Does Bush really deserve all the bad press?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:08 am

Benjamin wrote: The problem with Bush is he doesn't ACCEPT the blame for anything. And while every president throughout U.S. history has screwed up in one way or another, they've all done some good things as well. That is, until Bush. See the thread where I challenged Bush supporters to describe his top five accomplishments. Nobody could come up with anything of any substance.
I've been thinking alot about this since that thread. (BTW, you or Chip please get a different av, I'm getting a headache :p )

Bush has avoided using his one major control over congress, namely the veto. Thus, he has become an open door for changes congress has made. I'm not certain he can take real credit for any domestic improvement, since he has rubber-stamped everything that's crossed his desk.

But now it's time to look forward. Who should be next? Either the ideal nameless guy or a named guy warts and all.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:07 am

Benjamin wrote: Nobody could come up with anything of any substance.
I gave over fifty (50) positive actions and/or outcomes. Isn't that at least a starting point?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:22 am

ChiptBeef wrote: I gave over fifty (50) positive actions and/or outcomes. Isn't that at least a starting point?
Didn't you read? He didn't like you siting other sources. :wah:

I gotta admit that's a first.

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:47 am

Accountable wrote: Didn't you read? He didn't like you siting other sources. :wah:

I gotta admit that's a first.
No, he just gave a bunch of links from LiberalsSuck.com (or something like that). :wah: So I stick to my statement that nobody provided anything of any substance.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:56 am

Putting the 50 (+) actions on your "ignore list" doesn't make them any less valid.

P.S. I typed out the accomplishments for your ease of review. The one link listed many others. :rolleyes:

orpheus · Post by **orpheus** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:13 am

In a nutshell (case when talking of Mr Bush)

YES

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:15 am

orpheus wrote: In a nutshell (case when talking of Mr Bush)

YES
Oh, well then.... you could've saved us 16 pages with that earlier. Okay guys, let's pack up & go home.

orpheus · Post by **orpheus** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:21 am

Accountable wrote: Oh, well then.... you could've saved us 16 pages with that earlier. Okay guys, let's pack up & go home.

Ok,

you want reasons

Warmonger.

liar.

cheat.

unelected.

moron.

threat to world peace.

threat to the worlds environment.

threat to the world.

war criminal.

Oil thief.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:35 am

orpheus wrote: Ok,

you want reasons

Warmonger.

liar.

cheat.

unelected.

moron.

threat to world peace.

threat to the worlds environment.

threat to the world.

war criminal.

Oil thief.Wow. You sure you're not a US citizen?

orpheus · Post by **orpheus** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:36 am

Accountable wrote: Wow. You sure you're not a US citizen?

:D..................yes i am sure :-2

dragonfly · Post by **dragonfly** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:46 am

I thought long and hard about this. I still have not forgiven the man for stealing the election in 2000. I believe it was the first time in our nation that the man won the electoral votes and not the popluar vote. And if that's the case, why do we even have electoral votes in the first place? After all, people now are education enough that they should be able to take just the popular vote. I feel he has done nothing for this nation, but sink us deeper and deeper in quicksand. I imagine most of you heard about the Sago Mine tragedy that happened in my state. When asked about it, Mr. President said his thoughts and prayers were with the families, and all the while he was reading it from a CARD IN HIS HANDS! Sorry, such insensitivity boggles the mind! Not a sincere bone in the man's body! To me, he looks like Howdy Doody. Yes, yes, yes, he deserves everything he gets!

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:47 am

Accountable wrote: Wow. You sure you're not a US citizen?

