Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

I don't believe he's doing a good job of representing his people or being a respected figurehead for other countries to deal with.

I think he's overplaying the whole issue with Iraq and I think he's seriously mishandled the US's economic problems.

For the most part I approve so far. Clinton got us into the situation on Sept. 11 by forcing the authorities in the Middle East to let Mohammed Atta out of prison, so in that sense Bush is cleaning up one of many messes Clinton left us.

I just wish Bush would push through more tax cuts. Of course, the Democrats have a problem with people like me who aren't on welfare and actually pay taxes, so they'd call me rich to prevent tax cuts ($40K is not rich).

And then I wish he'd put a couple more restrictions on abortion, especially partial-birth abortion (sticking a pair of scissors in the baby's head and sucking out the brain is so nice isn't it?)

For the most part though the country would be better off with a Libertarian in the White House (except that they're pro-abortion).

And anyone who says that Bush is stupid, shows some stupidity of their own. What's stupid is having an affair with an intern in the Oval Office.

Disapprove. Majorly.

i'm a republican and id aproov of anything a republican prez did! im sure that if it come out that he was mulesting children id be able to rationalize it! republicans rool! democrats are jerks!

Foreign politics: BAD

The guy just scares me thats all.

What's wrong with you people? Don't you know that war is what made this country great? The history of this nation is a history of invasions by foreigners trying to end our freedom and democray. First it was the Indian, but we kicked their butts all the way back to India. Then it was the British and we beat them twice. Then it was the Africans, we beat them and turned them into slaves. We beat the Spanish when they invaded us. We beat the Germans and the Japanese in WWII. We beat the comunist Koreans and Vietnamese when they tryed to make us communists. We beat the Iraqis before and we will beat them again. No one will take my freedom away from me!

He's doing a piss poor job domestically and a better than average job internationally.

I think he's a monkeeeeees poo crusted anal opening

i don't know if disapprove is the right word. i don't like his agenda or philosophy(i know it's not his but whatever) in general so i don't agree with most of his policy or thoughts!!!
he's a big business man, way right on philosophy, and has too much in the way of pay backs for gaining office!!!!

depends on what you want done internationally!!! i think most other people around the world are frightened of him because he doesn't care about what any other nation wants or thinks........ he wants what he wants and that is it!!!!

i agree with mandy!!!!!

Disapprove.

This is far too general because I approve of some things and disapprove of others.

Disapprove.

Hey, do you happen to be a Catholic Priest?
no, but serioulsy based apon what you just said, I'd suggest theropy ****FAST****

You need to to learn about history a little. First of all, Indians ARN'T from INDIA. Second, the spanish never invaded us. Thrid, we lost the DAMN KOREAN and VIETNAM WAR, when we tried to make them Capitolists.

I said above average, what I didn't say was that I don't think average is all that good. I suspect you're right that a lot of people around the world and in the US are afraid of him. I'm not sure why that is though, since I think this situation with Iraq shows ample evidence that he works long and hard at not using force if he can find another way.

Yes, Bush decided that Saddam has to go and he fully intends on using all the power at his disposal to carry out that decision. I'm not sure I agree with his decision (though I am sure that I disagree with the decisions that put Saddam into power and us into the middle of the situation but that all happened long before Bush had anything to say about it) but having made that decision he's made quite a credible attempt at resolving it without use of force. Sadly, China, France, and Russia have successfully cut the legs out from under that approach and I think he'll now find no option but war. It sucks.

his title says it all President of the United States of America, NOT! of the world, the United States should be his first priority and not all of the world will agree with him but that is not his first interest it is the country and the people that has elected him he is not an
international opinion lawyer diplomacy is a skill that all could improve upon but those who dislike America will not cease to just because we start to think of them before us nor should we every hold our sovereignty in such disregard

Do not fear our president nothing that he will do is going dramatically impact your life in a negative way, but if he does nothing or hesitates or allows the U.S. to appear complacent the perils of your daily life greatly increase

Nothing he does will impact our lives in a negative way? Tell that to the Afghan civilians he bombed.

???? think of WHO before us???? i'm sorry but he never thinks of anyone before us or OUR business people!!!! where have you been living....... i don't ever worry about him thinking about anyone but himself or people like himself, the "shakers and movers" of this country. and the last section of your comment is double speak or contradicts itself, "nothing he will do is going to dramatically impact your life in a negative way" and then "the perils greatly increase"?????? HUH??

