Why you should be happy George W. Bush is our President

[ASM7]

NJCS

So, we just look at one's usage of the English language to determine whether one is fit for the Presidency? O yeah, you need these skills to coax those young interns to the oval office, right? You know, there are many true Americans, born right here in the good old USA that have never spoken a word of English and if they are older than 35 they could be elected President. And I'd much rather have the previously described in office, as long as he was a true leader who bases his decisions on morals and ethics and the best interests of the American people, than that two-faced example we just sent home. (impeached) I don't care what language he speaks. By the way, I guess it's English at it's best in Jersey.

[NJCubScouter]

ASM7, obviously not getting the somewhat tongue in cheek nature of my post, says:

 

So, we just look at one's usage of the English language to determine whether one is fit for the Presidency?

 

I don't think I said that. But apparently Rooster thinks a major criterion is the ability to use binoculars.

 

O yeah, you need these skills to coax those young interns to the oval office, right?

 

As another former President used to say, "There you go again."

 

You know, there are many true Americans, born right here in the good old USA that have never spoken a word of English and if they are older than 35 they could be elected President.

 

Uh huh. And if they mangled their own language the way GWB does, there would probably be as many comedians making fun of them (in whatever language) as there are now making fun of Bush.

 

I guess my subtle point was, beware where you point the fickle finger of comedy, it may very well point back at you and yours.

 

By the way, I guess it's English at it's best in Jersey.

 

Actually the English spoken in Jersey is almost its own dialect because of the influence of the Norman-French language of the original rulers. I am of course speaking of the small island off the coast of France, a Crown Dependency of the UK. I live in New Jersey.

(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[slontwovvy]

I think Rooster's point was not that using binoculars correctly is a criterion for being President, merely this:

 

Bush cares more about the people of the United States. He is honestly concerned with the safety of its fighting men and women, honestly concerned about North Korea and national defense (not seducing interns and getting overseas campaign contributions).

[Rooster7]

Excellent point slontwovvy. Or one might say, he cares so much about the safety of our Arm Forces that he's actually willing to listen to them (or in this case, observe whatever they wanted to show the President). Clinton's biggest concern was how he appeared to the public. His heart was dedicated to creating some sort of legacy for himself.

 

If you had a son stationed in Korea, who would you want to be President? Bush takes our liberties seriously. He cares about the men and women in the military. Clinton just wants to take liberties with our daughters. I'd rather have a son stationed in Korea today, then a daughter in the White House four years ago.

[acco40]

President Bush valiantly defended our country from slaughter from the skies by the evil Mexican Air Force. He served proudly amidst the sons of fellow politicians and influential businessmen. How dare anyone question his patriotism!

[Rooster7]

acco40,

 

Do you know what it takes to fly a fighter jet? How safe do you think it is to fly one, over Texas or elsewhere? Of the millions who served during the sixties, how many do you think were sent to Vietnam? Do you think the military gave George W. Bush special accommodations? You honestly believe that they have special barracks or divisions reserved for businessmen and politicians? Your accusations, bluntly stated or simply inferred, are very weak. By the way, how many black helicopters are there in your neighborhood?

 

If you want to pick on a President who didn't do his share, look at Clinton. He lied to get out of the service and the media pretends that it didn't happen. Or worse, because it was a controversial war, they play it off as no big deal.

[NJCubScouter]

Slontwovvy, ASM and especially Rooster: Please do go on talking about Clinton, you are just proving the point I made originally.

[Rooster7]

Perhaps we're just too bitter about having to endure a President who cared more about his own interests than anyone else's. Or, maybe, we're just overjoyed about having a new President who understands that morality is not subjective. George W. isn't perfect, but he's no Bill Clinton either. If my ranting proves something to you about me, so be it. I sleep well at nightand you did ask me to continue.

[acco40]

The original post had nothing to do about former President William J. Clinton. The original post referenced an article that related that President Bush teared up/cried when telling the parents of a serviceman who was killed in combat that their son died for a noble cause.

 

President Johnson was torn-up about the boys who were killed in Nam. He was so conflicted aboutthe war he could not run for a second term, an election that he in all probability could have won easily. What President has sent boys into harms way and thought it was not a noble cause? What President has been happy that their was a loss of life for US armed forces? In the high praise of Bush's crying, are you or anyone else implying that other presidents did not care?

 

The parents of Palistinian suicide bombers believe their "martyred" sons & daughters died for a noble cause. Getting teary eyed about it is meaningless in my book. The Saudi's who went down on 9/11/01 believed they died for a noble cause.

 

I do not envy any Commander in Chief who has the burden of life and death decisions upon his shoulders. The brave men and women who serve in our armed forces are trained to do their duty, without regard to the "nobleness" of the task. I have no doubt that President Bush cared deeply about the fallen soldier. But I want more from a President than caring. If the quote is accurate, "Today, we've got the mom and dad of a brave soldier who lost his life, and a brother.", it is typical Bush, garbled use of the English language. Did the brave soldier lose his brother?

 

Anyway, I'm sure supporters of Bush and detractors of Bush will read into his actions what they want to believe. Their mind is already made up.

 

What are Bush's thoughts on the fact that when his father was President he (Bush #1) sent Rumsfeld over to meet with the "butcher of Bagdad" and promised U.S. Government support including weapons, biological agents, and money to fight Iranians. When the Bush adminsistration knew full well that the Iraqi's gassed the Kurds, they publicly stated that the Iranians did it. Where was the nobility in that? You make a deal with the devil and you will come to regret it.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Rooster7]

acco40,

 

Politics over blood - Is that your mantra? I don't have to defend Bush's stance concerning the war on terrorism. 80 to 90 percent of Americans already agree will him. As for people's mindsets already be set...that's at least true for two of us. I'm happily on the opposite side of your fence buddy.

[evmori]

I don't think LBJ didn't run again because he was torn up about the Vietnam war. I think he was tired of all the pressure to continue a war he didn't agree with.

 

President Bush seems like the real deal. I was skeptical when he was elected but so far he has done an OK job. He needs to find a way to kick start the economy, though. A little more agressive investigating & prosecuting the Enron/Adelphia/World Com thieves would help.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Yoshimi]

George W. Bush is carrying out a racist, xenophobic war on the Muslim world. How does this make him a good president?

 

Also, my 2 year old daughter can carry a better conversation/give a better speech than Dubya.

 

If you put a retard in charge of a bulldozer, something bad's gonna happen. If you put a retard in charge of a country...

[Rzarecta]

To say that W. gave his best for his country during Vietnam is a slap in the face to all those who truly did.

 

To say that W. is anything more than a fortunate son whose father pulled strings (this is proven, by the way, via correspondanc between his father and certain military officers - so it's not paranoia, it's simply proven fact) to get him into the National Guard instead of actually having to fight - that's just naive.

 

To say that Clinton's dishonors to his country excuse Bush's dishonors to his country is absurd.

 

To say that Bush (or Cheney, who once said that he had "other priorities" during Vietnam) can understand the weight of sending American boys into combat better than another president is strange, and totally unfounded.

 

To say that we now have "adults" in the White House is bizarre, because we went from having a self-made man with a genius IQ - Clinton (even if I hated his politics, it was true) - to having a spoiled son, Bush, of average intelligence who has ridden on his father's coattails all his life, a boy who only recently had to be educated on the mere basics of world politics. To call Bush, the boy who has gotten where he is mostly by riding on his father's achievements, an adult, as opposed to the self-made Clinton, that's just nuts.

 

Do you think enyone in the Bush family will ever face the draft? No, because they're rich, privileged children who will get college deferments or a nice slot in the National Guard. It's just like how drug offenders in Florida face LONG prison terms, but Jeb Bush's rich, privileged daughter recently got to avoid prison and merely take a brief stay in a luxury rehab center, FOR THE EXACT SAME OFFENSE. The Bush family are not ordinary Americans who can sympathize with other ordinary, everyday, hardworking Americans - they are privileged, wealthy, powerful, spoiled, and shield their own kin from having to follow the same rules that other people's sons and daughters do. They are no better than the Kennedys: they are a rich, patrician family that does not have to live in the same world as the rest of us, yet is perfectly comfortable telling us that our sons and daughters should give their lives for our country. At least the Kennedys have actually lost a few children to war.

 

Basically, the Bush family is a family with so much money and power that it will never have to follow the rules, and it never has. A modern Bush son will never die fighting for our country. W. is perfectly happy to send other people's sons to their deaths, and to cry sympathetically when they do indeed die, because he knows his OWN family will never have to go - just look at where his own sons and daughters are - it's not fighting for their country, I'll tell you that. It's just like Jeb Bush is happy to support strict drug-offense laws in Florida, sencind other people's sons and daughters to many-year prison terms, because his own daughter will never have to face the consequences.

 

I do not trust these people to protect the men and women of our military.

[eisely]

Yoshimi and Rzarecta need to get lives, respectively. Your genius former president still has much to answer for. As a veteran of the Viet Nam war, I am not dishonored by the fact that Bush did his time in the National Guard of Texas. He never lied about his service. Many people in the National Guard have served with distinction and made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

 

Clinton was a draft dodger and lied about it. Those were hard times and I have friends today who went to Canada and did other things to avoid military service in a war the country did not believe in. But they never misrepresented to themselves or others their reasons for doing what they did. By his own admission Clinton wanted to remain "politically viable." So it suited his purpose to pretend years later that he was not a draft dodger when in fact that was exactly what he did.

 

Incidentally, student deferments from the non existent draft went away decades ago. Do you guys read the newspaper at all?

[OldGreyEagle]

Yoshimi,

 

Welcome to this forum.

 

I have to disagree with you that President Bush is carrying out a racist Xenophobic war on the Muslim world. The United States is carrying out a war on terrorism however, a war we did not start, but aim to finish. If the United States and President Bush were indeed Anti-muslim, shouldn't we be deporting muslims? At last glance no we are not. If we were carrying out a war against the Muslim world, why would we still be giving out aid to Muslim Countries. Why do Saudi's still visit us? When we were bombing Afhganistan, why did we drop culturally correct food packages as well?

 

It is my impression, and you can correct me if i am wrong, that the reason Osama Bin-Laden carried out his aggression against the United States was because the US military presence in Saudi Arabia. Of course the reason why we were there in the first place was because we were asked by the Saudi's and the Kuwaiti's and a few other countries to please kick Iraq out of Kuwait. A country that Iraq overran. Does anyone in the Muslim world remember that?

 

Mosques remain open in the US and Muslims are allowed to worship as they please. A freedom Christians do not always enjoy in muslim countries.

 

I find the use of the word xenophobic interesting. The United States is a true melting pot, comprised of a myriad of cultures, ethnic groups, religions, and races. It appears that because we do not follow muslim law some misguided extremists want to eradicate us. Who is being xenophobic? Us or them?

 

I would like to get your views on this subject, perhps thorugh dialogue, we can bridge the gap of misunderstanding that appears to be the gulf between the US and the muslim world.

 

I do not wish to be insulting, I just want to know why we are the bad guys in this situaiton.