• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush:Great President, or the Greatest President in history?

Is Bush a Great President, or the Greatest President?

  • Great President

    Votes: 8 88.9%

  • The Greatest President

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Total voters
    9
libertarian_knight said:
Excuse me, Bill Clinton does suck. Bill only got caught for being sucked.
Click to expand...

Billie boy did lie. He did cheat. But he lied about a residual-marital affair.. not about a pre-emptive stike.
:))

SOmetimes I speak in underlying riddles..

I was actually agreeing with you.
 
Last edited:
Conflict said:
Billie boy did lie. He did cheat. But he lied about a pre-marital affair.. not about a pre-emptive stike.

:))

SOmetimes I speak in underlying riddles..

I was actually agreeing with you.
Click to expand...

pre-marital? I thought it was extra-marital.
 
Stace said:
pre-marital? I thought it was extra-marital.
Click to expand...

I realized that Stace... I went back to edit it... I guess I called it residual. :mrgreen:

You're right though it was hardly pre-marital. Nevertheless.. it was a an affair of matrimony and not one of national security.
 
Conflict said:
I realized that Stace... I went back to edit it... I guess I called it residual. :mrgreen:

You're right though it was hardly pre-marital. Nevertheless.. it was a an affair of matrimony and not one of national security.
Click to expand...

True....I understand that the President is in the public eye, and therefore his life is under a microscope, but....the whole should have stayed between him, Hilary, and Monica. It wasn't any of the public's business, and if people would have left well enough alone, there would have been no reason for him to lie under oath....

Everyone holds servants of public office to higher standards and morals, which is ridiculous because at the end of the day, they're human, just like the rest of us, and we all make mistakes.
 
Stace said:
True....I understand that the President is in the public eye, and therefore his life is under a microscope, but....the whole should have stayed between him, Hilary, and Monica. It wasn't any of the public's business, and if people would have left well enough alone, there would have been no reason for him to lie under oath....

Everyone holds servants of public office to higher standards and morals, which is ridiculous because at the end of the day, they're human, just like the rest of us, and we all make mistakes.
Click to expand...

Lying under oath about an affair with an intern is one thing....

Lying under oath about how or why we should send our troops to die is another...

Attacking a CIA agent because her husband is a former ambassador who also holds a dissenting opinion of the administration is a third.

I don's see how Bush's lies are even comparable to Clinton's.

If you lie about commiting a war crime, racketeering, extortion, obstruction, treason ..... and the other guy lied about infidelity in terms of matrimony... there is a huge punitive difference.
 
Conflict said:
Lying under oath about an affair with an intern is one thing....

Lying under oath about how or why we should send our troops to die is another...

Attacking a CIA agent because her husband is a former ambassador who also holds a dissenting opinion of the administration is a third.

I don's see how Bush's lies are even comparable to Clinton's.

If you lie about commiting a war crime, racketeering, extortion, obstruction, treason ..... and the other guy lied about infidelity in terms of matrimony... there is a huge punitive difference.
Click to expand...

And I certainly won't be the one to disagree with that.

I wasn't even close to being old enough to vote when Clinton was in office, but I thought he was an excellent President. I missed the 2000 election by a couple of months, but didn't really think too much of it until 9/11 and the ensuing aftermath...especially since I joined the military immediately after that...I wanted to know what kind of Commander In Chief I had.

Quite frankly, I'm appalled and embarrassed by this administration....but I sleep a little easier knowing that at least I didn't vote for him.
 
Stace said:
pre-marital? I thought it was extra-marital.
Click to expand...
I thought he used a cigar on her, so he used his cigar to have an extra-marital affair (kinda sorta).:doh

If I'd been her, I woulda said "Okay, now you lie down and I'll sit on your nose". LOL!:rofl
 
Last edited:
Stace said:
And I certainly won't be the one to disagree with that.

I wasn't even close to being old enough to vote when Clinton was in office, but I thought he was an excellent President. I missed the 2000 election by a couple of months, but didn't really think too much of it until 9/11 and the ensuing aftermath...especially since I joined the military immediately after that...I wanted to know what kind of Commander In Chief I had.

Quite frankly, I'm appalled and embarrassed by this administration....but I sleep a little easier knowing that at least I didn't vote for him.
Click to expand...

