|Can you believe what's been said about the President?||moneyman|
Aug 20, 2003 7:16 AM
|People have said that he's botched the war by putting the wrong people in charge and planning the wrong strategies. He has antagonized Congress and has run an administration of misfits and thieves. He has stifled civil rights. He's been called a "political coward," a "butcher," an "imbecile," a "tyrant." He's been said to be "weak," "no education," "shallow, dazed and utterly foolish."
He has been denounced in private letters and many newspapers deplore him. One of his best friends has written "I am personally attached to the President and have tried to make him respectable, although I have never been able to persuade myself that he was big enough for the position. Still, I thought he might get through, as many a boy has got through college, without disgrace, and without knowledge; but I fear he is a failure."
Personally, I find it deplorable. What do you think?
|re: Can you believe what's been said about the President?||Jon Billheimer|
Aug 20, 2003 7:21 AM
|Where there's smoke there's fire. Perhaps all these comments should tell you something? Personally, I'd go for the "shallow, dazed, and utterly foolish."|
|Jon I can't believe you said that||Live Steam|
Aug 20, 2003 8:50 AM
|"Where there's smoke there's fire."
So I guess all the Clinton smoke really led to fire? I know, I know. I always bring up Clinton. Hey, those same words you just used were shot down by Clinton apologist and they slandered everyone who would think such. I say let the chips fall where they may. See yall in '04!
|Steam, you need therapy.||Jon Billheimer|
Aug 20, 2003 9:07 AM
|Get over it! This is about Bush, not Clinton. Clinton's over and done with, although you seem deeply wounded by his term in office:)- Deal with the present liar in the oval office. The last one has been dealt with.|
Aug 20, 2003 9:17 AM
|the way I remember it, other than a BJ, Clinton was clean - I suppose all the smoke you are referring to is from the vitriol and wasted tax money of the neo-con witch hunt
so yes all the smoke did lead to fire - a neo-con fire
it's no fun whooping up on simple minded folk - I'm going home
Aug 20, 2003 1:43 PM
Clinton wasn't exactly "clean" - more like the Teflon President, consistently involved with messy things, but nothing quite criminal...
|Refresh our memories.||czardonic|
Aug 20, 2003 1:53 PM
|I for one am laboring under the (mis?)apprehension that Whitewater and the various "Gates" of the Clintion administration proved nothing other than the lengths and expenses that the GOP and its sleazy operators would go to to smear Clinton.|
|quite - care to expand TJ? - nm||MJ|
Aug 21, 2003 12:28 AM
|Oh yeah, that was nothing,||TJeanloz|
Aug 21, 2003 5:24 AM
|Doesn't this meet the "where there's smoke, there's fire" threshold of above. It's not like any Clinton associates spent time in prison for fraud or anything - oh, wait, they did.
But he, as usual, had no knowledge of any of it. Blessed as he was with a selective and technical memory.
I'm not defending George Bush, but to put Clinton out as some white-as-snow politician is ridiculous.
|he's either guilty or not||MJ|
Aug 21, 2003 5:46 AM
|he was found not - it looks like the smoke and fire concerned had to do with the GOP spinning their wheels - that's how the Clinton witch hunt should be viewed...|
|No he wasn't||TJeanloz|
Aug 21, 2003 6:12 AM
|He was never put on trial for anything.
Bush hasn't been found guilty of anything either.
Can we start calling this the Bush witch hunt?
|sure. where's our independent counsel and $50 million? nm||rufus|
Aug 21, 2003 7:38 AM
|Find what deplorable? nm||filtersweep|
Aug 20, 2003 7:22 AM
|His policies. nm||Spoiler|
Aug 20, 2003 8:25 AM
|I agree with most of it.........||Len J|
Aug 20, 2003 7:26 AM
|with the exception of the name calling.
He's antagonized congress, got us into an unnecessary war, surronded himself with myopic zealots, who have manipulated data to their own advantage & created an environment where I trust this administration less than any since I've been paying attention (30 yrs or so).
What is deplorable about it? I can see where others may not agree with any or all of it, but that doesn't make it deplorablle.
|I believe most of it....||Tri_Rich|
Aug 20, 2003 7:31 AM
|Although I think that the people surrounding the president deserve more of the blame than he does.
Also I think the potential loss of Colin Powell to retirement is a particularly scary thought.
|harry said it best||mohair_chair|
Aug 20, 2003 7:35 AM
|Harry S. Truman once said "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Do you remember anything they said about Clinton? What about Mrs. Clinton? Where were you then? Seems like Bush is getting off easy in comparison.
Some people will always criticize and belittle the President, whoever currently holds the job. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and sometimes they are right. The President is not a King and he's not a God. We can think and say of him whatever we like.
By the way, HST also had a sign on his desk that said: "the buck stops here."
|And he's still the best Candidate in the 2004 elections...(nm)||TJeanloz|
Aug 20, 2003 7:40 AM
|sad isn't it? (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Aug 20, 2003 7:47 AM
|Yes it is (nm)||TJeanloz|
Aug 20, 2003 7:59 AM
|sounds like an accurate assessment to me ;) (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Aug 20, 2003 7:42 AM
|It's not deplorable, its politics.||MXL02|
Aug 20, 2003 7:49 AM
|The main reason we went into Iraq was to establish the power initiative established during the Reagan/Bush Sr. regime, and lost during the Clinton years. In Somalia, we showed weakness by leaving after losing some tough but minor battles, making Bin Laden and other extremists start believing that the US had no backbone and could be thrown out of the region. The Bush team is trying to reestablish this military strength initiative, with belief that by doing so, it will help diminish terrorism, as occurred after Reagan bombed Libya/Qaddafi. It will be tough going because the extremists, as shown yesterday, will try to terrorize us out of our resolve, believing they can repeat their success in Somalia. Dubya needs the leadership to help the US maintain it's resolve. Will he, Can he do this?
