What do you think of Mr. Bush Now?

In the same press conference he was asked about when we would get out of Iraq and he said that as long as he was President, we wouldn't leave.

What ever happened to listening to the General's and the Iraqi government as to when we could leave?



Of course, we ALL know that we will start to pull out in the summer of 2007.. Making a good case for the Republicans...


Jamie

 

I fear that modern America is ready for a traitor to lead us.

His name?

That traitor's name is anti-christ. It is so sad that our country has become ready to be lead by evil men.

Did you read some one say that he is not protecting us from terrorists?

Where were they on September the 11th? Picking up their mark?

 

Of course he did.

He has never claimed that Iraq was involved in the 911 attacks.

 

You might want to check on that. Perhaps he hasn't specifically said that Iraq was involved in 9-11, but he deceitfully and deliberately led the American people to believe there was a connection, otherwise he never would have had the support to go into Iraq. He lied about their WMD's, and their intention of using them against the US. Therefore, he should be impeached.

Things are to partisan for that to happen now. The Democratic majority that will be elected to Congress in November will fall far short of the 2/3 needed to remove from office, though they might actually vote to impeach. Partisanship wasn't quite so in vogue when Richard Nixon knew there were enough principled people in Congress to throw his rear out of the White House, so he resigned before it could happen.

 

Again no matter how many times you say it there were wmds.

 

No checking necessary.

If you believe otherwise, please provide the pertinent quote. Implications are often in the mind of the hearer.

 

Vera, what do you think regarding your original question? I think enough people have chimed in now that you could tell us without influencing the discussion.

 

I think the most amazing thing about all this is that we expect one man, the President, to do everything for us, instead of us actively participating in making our system work. We shoot the messenger, so to speak. How many times since 9-11 have you written a letter to the editor, protested at a public meeting, called for the recall of a public official, organized a bloc of voters to light a fire under your elected representative, served on an Ethics and Religious Liberty Committee, stood on the courthouse steps decrying these insane rulings, the burning of the flag, pornography, crime in the streets? Could you, if elected Captain of your neighborhood watch group, control all the crime in the neighborhood? Put a stop to speeders? Go ahead, grab your flashlight, get out there and perfectly control your neighborhood. How long will it be before the couch potatos tell you you aren't doing it right? "W" can't do it all, folks, and there are 150 other countries out there wishing the USA would go to hell. Wouldn't that be wonderful!

The other thing is this oft-repeated "Bush lied," or "It's all about oil." That's a crock, you know it's a crock, yet you keep repeating it. I seem to recall every country in the U.N. instructing Iraq to get rid of its WMDs. If Bush "lied," then Tony Blair and the leaders of every western nation lied, along with all the nations in the U.N. Lied? No. Faulty intelligence? Maybe. WMDs moved out of Iraq by Russia, into Syria and the Bekaa Valley? Most likely. Many of those WMDs had Russian nomenclatures. One of the highest officials in Sadam's government admitted the same. I seem to recall that it has been the policy of every president since Truman to protect Middle Eastern oil. Hello? Was that the only item on the administration's agenda? Hellno?

Impeach Bush? For what? For preventing experimentation with human embryos? For faith-based initiatives? For praying? For having prayer meetings in the White House? For preventing abortions at federal installations? For seeking a way to peace in the Middle East? Is every plan in war time a perfect plan? Ask those in the graves all across Europe and the islands between the USA and Japan, in all the plots we've left our own in. Ask those in our own Civil War. How many of you are going to hold the CEO of the federal highway authority responsible for 40,000 highway deaths annually? How many of you have threatened the job of the governor in your state for the deaths of law enforcement officers?

Are we up to the eyeballs of our great-great grandchildren in our national debt? Yes! Did Bush put those programs in place all by himself? I seem to recall 435 reps and 100 senators "out there" with some role to play. Are court rulings a national disgrace? Yes! Does Bush make those rulings?

We even criticize the way he walks, the way he swings his arms, the way he talks, when probably 30% of the posters in these forums can't spell, can't put two thoughts together that will add up to a conclusion!

Climb down off your high horse, get down on your knees, and pray for the man! Light a fire under your Congresspersons! Get involved in Town Hall meetings! Publicly support, go on record, for pro-life, for one man one woman marriages, for Biblical morals. Realize how difficult it is for even two people to agree in these forums. Bush has to try to get the world to agree!

 

You missed Lyndon Baines Johnson and Jimmy Carter.

 

In terms of what they actually accomplished in the White House, Johnson and Carter did a better job than any Republican since Eisenhower, including Reagan, Nixon and of course, the two Bushes.