My disapproval will never be adequately voiced.

to all anonymouses... STOP IT, ZANG ! ! !

was that a vengful act on those people? if so prove it.

i will clarify, as an American or one who supports America the actions of Bush will not make your day to day life dramactically different in a negative way, eg; you'll get up from a warm bed eat a bowl of cereal etc. but if you are an American or a supporter of America and the prez does nothing then the enemies of America can become stronger, if your enemy becomes stronger the hazards or perils do increase

i will clarify, as an American or one who supports America the actions of Bush will not make you day to day like dramatically different in a negative way, eg; you'll get up from a warm bed eat a bowl of cereal etc. but if you are an American or a supporter of America and the prez does nothing then the enemies of America can become stronger, if your enemy becomes stronger the hazards or perils do increase

Check your facts, Biggles.

Disapprove - to say the least.

When did I say it was vengeful?

You want me to check up on every thought I've ever had, and sentences I've ever spoken or written? Or is there something specific?

Wow, at this rate, you'll be as mean as me in a few months...

You asserted that Bush "bombed Afghan civilians" which was a factually incorrect statement. Bush did not 'bomb afghan civilians'.

A possibly correct statement, properly phrased, would be to say that Bush, "Ordered the bombing of Afghan civilians" at which point, the true absurdity of the statement comes to light.

"And I want you to BOMB AFGHAN CIVILIANS! You here me! BOMB Afghan CIVILIANS..."

Now, I realize you may be alluding to certain things which do have factual basis, but I encourage you to be more specific in describing them.

"The Allied Alliance (which included such nations as ENGLAND) against Afghanistan resulted in the inadvertant deaths of a handful of Afghan Civilians, possibly as many as 3,000 by some estimates (the US estimates about 200)."

To suggest that bush "bombed afghan civilians" is simply incorrect.

Once you make the accurate statement that "The issue has been raised that an unusual # of Afghan civillians died during the war.."

then we can have a meaningful discussion about the issue. Of course, in order for this to happen you'd have to realize that it is the US congress which voted for the war in Afghanistan, and that the war was directed by millitary leaders, not the president.

Once all this is out in the open, then we can address the issue--

The issue, I think at least, that you are raising, is that we declared 2 entire afghan towns targets, and we killed numerous civillians.

The civillians we killed were known as 'Terrorists' and 'taliban.'

By definition, these enemies were not "enemy soldiers" and for this reason, do count as civilian, and do account for the unusually high numbers reported by certain extremist anti-American groups. The numbers are also accounted for by double and triple tallying of bodies or incorrect cross-source evaluations.

Once we peel these layers away, there really isn't much onion left... HOWEVER...

Sure, we declared a few Fundamentalist Mosques which were known to be associated with the Taliban and terrorist groups, "TARGETS" and proceeded to bomb them at night when nobody was around.

There was also a bundle of mis-targeting incidents where targets were ACCIDENTALLY misidentified or UNINTENTIONALLY hit by bombs. Such is life, such is death, such is war. It is an unavoidable cost of a war which was unavoidable.

The issue of the two towns that were bombed is in fact a genuine topic for discussion... I'm curious to know exactly what happened myself, but the information is not available. It's clear that someone was a bastard, but I assure you the order did not come down from the president... :).

Hell no. He's a proof that Democracy doesn't work.

Sorry, I wrote that in the early hours of the morning - had lots of work and was feeling a bit snappy.... I'm cheerier now

After snapping at me in Forum about knowing exactly what you meant when you phrased it oddly, I would have thought you'd feel silly taking me to task over semantics.

I never follow how you can assure me of what the President ordered or did not order. Are you George Bush? Are you in his cabinet? On his staff? A good friend? A friend of a friend? Or just assuming that you know what goes on in his head?

And. Stop. Patronising. Me.

Bush doesn't direct the specifics of millitary operations. He wouldn't know how to :). We have generals for that type of stuff. That's just how it works. He isn't involved in even the slightest manner in targeting decisions.

you did'nt say vengeful, do you think he is like a terrorist and bombs civilians for reasons of hate or is there more to that story,

He's the guy the people of the US elected - he's the one who has to answer for the actions of his generals.

I don't imagine that he hates the civilians, but I don't imagine him having sleepless nights because some of them died.

True, guilt by supervision is an issue.

