If you think Bush is a good president, please state why

Remove all ads!

Sorry for ramblin'. I guess to redirect back to the topic, George W. Bush is a good president and continues to have my support because, for one reason, he demonstrated leadership in a time of crisis, leadership that this nation needed. I can picture no other candidate for the office that could have done a better job.

 

Then that was the date that Bush became responsible as national leader and Commander and Chief. Just wanted to be sure that we could agree on that.

 

Three brief replies...

Ragusa: At last I have astounded you! Oh, wait, it's not my arguments that astounded you, but my naviete. I'm more used to getting the Kissingerian "rational cynical villain" description, so the thought of being perceived as naive is actually quite flattering!

Perhaps I'm mirror-imaging, but I suspect that maybe you're the one being a trifle naive (and I mean that in the most flattering way). The US has been interfering/intervening globally for a century, and many places have more reason to be angry with the US. Do we have Puerto Rican suicide bombers bitter about the Spanish-American War? Or Filipino snipers angry about a colonial legacy? Or Thai assassins upset that we oppose the Golden Triangle drug trade and human trafficking? Maybe disgruntled ex-Soviets embittered by their Cold War loss? Or Afrikaaner Boer berzerkers upset that we opposed apartheid? Or Mexicans angry that we still haven't given back California?

Again - isn't it possible that there's something qualitatively different in the Islamic terroristic reaction? And if it is qualitatively different, isn't it possible that Bush's foreign policy is exactly what we need to deal with the problem?

As for picking sides, US aid to Israel does keep Israel from getting wiped off the map - again, I don't want to get into an argument about whether or not Israel justly ought to be wiped off the map. But I should point out that not only did Israel's neighbors play the same game, mustering materiel from their Soviet patron, but Egypt remains the second-largest recipient of direct American aid (spent on American materiel), and it would be - dare I say - naive to suppose that the Israeli-Arab conflict is one where America arbitrarily chose sides.

But you're right, Ragusa - the US "can't be neutral in the middle east", or anywhere, for that matter. The US will always be pro-US.

And incidentally, Ragusa, per Bush's faith - are you seriously suggesting that Bush's Christian psychological makeup is identical to that of the Islamic suicide bomber, except on a world-destroying nuclear scale?!?

Chandos: You're totally right - Bush's responsibility began at the inauguration. It's wrong to blame Clinton for the 9/11 attacks, and it's wrong to suppose that Clinton could've done much of anything (save invade Afghanistan and Iraq) to stop them. The buck does indeed stop with Bush.

Death Rabbit: Some of the hounds have already leapt ahead - why not release the rest of the pack? I'm sure I've already proven your point a dozen times over, and it doesn't look like anyone else is going to jump in to rescue me. Besides, we're wandering far afield from the original topic. Take your best shot, and invite the rest to do the same.

In the words of our blindly fanatical, armageddon-worshipping, dumb-as-a-brick, and yet inexplicably successful president - "Bring 'em on!".

 

Grey,
To clarify this: I don't discuss the depth or quality of Bush's faith, I only like to stress, therefor my stark examples, that faith per se isn't a quality, and that it in fact can be a problem - at least in a secular and rational world.

more on PM ... in order to prevent getting too much ...

 

As most people know I am not a big fan of Bush or his administration but I found out today that there is one thing I like about him/it. The USADA that finally has started to deal with American doping and cheating. I really dont know from how high the orders to start the purge comes but it comes from the White House according to my sources (Swedish newspaper, not really sure how credibly but I see no reason to question it). The US have had a long history of refusing to deal with its own doping and I think it is highly commendable that they finally have start doing do. Even if it may hurt in the short run.

 

Actually that has nothing to do with the administration at all. Someone who worked closely with atheletes found out about a new steriod that had been tailor made to be undetectable with the current tests. He called the agency and sent them a sample which they spent 3 months figuring out how it worked and developed a test for it. Thats how they caught so many. Bush and his guys had nothing to do with that. Neither did any democrats, just an agency getting tipped off and doing thier jobs.

 

I don't exactly remember who posted that, but someone stressed Bush's modesty. That Bush admitted not to know so much, and that it requires greatness to do so. Well, if you don't have a choice but to admit ... that's rather easy.

Richard Perle said in an interview with Vanity Fair about Bush:

For a change we should this time believe the Prince of Darkness. 'Greatness' aside, the really scary thing is the question who filled that vacuum of ignorance. Well, Perle, for instance, and Wolfowitz ... "You couln't ask for a better tool" comes to my mind.

Asking the about worst warmongers in Washington about Middle East history and how to do policy in the Middle East should provide answers and advice as objective and neutral ... as when asking Dr. Mengele about genetics, Pat Robertson about the State Department or maybe Mulla Omar about America.

With these implications, I would't see this as a quality.

 

I know it happened as you said it happened Jschild, but the agency that handled all those things is a new one supposedly created by this administration.

 

Well i could not stop myself any longer. And allthough now i won't go in depth i want to point out two things first

Allthough you may disagree i have a strong feeling from those elections in USA (at least the way i perceived what happened in USA during the elections from my local media, because i was in the army at that time) that Bush won not because he was qualified in terms of skills and knowledge, but because he was more appealling and his name was heavier than Gores . If i remember correctly in one interview he gave before the elections he was asked the names and the position on the map of Afghanistan and he could not answer (Later he learned this by bombing them). Anyway all i want to say is that he was a convenient frontman for some other guys who wanted to promote their goals.
And sorry but isn't it true that USA has now a larger national debt than ever before and that the whole Iraq occupation issue will burden more the USA economy. I don't think that this is a good economical planning IMHO.

