George W. Bush Sewage Plant

[knapplc]

And that's not even touching on the debacle of the weakened dollar and massive inflation on oil prices.

This is not defending Bush, but I think it is funny how people think the president is responsible for policy and laws regarding the economy. That is congresses job, and the Dems have been in power in congress for the last 4 years. Yes, the president can veto things, but if you want laws passed to help you it is congresses job and they have been horrible.

Surely you're not saying that the president has no influence on the economy? Bush's economic policies have been largely beneficial to only the top 1% of the population, and jobs, GDP, income and consumption are all down under his administration compared to the previous 50 years (average). That can most certainly be laid front and center on his doorstep. I'm not giving congress a pass here, but this is a thread talking about the shortcomings of Bush, not the congress.

For certain the "new" congress controlled by the Democrats has been guilty of absentia, for political gain if you ask me (using their idleness to make Bush look even worse, as if he needs the help), and that inaction has allowed these doldrums to continue.

So you can think it's funny all you want, but Bush is certainly not able to claim that he has nothing to do with the economy's current woes. Far from it.

[dream_017]

His biggest mistake was the initiation of the war in Iraq. Whether this mistake was due to faulty intelligence or a personal vendetta is irrelevant. The responsibility lies with him; he should have never taken us into there. However, I don't believe that the calamity that ensued afterwards should be a black mark against him. The unforeseen difficulties that we faced forced us to stay there. In fact, they are still forcing us to remain in Iraq. You can call Bush a catalyst, but don't say that he should've seen this coming. Remember, only hindsight is 20/20.

You gotta admit, that's a pretty HUGE mistake to make, though.

Exactly

[Karoz]

His biggest mistake was the initiation of the war in Iraq. Whether this mistake was due to faulty intelligence or a personal vendetta is irrelevant. The responsibility lies with him; he should have never taken us into there. However, I don't believe that the calamity that ensued afterwards should be a black mark against him. The unforeseen difficulties that we faced forced us to stay there. In fact, they are still forcing us to remain in Iraq. You can call Bush a catalyst, but don't say that he should've seen this coming. Remember, only hindsight is 20/20.

You gotta admit, that's a pretty HUGE mistake to make, though. It's amazing to think that we would go to war on such flimsy, partially fabricated intelligence. The onus for that mistake has to fall at Bush's feet, and no other person. That's why he's getting bashed so much..

You're right that the war itself lies at his feet, which I fully admit.

Right now, the war is perceived as being somewhat of a quagmire, which is a horrendous thing for any military. That causes people to bash Bush a great deal more, and the mistake seemingly swells to a nightmarish proportion. Should it, though? Directly blaming him for the initiation is fine, but should he also be directly blamed for unforeseen events?

Would the war be as big of a deal if it had gone as expected? Bush would still be blamed for taking us into war for unjustifiable reasons, but would the criticism be as harsh? I don't believe that it would.

Basically, is the majority of the blame for initiating the war, or is the majority of his persecution attributable to his lack of hindsight?

[knapplc]

The reason I am still angry at Bush for this war is that he and his advisers exhibited a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture over there, and they refuse to get wise even five years later. The people over there have zero interest in Western democracy, but we seem to still be operating under the impression that they're part of those huddled masses, yearning to be free. They aren't. They have their own culture and they're quite happy in it.

[Karoz]

The reason I am still angry at Bush for this war is that he and his advisers exhibited a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture over there, and they refuse to get wise even five years later. The people over there have zero interest in Western democracy, but we seem to still be operating under the impression that they're part of those huddled masses, yearning to be free. They aren't. They have their own culture and they're quite happy in it.

To be fair, the majority of congress shared this misunderstanding. Perhaps we should stop trying to force democracy on the Iraqis. They have a reasonably stable government, and we should allow it to develop naturally.

However, even if we were to drop this major task, we would still have to remain in Iraq. Due to Al Qaeda's widespread occupation of the country, the war has become vital to the protection of our interests. I don't believe that the Iraqi Government is strong enough to hold its own against Al Qaeda.

For the sake of the Iraqi Government and perhaps the future of our own, it's imperative that we stay there. We don't have to help it develop democracy, but we do have to keep it from falling.

[aaawall91]

Thank god some people spoke up.

I agree with Karoz, there is no need to continue this "war" for 100 years, to simply occupy (like we do Germany, ect) to prevent a complete failure in their government would be enough.

And yes it can be blamed on Bush for taking us into Iraq, but intelligence pointed to it, and let's be honest there wasn't a huge percent of the population against it.

and yes people are so opinionated on Bush and some claim he is the worst president ever...but at the same time it seems everything that we could once believe in in this country is going down the drain...NFL has players arrested weekly, Baseball/Cycling/Olympics has Doping, ect ect. Now there have been problems forever in these respective areas and forever will be but people are far more critical because of the air time all this bad press generates because people love to hear stuff get ripped. Lord knows people would change the channel if people we're talking about how great Bush has been.

[deerayfan072]

And that's not even touching on the debacle of the weakened dollar and massive inflation on oil prices.

This is not defending Bush, but I think it is funny how people think the president is responsible for policy and laws regarding the economy. That is congresses job, and the Dems have been in power in congress for the last 4 years. Yes, the president can veto things, but if you want laws passed to help you it is congresses job and they have been horrible.

Surely you're not saying that the president has no influence on the economy? Bush's economic policies have been largely beneficial to only the top 1% of the population, and jobs, GDP, income and consumption are all down under his administration compared to the previous 50 years (average). That can most certainly be laid front and center on his doorstep. I'm not giving congress a pass here, but this is a thread talking about the shortcomings of Bush, not the congress.

For certain the "new" congress controlled by the Democrats has been guilty of absentia, for political gain if you ask me (using their idleness to make Bush look even worse, as if he needs the help), and that inaction has allowed these doldrums to continue.

So you can think it's funny all you want, but Bush is certainly not able to claim that he has nothing to do with the economy's current woes. Far from it.

I am not saying NO influence, but minimal compared to Congress IMO. I understand it is talking about his shortcomings, but my point was to refute that his shortcomings are all his fault.

[RiffRaff]

nipples!

haha hahaha, you said, "nipples".

Is that Jenifer Aniston?

[Metroid]

nipples!

haha hahaha, you said, "nipples".

Is that Jenifer Aniston?

I like nipples.

Jennifer Aniston? You mean in my sig? Close but no it's Angelina Jolie.

[houstonherdfan]

well I agree Bush has sucked and I am a republican. But for those of you who are old enough to remember, Carter was worse. Nice guy just like I think Bush is, but niehter were/are a positive force as a President.