As most of you know here, I'm a staunch Democrat, and I think our President has made a fool of himself the past 6 years. But, those are only my opinions.

In this thread, we discuss our thoughts of President Bush.

[Easy180]

Since the negatives far outweigh the positive I will just say at least there haven't been any more attacks since '01...That's about the only good thing I can think of over the past 6 years

True!

[mmm]

we've had great interest rates for awhile... not so sure the prez can totally take credit, though. -M

[MadMonk]

While I don't harbor any illusions that President Bush is the best president ever, I do think that he was a better choice than either alternative available in 2000 or 2004.

I give him a B for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, tax rate cuts and less bending to outside influences in economic policies (i.e. Kyoto treaty). However, he gets a C for other issues such as immigration and the high rate of government spending (but this is also Congress' fault as well, if not moreso).

I guess I give him a B-/C+ overall.

[bandnerd]

Not the worst, but certainly not the best, either. I give him a thumbs "meh"

[Lauri101]

The worst president in my lifetime in terms of ability to communicate and unite our country.
He has also managed to alienate many of our former foreign allies, thanks to his decisions regarding Iraq, Kyoto Accord, etc.
He is disconnected from reality.
I could go on, but this summarizes my opinion.

[Easy180]

I must admit I voted for him twice...My vote wasn't really for him personally, but for the Repub theory of smaller gov't and the Dem opponents were freakin whiny

Now that the Republican's emphasis is more on the religious right and family value bs I think it's time for a switcheroo

If the white house continues at this pace there will be a steeple on top of it within 10 years

[fromdust]

family value bs? huh... and i dont see where they are trying to turn the white house into a church. oh no watch out for the steeple. now thats bs. but i would say the way we are going in 10 yrs we might have the crescent and star over the white house.

[bandnerd]

Not everyone has the same "family values" and I know I, for one, get tired of hearing Republicans talk about family values when all they are saying is we should be teaching our kids to be completely intolerant of others, because their "values" are very narrow and close-minded. At least, that's my opinion.

I seriously doubt we are headed toward becoming a communist state...I do get tired of the government meddling in things they shouldn't be meddling in. Things such as education (should be a state issue, not national), what I eat, what religion I should be partaking in, what my "values" should be, etc.

[Karried]

For all the parents that will be grieving their children, and children grieving their parents this Christmas, and families forever missing members (all the military killed) .. I give him an F for a war we never should have been involved in.

In my opinion, that's what he will be remembered for most.. fighting a war in the wrong country.

Originally Posted by Karried

In my opinion, that's what he will be remembered for most.. fighting a war in the wrong country.

At the same time Osama is still on the loose.

[MadMonk]

*Sigh*
Yeah, if only Clinton would've taken him when he had the chance...

[soonerliberal]

Originally Posted by MadMonk

*Sigh*
Yeah, if only Clinton would've taken him when he had the chance...

*Sigh* If only Clinton would have had the support to go after him and if only Bush 2 would have gone after him in Tora Bora when he actually did have the support.

President Bush has really disgusted me his six years in office.

I keep thinking, "Are we any better now than we were in 2000?" I honestly cannot think of a way in which we, as a nation, are doing better. I suppose I will first bring up two of many problems I have with the President and later on bring up more.

Foreign Policy. President Bush has managed to take unprecidented worldwide support for American policies and turn it into us being one of the least respected. More importantly, our legitimacy as a world superpower has been tarnished and we have little international leeway. The Bush Doctrine of preemption has emboldened the enemies of the United States, traditional as well as modern ones.

Art of Governing. After Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush had upwards of an 90% approval rating. It is now hovering just above 30%. While Iraq, Katrina, and various economic issues are primarily responsible for that drop, I am convinced that the Bush way of governing from the far right rather from the center like his father and Clinton, has really hurt his image. Congress ruling on the "you are either with us or against us" idea and the attempt to weed out moderates such as Chafee and Lieberman, has forced absolutely nothing constructive to be done.


