# What defines a good president?



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

The guy that tried a lot of stuff....There are a lot of people on both sides of the equation that can't wait for the next election so we can try again. Can't really see where George W will be remembered as the guy that......that......that.....geez I really can't think of anything that sticks out.....just a lot of stuff that has started but doesn't really have much direction! There we go! What a great way to define a not so great Gearge W! The president who tried a lot of stuff! I see this is post #666 for me so I guess the Devil made me do it!!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Can't make judgements on his presidency yet.

Irag,Terrorism and how his Court appointees perform will take years to make any judgements.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Hey lets face it G.W Bush has not had it easy. Its easy to be a good president in good times. GW I think is doing as good a job as can be done at this time, I dont agree with everything he does but hey you all should be glad about that.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2005)

I think he may be remembered for bringing the second coming of Hitler to his knees. JMHO.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

I have to agree with Ken on this one. I don't think you can define G.B.'s presidency yet.

9-11, invasion of two countries, worste recorded storms on the history books and we haven't even seen winter/spring yet.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Regardless of anyones position on GW, I think its fair to say GW hasnt backed away or panicked at any situation thrown at him. With each new challenge he rises to the occasion and attacks it head on with no hesitation. Whether or not you agree he made the right choice, you have to credit him for not wasting time deciding what choice to make.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Many view FDR as a "Good" ... even a "Great" ... President ...

He tried a lot of "stuff" and look were it got us ... Socially.

I guess that's what you get when you have a person in his condition at the time for President ...

A very Skewwed perspective ...

It's just too danged bad he had enough diciples in Congress to scare the Baujesus out of SCOTUS.

But that's a whole-nother-story :eyeroll:

As a side note here ... FDR lead the Country during a time of calamity much like GWB ... I don't imagine GWB will get an extra two election cycles, and I also wish with all my heart GWB wasn't so Socially/Fiscally Liberal


----------



## magnum3.5 (Sep 19, 2003)

We could always look at the flip side, and a darn good thing Gore or Kerry were not in office I honestly beleive things would be different. For one thing our guns would be in jeporady. Old G.W has had alot of hurdles to over come he is handling the pressure preety well in my eyes. Magnum


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

It is not Bush, of course. Now, a few of his closest advisers and aids are in trouble, all are quite repulsive characters. Once in Supreme Court, some start judging according to their honest wishes, regardless of obligatons to any groups holding the power. Who knows? May be Bush appointed good judges unadvertendly. May be will watch falling Bush before his second term ends. He still has troublesome problems ahead, particularly in Iraq. Suicide bombings will continue.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> Regardless of anyones position on GW, I think its fair to say GW hasnt backed away or panicked at any situation thrown at him.


You are wrong on this. "Panic" is exactly what GW did. It's kind of like getting taunted on a playground. Your buddies look at you and expect you to do something. If you don't do something, folks think you are scared. It's difficult to stand up to allegations that you are scared or weak.

The U.S. was shocked and scared after 9/11, there is no doubt of that. They looked to their President for leadership. Instead of waiting for UN inspectors to find proof of WMDs in Iraq and trying to build a coalition of support among fellow nations, GW levied ultimatums. He levied an ultimatum against Saddam and the UN inspectors, eliminating his negotiating position. He also levied ultimatums against other countries by using the "you're either with us or against us" routine.

In essence, GW could not wait for fight because he was weak and felt the eyes of his citizens looking to him wondering if he was scared. He knew that beating up on somebody, anybody, makes you feel better when you are scared. Everybody in the world knew that we could (and can) kick the crap out of any country in the world. GW couldn't wait to prove it.

Even now, when people raise questions about the war in Iraq, GW brings up the 9/11 terrorist attack. His State of the Union speech continued to reference 9/11, almost as if he cannot grasp the concept that his own administration has admitted that they can't find any link between Saddam and 9/11. The scary part is that polls continue to show that many people are still convinced that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

There is an old saying that states, "Wars are started by frightened men." This could not fit the current situation any better.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

BigDaddy

You under-estimate the "Stratigic Importance" of doing whatever it takes to change the "dynamics of daily life" in that region ... You deny the "Logistical Importance of Mesopotamia" (IRAQ) ... You deny the "Weakness/Impotence" of the United Nations ... You deny the "Complicity" of several World Leaders ... and you deny the Reality that Time is of the Essence.

GWB acted in a Strong, Brave and Calculated way ...

Or so it seems to me.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

DecoyDummy,

I did not underestimate the importance of any of the issues you listed, nor did I negate to factor them into my assessment of the GW's presidency.

My biggest problem with GW's presidency is the fact that he refused or neglected to provide US citizens for the real justification for the war in Iraq. The invasion of Aghanistan was completely justified since we had concrete proof that Afghanistan supported Al Qaeda and the attack from 9/11.

However, I think that GW's real reason for invading Iraq was to establish a respresentative government in the region in hopes that ideas of freedom and democracy would spread throughout the region. If that was the reason, then why didn't he just come out and say it. He could have said,

"You know, we need a representative government in the Middle East to show the reason how good such a government is. Sorry, Iraq, but you are the country that we picked for establishing a representative government. Citizens of Iraq please step aside or lend a hand, but here we come."

Of course, he didn't say that. Instead, he alleged that Iraq could be (or was) linked to 9/11, that Iraq was ready and able to attack us, or that Saddam at least supported Al Qaeda.

If his goal is to establish a representative government in the Middle East, why didn't he simply use Afghanistan for this exercise? Why involve Iraq?

I think that GW picked Iraq because he was looking for an excuse to go after Saddam and complete his daddy's dirty work. He thought that he could kill two birds with one stone, gidding rid of Saddam and hopefully establishing a representative government in the region. He counted on (and continues to count on) the US citizens being scared enough or dumb enough to confuse "Saddam" and "Osama".

These are my questions, and I have yet to hear GW be completely honest why we invaded Iraq. Gladly, there are other US citizens that have seen through the ruse of GW's administration and demanding answers/


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

You must be hearing things I never heard ... never once did I hear GWB associate Saddam/Iraq with 9-11 ... I'd be surprised if you could show me were he did.

Saddam/Iraq clearly had Terrorist relationships and even Al Qaeda relationships ...


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Your whole argument is based on the "he lied about WMD's" platform, which honestly, is getting quite old and played out. There was not a person in America, or most of the free world for that matter, that didnt believe Saddam was sitting on a stockpile of weapons. And GWB didnt just rush out to war, he asked permission from congress, and it was granted overwhelmingly!

If GW had acted as swiftly and arrogantly as you suggest, we might have had a chance to take Saddam down before he had a chance to move the weaponry. Its like having a pothead son your trying to catch. If you tell him months in advance to "comply or were coming in" hes gonna clear out the dope long before you ever have a chance to find it.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bid Daddy....you are right.But Bush could not just come out and say we are going to invade another country just because we don't like them.WMD was his excuse.Now that there haven't been any found....maybe he should fess up and say Iraq was invaded because we wanted to start some democracy over there.I hope it works because we are stuck there for a long time.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

BS :eyeroll:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

OK, Bob. Please enlighten us with your wisdom. What specifically in Ken's statement is BS?

Here is some reading for those that are still convinced that Iraq is linked to 9/11: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-10-04-alqaeda-saddam_x.htm. Here is an excerpt from the story:



> WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that he hasn't seen "any strong, hard evidence" to link Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists who staged the Sept. 11 attacks, a more direct statement than he has made on the subject before.


Furthermore:


> The independent commission that investigated 9/11 concluded in June that there was "no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." The panel also said "contacts" between al-Qaeda and Iraq "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."


This story was published a year ago, and a large number of people still buy into the idea that Saddam and Osama were best buddies that sat down and planned the attack. Lest we forget, remember that Osama has called Saddam an "infidel". Here are some links for verification:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm

Here are some more comment peaces on the Osama statements against Saddam:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Al-Atraqchi_Osama-Saddam.htm

http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2003-03-13/editorial.asp

This leaves us with the WMDs. True, there are reports that Saddam gassed Kurds, and people have found mass graves. It is undeniable that many people thought that Saddam had WMDs, not just Bush. However, don't you think that we would check, double check, and triple check the accuracy of our information before we declare a war and launch an invasion of another sovereign country? Oops, sorry. We THOUGHT he had WMDs....

If WMDs were the basis for the invasion and we haven't found any yet, why hasn't Bush come straight out and admitted the mistake?

Now, there are those that claim that the "liberal media" is keeping information from us and that there really is evidence of WMDs. Where is it? Where's the evidence? Give me a photo, give me testimony, give me something.

Last, let's look at how GW continues to speak about Iraq and Afghanistan together as if they are both linked to September 11. Here is an except from a GW speech (taken from the official White House homepage of http://www.whitehouse.gov/) made in August of 2005 in Idaho:



> Our nation is engaged in a global war on terror that affects the safety and security of every American. In Iraq, Afghanistan and across the world, we face dangerous enemies who want to harm our people, folks who want to destroy our way of life.


Time and time again, GW speaks to justifying the war in Iraq because terrorists there want to attack us. Did Iraq attack us? No. Was Saddam in cahoots with Osama bin Laden to plan the 9/11 attack or other attacks? Not unless Osama hangs out with "infidels".

The rhetoric from the right continues, and the sad thing is that testosterone-laden, Bud Lite-drinkin', good ole' boys continue to believe it. "Ya, go kick some Muslim butt."

Luckily, based on the latest polls, it looks like the American public is starting to see through the smoke screen.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> The independent commission that investigated 9/11 concluded in June that there was "no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." The panel also said "contacts" between al-Qaeda and Iraq "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."


The independent commission?????? the same independent commission that is in the middle of the Able Danger cover up, theres a real credible source that was the biggest farce ever foisted on the public from boh sides of the aisle politicians covering up for the political elite. 
I don't accept them as credible. read this and do some reaserch and you won't either



> Third Source Backs 'Able Danger' Claims About Atta
> 
> Sunday, August 28, 2005
> 
> ...


Big daddys statement


> This leaves us with the WMDs. True, there are reports that Saddam gassed Kurds, and people have found mass graves. It is undeniable *that many people thought that Saddam had WMDs*, not just Bush. However, don't you think that we would check, double check, and triple check the accuracy of our information before we declare a war and launch an invasion of another sovereign country? Oops, sorry. We THOUGHT he had WMDs...


not many people, everybody the list has been posted so many times I won't bother

In Big Daddys world prudence would be to wait until a WMD is used and kills millions more of our citizens and destroys our economy, :eyeroll: then I guess your wise comment would be OOP SORRY I GUESS WE SHOULD OF ACTED or more realistically BUSH SHOULD OF ACTED BLAME BUSH BLAME BUSH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Big daddys quote


> Time and time again, *GW speaks to justifying the war in Iraq because terrorists there want to attack us.* Did Iraq attack us? No. Was Saddam in cahoots with Osama bin Laden to plan the 9/11 attack or other attacks? Not unless Osama hangs out with "infidels".


All of you should read this letter from Al zarqawi the head terrorist in Iraq who is there and then ask yourself if Bush is right about if there are terrorists there that want to attack us. The letter is long and convoluted but only Big Daddy lacks the ability to see the intent of the terrorists IN IRAQ

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9666242/
read it all of it

Bush is right, Big Daddy is a blind Bush hater


----------



## SupportTheHuntingVictims (Oct 22, 2005)

Topic: What do you define a good president ? Anyone that is not a liberal how about that. I think Bush is doing a great job.

*GREAT JOB GEORGE BUSH KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK YOUR BETTER THAN JOHN KERRY...REMEMBER THAT GUY? OH YEAH HE SPENT 3 MONTHS IN NAM WITH HIS FILMING CREW FOR FUTURE POLITICAL THINGS, THAT COWARD.* Kerry-That doesn't matter because I got 3 Purple hearts...Haha true he got a scrape on his knee once a month. The amount of Purple hearts he has equals the amount of Months he spent over in NAM.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bobm said:


> Big daddys statement
> 
> 
> > This leaves us with the WMDs. True, there are reports that Saddam gassed Kurds, and people have found mass graves. It is undeniable *that many people thought that Saddam had WMDs*, not just Bush. However, don't you think that we would check, double check, and triple check the accuracy of our information before we declare a war and launch an invasion of another sovereign country? Oops, sorry. We THOUGHT he had WMDs...


BOB....so where are the WMD?????

There aren't any.Accoprding to GWB before we invaded Iraq that is the reason we are over there.Big Daddy is right....GWB links 9/11 to being in Iraq because he CAN'T say we are there because of WMD.

I agree with you in that we can't just pull out now....but he made a mistake and won't admit it.And that lowers my opinion of him.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken, Bush didn't make the mistake, Bush didn't go over there anymore than you or I did, he correctly and reasonably relied on the opinion of the US intelligence, the British intelligence, the French intelligence ( oxmoron there), the russians ect.  And every leading Democrat was in total agreement with the intelligence communites assessment of the situation. The intelligence community made the mistake IF there weren't any WMDs (which with all the delay in going to look Saddam may well have hidden them in Syria or who knows where).

So I ask you if you were president and responsible for the protection of this countries citizens, and all these intelligence organizations were telling you that there were WMDs what would you do? Ignore them??? Bush did the logical thing and to blame him for the failing of our intel community is unreasonable, really dishonest. He has nothing to to apologize for it wasn't his error....

This whole WMD argument is so bogus and off base its pathetic. Like I said before the are many legitimate criticisms that can be leveled at Bush but this isn't one of them.

If someone in your school who was considered to be a honest responsible person that you trust gave you information that they were certain there was a bomb in your school would you wait until it went off to see if they were correct or would you get the kids out first??
Who then would be at fault ???who would be irresponsible if the bomb scare was not truthful???? you or the person whose word you relied on??
How hard is this to understand, why can't you guys move on to some criticism that is deserved, how unfair :eyeroll:

Like you said we are there now and the mission is progressing we have no choice but to see it through, geez....


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

The no WMD is worn out uke: 
1) he may of moved them.
2) the size of Iraq I don't think we have searched everywhere. I'll give you an example.
We live in a modest 1280 sf home, not near the size of Iraq. The wife does 99% of the house cleaning. About 10 or so years ago I bought an excellent pre 64 Winchester 94 30/30. :lol: She still hasn't found it. :lol:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bob....we didn't say Bush was at fault for invading Iraq.You are correct....he relied on faulty intelligence.What I want him to do is say...."we were wrong,I made a mistake.....but we are there and we aren't leaving now that we have the chance to make a difference there."

But he continues to link Iraq to 9/11 which the same intelligence says it had no part of.

Come on GWB....be a man and say the "buck stops here."


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I agree with Ken in that GW should simply admit that he made a mistake by making a decison based on bad intelligence. However, he is much too arrogant to admit his mistake.

True, most every body thought that Saddam had WMDs, including leading Democrats. Supposedly based on that faulty information about WMDs (and I assume that this was the reason), GW launched a preemptive invasion to protect us and prevent Saddam from doing us harm.

However, I am sincere in my belief that you can't invade another country without a good reason. Was GW told that Saddam was ready to launch in a week, in a month, in a year? Secondly, even if GW had evidence to suggest that Saddam had WMDs, did Saddam really have the means to use them against us?

I think that invading Iraq was a bad decision made in haste and made with bad intelligence. The single most important quality that a President must have is sound judgement. His decision to invade was a bad decision that demonstrated bad judgement, and I would say that if he was Republican, Democrat, or a member of any party.

I also fully understand that CIA was gutted during the Clinton administration, and this is a valid reason why our intelligence on Iraq was not as good as it should have been. However, this does not excuse a preemptive invasion without just cause.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Did you ever consider what the media would do with a statement from Bush saying we were wrong to invade no matter what reason he gave ( we weren't though based on what we thought we knew)???? But Wrong or not if Bush made a statement like that I have absolutley no doubt every anti bush media outlet would misconstrue the statement, further undermining what we are currently attempting to accomplish there and thats a good enough reason not to do it. There are strategic considerations involved with every statement MR. Bush or any other high ranking official says. Wouldn't Al jazeera love to have a statement like that to quote out of context  Quit crying about it until the war is over, Geez

He couldn't say it until the war is over even if it were true, which it isn't.
This WMD thing gives me a headache.....I'm sorry if I get abrasive about it but I just think its ridiculous to blame Bush for doing what made sense based on the info he had at the time, nearly every damn one of the high ranking dems including the Clintons agreed with the decision at the time and you guys aren't castigating them for it, this is partisanship at its worst. Its a lame position for you to take, why don't you Monday morning quarterback something else. IF I only knew how much Google was going to be worth, if if if :eyeroll:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Yeap pretty darned "Hasty"

Only waited through 12 years of U.N. santions which were violated each and every day of those twelve years ...

Pretty Hasty Indeed.

Personally, I think we should just keep waiting and waiting and waiting ... and feeding cash to a U.N.

Had it not been for the War much of what we now know about it's (U.N.) corruption ... we would still not know.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

What else besides WMD can they complain about even if that wasn't the main cause for the Iraq war. Guess they could ask him to apologize for taken no action when the USS Cole was bombed. Wait&#8230;&#8230;that wasn't him was it. Well maybe he could apologize for blowing up a aspirin factory by mistake&#8230;OOPS&#8230; not him again. I know, he could apologize for turning the Lincoln bedroom into a motel 6 for fat cats&#8230;..naw&#8230;.again not him. Well he could at least apologize for not capturing Bin Laden when he was offered to the US on a silver platter&#8230;&#8230;.I'm sorry, wrong President again and besides all that would have prevented was possible 9/11. No, let them complain and grab at straws with their false claims that we went to war solely because WMD's. After all, what else do they have. BTW, did that other guy, what's his name ever apologize for any of those?????


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Yup....conservative spin :eyeroll:

Your guy didn't own up to his mistakes....so ours won't either.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

With over 2000 American soldiers dead I hope we can say it was the right thing to do ten years in the future. Don't kid yourself. The Iraqi people are paying a much greater price than we ever will but they do know the other side of the equation living under great leader who hides in holes. He stole millions from the Iraqi people and I hope we don't repeat that mistake. We can give them hope but the bottom line is it is their own will that will determine their destiny. That part of the world is known for the lack of long time stability. As far as George W, well there are a lot of questionmarks!! He started the war and someone else will have to finish it for him.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Spin? No it is common sense. Something that seems to escape a lot of people on your side or your guys, what ever that is. Funny, I thought he was President of the United States. Why should the President apologize for something he didn't do. Has the 20 plus Democrat Senators who voted for the war in Iraq apologized because they believed the intelligence reports. Has Tony Blair and leaders of other countries apologized because the also believed the intelligence reports. Of course they haven't....... why should they. Spin, yeah right......... :fiddle:


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Ken, I'm glad you don't teach in our school system.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Me too.I guess freedom of speech isn't OK where you live.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Ken,

We'll take you down here in Bismarck. We need more free thinkers.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Gohon, I think the intelligence reports, lacked intelligence!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Gohon, we also know your attitude about public schools. We will keep Ken in good old North Dakota because we believe in educators like him.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I'm almost done.....leaning towards retirement in 7 more months.

I don't mind a good discussion on topics.Some of my best friends are conservatives.They are simply Americans with a different point of view than me.

I saw a definiton of a moderate liberal,not leftist,in today's paper that is pretty close to my way of thinking.

"Moderate liberals think it's not practical,either economically or politically, to push for a dramatic expansion of the role of the state.Leftists think it would be a good idea politically and despite all evidence to the contrary,think it would work economically."


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Gohon, I think the intelligence reports, lacked intelligence


Exactly, that's what everyone has been trying to tell you............ and for that reason no apology is needed from the person that didn't make the reports.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Ken W Wrote:

But he continues to link Iraq to 9/11 which the same intelligence says it had no part of.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you show me any example where GWB linked Iraq to 911 in any way??

It might seem to some you are one of those folks who "continues to say what they want to say (and believe) without regard to any basis in fact ... or intelligence"


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

:lol: :lol: :lol: Meds. Gohon.....Meds....remember to take them and you will be just fine.. :wink:

Ol' squidly, I have been reading your posts for quite awhile now. What possesses a man from OK to post on a ND outdoors site!!! Help me out here.

Disclaimer: I am not trying to get you too not post....I am just tying to understand WHY!!!

None the less, it is quite entertaining!!!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> What possesses a man from OK to post on a ND outdoors site!


Why not? There are a lot of people on here that are not from ND. Even a couple moderators. If you notice I never post on issues pertaining only to ND, especially politics connected with just ND. Besides, at the moment Oklahoma doesn't have a site like this one that covers so many areas.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gohon is closer to ND than I am :lol: I'd have to move to Florida to get further away. Thats the whole benefit of the digital forum, opinions from anywhere in the country, really the world  . Seabass used to chime in from Holland when he was over there. Its really an amazing technology that you young guys that have grown up with it, can't appreciate. To older farts like Gohon and I, Ken and Dick and Bob Kellam and others this is an unreal futuristic almost sci fi capability.

Plus we southerners have to explain complicated stuff to you yankees :wink: over and over and over again in the case of this thread :lol:

I just got DSL at home and its really cool, I wish I did this earlier I can't believe the difference.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Gohon....I deleted what you wanted.

I took no offense from your comment.

I don't get into politics with the kids I work with.....Sp. Ed. kids don't think about politics.

I like a good discussion....just wait until next year's elections again.


----------



## Camo (Oct 28, 2005)

What makes a good president??? The initials GWB


----------

