A question to Bush supporters: Why do you trust Bush?

This is off-topic. Please create a seperate thread.

Rizla, and others.

In several posts you've asked if those of us who support Mr. Bush (me ) would also support Adolph Hitler if he were our President. While I don't feel the question is valid, I pondered it for a few moments, and it suddenly dawned on me that you are operating under the notion that my suport for Mr. Bush is unconditional, and I seem to have inadvertantly fueled that notion. Ooops!

Trust me when I say my support for any politician is Very conditional. I don't trust any politician any more than you do. I do hope this clears that particular issue up.

I thought I might attempt, again, to explain why, regardless of ones opinion of a sitting President (Bush, Clinton, other...) one should support him. Here goes.

The President is our freely elected leader. In good times or bad, it behooves (love that word) us to support him in his efforts. If we disagree with him, on whatever issue, or issues; fine, it is after all a free country...but save the protests for the ballot box, or, at least, practise some decorum and civility in the arena of public opinion. Personally, I don't think that is too much to ask. They used to call it the loyal opposition. Yell and scream all you want, but at the end of the day, the President is our leader and needs our support, if only too confuse our enemies.

Of course, if illegalities are proven, all bets are off.

I hope this did a better job of explaining my views than my previous posts.

Just in an aside, if you are going to compare Mr. Bush to previous leaders, may I suggest someone a trifle more recent, and from the same country? Such as Mr. Nixon, or any American leader? Just a friendly suggestion.

I agree that we should support to president to an extent. However, if you think the president is consciously making decisions that are illegal or are detrimental to the country as a whole or to the world, then you should no longer offer support. You suggested that we should offer support if only to confuse our enemies, but consider this from another angle.

Suppose the president is making decisions that most of the country finds to be morally wrong. If people protest these decisions, then our allies and the rest of the world will see that most of the USA doesn't support these actions and will probably have a positive opinion of our country as a whole, even if they have a problem with the current government. On the other hand, if everyone just stays silent and supports these actions against their better judgement, then we're giving the rest of the world a legitimate reason to hold anti-American sentiment.

It's definitely a shaky issue. In my opinion we should try and support the president in most cases, even when we disagree with certain decisions. At some point though, if you feel morally compromised by supporting the president, you may have to withdraw your support. In any case, it's always important to keep the welfare of the country in mind.

How can any intelligent person trust Bush? Here's an incomplete list of the scandals that have dogged him so far:

Iraq-9/11 Connection (A total lie)
Iraq WMD (Obvious cherry picking and misinformation. Obvious.)
Halliburton corruption (Oh come on!)
Valerie Plame outing (Guilty)
Guantánamo (A national shame)
Abu Ghraib (See above)
Katrina (how did he survive this one?)
Wire-tapping (tip of the ice-berg I bet)
The deficit

But he seems like a regular guy so you still trust him?


[edit on 17-6-2006 by rizla]

Yeah Rock Lobster we finally agreed or understand each. It just took open ended questions and we did it. Rizla as far as trusting Bush hmmm how do I say this sort of about as far as I do any political figure or used car salesman. I can't honestly say I've ever fully trusted any political figure. Sorry if I offended any used car salesman.

Are you saying you don't trust Bush, but you still support him?

Originally posted by rizla
Are you saying you don't trust Bush, but you still support him?

No I'm not. I believe the best way to describe would be conditional trust. Rizla, I'm not a trusting individual probably because of my job. I keep my mind open or at least try to and try to stay current with national and international affairs. Also, please note that I never said I unconditionally supported the President or any other political figure. I tried to clear that up in a previous post so I won't repeat it again. Government will always need to be watched by the citizens as the only way to ensure liberty.

Actually, on the Bush-Hitler thing -- recognizing that this comparison was never actually made, and has nothing to do with what Rizla was asking and why . . .

In some ways, Bush is nothing like Hitler. No racism, for one thing. None of Hitler's loathing of the aristocracy and the commercial elite (Bush belongs to that aristocracy where Hitler did not). And I'm not sure anyone can be like Hitler without being German. Bush isn't nearly the orator Hitler was, and he doesn't have that dorky moustache, and he isn't so dramatic in his posturing. Big, grandiose displays aren't his style.

But there are similarities, and those similarities are the reason the comparison does arise from time to time, and why it was easy to misunderstand what Rizla was asking. Both men showed inadequate respect for democracy and civil liberties. (Hitler went further than Bush has done in destroying them, but then he had a Constitution that allowed him to do so.) Both men showed themselves to be warmongers capable of starting aggressive wars on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Because of the differences, Bush-Hitler comparisons are not quite apt, but they are a way of making the point that Bush, like Hitler, is a danger both to liberty and to peace.

When this comparison came up on other forums, I pointed out that Bush is actually a lot more like Napoleon than he is like Hitler. There was another man who was a danger both to liberty and to peace, without the racism and anti-semitism. In fact, Napoleon went around crushing liberty and starting wars in the name of democracy, just as Bush does, so the parallel is really quite close. Napoleon was more successful militarily, and a better administrator, but as far as the things people don't like about Bush, he exemplifies them, without also exemplifying other evils that Bush does not share, and so is a better comparison by far than Hitler.

Two steps forward, I can understand your comparisons and would like to make the point that any leader can become a danger to civil liberties which is why we need to watch them and to let them know we are. As an example, my local government is raising our real estate taxes 60 to 200% for no apparent reason. Services certainly haven't improved, so I will attend both meetings of the city council and county commisioners and attempt to hold them accountable for this action. I feel that what they are doing in completly unethical. Off topic kinda but not really, all levels of government need to be held accountable and questioned but at the end of the day it is still the government.

If this guy was running the local store and was doing as bad a job as he is being president, you'd say fire him. He is not a monarch and we are not uneducated peasants. We should know better. Alternatively we could just go back to worshipping the British monarchy.