However, it's such logic that go the President of Compuserve indicted (and later convicted) for Posession of Child Pornography and sexual exploitation of children in Germany a while ago. Clearly there is a difference between his actions in maintaining compuserves servers where such activity was going on (without his knowledge and against his will), and having been directly involved in the situation.

Your point is well taken though.

That comparison is disingenuous. The President of the United States is responsible for what happens as a result of orders he gives the military. The comparison is meaningless unless you're saying that the President of CompuServe ordered his customers to possess child pornography. It's not such logic as you referenced.

I think I agree with anonymous that that sounds like a very different case. Not one I'm familiar with though and it's too late (early?) to be looking it up right now.

Yeah, d@mn man, he actually cares that the Taliban and Al Quaida want to destroy the USA and is working to disarm Saddam Hussein so countries around the world will be safe from that madman. What an awful idea! I guess you'd like to get anthrax or get a whiff of mustard gas then huh?

You are proof that no matter what evidence Bush has against those people (Saddam, Al Quaida or whomever) it won't ever be enough. But if Clinton wants to bomb another aspirin factory it would probably be ok with you.

So let's just go ahead and let Saddam and Osama terrorize and kill as many people and as they want. But if we get attacked again, or if you personally are affected by something they do, you'll be asking "Why wasn't anything done?" and you'll only have yourself to blame.

Bush isn't the one you should be scared of, unless you are Saddam or Osama, or involved with a terrorist group. Are you?

Read my reply to Maarten above. Same applies to you.

Europe urges restraint, but Bush knows best

The Toronto Sun January 26, 2003
By Eric Margolis

Time magazine's European edition asked its readers what nation posed the greatest threat to world peace. Of the 268,000 respondents (as of this writing), 7.8% replied North Korea, 8.9% named Iraq and a shocking 83.3% said the United States. Good work, President Bush.

The Time poll mirrors feeling around the globe, with the exceptions of Israel and Britain. American neo-conservatives, however, will dismiss
this poll as just another example of European wimpiness, irrelevance and anti-American prejudice. So will George Bush and his hawkish entourage, who have made it plain they don't care what the rest of the world thinks so
long as America and Israel get their way.

Last week, France's able foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, warned his nation would delay, or might even veto, efforts by the Bush
administration to strong-arm the UN Security Council into a rushed war vote against Iraq. Germany, China and Russia backed France.

American right wingers harbour particular venom for France. Americans expect their allies to be obedient. While Washington constantly hectors
Europe to take more international responsibility, Europeans are not expected to disagree with American policy. To Americans, France often
appears downright insubordinate. Ever since Gen. Charles de Gaulle, Paris has refused to take orders or accept being a junior ally of the
U.S.

Europeans see the Mideast very differently from North Americans, thanks to their long experience in the region, and their media, which provides
far more accurate, balanced and diverse reporting on the region than do ours.

Americans accuse the French of arrogance, rudeness and illusions of grandeur, which is often true. The French rightly accuse American
politicians - epitomized for Europeans by President Bush - of being arrogant and ignorant, as well as loud, uncultured, impatient and
dreadfully lacking in those two fundamentals of civilized education: geography and history. French intellectuals warn American TV and movies
are spreading "cretinization" to Europe's youth, a charge easily confirmed by an evening's viewing of North American television.

American neo-conservatives know Europeans sneer at them as dangerous ideological crackpots, the 2003 version of 1930s militant Marxists. The
neo-con's riposte (oops, a French word) "We saved you in two world wars. Now we have to do it again. You're no better than those wimpy, socialist Canadians."

These chest-thumpers are unaware that without France's military intervention in the War of Independence, there would be no United States. Or that Germany was effectively defeated in 1917 by Britain and France when the U.S. foolishly intervened, thus preventing a fair, negotiated peace that would have prevented the evil Treaty of Versailles, the Bolshevik Revolution, Adolf Hitler and World War II.

Most Americans believe their nation alone defeated Germany in World War II. Not so. Stalin's Soviet Union defeated the Third Reich, destroying 100 German divisions in titanic battles on the Eastern front that made D-Day seem a minor battle. By the time U.S. forces landed in Europe, Germany was almost defeated, without a navy, air force or oil.

Smirking Gallophobes love to revile the French for being faint-hearted fighters in World War II. But France lost 210,000 dead fighting the mighty Germans. The Maginot Line worked as planned, contrary to popular belief. America's great fortress, Corregidor, failed miserably.