There is such a thing as a "wannabe." Maybe Senator Ted Kennedy or Senator Hillary Clinton could arrange for an "honorary" citizenship. :yh_flag :yh_flag

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:50 pm

dragonfly wrote: I thought long and hard about this. I still have not forgiven the man for stealing the election in 2000. I believe it was the first time in our nation that the man won the electoral votes and not the popluar vote. And if that's the case, why do we even have electoral votes in the first place? After all, people now are education enough that they should be able to take just the popular vote. I feel he has done nothing for this nation, but sink us deeper and deeper in quicksand. I imagine most of you heard about the Sago Mine tragedy that happened in my state. When asked about it, Mr. President said his thoughts and prayers were with the families, and all the while he was reading it from a CARD IN HIS HANDS! Sorry, such insensitivity boggles the mind! Not a sincere bone in the man's body! To me, he looks like Howdy Doody. Yes, yes, yes, he deserves everything he gets!
If the candidate only needed the popular vote, your small state would never get the representation it deserves. All the campaigning would focus in the populated areas. Most of it does already, I know, but it would be even worse.

If I'm not mistaken, this is the second time the popular vote lost to the electoral vote. I don't like the system either, because most states just hand over 100% of their electoral votes to one candidate, rather than percentages, as I feel should happen.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:09 am

BabyRider wrote: People didn't like Clinton because he was a criminal, lying sack of sh!t who couldn't keep his pants zipped and had the IQ of a dyslexic gnat and the personality of a venereal disease.
Well said. Don't forget the draft-dodging thing. I served with good people that took their DD214's for that fact alone.

And look at all the glowing press he got, even during the impeachment process! Remember when the stock market hit 11,000 during the Clinton years? The media all but called for a ticker-tape parade. When it just happened under President Bush's watch, it was just another story, if that.

I don't think President Bush should get a free pass just because we are at war. He shouldn't be crucified either, just because the mainstream media has a liberal bias. He should be able to get the same level and quality of reporting that has been provided to other presidents. That's not too much to expect. :-5

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:27 am

dragonfly wrote: I thought long and hard about this. I still have not forgiven the man for stealing the election in 2000. Yes, yes, yes, he deserves everything he gets!

2000 election - Do you think we would have been better off with Gore (Clinton Light), the "inventor of the Internet?"

2004 election - Do you think we would have been better off with Kerry, someone that alleged war crimes by other veterans before a Senate committee, thereby prolonging the suffering of many still in captivity as POW's?

Did you feel that same way during the coverage of Clinton's impeachment?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:21 am

Accountable wrote: If the candidate only needed the popular vote, your small state would never get the representation it deserves. All the campaigning would focus in the populated areas. Most of it does already, I know, but it would be even worse.

If I'm not mistaken, this is the second time the popular vote lost to the electoral vote. I don't like the system either, because most states just hand over 100% of their electoral votes to one candidate, rather than percentages, as I feel should happen.

Seem we were both wrong, Dragonfly. Bush won the popular vote and electoral vote.

Popular: Bush 62,040,606 (51%); Kerry 59,028,109 (48%)

Electoral: Bush 286; Kerry 252 LINK

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Electoral College

by

William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director

FEC Office of Election Administration

Opponents of the Electoral College are disturbed by the possibility of electing a minority president (one without the absolute majority of popular votes). Nor is this concern entirely unfounded since there are three ways in which that could happen. One way in which a minority president could be elected is if the country were so deeply divided politically that three or more presidential candidates split the electoral votes among them such that no one obtained the necessary majority. This occurred, as noted above, in 1824 and was unsuccessfully attempted in 1948 and again in 1968. Should that happen today, there are two possible resolutions: either one candidate could throw his electoral votes to the support of another (before the meeting of the Electors) or else, absent an absolute majority in the Electoral College, the U.S. House of Representatives would select the president in accordance with the 12th Amendment. Either way, though, the person taking office would not have obtained the absolute majority of the popular vote. Yet it is unclear how a direct election of the president could resolve such a deep national conflict without introducing a presidential run-off election -- a procedure which would add substantially to the time, cost, and effort already devoted to selecting a president and which might well deepen the political divisions while trying to resolve them.

