Is this your idea of Christianity? President Bush says Christians & Muslims worship the same God and both Christians & Muslims go to heaven we just have different routes to get there! Instead of parrot talk you can see some real facts here for a change. Read the edited transcript here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=193746&page =1 I suggest you hear it here from Bush's lips yourself, it is more complete and clear than the ABC edited transcript, this is an audio file from a radio program with excerpts of the ABC interview with Bush : http://www.thebereancall.org/radio/radio/2006/3806b .mp3. Is this Christianity? Bush encourages and supports homosexual ministers & gay marriage? Read article here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTIC LE_ID=35539

I'm going to avoid the usual partisan arguments about the war, Enron, etc. and just ask a simple question. Have we elected any other president who was previously convicted of a misdemeanor? I don't know the answer. I'm just curious.

You can ask the 30,000 thousand dead Iraqi civilans (and the number is much higher because dubs has made up his own reality on the subject) what they think of his 'moral authority'. . .Then again, America doesn't let the death of a few brown-skins get in the way of proper flag-waving. . .This is the president that treats the law and courts as obstacles when they have the nerve to question or hold him to any intellectual standard. Only his fans' 'moral authority' is a bigger joke. . .it's okay kids, we'll give them democracy no matter how many accidentally are killed! "Of course they'll learn, they're just slow"

Update to Eschew- I'm sorry, but I thought I had made my position abundantly clear. Bush obviously has authority by virtue of being the President of the United States. Morality, however, has nothing to do with it. Amorality or immorality would probably be the more appropriate terms.-----Again, it's probably pointless to get in a debate on this issue, as it is true that we seem to be hopelessly polarized, and I've already written about Bush at some length in other postings, but I do feel it is imcumbent to clarify some things, at least so far as I'm concerned. If someone assumed an adversarial, passionate position against Clinton, as a large number of conservatives did and still do, does that qualify as blind hatred? I sort of felt sorry for Bush when he first assumed office, as it was immediately apparent that he was in way over his head. Still, after 9/11, I think he had the support of most of the civilized world. Although I regard myself as something of a pacifist, I was all for chasing down Osama Bin Laden and his colleagues and wiping them out, root and branch. Instead, evidence was manufactured about WMD's in Iraq (and there's plenty of empirical evidence that it was indeed manufactured) and we're next involved in a war with the secularist Sadaam Hussein, who undoubtedly was evil but had nothing to do with 9/11. Instead of wiping out terrorism, we're inspiring it. Osama Bin Laden is still as free as a bird. There's no end in sight for our involvement in Iraq, as people die in increasing numbers and billions and billions are squandered. In contrast to Iraq, there is much empirical evidence that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are hotbeds of terrorism, but the Bush administration has a hands-off policy when it comes to them. As Bill Maher once said, It's like we were attacked by France and decided to respond by attacking Spain. Not to sound callous, but after 9/11, was the establishment of a permanent, legitimate government in Iraq (to quote the always passionate Eschew Obfuscation) really something that needed to be a top priority? The truth is, it never was. After the WMD charade was exposed as a fallacy, it was necessary to find something else to use as a justification for our involvement there, and suddenly we became the moral arbiter of what kind of government Iraq (which, again, had nothing to do with 9/11; Saddam and Osama were enemies and ideological adversaries) should have. In light of this, issues such as revamping Social Security and Gay marriage become less important, or should (gay marriage shouldn't even be an issue at all but Americans are nothing if not suggestible when it comes to the issues that the Republicans decide they should be paying attention to). Blind hatred? I think not. I think the blind ones are those who justify practically anything Bush does, seemingly without any real critical thought at all.

UPDATE: What appears to me to be blind hatred on THIS list are the posts of Caligula, ledzep and Jar Jar. I wasn't able to glean an opinion regarding presidential moral authority from the posts of daccory and edt4. And I don't see anyone on this list justifying anything Bush has done. At best, the prevailing NON liberal/anti-war/IhateBush viewpoint appears to me that the Iraq War is still a jump ball regarding Bush's moral authority, although he has done SOME things, not related to the Iraq War, which resulted in a net increase in that commodity, so far, with almost an entire 2nd term ahead. ORIGINAL COMMENT 6/1/05:I hesitated to read the responses to this (Bush) list because so many liberals tend to be so blindly hateful of him, they refuse to think straight and address the issue of the list. I'm just weary of the same hateful language and irresponsible characterizations. Bush's standard for moral authority differs from all previous presidents because of 9/11/01. No recent president has had the responsiblity to formulate an appropriate response to an attack on US soil resulting in US lives lost, particularly those of innocent civilians. Moral authority is the ability to convince your constituents and those of your allies to support your efforts before they know everything about your plan. Now, I'll admit that Russia (our long-standing ally), France and Germany have not supported Bush's foreign policy. Nor has the UN. However, this issue is more than the War in Iraq. Bush has successfully reduced his opponents, the Democrat Party, to the party of I hate Bush and everything he does and says and I will sacrifice everything my party has accomplished in the past 50 years to obstruct everything he proposes. It's too early to determine his moral authority because events are fluid and continually unfolding. The flashpoints are: 1). establishment of a permanent, legitimate government in Iraq, 2). the net job gain in the US at the end of his 2nd term (the way we evaluate presidential economic effectiveness), 3). accomplishment of one of the folowing: Social Security reform, re-vampment of the US Income Tax code or the defeat of the current momentum toward legalization of gay marriage. He would get bonus points for undeniable evidence of the death of bin Laden or a major reduction in al Qaeda's influence among Muslims.

