Bush - Bad for the Country

Michaelangelica · 04-30-2006

Does Bush have a drinking problem?

TheBigDog · 04-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Does Bush have a drinking problem?

Only if he drinks. He has not been drinking. Have you heard otherwise?

Bill

C1ay · 04-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Does Bush have a drinking problem?

It is rumored that he had one as a young man. Then again, I know of quite a few young men that were avid drinkers....

Amtekoth · 04-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

That was not the reason pushed for the Iraq war resolution passed by Congress nor was it the reasons pushed by Powell to the UN. Cheney clained that there was some type of a relationship between Saddam and Hussein, which has been proven BTW, but it was not pushed as a reason to attack Iraq.

Of course it was. Don't even try to rewrite that one. "WMD" and "9/11" were uttered EVERY DAY for months as excuses to go to war. The official resolution was centered on the legal basis for going to war, which was Saddam's failure to comply. But it was sold to the US public as WMD and 9/11. Rummy, Dick and Condi used that imagery daily to drum up support, which they got. Powell showed the images of the "biowarfare trailers", even though the Pentagon's own team on the ground said that's not what they were. Those experts were overruled by their higher ups who had an agenda. And the Republicans in congress have sat on the analysis of how the intel, right and wrong, was used to sell the war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

No they didn't. They tried to fight two wars on two fronts at the same time.

They took away soldiers and support and sent them to Iraq WAY too early. The REAL war on terror was being waged in Afganistan and was supported by most of this country (myself included) and the world. This administration keeps calling their invasion of Iraq the war on terror. It is duplicitous and intentionally so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

No others that we had a signed cease fire agreement with that they have violated. Feel free to name them if I am mistaken though.

Don't get me wrong. Saddam was evil and deserved to be taken down. I'd have been MUCH happier if the Israelis had put a bullet in his head years ago. But the argument was that he had to taken down NOW, before we all paid a terrible price. The UN inspections, the No-Fly zones and the restrictions on his money were effective at curbing his ability to put his ambitions into fruition. Were they perfect? No. But he was much more interested in palaces than Plutonium. He'd rattle his scabbard, but it didn't have a sword in it. Other dictators are MUCH more dangerous (North Korea) to us. Other democracies are more dangerous to us (Iran). Other world powers are more dangerous to us (China). All of them have ignored treaties and agreements in order to pursue policies that directly threaten us and our interests.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

Feel free to list the "high crimes and misdemeanors" you think they could actually convict him of... Don't you think any of the competent lawyers involved in Congress would have at least initiated an investigation by committee at this point if there was something they thought he could be proven guilty of?

I think he misled the country to get us into a war. Could that be proven? Not easily, granted, and that will get tougher with the administration's moves to keep everything they do secret. They've been reclassifying old documents and keeping new ones secret. They have been punishing leakers that expose their (possibly) illegal activities while leaking information themselves that they want out there for political gain, a huge double-standard. Leakers can genuinely damage this country. But sometimes they expose the truth, and that is something this administration cannot abide.

TheBigDog · 04-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racoon

Lets spin this another way, on our Thief-in-Chief

Why the petty name calling. Has he stolen something?

Bill

TheBigDog · 04-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racoon

The 2000 election??

You really need to bone up on the facts on that Rac.

Bill

C1ay · 04-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racoon

But Bush has more bad policies than good. Which makes him a Bad president.
Look at his public approval.

Popularity does not make someone a good President. He could send everyone in the country a check and he would be popular even though he bankrupted the country. Public approval is not a good Presidential indicator.

TheBigDog · 04-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racoon

Yeah, I forgot the dimpled Chads and Enron Lawyers that helped seal the deal...

It was a while ago, so yeah, I do need to "bone up." perhaps you could jog our memories.
Bush has quite a few Enron connections I believe.

Guilty by association, at least...

Please defend the man then.

What are the Good Policies?? I don't see any good changes in
1) - Social Security Reform
2) - Health Care and costs
3) - Environment
4) - International Affairs

5) - The huge Deficit!
6) - ANYTHING??

The state of Florida was erroniously called for Al Gore while the polls were still open in the panhandle, a traditionally 60% republican demographic. There are estimates that as many as 10,000 voters did not go to the polls in thee panhandle after hearing that the state was already decided. This little fact always disappears with the Florida conspiracy theories. After the polls had closed, at 2:30 in the morning, when the vast majority of the precints had reported the state was called for Bush. The margin continued to narrow as the votes were counted, but in the end, by every count, and every recount, and every unofficial recount by new organizations the results remained the same. Bush won. Get over it.

Bush has failed to get the Social Security Reform that he is seeking. This rests upon his leadership, and the other leadership of the Republican party for not being able to act as a party.

I belive the largest Medicare reform in history was passed. Something about prescription drug coverage.

Bush is an environmentalist. He is downright green. If you actually studied the man you would realize that. Actions speak louder than words. Check out the design of his house. And hunters are responsible for more conservation of natural environment than any other environmental group. Bush is a hunter.

The path we have taken since 9/11 is some of the most difficult decision making any President has had to make. His highest priority is insuring that such attacks do not hit Americans again. And he is taking an agenda of action to get that done. Is every decision a great one? No. But he is 100% consistant in the war effort, and history will judge him well for it (I believe).

The deficit is the responsibility of the Congress. It always has been. Federal revenues have grown year over year since Bush has been President. They have grown faster than inflation. The economy is booming. President Bush could exercise some veto power, but he has been non-confrontational with the congress in a trade off for absolute support for the war effort. Sad that he needs to play politics with both parties that way to get them to honor the promises that they all shared.

Positive? The tax cuts have helped to spur the economy. It is good and strong right now. Education has been an area of success overall. There are examples of failures, as there are in any system, but on a whole the "No Child Left Behind" has done more good than harm. And we are less vulnerable to terroist attacks now than we were previously.

The biggest beef I have with President Bush is on immigration.

Bill