 

I agree that the attempt to exploit Bush's ignorance against him was a blunder, it actually caused sympathy for Bush, as "one of us" ... at least for those who, just like him, weren't able to point af-ghanys-than on the map (while probably able to tell you all superball results of the last century by heart) and who wanted to teach those smug eastcoast know-alls a lesson.
That was clearly a shot in the foot for Gore ... quite peculiar, as that trick could possibly only fail in America.

I don't quite know what you're referring to in the last three lines though. The US deficit is huge, and that is a reason for concern. Some people see it as an attempt to trainwreck the budged to have a substantial reason to cut social services, while others see it just as megalomania. I actually can't decide.
Whatever, it is a thing future generations will have to pay for, because a deficit is lent - and the donors will insist on their profit. It's like any other credit there.

[ October 24, 2003, 23:50: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Hm, it isn't about Bush, but about Donald Rumsfeld. I think he has plenty of humour and his remarks are very witty and funny.

 

I think that there was probably an equal number of voters who found Gore to be an idiot, with all the charisma of a wet rag. Not saying charisma is a requirement for the Presidency, it just helps get votes in this modern era. I don't think that either man stands forth as a scholar, but I do think that Bush has surrounded him with a somewhat higher caliber of staff member and cabinet (when compared to the Clinton/Gore Administration). When you look at the President of the United States you see a solitary man who in reality is very much the sum of the people whom they closely surround themselves with.

 

Is that why Gore is teaching at Columbia? And why Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar? But those are probably "liberal institutions," and don't count. Right.

http://www.rhodesscholar.org/

What is your idea of a scholar, HS? Someone who knows how to BBQ?

[ October 25, 2003, 06:56: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandros (I hate to guess what "the red" means), you have demonstrated yet again the ability to pull a minor point out of a statement I have made, while ignoring the larger truth it supports. I make no claims against the education of any of the men in question, only the relative intelligence of them, and how that intelligence was perceived by the voters.

One of the greatest signs of intelligence (or is it widsom...we'll have to check the character creation attribute guide) is to be aware of your own limitations. Both Clinton and Gore may well have higher IQ's than Bush, but if Bush surrounds himself with competent aids and advisors he is ahead in the long run. What it comes down to is that Intelligence in and of itself is not that critical to being a succesful President, sometimes too much self awareness can be a detriment.

The kind of intelligence possesed by George W. Bush translates far more effectively into leadership, which in my opinion is one of the key requirements of a president. I never felt LED by Bill Clinton, more like "along for the ride".

Further, I have no grudge against either Columbia University or Oxford. Fine Universities with wonderful tradition. I do interpret Al Gore teaching at Columbia a little like the washed up jock providing color commentary for a sports broadcast. Ah well, back to the fray! I look forward to your next post.

edit: sorry about "the red" remark. I thought it was funny at the time. I do think that someone who claims to be a "scholar" and doesn't know how to BBQ, don't know JACK!

 

HS - The spirit of the thread is not for those of us who think Shrub is worthless, but for those (very few) of you who think he has done a good job. I don't feel that I am violationg that spirit by defending those whom you attack rather than promote. Hence, I have put up a defense for the previous adminstration. You must admit, you don't seem to be able to promote Shrub without attacking Clinton/Gore. I see a pattern developing.

And no need to apologize, HS, no offense was taken. You seem like a gentleman and nice enough guy, even though it appears you have been reading way too much Ann Culter.

[ October 26, 2003, 04:49: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

No, Chandros, but I'm a huge Rush Limbaugh fan! If you play tapes of his shows backwards while you're high on Percocet, I swear you can hear the voice of God

As far as the topic of Bush being a "good" President, I think that Death Rabbit has cast his net into deep waters and is only waiting to pull in whoever bites. I have already mentioned his leadership, particularly in wake of the 9/11 attacks. As yet no Bush detractor has commented on that. I think that following the attacks he demonstrated strength and resolve which was vital to the well being of our nation. One of the terrorists objectives was to create a deep economic crisis that would severely handicap the US ability to continue to be a dominant force in the world. To a degree, they were successful. We all know people who, over the last 2 years, have lost their jobs or suffered work slowdowns. The terrorist objective was not to kill Americans, but to cripple our economy. They almost pulled it off. I attribute the sense of national pride that we all felt, the coming together as a nation, and the recovery that has happened far more quickly than anyone could have anticipated to George W. Bush and his Administration.

On a side note for additonal fodder, I know that on a personal level his tax cut and tax credit have been a benefit to me. They worked, they made sense, and I did what the Conservative economists wanted, and re-invested in the economy. I am not a wealthy American, indeed probably deeply entrenched in the middle class, but the tax plan help me...and I paid a lot of tax to begin with.

Strangely...I have several disagreements with the Bush presidency, but they would have little pertinence to this thread, as they are all items that I feel he is too LIBERAL on.

 

And all this time I thought Shurb had accomplished all that single-handedly.

 

When you say "Shurb" do you mean "Shrub"? One must be very careful where we place "r's" when typing messages .

 

Lol, HS - Darn! Must have been that round of golf I watched. But I needed the sleep.