There will be more to come later...

[MadMonk]

Originally Posted by soonerliberal

*Sigh* If only Clinton would have had the support to go after him and if only Bush 2 would have gone after him in Tora Bora when he actually did have the support.

Yeah, I guess sending a huge force into Afghanistan wasn't enough. At least he wasn't sending million-dollar missles to bomb empty campsites. It's funny (in a sad way) how hawkish libs can be when they know nobody will get hurt. It's likely that neither Gore nor Kerry would've had the backbone to even go into Afghanistan, but I'm sure a very strongly-worded letter to the U.N. would've been coming post-haste!

[Lauri101]

Hmmm...I thought this thread was to discuss the current president.

Wonder why it is that the cons always attack Clinton, Kerry, et al whenever their poor excuse for a leader is criticized?

[MadMonk]

Well wonder no more! I'm just pointing out that, contrary to lib fantasies, Bush is no worse than any other recent presidents & candidates and in many ways better. It's technique called compare and contrast and is useful for providing a frame of reference for my opinion. Let me know if you need further clarification.

[soonerliberal]

Originally Posted by MadMonk

Well wonder no more! I'm just pointing out that, contrary to lib fantasies, Bush is no worse than any other recent presidents & candidates and in many ways better. It's technique called compare and contrast and is useful for providing a frame of reference for my opinion. Let me know if you need further clarification.

No, it is a logical fallacy called the straw man.

[MadMonk]

Originally Posted by soonerliberal

No, it is a logical fallacy called the straw man.

No, it's not. Perhaps you should look up that term and come back and show how that is the case. But, if you want to believe that contrasting our current President with prior ones who've been in similar situatuations (meaning having been at the helm when terrorist attacks occur), constitutes a straw man argument in your world, then so be it.

In my opinion, the most important issue of our time is protecting our country's population from further terrorist attacks. Everything else is secondary. Bush has done an exceptional job in this respect. While I realize that Bush has his drawbacks, I'll take him and our current situation instead of what might have happened if it were a Democrat in the Oval Office.

You mention foreign policy and that we are no longer as respected as we once were. True, there are certain countries like France that can't fathom actually doing something about terrorism vs. simply talking about it, but I'm not too concerned about that. Our legitimacy as the world's only superpower is in no way tarnished, except for those who believe that there is nothing worth fighting for. In addition, it's not Bush's doctrine that has emboldened our enemies, but rather the constant high-profile bickering and infighting among our political parties that seem to put politics above common national interests.

I'll leave the argument with what I consider to be the most important item concerning the presidential office. During the prior administration, there were several attacks against our country, our embassies and our mililtary:

• The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1000
• The 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel
• The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel
• The 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000
• The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors
• Daily attacks against our patrolling aircraft flying over the Iraqi no-fly zone

Attacks under "W":

• 2001 World Trade Center towers / Pentagon / Possible attacks on Congress or the White House.

Now we are fighting them in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of our soil. Why? Because Bush didn't sit around afterward promising to bring those responsible to justice and then proceded to do absolutely nothing of consequence about it. Sadly, I believe that the administration is going to bow to pressure to end the war more quickly that it should be. I think this would be a huge mistake and would send the message that we as a country don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done and finish the job. Perhaps we don't, at least not until the next time some group takes over a school here like they did in Beslan and then it's too late.

[soonerliberal]

1993: 6 American civilians killed
1998: 12 American civilians killed

This equals 18 non-combat Americans killed compared to 3000 in 2001 under President Bush. Don't go there buddy. We can bicker back and forth on who is responsible for 9/11, but that is irrelevant to the situation.

Please give some evidence proving Al Gore would have acted differently concerning Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. He has stated that he would have essentually done the same thing in regards to Afghanistan, except with more force. So the whole "weak on terror" argument seems to be pretty mute.

