d1a1s1,
Let’s see: you serve in the Navy, you disapprove of war, you despise the Prez… do you command a gunboat?
Damn! My covers been blown!
Trying to view the GWB years as positively as possible, I guess you could cite the fact that no senior members of his Administration have actually been indicted or convicted of anything yet.
Beyond that it gets difficult being upbeat.
Read Sam Stone’s first post in this thread. He does an excellent job of parroting the Republican Party talking points.
As a non-redneck, I approve of Bush’s job performance largely because of his large degree of success with the first four reasons (not because of your “only reason” listed below).
I’m sure that Bush’s sole approval rating-driving crowd, the Christian rednecks, are also buck-toothed and bow-legged. Your assertion of equating Judeo-Christianity, which the is United States’ main religion, with being a redneck, is so ignorant that it shouldn’t even be dignified with a response.
Whats going to be amusing (in a sad sort of way, at least for me…I don’t WANT GW to get re-elected) is when, come november the SDMB gives an almost collective start of shock when GW is re-elected. They will howl and scratch their heads and say “How could this have happened?? Everyone KNOWS that GW is evil and bad, and Kerry was so strong, and there was simply no WAY GW could get re-elected. Hell, everyone on this board practically agrees except those poor deluded 'Pubs…and all MY friends agree too!”
Personally I can’t think of much GW has done thats been ‘good’ either. But I realize (unlike some of you appearently) that MY opinion isn’t exactly that of Joe American out there. I ALSO realize that GW is not (currently) going down in flames as far as the general public is concerned, and that the race is pretty much neck and neck…Kerry is by no means running away with it. Finally, I realize that Kerry has all the public appeal of a dead fish (again, unlike some of you I think). Of all the candidates the 'Crats could bring forth, why oh why did you choose this guy?? Instead of a candidate that really could appeal to Joe out there, you chose one that will simply be reguarded as the lesser of two evils…if that. Its like the 'Crats feel they have to give the 'Pubs a handicap or something.
Come November we’ll see, but I think that GW has at least a 50/50 chance now…maybe better. And I can forsee a collective fit on the SDMB if he gets re-elected. Brace yourselves now is my advice…
-XT
You say “large degree of success?” Im not impressed with the 9/11 response. I think any president would have made the same basic decisions. I definately wouldnt call the Iraq war a large success. Maybe when I can wake up one day and not hear about more of our guys getting killed there Ill feel a little better about it. Still trying to figure out why we’re there in the first place. I didnt realize we liberated Afganistan. I thought we went in and removed key targets in an attempt to thwart terrorism. Remember that? The whole terrorism thing? Not to be confused with the Iraq war by the way. I cant say much for what has been done for the economy. To be honest I havent been following that portion much, so maybe he has that going for him.
I fully expect that you folks would rather eat a live snake than give Bush credit for anything, but here is an article by Greg Easterbrook (a.k.a. Tuesday Morning Quarterback) on Bush’s improvement of environmental standards.
Right. Because Bush has clearly forgotten about terrorism. Except for the Patriot Act, reorganizing the intelligence community, conquering the Taliban, keeping and interrogating the prisoners at Gitmo, killing and capturing al Queda soldiers, freezing terrorists’ assets in America, aiding anti-terrorism efforts in the Phillipines and elsewhere, etc.
People like Aeschines love to call Bush a fascist because he’s gone too far in the war against terror, and then turn around and accuse him of not doing enough in the war against terror. It looks a lot like you folks are trying to have it both ways.
Was WWII a success? Because we’ve still got troops stationed in Japan and Germany, and some of them died recently.
I don’t mean to diminish the sacrifice of our soldiers fighting in Iraq or elsewhere, but the test for success isn’t whether or not soldiers are dying on foreign soil. The test is whether our goals are being advanced at a reasonable cost. By conquering Iraq, America has made the world safer for Iraqis and Americans (and everyone else, too). For example, shortly after the Iraq war, Libya decided that they didn’t need their nuclear armament program, after all. And by building a democracy in the region, and building the infrastructure of Iraq, the Iraq war has hurt terrorism in the Middle East.