A second way in which a minority president could take office is if, as in 1888, one candidate's popular support were heavily concentrated in a few States while the other candidate maintained a slim popular lead in enough States to win the needed majority of the Electoral College. While the country has occasionally come close to this sort of outcome, the question here is whether the

distribution of a candidate's popular support should be taken into account alongside the relative size of it. This issue was mentioned above and is discussed at greater length below.

A third way of electing a minority president is if a third party or candidate, however small, drew enough votes from the top two that no one received over 50% of the national popular total. Far from being unusual, this sort of thing has, in fact, happened 15 times including (in this century) Wilson in both 1912 and 1916, Truman in 1948, Kennedy in 1960, Nixon in 1968, and Clinton in both 1992 1nd [sic] 1996. The only remarkable thing about those outcomes is that few people noticed and even fewer cared. Nor would a direct election have changed those outcomes without a run-off requiring over 50% of the popular vote (an idea which not even proponents of a direct election seem to advocate).

dragonfly · Post by **dragonfly** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:37 am

Thanks for the discussion. I was talking about the first election, with Gore, who received the popular vote. Unfortunately for Democrats, there has not been anyone who is charismatic and intelligent, that has come to the forefront. But as far as the NEXT election is concerned, I believe there will be a big change. I did not vote for the man, I am not ashamed to say that. But after the first election, I was more than willing to have an open mind and see how things go. But the war in Iraq, that his administration initiated, by preying on the fear of 9-11 ... and not having the backing of the majority of countries ... well, I feel it has been downhill ever since. I think the majority of average Americans feel that they have been sold a bill of goods that are based on lies (that his administration has been caught in), and I've had it. His credibility is zero. He can paint a rosy picture everytime he steps before a camera, but those of us who live in reality know better...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:19 am

dragonfly wrote: Thanks for the discussion. I was talking about the first election, with Gore, who received the popular vote.
Pay no attention to the idiot behind the keyboard.

I tried to paste a spreadsheet, but failed. Here are the 2000 totals. Results

Popular: Bush 50,456,002; Gore 50,999,897

Electoral: Bush 271; Gore 266

I have to say that, seeing Gore since the election, we got the better of a bad choice.

dragonfly · Post by **dragonfly** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:04 am

Accountable, How are things in your neck of the woods? Economy and all? I don't believe in "straight ticket". If you have a candidate that impresses you, I feel you should vote for them. But I truly have not seen anything good come out of this administration. And again, this is only my opinion. Times are hard here. I'm not sure if it would have been any different under a Democratic president, but Bush does come across as being false and cold. Clinton on the other hand, excluding his womenizing ways, always seemed approachable. We had surplus and "fuzzy math" or no, we were better off then than now.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:32 am

dragonfly wrote: Accountable, How are things in your neck of the woods? Economy and all? I don't believe in "straight ticket". If you have a candidate that impresses you, I feel you should vote for them. But I truly have not seen anything good come out of this administration. And again, this is only my opinion. Times are hard here. I'm not sure if it would have been any different under a Democratic president, but Bush does come across as being false and cold. Clinton on the other hand, excluding his womenizing ways, always seemed approachable. We had surplus and "fuzzy math" or no, we were better off then than now.
Presidential politics seldom has any effect on local conditions, nor should it. The fed gov't has more power than the Constitution ever meant for it to have.

I have a funny feeling we're going to discuss government's roles alot in our future. :p

I would always be hard-pressed to find a reason to vote for either candidate submitted by the Republicrat Party. Give me Libertarian or some other party any day. Independent candidates never are.

dragonfly · Post by **dragonfly** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:59 am

I agree. I think the older you get, the more you theorize about it. Twenty years ago, that last thing on my mind was World News Tonight! Now I watch local and world news, and on Sunday CNN before church. I guess I worry mostly for my children and grandchildren. What they will be facing down the road.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:28 pm

Accountable wrote: I tried to paste a spreadsheet, but failed. Here are the 2000 totals. Results