Originally Posted by MadMonk

You mention foreign policy and that we are no longer as respected as we once were. True, there are certain countries like France that can't fathom actually doing something about terrorism vs. simply talking about it, but I'm not too concerned about that. Our legitimacy as the world's only superpower is in no way tarnished, except for those who believe that there is nothing worth fighting for. In addition, it's not Bush's doctrine that has emboldened our enemies, but rather the constant high-profile bickering and infighting among our political parties that seem to put politics above common national interests.

Who was one of the first nations to back us in 2001 when we went after Afghanistan? France. If our legitimacy as a nation has not been tarnished, how do you explain the rest of the world refusing to work with us on barely anything? Our political parties' bickering has nothing at all to do with emboldening our enemies. It is the job of the legislative branch not to allow the president to use more power he or she has been given by the Constitution and to constantly question the question the Commander in Chief makes. We have a federal, not a parliamentary system of government. If the three branches of government do not fulfill their duty of constantly questioning one another, in the system of checks and balances, what is the purpose of not having an all-powerful leader, a dictator?

Bickering between the parties does not embolden our enemies. We must remember that just because it is an American idea or an American fight, that doesn't necessarily make it right. The Bush doctrine has given our enemies an easy out. Look at North Korea and Iran. Both nations, have directly gone against the wishes of the United States and the rest of the world and have pursued true weapons of mass destruction. If our troops were not bogged down in Iraq and we had the worldwide support behind us still, as we did throughout the Afghanistan campaign, do you really think North Korea or Iran would seriously be jerking our chains this much? Bush's approval is at 21% when it comes to his handling of Iraq (CBS 12/11/06). I think the American people have agreed that "stay the course" is the wrong choice and it is time to start listening to rest of the world.

[MadMonk]

Originally Posted by soonerliberal

1993: 6 American civilians killed
1998: 12 American civilians killed

This equals 18 non-combat Americans killed compared to 3000 in 2001 under President Bush. Don't go there buddy. We can bicker back and forth on who is responsible for 9/11, but that is irrelevant to the situation.

The number of deaths is not the point. The point is that we have been at war with terrorists for years, but nobody (including Bush) realized it until 2001. I'm not saying Clinton was responsible for the attacks, only irresponsible for not doing something about it that possibly could have prevented 9/11. Also, please tell me you don't subscribe to the crackpot conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

Originally Posted by soonerliberal

Please give some evidence proving Al Gore would have acted differently concerning Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. He has stated that he would have essentually done the same thing in regards to Afghanistan, except with more force. So the whole "weak on terror" argument seems to be pretty mute.

Of course you know you ask the impossible. However, judging from his tenure during the Clinton years, I'd say it's a safe bet that we would've done nothing significant in response to 9/11. The Democrats are weak on defense.

Originally Posted by soonerliberal

Who was one of the first nations to back us in 2001 when we went after Afghanistan? France.

Moral support is great, but how many troops did they provide? Something around 200 for the fight (in support roles) I believe. Viva le France! I guess they needed the rest of their forces to maintain order against their "peaceful" Muslim riots.

Originally Posted by soonerliberal

If our legitimacy as a nation has not been tarnished, how do you explain the rest of the world refusing to work with us on barely anything?

Can you clarify that statement? I don't see the rest of the world refusing to work with us on "barely anything". What exactly are you referring to? Or is this just a regurgitated liberal mantra you've heard somewhere?

Originally Posted by soonerliberal

Our political parties' bickering has nothing at all to do with emboldening our enemies. ...

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree there. I'm not saying we should have a dictatorship, only present a unified stance against our enemies, rather than mixed messages.

[oklamanchas]

Will he is for a one world government and corporate fascism but is that any worse than communarianism (modern communism proposed by the UN and touted by all the liberals)? Personally I would like to see some Constitutionalist candidates and I don't care if they are Democrat, Republican or Red/White and Blue as long as they will respect their oath of office and not vote for bills that give away our constitutional rights for their own grandizement.

Do we have anyone out there like that besides Rep. Dr. Ron P