Nor did I young lady. Nor did I.

I was against the war before it even started. At that time I used to frequent Woody Harrelson's establishment..... all the while in OT at the academy....I got tired of the paranoid left and decided to move on. Low and behold.
 
Conflict said:
Nor did I young lady. Nor did I.

I was against the war before it even started. At that time I used to frequent Woody Harrelson's establishment..... all the while in OT at the academy....I got tired of the paranoid left and decided to move on. Low and behold.
Click to expand...

Young lady?!?!? You're not THAT much older than me, buddy.

I supported the war in Afghanistan, because I thought we had justification for going there...intelligence led us to believe that Al-Qaeda/Taliban members were behind 9/11, so we went after them. I don't recall hearing anything proving that intelligence false, so I still don't have a problem with that one...then again, you don't hear too much about Afghanistan anymore.

But false intelligence aside, I never agreed that we had a bone to pick with Iraq, because Iraq had not attacked us, nor was there any substantial intelligence to suggest that they were tied to 9/11, nor to say that they were planning an attack on us. From day one, I thought it was a personal vendetta, thought that it was Bush's attempt to take out Saddam for attempting to assassinate his father, a way to finish what his daddy started with the first Gulf War.
 
Stace said:
Young lady?!?!? You're not THAT much older than me, buddy.

I supported the war in Afghanistan, because I thought we had justification for going there...intelligence led us to believe that Al-Qaeda/Taliban members were behind 9/11, so we went after them. I don't recall hearing anything proving that intelligence false, so I still don't have a problem with that one...then again, you don't hear too much about Afghanistan anymore.

But false intelligence aside, I never agreed that we had a bone to pick with Iraq, because Iraq had not attacked us, nor was there any substantial intelligence to suggest that they were tied to 9/11, nor to say that they were planning an attack on us. From day one, I thought it was a personal vendetta, thought that it was Bush's attempt to take out Saddam for attempting to assassinate his father, a way to finish what his daddy started with the first Gulf War.
Click to expand...

I should have been more specific. I have no dissenting opinion about the war on Al Qaeda or the downfall of the Taliban. I do however feel that our tactical and strategical investments on the true war on terror were deterred by our adminstratons profiteering/racketeering monolopy on Iraq. Intstead of maintainnig the course of our true enemy the administration decided to exploit the perception of terrorism and extend it upon sovereign nation that posed no threat to us; all the while using less resource to find the true culprit of such attacks against us. I suppose that is why some may question our involvement with Al-Qaeda (or the militant islamics in Afghanistan or namely Lebanon) prior to deeming them terrorists.
 
scottyz said:
Is President Bush a Great President, or the Greatest President in history?
Click to expand...

The last Great President was Ronald Reagan. Bush admires Reagan and tries to be like Reagan sometimes, but Bush will never be Reagan.
 
Of course I don't much care for Kerry to be President because he doesn't have any backbone and will turn tail and run at the first sign of a tough fight. I never wanted or approved of the invasion of Iraq, but if you are going to make a decision, make the decision, stick by it and put some backbone into it. But then, Bush wants to right around and use nationalist sentiment from the September 11 attacks to launch invasions that the American people normally wouldn't support and to use false pretexts to justify an invasion and I don't like that either. Hard times in finding an all round strong, good leader during the last election.
 
Conflict said:
I should have been more specific. I have no dissenting opinion about the war on Al Qaeda or the downfall of the Taliban. I do however feel that our tactical and strategical investments on the true war on terror were deterred by our adminstratons profiteering/racketeering monolopy on Iraq. Intstead of maintainnig the course of our true enemy the administration decided to exploit the perception of terrorism and extend it upon sovereign nation that posed no threat to us; all the while using less resource to find the true culprit of such attacks against us. I suppose that is why some may question our involvement with Al-Qaeda (or the militant islamics in Afghanistan or namely Lebanon) prior to deeming them terrorists.
Click to expand...

