Why would anyone want to be the President of the US?

There's a rather cynical group of people out there who believe that a person is defined by his profession, e.g., all used car salesmen are dishonest. The greedy lawyer and the dishonest politician are part of that mythos as well. People in that cynical group would never believe for a second that someone in one of those despised groups would like his job because he was good at it and wanted to help people.

I think that's what Mr. Bush is all about. He's not in it for the power or the money or the notoriety. He saw there was a problem with the Presidency and he stepped up and offered his services because he was convinced he could do a better job. One of the reasons some people write bad things about him is that they don't like seeing a Republican who can actually get results. So they post chimpanzee comparison pictures and characterize him as unintelligent. But the American people recognize a good man when they see one. That's why Senator Kerry has no chance of winning the next election.

Have you ever noticed what happens to people physically during their time as President? Somewhere there must be a website with before and after pictures of Presidents. In one term, they seem to age about 20 years. I saw a picture of Bill Clinton recently - he looks like an elderly man with that snow white hair.

0 Replies

Quote:

One of the reasons some people write bad things about him is that they don't like seeing a Republican who can actually get results.

The term 'canard' would fit this sentence, except I suspect you actually believe it.

I have a friend in Dallas (whom I talked with today, as it happens) whose daughter was at George Bush Jr's house, invited by the twins, on multiple occasions, and on every visit, George was drunk. Every visit. This is NOT the worst story my friend has to tell of her dealings with George.

John McCain has a story to tell you about George's loving christian ethics too.

There is a very long list of reasons people have written unkind things about this man. That 'he can actually get results' as what they have been pointing to, is more laughable than you know.

0 Replies

The term "innuendo" would fit your post.

0 Replies

They write this stuff because they have a story to tell. fortunately here in America we have freedom of the press. The people decide on election day if they believe it or not. Ans I'm sorry Tarantulas but I think this president is going to be exposed and the voters are going to want change.

However, as we saw in the last election it really doesn't matter what the voters want when it comes to presidential elections. There will always be hanging chads. I predict something similar will get Bush reelected. But I guarantee you it won't be the people who give him four more years.

0 Replies

Quote:

Innuendo: An indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication in expression; an insinuation.

No, actually that word does not accurately describe my post. Nothing indirect, or insinuated. A direct and open claim regarding Bush being drunk every time that young lady was at his house. The McCain example, though not explicated here, ought to be known to you (that Bush allowed the lies and the smears against McCain during Bush's run for the nomination).

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

I think that's what Mr. Bush is all about. He's not in it for the power or the money or the notoriety. He saw there was a problem with the Presidency and he stepped up and offered his services because he was convinced he could do a better job.

ROFLMAO!! The ONLY reasons GW Bush ran for President was to satisfy his unhealthy need to have power over people both here and throughout the world. Do you really think Bush sacraficed his pampered life of luxury because he thought he could make things better and fix our countries problems? Bush wanted to become president to kill or capture Saddam because he tried to have his daddy assasinated and also to look out for his big business buddies.

As for the way presidents age....I thought Jimmy Carter looked pretty good for a man of 77, the same with Gerald Ford. He looks like an average 80 something man. Both men enjoy pretty good health. I thought Bill Clinton looked pretty good the other night. He's dropped 20 pounds being on the South Beach Diet. As for gray hair, I think it makes a man look distinguished. Even papa Bush looks pretty good for a man of 78. Didn't he parachute out of a plane on his last birthday or something? As for GW....I haven't seen him age at all. In fact, he looked pretty good in that flight suit he wore back in May....in spite of the socks it looked like he had stuffed in his unders for 'enhancement'.

0 Replies

The best man for the job doesn't want it.

0 Replies

Tarantula wrote:

Quote:

I think that's what Mr. Bush is all about. He's not in it for the power or the money or the notoriety. He saw there was a problem with the Presidency and he stepped up and offered his services because he was convinced he could do a better job. One of the reasons some people write bad things about him is that they don't like seeing a Republican who can actually get results.

I don't know if anybody's motives for running for president are purely altruistic but I sure don't agree with Doglover's opinion that Bush ran for office because he was power hungry or had other nefarious reasons either. Do you think all those Democrats who tried to get the nomination this year did it for pure motives? Or were they all terrible greedy people seeking power, fame, and fortune? Is John Kerry a terrible person because he wants to be president? Or is there something inside some of us that seeks to be all that we can be. (Apologies to the Army).

I think George W. Bush ran for president because 1) he was encouraged to do so and promised sufficient funding by those who thought he could win and 2) he was wrapping up a successful stint as governor of Texas and either Congress or the U.S. presidency was the logical next step.