Popular: Bush 50,456,002; Gore 5,099,897

Electoral: Bush 271; Gore 266

I have to say that, seeing Gore since the election, we got the better of a bad choice.
Thanks for busting yet another myth that has been put out as fact for so long that people start believing it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:19 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: Thanks for busting yet another myth that has been put out as fact for so long that people start believing it.Sorry Chip. I had to fix it. I saw the 50 mil to 5 mil and knew I'd screwed up somehow.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:44 pm

Anyone with these moves can't be all bad.

http://www.dancingbush.com/

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:49 pm

Accountable wrote: Sorry Chip. I had to fix it. I saw the 50 mil to 5 mil and knew I'd screwed up somehow.
That just proves how easy it is to get me excited. :wah:

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:20 pm

What about hoax's and misinformation posted on forums to try and discredit the president or his supporters?

http://martinsvillemedia.com/forum/show ... php?t=4496

http://martinsvillemedia.com/forum/show ... ge=1&pp=15

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:54 pm

Any thoughts on the State of the Union address? There were some mixed emotions locally in Virginia (and beyond).

http://martinsvillemedia.com/forum/show ... php?t=4919

Spike101 · Post by **Spike101** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:03 pm

LilacDragon;158872 wrote: What I find disturbing is that Clinton was impeached for a stain on a blue dress and George seems to be able to do what he wants, lie about he wants and follow his own personal agenda with impunity.

That isn't quite accurate. Im only pointing this out since several of the folks here seem to think he was impeached for screwing around on his wife. This is not the case at all. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for being unfaithful or getting a hummer. As a result, he was disbarred in his home state of Arkansas and this followed up by the US Supreme Court which disbarred him from practicing law before that court as well.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndG ... 011001.htm

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:23 am

Whatever happened to ol' Chip?

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:39 am

Accountable;532127 wrote: Whatever happened to ol' Chip?

Don't know...nearly a year since he was here....

JacksDad · Post by **JacksDad** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:52 pm

Diuretic;532778 wrote: Bush is cactus. I'm sorry for those that believed in him and voted for him but he's useless and so is that VP of his. Once they're gone it will be a lot better.

Unless the new Pres is worse.

So far the pickins look pretty slim.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:57 pm

"Bush is a cactus" :wah:

I love that.

Although I know many fine cactuses...can't say that about presidents. :-3

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:47 am

Oh no, I miusunderstood! I'm sorry Di. So cactus just means stuffed. Well, I've learned something new already today! Thanks!

:)

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:59 pm

Yes he deserves the bad press. Hes gotten us into a hornets nest and if we stay it wont be good. If we leave we leave a mess behind. This entire operation is sloppy and lost lives are mounting.

Now that Iran is looking like theyre moving in with a central bank in Baghdad and having talks about moving troops in to clean up our mess what are we left with ?

Bush will feel like he has to save face so its a brand new Iranian/Iraqi war. Theyre crawling into bed with eachother and my best guess is very soon we will be asked to leave by the Iraqi govt. I wonder how Bush will react then.

Theres still time for him to start trouble with China before he leaves office. :rolleyes:

ANGRYWOLF · Post by **ANGRYWOLF** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:27 pm

I think he does.

As for Bush, he lied to the American people about Iraq, which is worse than Clinton's lie in my view.Bush committed an impeachable offense but it won't happen and maybe it's best that it doesn't. The Republican Party and Bush's supporters paid at the last election and will have to pay in the next one as well.

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:08 pm

Diuretic;532778 wrote: Bush is cactus. I'm sorry for those that believed in him and voted for him but he's useless and so is that VP of his. Once they're gone it will be a lot better.

yeah, cuz Hillary is a much better choice.

that was sarcasm folks

Sweet Tooth · Post by **Sweet Tooth** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:15 pm

Ok, honestly, if the only thing bad we can say about our president is that he has bad mannerisms, then you need to pick on him for another reason. And I wonder how any other president would have handled what President Bush was handed when he stepped into office. Maybe he would have pulled a Clinton and just ignored it all! But seriously, if we don't like him because he is annoying, thats just down right petty.