By the way, attacks like this are not new to a wartime president...same thing happened to Lincoln early in the Civil War, during the time the Union suffered so many defeats.
Personally, I voted for Dubya and understand what he is trying to accomplish...but I am joining the growing list of skeptics because I haven't seen enough leadership out of the man. Things in the Middle East seem to be getting worse and worse....what's his plan? Cmon, George...talk to us!
|re: Can you believe what's been said about the President?||Duane Gran|
Aug 20, 2003 7:56 AM
|I don't like how people resort to name calling, but the Presidency is a oft-criticized position. I'm sure that Bush is smarter and more capable of leadership than 99% of the people out there, but then the office of the President calls for very unique individual. Although I agree with many things Bush does, he deserves a good helping of the criticism on his policies. Calling him uneducated, weak or foolish says more about the critic than the President.|
Aug 20, 2003 9:30 AM
|"I'm sure that Bush is smarter and more capable of leadership than 99% of the people out there"
In a population of 288 Million Americans, That still leaves 2.88 Million people more qualified for the position. (I wouldn't put him anywhere near the 99th percentile anyways)
|I was more worried when he had 75% approval||Continental|
Aug 20, 2003 8:02 AM
|Every President in the history of the United States has been viciously attacked. When a President is so popular that the opposition is afraid to attack him, the power of the Executive branch is virtually unchecked. That's a bad thing. I think that this was the case after Sept. 11. I voted for Bush and will likely vote for him again, unless the Democrats can find a pro-business, pro-defense, tofu- eating, bicycle-riding atheist with a chance to win.|
|Complaining about a politician, who'd a thunk it?||Turtleherder|
Aug 20, 2003 8:08 AM
|Wow, exercise of your free speech rights? That's down right unamerican!|
|I believe it, welcome it and think it's long overdue.||Silverback|
Aug 20, 2003 8:23 AM
|Even if I disagreed with it, which I don't, I'd still welcome it. Criticism of public officials is one of the bedrock rights of our society. Where were all you respecters-of-the-office when Bill Clinton was being hammered for far less serious offenses?|
|who is the "best friend" that made the last statement?(nm)||gregario|
Aug 20, 2003 8:36 AM
|BTW - I forgot to mention||moneyman|
Aug 20, 2003 9:19 AM
|The President referred to was a Republican, but it's not Bush. He was the 16th President and the year was 1864. It was Abraham Lincoln.
|probably right about him as well (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Aug 20, 2003 9:27 AM
|And to call Bush 1/10th the President that Lincoln was. . .||czardonic|
Aug 20, 2003 9:36 AM
|. . .would be a worse insult to Lincoln than anything written about him in his time.|
Aug 20, 2003 1:58 PM
|And it would be unfair to do so, just as it is unfair to condemn Bush to the slag heap of history as a bungling idiot while he is in the middle of his first term. History will tell what kind of president Bush is/was. We won't really know for some time, much like Lincoln's contemporaries didn't know in 1864.
|I agree that Bush gets some unfair criticism, but I disagree. .||czardonic|
Aug 20, 2003 2:13 PM
|. . .with your premise that we can not judge a President's administration until it is long out of office. We can know quite well what kind of leader Bush, what his policy priorities are, how effective he is in acheiving those that can be achieved within his term and whether that is the kind of President we want in office.
What we won't know for some time is whether his presidency was effective in advancing goals that are greater in scope than his term.
|I disagree. . sort of||moneyman|
Aug 20, 2003 2:52 PM
|One of the points of my post was that it is nearly impossible to make an accurate judgment of the success or failure of an administration until it is a past administration. That was certainly the case with Lincoln, who, in addition to being called those things mentioned previously and more, almost lost the election of 1864 to George McClellan, the general he fired because he, McClellan, wouldn't fight. Had Lincoln lost, it was quite probable that the Democrats would have sued for peace with the Confederacy, capitulating to their demands for a separate country. Instead, he won, saved the Union, and was arguably the greatest President in the history of the US. I would never contend that the same path is predestined for GWB, but we just don't know how things will turn out until they have actually turned out.
Our views, both favorable and unfavorable, are obscured by the veil of prejudice. We really don't know now, nor will we know for some time, what kind of leader Bush is/was, or as you say, how effective he was "in advancing goals that are greater in scope than his term."
|But we can still judge his stated goals and priorities. (nm)||czardonic|
Aug 20, 2003 3:36 PM
|And people still believe that was about slavery...NM||Tri_Rich|
Aug 20, 2003 9:56 AM
|We have a long history of following blindly. You would think we would learn to think more critically.|
|re: Look at the products of this adminstration||jrm|
Aug 20, 2003 2:00 PM
|Can you honestly say that he's done well, and say it without blaming the previous adminstration or the democratic party? His doings are the doings of the republican party not anyone else, yet they blame everyone else and take no responsiblity. Hows that for competence.|| |