There are probably reasons some of you folks on the left think Kerry will make a better president than Bush. But you aren't telling us how. It is really lame to define Bush's motives as somehow suspect and present Kerry as some kind of knight in shining armor who will slay the evil dragon. Right now that seems to be all you can offer though.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Tarantula wrote:There are probably reasons some of you folks on the left think Kerry will make a better president than Bush. But you aren't telling us how. It is really lame to define Bush's motives as somehow suspect and present Kerry as some kind of knight in shining armor who will slay the evil dragon. Right now that seems to be all you can offer though.

One of the reasons I think John Kerry will make a better president than Bush is because Kerry is a man who is willing to work with leaders of other nations. He wants America to be inclusive rather than exclusive with our allies. This is a dangerous world we live in and it's of utmost importance that we have a leader who has negotiating skills. It's also important to have a leader who will be willing to include the United Nations in matters of importance. And, while fighting in a war should not be a pre-requsite for becoming president, I do think Kerry's fighting experience in Vietnam gives him a certain insight and sensitivity toward the men and women who are in the military. I think Kerry appreciates first hand, the experience and sacrafice those men and women make.

I don't have grand illusions about John Kerry. He was not my first choice to be the Democratic nominee. Wesley Clark was. I think Kerry has what it takes to be a good, possibly great president. I could be right, I could be wrong. Only time will tell. Heaven knows I was dead wrong about GW Bush.

0 Replies

Well I don't want a president who will ask the United Nations for permission to act when it is necessary to act. The latest news suggests some high officials in the U.N. may have been taking some pretty substantial kickbacks from Saddam in return for 'looking the other way'.

And we have a coalition of more than 25 countries who are on the ground or financially assisting with the rebuilding of Iraq. How many more negotiating skills do you think are necessary?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And we have a coalition of more than 25 countries who are on the ground or financially assisting with the rebuilding of Iraq. How many more negotiating skills do you think are necessary?

Foxfyre....please don't tell me you find this list of countries lending assistance in Iraq impressive. Rolling Eyes

Countries besides the United States that are lending assistance in postwar Iraq:

Troops

Albania - 71 non-combat troops to help with peacekeeping, based in northern Iraq.

Azerbaijan - 150-man unit to take part in patrols, law enforcement and protection of religious and historic monuments in Iraq.

Bulgaria - 485-member infantry battalion patrolling Karbala, south of Baghdad. An additional 289 will be sent.

Central America and the Caribbean - Dominican Republic (with 300 troops), El Salvador (360), Honduras (360) and Nicaragua (120) are assisting a Spanish-led brigade in south-central Iraq.

Czech Republic - 271 military personnel and three civilians running a field hospital in Basra; 25 military police in Iraq.

Denmark - 406 troops, consisting of light infantry units, medics and military police. An additional 90 soldiers are being sent.

Georgia - 69, including 34 special troops, 15 sappers and 20 medics.

Estonia - 55 soldiers, including mine divers and cargo handlers.

Hungary - 300-member transportation contingent in Iraq.

Italy - 3,000 troops in southern Iraq.

Moldova - Dozens of de-mining specialists and medics.

Netherlands - 1,106, including a core of 650 marines, three Chinook transport helicopters, a logistics team, a field hospital, a commando contingent, military police and a unit of 230 military engineers.

New Zealand - 61 army engineers assigned for reconstruction work in southern Iraq.

Norway - 156-member force includes engineers and mine clearers.

Philippines - 177 soldiers, police and medics.

Poland - 2,400 troops command one of three military sectors in Iraq.

Portugal - 120 police officers.

Romania - 800 military personnel, including 405 infantry, 149 de-mining specialists and 100 military police, along with a 56-member special intelligence detachment.

Slovakia - 82 military engineers.

South Korea - 675 non-combat troops with more forces on the way.

Spain - 1,300 troops, mostly assigned to police duties in south-central Iraq.

Thailand - 400 troops assigned to humanitarian operations.

Ukraine - 1,640 soldiers from a mechanized unit.

United Kingdom - 7,400, 1,200 more planned.

Other countries making troop contributions are Kazakhstan (27), Latvia (106), Lithuania (90) Macedonia (2. Details on these deployments were not available.

The United States is in discussions with 14 other countries about providing troops.

Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

0 Replies

It is an incomplete list. But please tell me how John Kerry would have done any more. And tell me what support the Democrats were able to (felt the need to) muster during invasions of Haiti, Somalia, and the bombing of Yemen and Iraq during the Clinton years? Was it a good thing for U.S. troops to be under U.N. military leadership in Croatia?

I'm not saying Kerry would not do as well or would not do even better than Bush has. His track record on matters of defense has been unimpressive in the last 30 years but we simply can't know until he would have the position.'

I am only saying that if you cannot make the case for Kerry without trashing Bush, it does not speak well for the qualities of your candidate. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It is an incomplete list. But please tell me how John Kerry would have done any more. And tell me what support the Democrats were able to (felt the need to) muster during invasions of Haiti, Somalia, and the bombing of Yemen and Iraq during the Clinton years? Was it a good thing for U.S. troops to be under U.N. military leadership in Croatia?