Well, if we're going the War on Terror route...I don't have a problem with going after terrorism, per se, but I have a problem with them calling it a war...Yes, I know that it's not a war in the usual sense of the word, but I feel that it is a losing battle, as terrorism will never be completely eradicated. Babies are born every day, and every last one of them could grow up and become a potential terrorist. It's a vicious cycle, really. And despite all the government does to convince the public that this War on Terror is going to make our nation safer, I don't feel any more or less safe than I did before 9/11.....all I feel is more annoyed when I go to the airport :mrgreen:

Anyway, you're completely right, our initial focus and objectives were pushed aside in order to focus on Iraq. If we would have left Iraq well enough alone, perhaps Bin Laden would have been captured by now. If we had captured him, THEN perhaps we could have turned our attention to Iraq if Bush still felt it necessary....but by then, the U.N. inspectors would have had more time to do their job, and more intelligence would have come through, and he probably wouldn't have had any justification, anyway.
 
TimmyBoy said:
Of course I don't much care for Kerry to be President because he doesn't have any backbone and will turn tail and run at the first sign of a tough fight. I never wanted or approved of the invasion of Iraq, but if you are going to make a decision, make the decision, stick by it and put some backbone into it. But then, Bush wants to right around and use nationalist sentiment from the September 11 attacks to launch invasions that the American people normally wouldn't support and to use false pretexts to justify an invasion and I don't like that either. Hard times in finding an all round strong, good leader during the last election.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't believe that Kerry would have brought the troops home with their tails between their legs, so to speak. then again, he's not the one that made the ultimate decision to go into Iraq, therefore, he wouldn't have had to stand beside it :2razz:

Or....We could have all revolted and voted for Badnarik or Nader :doh
 
Stace said:
Well, if we're going the War on Terror route...I don't have a problem with going after terrorism, per se, but I have a problem with them calling it a war...Yes, I know that it's not a war in the usual sense of the word, but I feel that it is a losing battle, as terrorism will never be completely eradicated. Babies are born every day, and every last one of them could grow up and become a potential terrorist. It's a vicious cycle, really. And despite all the government does to convince the public that this War on Terror is going to make our nation safer, I don't feel any more or less safe than I did before 9/11.....all I feel is more annoyed when I go to the airport :mrgreen:

Anyway, you're completely right, our initial focus and objectives were pushed aside in order to focus on Iraq. If we would have left Iraq well enough alone, perhaps Bin Laden would have been captured by now. If we had captured him, THEN perhaps we could have turned our attention to Iraq if Bush still felt it necessary....but by then, the U.N. inspectors would have had more time to do their job, and more intelligence would have come through, and he probably wouldn't have had any justification, anyway.
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree. What happenned on September 11 was not a terrorist attack. It was a declaration of war by an organization that seeks to completely destroy the US. This is an all out unconvetional war being waged on the US and the US has been losing. I disagree with Bush's methods to defeat the enemy. Nor do I like the fact the government is using euphemisms like "War on Terror" as method of trying to sow obdienance to the state, to discourage the questioning of authority, to obey and just do what you are told without thinking for yourself. You can never completely stop all terrorism, but we certainly prevent alot of terrorism. Not by laws like the traitor "Patriot" Act but with the power of our freedom and our ideas. No law can defeat or prevent terrorism, rather it is freedom that is the best ounce of prevention. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
 
TimmyBoy said:
I would have to disagree. What happenned on September 11 was not a terrorist attack. It was a declaration of war by an organization that seeks to completely destroy the US. This is an all out unconvetional war being waged on the US and the US has been losing. I disagree with Bush's methods to defeat the enemy. Nor do I like the fact the government is using euphemisms like "War on Terror" as method of trying to sow obdienance to the state, to discourage the questioning of authority, to obey and just do what you are told without thinking for yourself. You can never completely stop all terrorism, but we certainly prevent alot of terrorism. Not by laws like the traitor "Patriot" Act but with the power of our freedom and our ideas. No law can defeat or prevent terrorism, rather it is freedom that is the best ounce of prevention. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that the Taliban have an intense hatred of the U.S.....but as far as 9/11 itself is concerned, I'm going to keep my mouth shut because I'm not completely convinced on who was really behind it (I love a good conspiracy theory, so the angle of it being an inside job is intriguing to me).

As for the rest of your post, especially your last line, I would have to agree.
 
Stace said:
I don't disagree that the Taliban have an intense hatred of the U.S.....but as far as 9/11 itself is concerned, I'm going to keep my mouth shut because I'm not completely convinced on who was really behind it (I love a good conspiracy theory, so the angle of it being an inside job is intriguing to me).

