I’ll repeat what I have said a million times before: "There is no such thing as mindless Bush bashing from the majority of Liberals on this board. No one just starts out a debate with the idea “How can I blame this on Bush”, that is all in your head. What you are seeing is the result of people encountering real dangers from him, time and time again.
Happily though, it has gotten somewhat less disagreement from blind partisans who make assertions about what liberals would say or do in condition X or Y. And it has gotten very little in the way of informed arguments against it.
Most telling is the fact that nobody has cited a single thing that Bush has done to counter the suggestion that his presence in office is a danger to the country. That is remarkable to me. (I mean, I do not find it remarkable that Republicans/conservatives would generally employ dodges, tu coques, and non sequiturs to avoid or attempt to divert the discussion, but one could usually count on someone making some semblance of a reasonable argument from the other side).
So, a question for you John Corrado: Do you think the evidence that Bush is unfit for office now is greater or less than it was in February 2001?
A follow up: What happens when the kool-aid is gone from the barrel? Is there someone you can call to get your styrofoam cup filled?
**Scott **to the rescue!! I’m sure the anti-Bush folks are relieved. 
See the flaw in your argument? No Bush bashing from the majority… no one starts a thread… You are assuming “the majority of Liberals” = all the liberals. Even if what you say about the majority is true (which we don’t really know) there could still be some in the minority who start mindless Bush-bashing threads.
Yeah, it’s simply amazing that no one has taken up the challenge to prove that Bush is not a danger to the country. I’m sure they are all still beating their wives, too-- I haven’t seen any prove that they aren’t.
I never thought Bush seemed bright enough nor strong enough to accomplish much good. If he attacks a country ruled by a guy who killed a million of his own people, I can live with that. And I would have voted (if I had voted) for him in his last election, just to see that Iraq wasn’t abandoned. But I must admit that that was thinking only in terms of Iraq, and assuming that no other major events might take place that he would have to deal with, like Katrina.
I still would have preferred to have had real choices in both 2000 and 2004, but for the 2004 case at least, I would now be wondering what Kerry would have brought for us.
I would agree that Bush has not done anything which requires impeaching or otherwise being tossed out. But I do think that the nation would be better off if he just admitted that his administration just isn’t up to the job and both he and Cheney stepped down. I would be happier with someone who just sat still and did nothing impressive until the next election than someone who appoints only based on a spoils system, and who ignores all advice and criticism in an unbending belief that everything he believes in to be unequivocally true.
The odds that some third disaster will appear before the end of his term are of course minimal–but really, the job of the president really isn’t meant to exist to be filled by the lowest common denominator. How much do you really want to trust your future to GW Bush’s hands?
John Mace: I am not saying that there is no Bush-bashing, just that it is not mindless, or without cause. In other words, no one turns and says “How can I blame NO on Bush.”
No, what they do is recall his reluctance to protect the Ozone layer, his lack of funding of important programs, and they say “I knew this would happen.”
Oh, and if you can not truly tell what people mean when they say “All republicans” or “All posters”, then I feel sorry for you.
The equivalence between the two statements is dubious. Further, it shouldn’t be that much of a stretch for a Bush defender to point to something Bush has done to make the country safer. Yet none have chosen to yet.
See, what’s remarkable to us is that you suggest his presence in office is a danger to the country. This is such an outlandish suggestion as to not be taken seriously, except by Kool-Aid drinkers on the Left.
I absolutely agree that the evidence that Bush is unfit for office is greater now than it was in Feburary 2001.
Of course, the evidence that Bush is fit for office is also greater, given he’s been in office for five years and the evidence for just about everything is greater.
Seems to me that you just wait until elucidator, rjung, BrainGlutton, Evil Captor, or Diogenes shows up with another thermos.
Care to let us in on the secret?
Dammit. When can I break into the inner sanctum? I want my props!
Would you trust GW Bush and his appointees to have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis?
He already demonstrated his incompetence after the Hurricane. How badly does Bush have to mess up before you stop giving him a pass? Did you read the Newsweek article? What do you think of it?