911 · Post by **911** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:45 pm

But mannerisms can tell you alot about people. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, his grinning. It's his way of trying to woo people into his way of thinking. There are few people who can constantly not return a smile. He knows that and that is his way of getting people to believe in him. Doesn't work for me, but then I've never liked him.

He has a God complex. He actually said that God put him in office at this time to bring the world into a better place. He thinks he is stopping the end times by trying to straighten out something that has been going on for centuries. I would have stood behind him if this war was in Afganistan. But he chose to fight someone he could find and to me that is cowardice and an easy way out.

I seriously think there should be a 'none of the above' catagory on the ballots. If 'none of the above' wins then they have to pick someone else to run. I would have voted NOTA!

Sweet Tooth · Post by **Sweet Tooth** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 pm

911;535363 wrote: But mannerisms can tell you alot about people. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, his grinning. It's his way of trying to woo people into his way of thinking. There are few people who can constantly not return a smile. He knows that and that is his way of getting people to believe in him. Doesn't work for me, but then I've never liked him.

He has a God complex. He actually said that God put him in office at this time to bring the world into a better place. He thinks he is stopping the end times by trying to straighten out something that has been going on for centuries. I would have stood behind him if this war was in Afganistan. But he chose to fight someone he could find and to me that is cowardice and an easy way out.

I seriously think there should be a 'none of the above' catagory on the ballots. If 'none of the above' wins then they have to pick someone else to run. I would have voted NOTA!

point taken, but what about a President who committed adultry? That tells you alot about people as well, maybe that hes not loyal. And I dont think hes grinning to be a smart arse, I think its more out of nervousness- my dad is a big business man, and when things get scary, he smiles! Its a way of handling stress. I think that if it comes time to vote and no one is suitable, it would be more voting for the lesser evil.

911 · Post by **911** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:02 pm

Sweet Tooth;535368 wrote: point taken, but what about a President who committed adultry? That tells you alot about people as well, maybe that hes not loyal. And I dont think hes grinning to be a smart arse, I think its more out of nervousness- my dad is a big business man, and when things get scary, he smiles! Its a way of handling stress. I think that if it comes time to vote and no one is suitable, it would be more voting for the lesser evil.

First of all, let me state for the record that Clinton is an SOB. A quivering bowl of jelly who was bamboozled by his wife to the point that the only way he got his way was to do something childish. He was and is a twit. (So is she, by the way)

When you do something everyday like Bush, shouldn't it at some point become ordinary? Talking to the press, making speeches on TV, waving at the cameras. If this still makes him nervous, then we don't need him making powerful decisions. He'd crack his jaws grinning!

Why should we have to vote for the lesser of two evils? Aren't you tired of that? I know I am.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:05 pm

Sweet Tooth;535368 wrote: point taken, but what about a President who committed adultry? That tells you alot about people as well, maybe that hes not loyal. And I dont think hes grinning to be a smart arse, I think its more out of nervousness- my dad is a big business man, and when things get scary, he smiles! Its a way of handling stress. I think that if it comes time to vote and no one is suitable, it would be more voting for the lesser evil.

The trouble with that is that they take your vote and run with it.

You may think that your making a protest vote against the other candidates but, in effect, you are fully endorsing every policy of the guy you votes for - and every policy he comes up with in his four years in office.

911's concept of an official NOTA selection has a lot to recommend it - I've been voting that way for years but, without formal recognition of the intent, the effect is minimal.

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:31 pm

Sweet Tooth;535368 wrote: ...I think that if it comes time to vote and no one is suitable, it would be more voting for the lesser evil.

kinda like with GWB and Kerry, huh?

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:43 pm

Sweet Tooth;535368 wrote: point taken, but what about a President who committed adultry? That tells you alot about people as well, maybe that hes not loyal. And I dont think hes grinning to be a smart arse, I think its more out of nervousness- my dad is a big business man, and when things get scary, he smiles! Its a way of handling stress. I think that if it comes time to vote and no one is suitable, it would be more voting for the lesser evil.

