So you don't want us to inspect this palace se Saddam?"

Saddam -
"Go screw yourself you white satan!"

George Bush -
*Smiles* "Na, I have a better plan."

*From satellite imaging*
You see many people running from palace.
Seconds later big white explosion.
Moments later, big hole in ground where Palace used to be.

George Bush -
"Any more Palaces you don't want searched?"

Saddam -
"OMG! You bastard! that was a childrens hospital!"

[Elwood Bluze]

You got to ask yourself: "Is our childrens learning?"

[Kamog]

The inspectors still haven't discovered any evidence of nuclear or biological weapons in Iraq, right?

[dogscoff]

I think George W Bush is a right bastard. He is a corrupt and cynical, and if he was standing next to me right now I'd probably punch him.

1> I believe there was definitely some kind of chicanery involved in the "election" that put him in the whitehouse.

2> His attitude toward environmental issues (refusal to sign Kyoto treaty, drilling for oil in Alaska) is intolerable.

3> He has defiled the memory of all the ppl who died in the twin towers by using their deaths as currency in his warmongering and erosion of civil liberties.

4> His abuses of human rights (those ppl locked up in Cuba without charge, status, trial or legal representation) are intolerable.

5> His relentless agenda for warfare, which will result in countless innocent deaths and no positive change in the middle eastern region is intolerable.

I'm reading a book right now about current American politics. It's very biased, and I take everything with a pinch of salt, but it there is clear evidence in there that Bush is nothing more than a corporate puppet, stripping away environmental protection and sending people to their deaths in order to advance the interests of his oil/ power company backers.

Not that we are any better off in the UK: Tony Blair should get his nose out of Bush's arsehole and lead the world in standing up to him.

The worst thing is that our major opposition party is equally renowned for corruption and as far as I can tell the US opposition party is not much better than Bush.

Just my opinion.

[tbontob]

What I am about to say may upset a few people, but it is my opinion that George Bush missed the boat of being a great president.

Being a neighbour of the U S of A, I wondered from 9/11 why George Bush did not actively propose a world court and a world law.

With 9/11, he had a magnificent opportunity since almost every nation lost citizens in the twin towers.

IMHO, the shock of the collapse would have galvanized the major nations of the world into establishing a world court with teeth to deal with nations who terrorize others just as our national courts deal with individuals who terrorize individual citizens within national borders.

All, it need was a leader and in this I feel George Bush fell short.

Instead, he choose to go on a crusade against the Al Queda while requesting the rest of world follow. And most of the world did because of the loss of their citizens and because of the shock of the event.

Now he wants to go after Iraq and he also has an issue with North Korea.

I wonder why he didn't take the route of establishing a world court in concert with the support of other nations.

I can only come up with the concept that he feared that the U S of A would have to use its power somewhat more responsibly because it could come up on charges if it misused its powers.

Because as it now stands, the U S of A is the only superpower, both economically and militarily, and most nations do not want to seriously offend the U S of A because if push came to shove, the weaker nation is sure to suffer.

Generally, I feel that the U S of A has an admirable record in conducting itself in world affairs.

But power does corrupt and absolute power does corrupt absolutely. With no outside body like a world court to judge its actions, the U S of A will have to be unusually diligent in overseeing its own actions to ensure it does not misuse it's power.

One can argue we already have the United Nations and a world court. But it is apparent, they lack the the formulation of laws to deal with terrorism as well as the power to enforce it. With 9/11, Bush could have ensured major changes which would have made the world a safer place since all the nations would be an active participant rather than just following the lead of the U S of A whenever it suffers a catastrophe.

And before I am buried under a barrage of vitriol (probably from U.S. citizens), I want to say the above is only my opinion. : )

[dogscoff]

tbon: I agree with all of that (except the bit about Bush having the potential to be a good president:-) ). Well said.

[Shoujo]

Not that we are any better off in the UK: Tony Blair should get his nose out of Bush's arsehole and lead the world in standing up to him.

Isn't there hope for Blair still? I mean I thought I read an article saying that his own party, the opposition parties, and the British public all oppose going to war with Iraq (without the sanction of the UN that is). Surely Blair would get the message?

Being a neighbour of the U S of A, I wondered from 9/11 why George Bush did not actively propose a world court and a world law.

The explanations I've heard is that the US is afraid of a wort could come up on charges if it misused its powers."

Or he thought a world court would be used in a biased manner. I remember for example Sudan being appointed to the human rights commison. Maybe because they have so much experience with violating it?

Phoenix-D