As much as I trust a drug-addled Kennedy and his appointees- the same ones who led us into Vietnam.
I think Brown’s a fucking incompetent and Bush made a mistake in trusting him. If trusting an employee to do his job is “incompetence”, well, then, I suppose Bush is incompetent, and I hope you never have to manage a staff.
And I don’t understand what you mean by “giving him a pass”. Surely I can think Bush screwed up and be angry about it without feeling that his administration needs to resign? Or have we now reached the black-and-white point where if one doesn’t feel that the Bush administration is a blight upon humanity and should commit suicide immediately, one is a blinded suck-up who drank the Kool-Aid?
And Hentor, my opinion of you and that list is not something I can say outside of the Pit.
With any other job Bush would get booted out on his ass for his performance. Remaining on vacation after one of the worst natural disasters in american history isn’t enough to get your blood boiling? Appointing a Horse Lawyer to head FEMA? What could possibly be enough to get you outraged? What message does it send to future Presidents if the American people are willing to tolerate this?
What is with this reverence some people have for the Presidency where literally nothing he does short of commiting an actual crime is worth calling for his resignation? He is supposed to serve us, not the other way around. He’s President Bush, not Emperor Bush.
You can still have your favorite conservative policies implemented without this man. There are currently no Democrats in the line of succession. This may be hard to believe but nothing I say here is out of motivation or partisan gain. It is out of objectively looking at the facts and seeing that Bush has failed us and we ought not risk him failing us again. If a Democratic President vacationed while a major american city descended into chaos you’d be calling for his resignation and you’d be right to do so.
Hell, if I see a major movement among Republicans (say, the majority of congressional republicans) to oust Bush I pledge to vote Republican next election cycle just to award you for putting the good of the country above a Cult of Personality and perceived partisan gain.
Actually, I take that back. I don’t think Brown’s a fucking incompetent. I think he fucked up in a big way. But I have yet to be shown any proof that in any previos disaster, FEMA dropped the ball or Brown was unprepared. And given the hurricanes that struck the Florida area in 2004 and previous, there was plenty of time for Brown to fuck up if he was just a fucking incompetent.
Again, I think he fucked up by not having FEMA prepared and ready to orchestrate a massive, multi-state effort to deal with the largest natural disaster since the San Francisco earthquake. But his inability to deal with it is equaled by that of the governor of Louisiana, and the mayor of New Orleans.
First of all, the person making the claim (ie, Bush is a danger to the country) must prove the claim. That hasn’t been done. It’s incumbent on no one to disprove it. In fact, it’s such an outrageous claim that it invites Bush supporters to ignore it. Secondly, “not making the country safer” is not the same as “being a danger to the country”.
You misspelled “Eisenhower”. You also dodged the question.
You’re twisting the statement. *Hiring * an incompetent for a vital position is itself incompetence. So is telling him he’s doing “a hell of a job” in front of a public who knows better, having suffered the consequences.
What would it take to put you over the edge? What’s your threshold? A blowjob?
Boot their asses to the curb too. Incompetence knows no party lines.
And he ended his vacation when the extent of the disaster became apparent. Sorry that his amazing prescient powers didn’t kick in so that he could be standing at the ready.
Again- isn’t there some middle ground between “tolerate” and “demand the immediate resignation of”?
What is this demand that the President be perfect and never screw up, lest he immediately resign? Or were you calling for Clinton and Gore’s resignation post-Somalia, post-Sudan bombing, and post-Rwanda genocide?
No I wouldn’t. But thanks for painting me with a broad brush.
I take that as a dodge of the request to clarify what it is that Bush has done to demonstrate his fitness for office. I’m also pleased that you can imply your contempt for me without putting it into words. That’s slick. But you know where the pit is if you want to try and clarify anything you have to say.
So Robert MacNamara had nothing to do with us getting into Vietnam? Wow, great to know. I’ll tell the historians and doucmentary-makers that they fucked up; Mr. Elvis knows all and blames all. Well, actually, he only blames Republicans.
And yes, I’d trust Bush and his staff to have handled the Cuban Missle Crisis.