Cocaine sniffing, DUI drunk, business failing, draft dodging idiot who sends true patriots to their death in Iraq for no good reason. Amoral is more like it.

I am very thankful for his stance on terrorism. He is the first president in decades to stand up to the terrorists and do something about them. And it is refreshing to have a president with strong morals and sterling character in the White House. Thank goodness he won (again)!

Gimme a break will ya! This guy has been arrested and gone to the slammer 3 times. That's more than ALL the Democratic prezidents who've ever gone to jail.

I hate these idiots who say that Bush has great moral values. Moral Values, Bush! My butt has better moral values than this jerk! Yes, so he's a really big orthodox christian and stuff, but you know what else he is, he's an EX DRUNK! Now wow! Those are great moral values, oh and also. He made us go to WAR! now theres a fine moral value for you! OOOO OO OO I see another, he DOESN'T CARE ABOUT SICK PEOPLE AND WON'T LOWER TAXES FOR THERE HEALTHCARE! Oh, theres a nice moral value. OO OO OO, he also HAS DAUGHTERS WHO ARE DRUNK and apparently he doesn't give hoot! Now those sound like great moral values to me- NOT! Bush has absoulutly terrible moral values, and I'm suprised most people can't see this. By the way, you wanna know a real life story. The person with the best moral values I know is my mother. She stopped working just so she could raise me and my little sister, and she loved work, she never tried a drug in her life, she's a strong beliver in the difference between whats right and wrong, my mom is just an overall great person in way's I can't describe. And guess who she voted for in 2004, KERRY! My mom and I talk about polotics alot. She, like me, is an extreem Bush hater and liberal. She Bush is full of Bull, and so do I, I listed all the things that prove he has bad moral values, and if that won't convince you, I don't know what will, but Bush does not have good moral values, end of story!

I just wanted too address Scarlett Feather that I created this list and I'm sorry if it seemed like all these presidents were Republican, that wasn't my intention.

Some respondents care more about getting at 'liberals' than having any common sense on the issues.

I don't like this list. Somehow I sense the maker of this list thinks the Republicans are the most moral party--surprise! Well, here's my two cents on W.'s moral authority. He's a born-again Christian and that's fine and dandy;I think he's sincere about his faith. But in terms of leading this country, he scares me. How was it right for us to attack Iraq when we did not have any solid proof that they were manufacturing nuclear weapons? We just suspected they were. So we went in and just decimated a country for no valid reason. I'm concerned about our young people going over there facing dangerous conditions and getting killed-all because we thought Hussein had nuclear weapons! And it's not enough to say it was OK to attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. There are a lot of bad guys in the world. For example, I'm not too find of China. When I see their youth winning gold medals at the Olympics, I kind of wonder if those Communist thugs don't tell them, You better do good, or we'll ship you off to a work camp! No, I am not fond of China at all. But if I were president, would that be any justification for me to attack them? UPDATE: Still no moral authority in my book. I wouldn't trust him as far as I would throw a stick.

George W. Bush went to war not for oil (or else he could have invaded Venezuela or Mexico for a much cheaper price), not because he woke up one morning and decided he didn't like Iraq (afterall, Bush is a poltician and he wouldn't risk losing the '04 election if he didn't need to), and he doesn't hate gays (he just wants to make sure that the religous act of marriage remains sacred and upholds its traditions). Moreover, Bush deserves the honor of high moral authority because of what he's done to help Iraq (whose many of it's citizens cheered during 9/11). Since May 2003, Bush has captured Saddam, trained 60,000 Iraqis, increased the power generation to 4518 megawatts (exceeding the pre-war average), opened Iraq's universites and most of the primary schools, established about 240 hospitals and more than 1200 health clinics, vaccinated over 22 million Iraqi children, has established a single, unified currency without Saddams face on it for the first time in 15 years, and has replaced Saddams Ministry of Information with about 200 private news papers. Listen to a liberal, however, and they'll give you the same old rhetoric that we went to war because Bush didn't like Iraq. No, we bombed Baghdad under the Clinton adminstration because Clinton didn't like Iraq.

Absolutely the best man for the job. Liberals can say what they want, but it's the truth.