Posted on 02/23/2006 10:18:00 AM PST by DoorGunner
Why do YOU hate George W. Bush?
The current furor over the UAE “owning” some of our ports has showcased a disturbing aspect of FR. Perhaps you can help me understand this situation better.
Granted, the “ports” transaction story, on its face, seems so antithetical to the security interests of our great country, and such a political gaffe, that one wonders at the motivation behind it. My first thought was, “How could anybody be that stupid.” That was my first thought.
Then, I read some of the anti-Bush comments here. Those comments seem to express certain common beliefs:
“Bush is (extremely) stupid.”
“Bush is (criminally) corrupt.”
“Bush does not want America to be safe, he wants to allow terrorists in, so they can blow us up.”
These beliefs (falsely) describe a President who is utterly evil and dangerous. A President who rightfully SHOULD be hated and feared. While I recognize that P. Bush is a human being, and thus has human flaws, I cannot understand why people would hold the above described beliefs.
It is clear that the MSM/dNC are constantly trying to cause people to hate Bush; and these same beliefs are rampant at places like DU; but why are they held by otherwise rational people here at FR?
That is, are there any rational, cogent reasons why I should hate Bush? I invite those who hold to the above beliefs, to tell me why so you believe: what actual evidence do you have that Bush is actually evil?
Although you can post anything you want, merely venting one's rage does not constitute evidence (except, perhaps, a LACK of evidence).
The mere fact that Bush fails to (totally) agree with you on a certain policy is insufficient as evidence that Bush (or anyone else) is evil, and should be hated. For instance, there are those who seem to hate Bush, merely because he wants “amnesty” or a “guest worker program” for certain illegal aliens. [Question: “Is ANY President who proposes such programs also 'evil'?”]
To be considered actual evidence, allegations must be:
Clear
Specific
Verifiable (preferably on the internet)
[As an example, consider Katrina/NO situation: allegations like
“Bush blew up the dikes so that blacks would drown...”
does not constitute evidence. It is specific, but it is unverifiable (not to say ludicrous).
“Bush and his henchpersons utterly failed to help, after Katrina...”
“Too late, stupid, etc...”
does not constitute evidence. They are “glittering generalities,” which are neither specific nor verifiable. Something like:
FEMA did not do “ABC” until “ZZZ” (days, hours, minutes) after “LMNOP” occurred. They SHOULD have done “ABC” within “XXX” (days, hours, etc.)
these allegations are specific, and can be verified (if actually true). BUT, they carry with them a burden of further proof: Is the alleged fault (in this case, the timeframe) reasonable? Did FEMA perform better, or more quickly, under prior administrations? Is the alleged fault sufficient to prove that Bush is stupid or evil?]
I am not defending the “Ports” deal, I am not defending George H. Bush. I do not plan to debate anyone. I MAY, if able, comment on the quality or validity of whatever evidence is tendered.
Remember, You are trying to convince me (and others) that we should adopt your beliefs regarding Bush. Namecalling (“Bushbot,” etc) will never accomplish that end.
Bushbot! :0)
I don't hate Bush.
I'm starting to think you'd get a more managable thread if you asked "Why do you like Bush?" I could answer on THAT thread, but that makes me a Bushbot.
How long have you been beating your wife?
I like Bush, but I don't like the "ports deal".
"anyone?"
Bueller.............
Is there any rational or cogent reasons that you have to set this as the bar? Or are you just trying to get yet another FR flame war going?
I don't hate Bush. I didn't hate Clinton. Hate inhibits rational analysis.
I think Clinton was a horrible president. I opposed just about everything he did. Protested him often. But I never descending into the pit of hate that so many Bush opponents have entered.
I supported Bush in both elections, I agree with him more often than not, but I find myself opposing Bush on a lot of sujbects, and think the White House is showing itself increasingly unable to properly manage events - such as using a threat of Bush's very first veto against the ports deal, which to me was appalling PR.
But for some, that apparently equates to hate, so that "justifies" impunging my motives.
You are defined not by what you say, but by what you do (and what you fail to do).
An example would be the utter lack of protest in essentially all Muslim circles following 9-11, suicide bombings in Israel, the Russian school bombing, and so on. Compare this silence to the "outrage" over the cartoons about Islam and you really know everything you have to know about Islam.
George Bush has increase funding to the NEA, increased funding to planned parenthood, and taken no action to curb the economic and national security threat to this nation that illegal immigration poses. Furthermore, the action he proposes to take on this issue will exacerbate the situation, not improve it. Now this port issue - the madness of which is apparent to everyone outside of the beltway - has exploded onto the scene and of all the things that Bush would chose to veto it would be a bill that would increase national security by refusing to grant the management of our ports to Muslims.
Michael Moore excoriated Bush in his speeches and films calling him an unintelligent, bought-and-paid for president who was in the pocket of the Saudis.
If Bush persists in trying to force this deal on a nation that does not want it, he may prove himself guilty of such accusations after all.
I have a simple message for our president: grassroots conservatives put you into power; act like it.
I don't hate President Bush, but have a distasteful reaction to some adminstration policies. Big difference. At least he seems to respond to widespread criticism when it is warranted (ie, Harriet Meiers) but holds his ground when he does not think he is wrong.
Now President Clinton, I disliked - viscerally - as a dishonorable man. Finger-to-the-wind governance, when that finger wasn't somewhre it ought not to be.
Unlike any other President except Jimmy Carter. I did not think of Carter as dishonorable back in the 1970's, just pathetically inept. Now I see that he is both.
All we want to do is scrutinize this deal with the UAE more closely, and if changes are needed to the deal, then make them.
Being labelled a "hate Bush" person is not the way to win support and its sophomoric. The real haters are on the left and hate Bush more than they hate the enemy. The conservative base has been through thick and thin, and now you turn on them? That is not right, especially since they are not being unreasonable.
Bush and the bots, including Rush, were wrong on Harriet Miers, and the base was right. In the end that turned out well. Maybe this will too.
"I like Bush, but I don't like the "ports deal"."
I essentially agree. The deal (at least as it has been presented in the MSM) seemed very bad, not to mention politically disasterous. For those reasons, I still cannot get behind the proposal.
But, in considering my position, I am reminded of other instances when I believed that Bush was wrong--but, in hindsight, he was right. And I was wrong. It seems to me that, at least as regards national security, Bush has proved himself worthy of my trust. Further, he has better intel than I could hope to have.
It seems to me that I should consider him worthy of my trust, in this matter. Otherewise, it seems as if I must begin to believe that he is either a complete idiot, or utterly corrupt. I cannot do so, without actual evidence.
Thus, I do not agree with the "ports" deal, but will continue to stand by the president.
DG
No hate here.
Because he's too perfect.
**************
Well said. I confess I would feel more comfortable about it if Bush hadn't said that he just found out about it.
Thus, I do not agree with the "ports" deal, but will continue to stand by the president.
Agreed. I don't love Bush, but I stand by him most of the time. This "ports deal" is a big concern though. I wish he would just explain to us all what is going through his head...
I don't hate Dubya in the least, I pray for him, and we must accept that only one Great Communicator may come along in our lifetimes. Nobody spoke as simply, directly, and well as Reagan, while GWBush inherited the speaking ability of his father, GHWBush.:) He really needs to get new speech writers so he can explain why he backs giving some ports' control to the UAE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.