As for the rest of your post, especially your last line, I would have to agree.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that Bush intentionally allowed September 11 to happen. But I think the massive death toll had a big effect on him and motivated him to pursue flawed policies that will not enable us to defeat the terrorists. Not to mention, I question his true motives for invading Iraq.
 
TimmyBoy said:
No, I don't think that Bush intentionally allowed September 11 to happen. But I think the massive death toll had a big effect on him and motivated him to pursue flawed policies that will not enable us to defeat the terrorists. Not to mention, I question his true motives for invading Iraq.
Click to expand...


Like I said in a previous post, I don't think Bush invaded Iraq because he truly thought there were WMD's or anything....I felt, and still feel, that it was all a personal vendetta, an attempt to finish what Daddy started.
 
Stace said:
I don't disagree that the Taliban have an intense hatred of the U.S.....but as far as 9/11 itself is concerned, I'm going to keep my mouth shut because I'm not completely convinced on who was really behind it (I love a good conspiracy theory, so the angle of it being an inside job is intriguing to me).

As for the rest of your post, especially your last line, I would have to agree.
Click to expand...

Someones been hangin with Lucid and watching to much Michael Moore, way to parrot Al-Jazeera talking points. :roll: If you want to blame a president I suggest you look into the Clinton-Gorelick wall and the able danger scandal.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Someones been hangin with Lucid and watching to much Michael Moore, way to parrot Al-Jazeera talking points. :roll: If you want to blame a president I suggest you look into the Clinton-Gorelick wall and the able danger scandal.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've only seen one Michael Moore film, and yes, that was Fahrenheit 9/11. Anyway, I didn't say that I completely buy into the 9/11 conspiracy theory, just that I find it intriguing.
 
Well, I would have to rank Bush in the top five for sure. His true ranking won't happen until long after he leaves office--in which time his legacy will be thoroughly analyzed. At this juncture, he sure does have a chance to surpass Ronald Reagan as America's greatest president.
Anyone that doesn't see progressive peace and democracy being leveled out in the Mid East (thanks to Bush) is simply wearing blinders. The mantra started in 2000 when people everywhere were saying, "right time for the right man for the job". Bush has certainly lived up to that mantra.
 
Conflict said:
Billie boy did lie. He did cheat. But he lied about a residual-marital affair.. not about a pre-emptive stike.
:))

SOmetimes I speak in underlying riddles..

I was actually agreeing with you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well I was being cheeky, some of the effect is lost in text only though. I knew you were.
 
ptsdkid said:
Anyone that doesn't see progressive peace and democracy being leveled out in the Mid East (thanks to Bush) is simply wearing blinders. The mantra started in 2000 when people everywhere were saying, "right time for the right man for the job". Bush has certainly lived up to that mantra.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, you're joking, right? I guess this was when he was practically asleep at the wheel while terror warnings were mounting. :lol: Even though I am yet to be conviced that ole Georgie was the mastermind of 9/11, it did serve as a "god-send" for him and his right-wing cronies. After 9/11, if I'm not mistaken his approval ratings soared to like 80%! Congess (which had no spine) and just about everbody else, where ready to fall in line with his agenda, or else get ridiculed or labeled a "saddam-lover."
 
Stace said:
True....I understand that the President is in the public eye, and therefore his life is under a microscope, but....the whole should have stayed between him, Hilary, and Monica. It wasn't any of the public's business, and if people would have left well enough alone, there would have been no reason for him to lie under oath....

Everyone holds servants of public office to higher standards and morals, which is ridiculous because at the end of the day, they're human, just like the rest of us, and we all make mistakes.
Click to expand...

you people make me laugh
Clinton was a Man Whore Pig
he would have had NO problems if he said 1 of the following 2

1. NO COMMENT
2. I realize that I am public figure, but I will Not comment on matters regarding my personal life

It wasnt lying about he Affair that got him in trouble
IT WAS LYING UNDER OATH that nearly brought him down

and IF bush's plan works, and yes it is a BIG FREAKING IF
and he plants Democracy in the Middle East
He will Go down as ONE of the Greatest Presidents our nation ever put forth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom