Why I hate George Bush?

I do not support my country's "leader" and I am offended at being called unpatriotic! NO, I did NOT forget about 9/11, what's you point? Please, don't tell me you're one of those who still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11. We were not attacked by Saddam Hussein or by any Iraqis, it was BinLaden who masterminded the attacks. There was no Alqaeda in Iraq before we invaded their country. As far as it being my own fault Bush is in office the first time he was "selected" by the Supreme Court rather than elected and the second time people's fears of another attack were exploited plus a true war hero was unjustly dissed by the right-wing! I've been thinking more than a little bit for almost seven years now and I can't wait until we have a real President again, someone who I can respect! Annie

Annie, George Bush never claimed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. Many Bush haters have said that he said that, many people who would rather believe the worst take that as gospel, without ever checking it out. There are many people (you amoung them, apparently) who will choose to believe the worst, but he never said it. What he did say was, and I quote, "We will make no distinction between those who commit acts of terror, and those who harbor them." George Bush never said that Saddam was behind 9/11, and I dare you to come up with any documentation that he did. But, Saddam harbored terrorists. He sponsored terrorists. And GWB promised to go after all terrorists, and those who sponsor and harbor them. And, on top of that, there was evidene that Saddam was a threat to the US. That evidence turned out to be wrong, but it was real, and it was credible. I'm not trying to excuse everything that GWB has done. I have plenty of disagreements with him. However, my disagreements are based on knowing the facts, not blind hatred. And, even when I disgree, I at least try to understand where he is coming from. Logic, Annie, not hate, please.

"And, on top of that, there was evidene that Saddam was a threat to the US. That evidence turned out to be wrong, but it was real, and it was credible" Please tell me what the evidence was tht Saddam was a threat to the US. Was it the photos the members of Congress who were "on the fence" about invading Iraq were shown at the White House and told were taken in Iraq but were actually taken here in the US? I'm just asking, is that the credible evidence you site here? As for Bush making the claim that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, actually if I remember right it was Cheney who made that claim on several occasions. He worded it in a way that he could later claim he didn't mean it that way but not long ago over 50% of Americans polled believed Iraq was who attacked us on 9/11. We seemingly forgot about the ones who were really responsible so Bush could avenge his dad. Annie

OK, I'm off the bandwagon; actually I was never on one to start with. I do not support this president, I did not vote for Bush either time and I'd sure be afraid to admit it if I had! I sure do have my own opinion which I formed all by myself and that is, based on all the facts I believe this dimwit to be the worst president ever of these United States and I think history with show me to be correct. Annie

If you don't support this President, Annie, who do you support. May I assume that you are a democrat? Character is important. A good gage of charater is the war in Iraq. Someone who supported it when it was polically popular, but who doesn't support it now that it is polictially unpopular, (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards) is a person of low character. They don't say what they believe, they say what they think people want to hear. They cannot be believed. Someone who supported it then, and who support it now, (John McCain, Rudy Guliani) whether you agree with them or not, are at least people who can be counted on the have the courage of their convictions. The only candidate who running now who didn't support the war then, and still doesn't, is Barak Obama. That is a point in his favor. But, do we want someone for President who says that he will talk to our enemies, and bomb our friends. Blind hate is not the answer, Annie. Sincerely, Neill

Face the facts, Annie. If Bush cared only for Bush, he would shift his position with the polls, in order to be popular. He stays true to his values because he cares about Americans more than than he cares about himself, or his popularity. More to the point, he cares more about YOU than he does about his popularity. And stop with the cokehead stuff. It is immature whining on your part. A desparate attempt on your part to vilify someone who you have decided to hate regardless of the facts. When your arguments are shot down by logic, (and they always are), you resort to this kind of infantile accusation. He is not an "A" student, but he is far from stupid. I disagree with Bill Clintons politics, but I think he is a very smart person. Same with Hillary. Same with John Kerry. Just because you disagree with his decisions doesn't make him stupid. Saying that someone is stupid because you don't like them, but can't come up with an argument why, is stupid. There were solid reasons to go into Iraq. There were solid reasons not to. There were more reasons to go in than not. He chose to go with the odds. Just because it was wrong doesn't mean it was stupid. The odds were in favor of him being right. You still haven't answered a question I asked you earlier. If the evidence had been right, and an attack on this nation were traced to Saddam, what would you have said about a President who ignored the evidence in order to stay popular? Would you have said "Way to go Mr. President. Your weenieness cost us a city, but at least we let them attack first ?" Is that what you would have said? I think not. I really want to know your answer to that question, Annie. Do you have the courage to answer, or are you so filled with hate that you can't consider the possibility that GWB might have been right? Thanks for reading. Neill

anniepa ... I think it's funny that you mentioned Clinton. He wanted to got to Iraq too. He bombed Iraq throughout most of his presidency in order to make the invasion easier. He signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 that made the removal of Saddam official US policy, and WMD's were specifically mentioned as the reason in that Act. You have absolutely no grounds upon which to base ANY objections, because the almighty hero of all liberals even thought we needed to go to Iraq. What would you like with your crow?

The evidence that Saddam was about to attack the US was not only wrong it was a LIE! I already pointed that out. Iraq had nowhere near the capability to attack us here in the US. First we went to war due to WMD; then it was to overthrow an evil dictator; then it was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people! Forgive me if there was another reason or two that I forgot! Then, we had to stay until Iraq had installed their own government, then it was until the Alqaeda in Iraq was contained, now I have no idea why we can't leave in my lifetime and probably not during my grandkids lifetimes! Can you say "Let's drop it into the lap of the next President"? And, OK I have no proof about Bush's coke use but when he absolutely refused to answer any questions on the subject during his first campaign what would you believe? If that were Clinton you righties would be all over him! As it was there were allegations that he was a murderer! Now that's pure hatred. If he'd "stayed the course" in Afghanistan and continued hunting down BinLaden maybe we wouldn't have lost all the good will we had from the entire world right after 9/11. But he squandered that away just like the budget surplus that is no more. Annie