If you think the list is incomplete Foxfyre, how about you completing it them. Why are you bringing Somalia and Clinton into the discussion? Croatia? You have lost the argument about what wonderful allied support we have so you bring up Clinton. How typical. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

I'm not saying Kerry would not do as well or would not do even better than Bush has. His track record on matters of defense has been unimpressive in the last 30 years but we simply can't know until he would have the position.'

I can only hope and pray that Kerry will do a better job than Bush has. Our country can't take four more years of chaios. BTW ~ this comment is not trashing GW Bush.

Quote:

I am only saying that if you cannot make the case for Kerry without trashing Bush, it does not speak well for the qualities of your candidate.

I did not in any way trash Bush in my response.

0 Replies

Doglover wrote:

Quote:

ROFLMAO!! The ONLY reasons GW Bush ran for President was to satisfy his unhealthy need to have power over people both here and throughout the world. Do you really think Bush sacraficed his pampered life of luxury because he thought he could make things better and fix our countries problems? Bush wanted to become president to kill or capture Saddam because he tried to have his daddy assasinated and also to look out for his big business buddies.

If that isn't trashing the president, with no proof of the accusations I might add, it comes so very very close. Smile

And a more recent list of coalition participants:
January 16, 2004
Coalition Forces in Iraq
At this time, 35 countries, in addition to the United States, have contributed a total of approximately 22,000 troops to ongoing stability operations in Iraq. These 34 are Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
--The Command Post

And I commented on Bill Clinton and the previous administration only as illustration of how the president as Commander in Chief, hopefully with the cooperation and consent of Congress, and with or without the consent of the U.N., does act when he feels it is prudent to do so. It is unreasonable to fault George Bush for doing this unless we fault every president going back as far as I can remember which is quite a ways indeed. I would hope John Kerry, if elected, would have the same cajones.

0 Replies

ADDENDUM - the numbers keep changing:

Some 120 Japanese soldiers crossed into Iraq on Saturday, completing Japan's largest and most contested military deployment since World War II. The troops left Kuwait for Samawah, where they will work on supplying clean water, rebuilding infrastructure and providing medical aid to Iraqis. Their arrival in Iraq raises the number of Japanese soldiers in the country to around 500.--CBS News 3/24/04

0 Replies

What makes the "coalition" a laughingstock is the fact that all of those countries required hefty bribes in order to participate. Compare this with the situation in 1990, when more nations sent real troops, and paid their own way. The current coalition is not made up of our allies, but of our employees.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

What makes the "coalition" a laughingstock is the fact that all of those countries required hefty bribes in order to participate. Compare this with the situation in 1990, when more nations sent real troops, and paid their own way. The current coalition is not made up of our allies, but of our employees.

Okay I'm open to being educated. Where is your source or evidence that we bribed the coalition to support this effort?

0 Replies

The Nation

Institute for Policy Studies Report

Asia Times Article

These three reports were the best I could find in a ten second google search. They demoinstrate how the fabled "colaition" is little more than a PR front that cost us (the taxpayers) money.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

hobitbob wrote:
What makes the "coalition" a laughingstock is the fact that all of those countries required hefty bribes in order to participate. Compare this with the situation in 1990, when more nations sent real troops, and paid their own way. The current coalition is not made up of our allies, but of our employees.
Okay I'm open to being educated. Where is your source or evidence that we bribed the coalition to support this effort?

Here ya go Foxy. And the source is hardly 'biased' against Bush.

FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"

Iraq : Backroom deals may sway allies

Quote:

Posted on 09/15/2002 9:36:49 PM PDT by pkpjamestown

WASHINGTON -- After struggling for months to talk other nations into helping oust Saddam Hussein, President Bush is beginning to use terms they might find easier to understand: cash, weapons, business deals and favors.

Bush's speech Thursday at the United Nations marked the start of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations to see what inducements would help convert countries that so far have been balking, at least publicly, at joining the anti-Hussein campaign.

U.S. officials expect the Turks to ask for weapons and debt relief, the Russians and French for access to Iraqi oil field business, the Qataris for cash to build an air base, and the Jordanians for guarantees of oil and trade. Officials expect many other countries to join the horse trading, and predict that they won't be shy.

"Countries in the Middle East take the bazaari approach," said Danielle Pletka, a former Senate aide who now works at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. "Once they know we want to buy ... the sky's the limit."

The administration's initial focus will be on members of the United Nations Security Council, notably Russia, France and China, officials say. Their backing will be important soon, as the United States tries to persuade the council to enforce resolutions demanding that Iraq abandon its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

But U.S. officials also will try to persuade other countries in the Middle East and farther afield to cooperate with a military campaign -- or at least to temper their opposition.

The Pentagon still needs to win commitments from countries near Iraq for use of military bases and overflight rights.

0 Replies

Why would anyone want to be the President of the US?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know