Hmmm.

One lied about getting laid. Collateral damage - a stain on a dress.

The other lied about WMD. Collateral damage - close to 3,000 American Soldiers killed in Iraq alone. Even the Iraqi "government" won't venture a guess on the number of dead Iraqi citizens! Sorry, the number of American soldiers that have been maimed or otherwise "damaged" (for lack of a better word) is unknown to me much like the similar number of Iraqi men, women and CHILDREN.

Now. Which is the impeachable offense?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:29 pm

Sorry--I thought this post was about G.W. Bush...not Clinton~

And the question is...does BUSH really deserve all the bad press.

Quite simply....YES! HE DOES! Size matters....according to "pants matters)

He's a major %$^* up! (Does this mean he won't be forgiven? Sadly, I suppose so.0

Happiest of new nears to you!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:55 am

LilacDragon;535521 wrote: Hmmm. One lied about getting laid. Collateral damage - a stain on a dress.

The other lied about WMD. Collateral damage - close to 3,000 American Soldiers killed in Iraq alone.

Even the Iraqi "government" won't venture a guess on the number of dead Iraqi citizens! Sorry, the number of American soldiers that have been maimed or otherwise "damaged" (for lack of a better word) is unknown to me much like the similar number of Iraqi men, women and CHILDREN.

Now. Which is the impeachable offense?

Far more than impeachable - it's a matter for a war crimes tribuneral

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:07 am

I think that when judging the period in office of any leader, you have to look at how your country's interests have been served since he or she took office, both domestically, and internationally, (whatever about someones personality, or little sexual peccadilos), on both of these first two I am afraid George Bush's presidency has been a bit of a diaster, as seen from the outside. The one good thing, is that whoever comes next will have a lot of good will based on the fact that they are not George Bush.

Its a tricky one for Americans, because obviously the President is elected really on domestic issues, but given the nature of the strategic power of the US, the President is also the most important international leader in the world, and has to be able to promote US interests abroad, or they will damage their country's interests. On a basic diplomatic level, George Bush was obviously someone who was quite out of his depth in dealing with the rest of the world, and its crazy leaders with mad names like Yo Blair, prime minister of Britland, this perception of Bush as a philistine, an uncultivated man, and basically an idiot in charge of the worlds most powerful country and military force, has been incredibly damaging for America's reputation abroad, I have to be honest about that, its a shame because its unnecessary and also because its in many ways just a media perception thing based on the hokey "apple pie" mannerisms, as well as the very unilateral, and not very diplomatic style of the Bush presidency, which might appeal to certain American voters, which is fair enough, but it drives us tricky, devious foreigners up the wall.

Clinton was much cleverer, because he had worked out the basic idea of diplomacy which was to at least appear to be nice to the foreigners, and tell them what they want to hear, while at the same time doing whatever it was he saw fit himself, its a pretty basic thing in foreign relations, which Mr Bush never really seemed to grasp, (along with the names of the people he was dealing with, or the names of their countries (again, another elementary mistake)). I guess when it comes down to it, the real reason why Mr Bush will be remembered is Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. Obviously September 11th changed the nature of his time in office as it would any president, and not all the decisions made were bad, the initial invasion of Afganistan was the correct thing to do in my opinion, though it now requires more attention once more because it has been ignored. But Iraq has been an unmitigated and totally unnecessary disaster, just like many many people predicted and tried to warn about, (who were ignored and actually abused for opposing it (i.e. The French)), and now the miltary and political position after 4 years, hundreds of thousands of lives, and half a trillion dollars, is "damned if you stay, damned if you leave", (at best) what an awful legacy for any president to leave his country burdened with.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:11 am

The answr is no to the Bush question...............Can you ask another more important question..............CAN YOU THINK OF ONE?