Holy Cows: George W Bush - buffoon or great leader?

[doggedlyright]

The President of the USA has very little control over the public purse. That control is in the Senate and Congress. The blame for over spending lies in those houses. If the President had line item veto, then the practice of boon doggle spending in the congressional districts would be reduced significantly.

You seem to think that Bush has been fiscally conservative. See my post above. He gave us the first new entitlement program in a decade, expanded the Dept. of Education with Sen. Kennedy..... he has a veto pen and he has not seen fit to use it with all the excesses of congress. Indeed, he has encouraged such excesses.

When did I say or suggest he was fiscally conservative?

You have failed to read my post. The POUS does not have line item veto. If he did have that constitutional right, then the excesses of bring back the goodies to the congressional districts would be curtailed significantly.

Look, I understand you believe Bush is an idiot. I do not feel that way at all. I am not suggesting that he was the best President ever, but given the times and the events of the world during his term of office, he was the man for the job and he has done it well.

At least he has not disrespected the Office of the Presidency and seek BJ's in the washrooms and did not but over night stays in the WH out to the highest bidders.

[Red Green]

The President of the USA has very little control over the public purse. That control is in the Senate and Congress. The blame for over spending lies in those houses. If the President had line item veto, then the practice of boon doggle spending in the congressional districts would be reduced significantly.

You seem to think that Bush has been fiscally conservative. See my post above. He gave us the first new entitlement program in a decade, expanded the Dept. of Education with Sen. Kennedy..... he has a veto pen and he has not seen fit to use it with all the excesses of congress. Indeed, he has encouraged such excesses.

When did I say or suggest he was fiscally conservative?

You have failed to read my post. The POUS does not have line item veto. If he did have that constitutional right, then the excesses of bring back the goodies to the congressional districts would be curtailed significantly.

Look, I understand you believe Bush is an idiot. I do not feel that way at all. I am not suggesting that he was the best President ever, but given the times and the events of the world during his term of office, he was the man for the job and he has done it well.

At least he has not disrespected the Office of the Presidency and seek BJ's in the washrooms and did not but over night stays in the WH out to the highest bidders.

He's not fiscally a conservative in any way so having a full line-item veto does not matter. He likes to spend money so he had no problem signing on to all those spending bills,

[virgey]

The President of the USA has very little control over the public purse. That control is in the Senate and Congress. The blame for over spending lies in those houses. If the President had line item veto, then the practice of boon doggle spending in the congressional districts would be reduced significantly.

You seem to think that Bush has been fiscally conservative. See my post above. He gave us the first new entitlement program in a decade, expanded the Dept. of Education with Sen. Kennedy..... he has a veto pen and he has not seen fit to use it with all the excesses of congress. Indeed, he has encouraged such excesses.

Have you noticed that your words are hitting a

They aren't listening. We should only feel pity for them, for they know not what they do.

[sturmgeshutz]

Have you noticed that your words are hitting a

They aren't listening. We should only feel pity for them, for they know not what they do.

Jeez i was just about to say the same thing about RG.

Fact is GWB was given a sht sandwich, and i think once you look at his tenure without all the leftist media spin and rabid anti-bushisms, he did a satisfactory job in dealing with it. i recall just before the Iraq war, he had overwhelming support, and once the body bags started filling up, the weak kneed started turning, but by then it was too late, the US had made a commitment.

[virgey]

Have you noticed that your words are hitting a

They aren't listening. We should only feel pity for them, for they know not what they do.

Jeez i was just about to say the same thing about RG.

Fact is GWB was given a sht sandwich, and i think once you look at his tenure without all the leftist media spin and rabid anti-bushisms, he did a satisfactory job in dealing with it. i recall just before the Iraq war, he had overwhelming support, and once the body bags started filling up, the weak kneed started turning, but by then it was too late, the US had made a commitment.

The fact is the Bush administration did NOT have to invade Iraq. It was a bad idea, as the current situation has shown. I have indeed looked at his tenure without any particular bias. In fact I once liked Bush. I don't think Bush himself is guilty of all the things that have happened. People in his entourage such as Cheney for example are just as guilty. The Bush administration has in fact inflamed the terrorists by creating a rallying point in Iraq. They have been directly responsible for the deaths of U.S. soldiers, the death of citizens, and the huge losses of U.S. treasure. The so-called war on terror is a flop in the U.S., because the U.S. government has done nothing to protect their ports and borders. Illegal immigrants flow across the southern border in huge numbers. The Bush administration has created huge bureaucratic monsters such as the Bureau of Homeland Security, and installed inept administrators to run it. Take for example the many blunders by them in times of disasters in the U.S. They have been instrumental in the financial crisis as well, by de-regulating these financial institutions. I realize that Bush was at one time popular, but when the truth came out and the results of his administrations handiwork started to affect people, then his popularity plummeted to the lowest level in history for a sitting president. The only rating lower then his is the democratic congress, who now stands at 9%, because they reneged on their promises. This tells me that the people who were so tired of Bush, decided to vote in a democratic congress thinking this would nullify Bushes policies, and when these do nothing democrats failed in their promises, the people reacted even more vehemently, because they felt betrayed.

