The Good in President Bush, I would like to know... Options

[Alpha240]

I've read many debates regarding George Bush and John Kerry. Unlike Bush, Kerry never had a chance to prove himself as a president and show the American people how he could help this country and its people. George Bush had almost 4 years now to make a difference, and in my opinion any difference he made was make our country worse than it was before. I just don't understand why people like Bush. I really don't. I've heard unrational reasons, such as "He is a Christian" and "He is a strong leader", but I have not heard any REAL reasons on why Bush is a good person/president. So pleeease... someone tell me why so many people out there like Bush.

I would like non war related reasons, because i am against the war and therefore I will disagree with almost any reason given regarding the war.
For example: if you say you like Bush because he caught Saddam Hussein, my reply would be that he had no probable cause to go after Hussein. Even if he saw him as a threat, Bush had no proof or real intelligence to have reasons to bomb Suddam's country and capture him. I also don't believe in pre-emptive attacks. I think they are extremely hypocritical and destructive.

So if anyone has any input on how Bush improved our economy, environment, societal problems, scientific and technological advances, or anything along those lines please let me know.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Can any one of the Kerry supporters out there explain this to me?

From the Congressional Record -- February 27th, 1992 Page S2479:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I also rise today -- and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity -- to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

Wow -- if only, 12 years later, Kerry would follow his own words...