 

Yes, I can tell you exactly what Johnson did, he escalated a war in Vietnam based on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that never happened that sent 58,000 Americans to their death for no reason.

Yes, I can tell you what Carter did. Besides being totally inept at leadership, he had home mortgages at 21% with inflation at 18%. He was totally paralyzed to do anything about the American hostages taken by Iran. (which were released the day Reagan took office).

Yes, I remember both quite well, and lived the first one.

 

The only thing I remember positive about Carter's presidency was the peace accords with Began (sp?) and Sadat.

 

The President of the US has little to do with home mortgages or inflation. It was the banks and financial institutions that had mortgages at 21%, that and a prosperous economy with no government debt, which Reagan ruined. The hostages were indeed released the day Reagan took office, but it was the Carter administration that negotiated the release, that's a matter of government record. Reagan was good at taking credit for a lot of things he had nothing to do with, including that. Of course, his supporters forget the mess he made in Central America, backing the Contras and then trying to cover up the scandal. The fact that a fundamentalist Islamic Ayatollah liked Reagan and hated Carter sure says a lot, especially in light of Iran's support of Hezbollah today, doesn't it?

The escalation of the War in Vietnam was, at the time Johnson undertook to do so, a popular move, supported by the Republicans as well as Democrats in Congress.

Johnson was also responsible for major expansions of the space program, major developments in Civil Rights legislation opposed by Republicans, and an immigration quota system that Reagan bypassed and both Bushes have completely ignored in allowing 11 million illegal immigrants to pour into this country.

Carter negotiated the Camp David accords, bringing hostilities to an end between Egypt and Israel, a peace agreement that, unlike the efforts of Condi Rice and Bush, is still holding, even under the precarious situation in the Middle East.

 

Didn't you ever wonder about the timing of the hostages release? In exchange for arms sales to Iran, Reagan got a deal to delay the release until after the election.

 

Saturn

I remember your version of the hostage non-negotiation . . . Guess Orwell was right and double speak re-writes history daily.

Next the terrorists that bombed NY, will be from a different part of the world . . . and religious background . . .

 

I tend to agree with this assessment. But I get concerned when people seem to identify too closely or get too attached or too upset with presidents.

JFK was the first president that I was aware of. He has gotten a pass because of his assassination. But, he made some significant mistakes (e. g., the Bay of Pigs).

LBJ has some parallels with George W. Bush. LBJ seemed to think that he could, through acts of personal will or political influence, accomplish all the things he set out to do.

Richard Nixon is hard to figure out. He is similar to a former governor of Tennessee, Ray Blanton. Both had very successful records only to be overshadowed by the acts that eventually drove them from office. Nixon resigned over Watergate. Blanton had a pardons and paroles scandal that prompted the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House (both Democrats) to inaugurate the Republican governor-elect early in the dead of night.

Gerald Ford was the victim of his pardon for Nixon. It overshadows any of the good things he did.

Jimmy Carter has been castigated pretty severely in another recent thread on this forum. He had a difficult time as president because of the circumstances he had to deal with. I'm not sure that anyone from either party could have done much better. Carter has made his mark since his presidency. I volunteer regularly for our local Habitat for Humanity affiliate. His promotion of Habitat worldwide has had great results.

Ronald Reagan did his best work in lifting the spirits of Americans. I personally know one man whose business was moving toward bankrupcy until the 1980 election. By Christmas he had enough work to turn it around and keep it going until he retired.

George H. W. Bush had a similar experience to Ford. His good work was lost amid the flap over his tax increase.

Bill Clinton is the same. He managed to get us a budget surplus, but it was eclipsed by his "extra-curricular activity."

George W. Bush reminds me of the old line, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts." He seems to have come into office with an agenda of things he wanted to accomplish, and he is going to work his agenda, no matter what the consequences, or complications (e. g., 9/11).

But the thing I find particularly mystifying is the reaction that several of these presidents received regarding their religion. Carter's Southern Baptist religion was ridiculed in spite of his frank talk about religious issues and his long history of participation in his local church in Plains. Reagan was given almost pope-like status eventhough most of his religious statements could be better characterized as civil religion. Bush seems to fall somewhere between Carter and Reagan. Bush talks more personally about his faith like Carter, but it also appears that he uses his faith in service to his agenda.

I don't thnk that any of these men, in their performance as president, can be said to be Christian. The requirements of the office force the holder to bend their faith to fit those requirements whether they want to or not. The real danger arises when the president begins characterizing his program as Christian. That may be the one reason that Carter had so much trouble. He was trying to be a Christian in a job that would not tolerate a Christian.

Tim Reynolds

 

The only post I can say a hearty Amen to!!!

 

Add my amen! And a point - the congress has upped their pay how many times?