America lost 292,000 dead in the war, including both the European and Pacific Theatres, where the U.S. totally and brilliantly defeated Japan.
Poland lost more soldiers than America, 320,000; even unwarlike Romania lost 300,000 men.

Europe, including the USSR, lost at least 13 million soldiers and 25 million civilians killed in World War II. When Russia opens its secret
files, the numbers may soar. "Wimpish" Europeans know something more than Americans about the cost of war. Take the damage of 9/11 and multiply it 1,500 times and you get a taste of the devastation caused by World War II.

Europeans still have fresh memories of their brutal, futile colonial wars. America, about to embark in Iraq on its first large-scale colonial
adventure since it annexed Cuba and the Philippines in 1899, has forgotten, and seems fated to relearn, the cost of empire.

By and large, Europeans like and admire Americans, as do most people around the globe. There are some chronic America-haters in Britain and France, to be sure, on both right and left, but in general Europeans are opposed to the unilateralist, aggressive policies of the Bush White House, not to America. But it's also plain, Bush's thirst for war and oil are cultivating strong new strains of anti-Americanism.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration, obsessed to the point of psychosis with Iraq, refuses to heed the cautions of its old European friends, listening only to exhortations of Israel's far right wing, whose American supporters now dominate the Pentagon and National Security Council. The White House won't listen either to the sensible advice of Israel's far-sighted Labour party leader, Amram Mitzna, or to
its Arab allies.

President Bush claims he is about to wage war for America's security. But the rest of the world scoffs at this claim, knowing his true objective is oil. By generating ever increasing antipathy towards the U.S., the Goliath-like Bush administration is actually undermining the
security of the U.S. and of Americans abroad.

Do you have a critical bone in your body? What does anthrax have to do with Iraq? How is Iraq an actual threat to anyone? Where is any evidence of ties between Iraq and Al Queda?

Strongly disapprove!

Psst. Hey "W"--over here! It's the economy--it's looking sort of pale and lifeless right now!

Disapprove.

He's insane

I don't think Bush has any idea about what in the hell he is doing. I think we are going to crumble under his term.

Having an affair in the oval office is none of the world damn buisness. Clinton by my opinion is the best pres. we've had in a long time. His affair has nothing to do with the people, that's between him, his family, and God. Oh he lied to the people, what man/woman in their right mind wouldn't? Oh yeah honey guess what I did today, I screwed some woman in the oval office, How would that sound. How many other Pres. have done the exact same thing. I bet Bush would have someone in there if Clinton never got caught.

In my humble opinion, Bush is an idiot who simply got into the white house by name recognition. People would say "Hey, his name is Bush, just like that other president! I think I'll pick him, since the son of a president must be competent, right?"

Actually, the fact that Bush comes from a political family is a bad thing, not a good thing. For one, he has no scruples. None. He'll do anything to anyone to get his way. Also, since his dad is a politician, he knows all of the dirty tricks of political campaigning, so he can blast his rivals while they're still wondering what the hell is going on. Again because of his dad, he has an unfair advantage in all forms of political maneuvering, and that, although good in a capable, intelligent president, is dangerous in a circus monkey like Bush.

Basically, I think that he is an incompetent president who is simply milking the world situation (religious war) for some sort of hero status.

Way to go! Show the unthinking Republican Sheep what's REALLY going on! Jeez, I can just imagine the outraged expressions on the faces of the "Decent Americans" (Patriotic Neanderthals) that read what you wrote. Jeez, this is better than comics online!

Itīs expresses very well how the majority of Europeans (and probably Canadians) think about this issue.

Are you American?

Actually, yes. I'm not native though. I was born in Puerto Rico, which is a colony of the US in everything but name, so I have US citizenship and I can vote. Well, I could, if I was of voting age, but i'm not yet. My upbringing, though, has not been very American, (both of my parents are Mexican, and I visit Mexico every summer.) so that might explain why I can see what so many Americans can't.

I thought these Anonymous comments were just here to make us Conservative Republicans look stupid.

I think Dubya'z doing a much better job than the liar and the sore-loser ever did.

I think the French would take a different stance on the war in Iraq and everything if someone bombed 2 of their embassies, one of their ships, and flew a plane into the Eiffel Tower.

and if they didn't have so much invested in the current regime...

If "someone"? Just random people? Sounds a lot like the US stance, linking september 11th to Iraq.....

I think he's doing an OK job.

No. Some of us anonymous posters are whining little bleeding heart liberal wimps. Save the whales! Hug a tree!

#9 hee hee hee