MovieChat Forums > George W. Bush Discussion > When did people, in America and otherwis...

When did people, in America and otherwise, officially started to hate him?

posted 4 years ago by TheMan18 (12865)
27 replies | jump to latest

Was it before or after his 2003 decision to invade Iraq?

Also, compared to other Presidents of the United States (of America of course!), like his late father, and Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan etc, and those after him, was his reputation really the worst?

Then again, I don't see too much controversies and accusations of war crimes on some of them, even if not everyone's a fan of Clinton for instance, so it seems Bush is ranked as the worst. Right?

[–] blue1981 (7418) 3 years ago

For me when he defended Dementia Joe after the election it exposed him as a NeoCon and part of the Deep State.

[–] NGMI (1184) 3 years ago

Yikes. He was exposed as Deep State way before that.

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Jesus, you people are insane.

[–] redban (5901) 3 years ago

2005-2006

He was pushing 90% approval after 9/11. The war in Iraq, in 2003, had about 80% support according to polls. He was pushing 50% approval rating in 2004, when he got re-elected.

By late 2005-2006, 9/11 started to become a memory, and people started to get tired of the Iraq War, especially after Bush announced that Iraq didn’t have any Weapons of Mass Destruction. That’s when Bush’s approval started to drop to 40% or so.

In late-2007, the economy started slowing. That’s when Bush’s approval sunk to 20%, and he became public enemy #1

[–] blue1981 (7418) 3 years ago

John Kerry was an Awful candidate when he ran against him in 2004.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6212) 3 years ago

Always difficult to run against a wartime president. That's why there's the Wag the Dog movie. Don't think any incumbent has ever been turned out during a war.

[–] Fonz (637) 3 years ago

Yeah definitely during his second term W was getting hated a lot by then.

[–] TheMan18 (12865) 3 years ago

80% support, despite the massive public protests held not only in America but worldwide at the time, with the protests regarding the Iraq war even entering the Guinness Book of Records for largest process in history?

[–] redban (5901) 3 years ago

https://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/

March 2003 - 72% of Americans agreed with the use of force in Iraq, and 88% thought the war was going well

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6212) 3 years ago

After he allowed 9/11 to happen.

[–] TheMan18 (12865) 3 years ago

But in 2001 and 2002, mostly, people didn't have too much against him, right?

Also, wasn't his family accused of having some kind of Hitler connections, and wasn't George W Bush seen by many around the time as illiterate, incompetent and wasn't it exposed that he had a low IQ or something?

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Bush was really disliked after the 2000 election. He gained a better reputation after 9/11 and it went south after the Iraq invasion.

He was a gaff machine and he was called stupid all the time. It's typical politics. Just read the comments on any political figure.

As for the Nazi connection, it's still mentioned. Alex Jones talked about it back in the day. It got more prevalent when he and John Kerry were running. They were Skull and Bones members.

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Liberals hated him before he was even elected. He was religious and an old-school Republican, that's all that mattered. I remember protests in Philly. How can you protest someone who hasn't done anything yet? 9/11 happened and he had a lot of support for a while, but liberals are pretty much against any and all wars, so when we went to war they went back to hating him. That being said, liberals, independents, and the anti-Trump Republicans are the ones that kind of like him now.

Republicans turned on him when Trump Republicans became the dominant force in the party. Trump is more of a libertarian/isolationist, so they hate him (and now pretend they have huge issues with war).

He's more popular now overall than when he was in office, just less with his party.

[–] TearofLys (2510) 3 years ago

Didn't happen all at once. Once the realization set in that they made the whole WMD think up to invade a relatively peaceful country (at the time), first caused me to sour on him. They never gave us the real reason and we are left to speculate (settling a score for daddy, causing chaos in the region for geopolitical reasons, etc.). Since then, that souring has turned into full-on hatred.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 3 years ago

Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. It is what started the war. CHEMICAL WEAPONS. They proved that they had WMDs by using them. After they surrendered, part of the terms of their surrender were to prove that they had disposed of the WMDs. They never gave that proof. Then we gave them 3 months to clean it up with fair warning before each inspection. Surprisingly, every site we inspected was hermetically clean as though it had been bleached hours before. So in the end we found no WMDs. Somehow this makes certain people scream that there were never WMDs. Even though it all started with the use of them in front of the whole world.

[–] TearofLys (2510) 3 years ago

The first Iraq war started because Iraq invaded Kuawit, not because of the fight with the Kurds. The chemical weapons attack happened in the 80s. U.S. forces controlled practically all of Iraq in the 90s and could search pretty much everywhere they pleased. No WMDs. Then in the 2000s, decades after after Anfal and when Iraq was in a relative state of peace and prosperity, the U.S. decides to attack. I guarantee you it wasn't because they used some chemical weapons in the 1980s.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7634313

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 3 years ago

1st Iraq war: they invaded kuwait and USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS (ie WMDs). Terms of their surrender were to prove that they had destroyed their WMDs. They did not provide any evidence of such at all. They also violated many other terms of their surrender which lead to ...

2nd Iraq War: Not abiding by the terms of surrender from first war. Not providing the proof that they had eliminated all of their chemical weapons, violating no-fly zones, etc. Iraq training/shielding terrorist groups associated with 9/11. Intelligence reports of WMDs (sources vetted and supported by the New York Times among others)

If only it had been a Democrat in office. Then you'd say it was justified.

[–] TearofLys (2510) 3 years ago

Revisionist history. *The reason* for attacking Iraq was because they invaded oil-rich Kuwait. Again, the coalition had the run of the place After the Gulf War. If they cared so much about WMDs, why didn't they search every nook and cranny then?

And it isn't just George Bush Jr. I think is a war criminal. Obama pulled the same bullshit with Syria based on dubious claims of chemical weapons attacks (even Gen. Matthis said there was no hard proof) and in Libya, where they didn't even give any coherent reason for doing what they did. At the time, Libya was peaceful, and its citizens had a higher quality of life than most other Arab countries. Now it is a wasteland where you can literally buy a human slave on the open market for a few hundred dollars.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/04/slave-auctions-in-libya-caught-on-camera/

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 3 years ago

At least we agree on Libya.

[–] Bloodshot77 (12338) 3 years ago

For me it was when he made gay marriage a political issue.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

He used gay marriage propositions to get people out to vote at midterms.

[–] johnmiller (3755) 3 years ago

When he left the United States completely open to attack on 9/11.

[–] Saenzwa9 (477) 3 years ago

For me it was when Kanye West said " George Bush doesn't care about black people "

That is when I realized George Bush was a racist

[–] TheMan18 (12865) 3 years ago

So you thought in that sense Mr West was telling an axiomatic truth?