The President has very little actual effect on the economy. Bush (or any other President) shouldn’t get credit for its improvement. They also shouldn’t be blamed for recessions.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all. If Presidential elections were solely about choosing the most qualified candidate to be President, Gore would have won with 90% of the vote in 2000.
There’s a reason why the Bush-Cheney campaign is building an unprecedented $200 million war chest – all the better to spread bullshit with.
I would like to discuss about crediting Bush with sucess in “liberating Iraq” and Afghanistan. The US military are very good and can just about “liberate” any country when ordered. Bush just gave the orders… the military accomplished everything else.
To say Bush got it right would be significant only if the decision was correct or not… the military activity itself is 95% credit of the men in uniform I would warrant. So I would say take off Iraq as something Bush did right. Even if getting rid of Saddam was good… the cost to the US is not warranted. Not sucessful.
If my idea is correct then basically Bush has even less stuff to boast about...Hey, I’ve been trying to make the same very point here for months! But no, Bush is an idiot, Gore would do something much better, we don’t know exactly what, but he would… Might as well give up…
Who wouldn’t?
I’m with you on this one, too.
Huh? I think you actually mean Aeschines first post!
Don’t be silly. They didn’t die in combat, now, did they?
Ooops, my mistake; I was confusing this thread with another one.
Still, I’m sure Sam would have gladly leapt in if Aeschines hadn’t beaten him to it. 
That’s a fair point. I hesitated to make this point in my initial post because it seems to minimize the importance of military casualties, and because it’s a bit of a reach to make a small point. I think now I shouldn’t have made it this way.
All I meant to say was that the fact that soldiers are losing their lives is not a sufficient reason to stop doing what we’re doing. Anyone in the Navy realizes that soldiers lose their lives all the time. Anyone that’s spent any time around the military knows that it’s not a desk job; friends are going to die, and it happens very frequently in times of both peace and war. I’ve heard that at one time, pilots in the Navy had a 1 in 3 chance of dying before being discharged. The question is not whether the soldiers’ lives are being put at risk – they are, every day, whether in Iraq or Ft. Polk – but rather whether their lives are being put at risk for a worthy goal.
I think they are. (But I understand there’s room for disagreement.)
Isn’t the best test of whether someone is qualified whether or not they agree with me? 
Of course, if we were going solely on qualifications, we’d also be talking about President Bob Dole and President Dick Luger. And the words “President” and “Kennedy” would go together like plaid and polka dots.
Interesting side-point: After GWI, GHWB’s advisers publically thanked the Reagan Administration for the fine state the US military was in, resulting in the general miliatry successes of the first gulf war. After all, it takes a LONG time for the policies of the executive branch to filter down and actually make an impact on the military preparedness of individual soldier. Interesting what that implies, isn’t it?
Worthy goal? So you believe that going into Iraq based on weak intelligence of WMDs is a worthy goal? I believe Saddam was a horrible dictator, I believe he needed to go. I dont believe we had enough intelligence about these so called weapons of mass destruction to warrant military action. So now were stuck in a hostile environment with a responsibility to reconstruct a whole infrastructure. No WMDs have been found and even with the capture of Saddam we are under attack daily. DAILY! We have a strategic tool in the military called risk vs. gain. You have to weigh your risk against your projected gain. As far as I can tell our risks in Iraq grossly outweigh our gains. The projected gain of this war was to illiminate WMDs. No WMDs found. So I guess in the end it wasnt a bad goal but a goal that never even exsisted. Tough goal to reach.
Quite unwittingly, or very cunningly, Bush’s foreign policy has helped ease the Franco-German grip on shaping of the European Union.
Hey Im game for anything at this point. Any chance on expounding on this idea?