[sturmgeshutz]

The fact is the Bush administration did NOT have to invade Iraq.

I think you just missed my point, it didn't matter if they had to or not, that is beside the point. the FACT is, is that the US is a democracy, and there was OVERWHELMING support for the US to go into Iraq.

[Ipberg2]

The low popularity ratings of a sitting President receives has little to do with their permanent legacy. There were years when Harry S Truman was universally loathed because of war, labour unrest, and the Red Menace but today he's fondly remembered. Richard M Nixon worked hard and mostly succeeded after resigning to improve his reputation. Meanwhile Bill Clinton's legacy steadily becomes more and more tarnished as the years go by.

[Red Green]

The fact is the Bush administration did NOT have to invade Iraq.

I think you just missed my point, it didn't matter if they had to or not, that is beside the point. the FACT is, is that the US is a democracy, and there was OVERWHELMING support for the US to go into Iraq.

Based on the information the US public was given at the time. The Bush administration, as we now know, was shopping for intelligence to show that the Iraqis had WMDs and were prepared to sell them to terrorists. The fact is that Bush wanted to use 9/11 to continue and expand the war into the ME, and he was looking for justifications rather than thinking about what was best overall for the country. Look who has made out since the start of the war in Iraq; the oil companies. Those would be the people who are closest to the Bush family. Surprise, surprise.

Like I said, f'ing corrupt, low-wattage ass-clown.

[sturmgeshutz]

Based on the information the US public was given at the time.

..and the US government was given at the time, by the Russians the French and the Israelis.

and you must'n forget, that the US president was elected again after that, so when you call him an ass clown you call millions of your country men the same.

so i'm wondering RG, if you have all the answers and know so much more the everybody else including GWB, why don't you run for president?

[virgey]

The fact is the Bush administration did NOT have to invade Iraq.

I think you just missed my point, it didn't matter if they had to or not, that is beside the point. the FACT is, is that the US is a democracy, and there was OVERWHELMING support for the US to go into Iraq.

My point is that people were lied to in order to get their approval. Also the fact that Arab terrorists had just murdered 3000 U.S. citizens. The people were in a vulnerable position after 911, and Bush's war machine had the perfect vehicle in which to instill fear in everyone.

[virgey]

The low popularity ratings of a sitting President receives has little to do with their permanent legacy. There were years when Harry S Truman was universally loathed because of war, labour unrest, and the Red Menace but today he's fondly remembered. Richard M Nixon worked hard and mostly succeeded after resigning to improve his reputation. Meanwhile Bill Clinton's legacy steadily becomes more and more tarnished as the years go by.

Well I guess everyone has their own hero's based on our beliefs.

[sturmgeshutz]

My point is that people were lied to in order to get their approval.

well a majority of americans didn't think they were lied to bad enough or they would of overthrown the government. and is it really lieing if they didn't know it was lieing?

[quidnunc]

My point is that people were lied to in order to get their approval.

well a majority of americans didn't think they were lied to bad enough or they would of overthrown the government. and is it really lieing if they didn't know it was lieing?

The ONLY lie — and a stinking, bald-faced lie it is, too — is that the Bush administration lied to the American people.

[sturmgeshutz]

The ONLY lie — and a stinking, bald-faced lie it is, too — is that the Bush administration lied to the American people.

like i said, it isn't lieing when they actually believed what they were saying. but i don't expect you to read this and comprehend it.

and if you go back and watch the preinvasion footage, they were clear in that they were going into Iraq to "Account" for weapons of mass destruction. they didn't find any, so they accounted for them. spin that...

[Electric Gulag]

The country is virtually bankrupt: the country has had to borrow trillions of dollars. Immigration is a mess. Iraq was not handled well. 5 years on now, they seem to be getting the handle on it, but that's billions of dollars too late.
Bush's appointments to key positions were terrible, he appointed people that were loyal to him rather than appointing people who were capable.
On the culture wars, besides appointing a couple of decent supreme court judges, he hasn't done much.
I like the way he handled Europe and the U.N., but his administration has not done well on Latin America and the Carribean. The U.S., Canada and France invaded and overthrew a democratically elected government in Haiti in order to replace it with a peice of crap. They've allowed Chavez to destroy Venezuela's oil infrastructure, thereby shortening oil supply, and Mexico has gone down the tubes, which now exports street gangs.
The new president will have a mess on his hands, and huge national debt.

I'd say Bush was alot like Mike Harris in Ontario. Some of the ideas were very good, but in many cases, the implementation of those ideas was very poorly done.