Never liked Bush but the shrub grows on ya

Great Debates
21

What has Bush done right? Let’s see…

[ul]
[li]He didn’t go nuts and launch a counterattack before the military objectives were set up, as many wanted.[/li][li]He immediately went from somewhat of an isolationist stance to jetting around the world building a coalition.[/li][li]When some congressman leaked out important military information, he slapped him down hard in public. There have been precious few leaks since.[/li][li]He gave one of the most stirring presidential speeches of our lifetime.[/li][li]He delegated authority properly to the military, instead of micro-managing the conflict as Carter or Clinton would have (and probably Gore). General Franks has complete autonomy over the battle.[/li][li]At a time when it was most risky to do so, he went to Yankee stadium and threw out the first pitch, with 56,000 people watching. The secret service is good, but there had to be a pretty good risk factor attached to that. And even though he was in the crosshairs and had millions watching him, he fired a fastball right through the strike zone. That had to take some composure.[/li][li]He hasn’t tried to blow sunshine up our asses. When asked about the war, he has repeatedly said that it will take a long time and cost casualties.[/li][/ul]

That’s a few things that he has done right. I believe there have also been mistakes, especially on the domestic front. But hey, this is all new stuff, and everyone’s learning as they go. I give him high marks.

22

**
Well, you’re wrong there, at least in my case. I didn’t vote for him. I don’t like his domestic or economic policies. However, I do (grudgingly) have to admit that he’s handling this crisis well. (What Sam Stone said.)

As I said, I don’t like him, I didn’t vote for him, nor will I vote for him in the future, however this war turns out. But I can give credit where credit is due.

23

Oh, one more thing.

To put it in mathematical terms:
US voters who voted for GWB: approx 48%
GWB post-9/11 approval rating: approx 90%

So it seems your theory don’t hold water.

24

Sam, give me a fucking breaak. It was ‘stirring’ for its placement in time, not because of the speaker. He’s a terrible public speaker and has simply achieved mediocrity in that domain. Of course to those pre-disposed to being in the cheering section.

As for the micro-managing thing, perhaps.

Otherwise, yes Bush has done a good job handling the crisis so far.

His economics, as China Guy says, remain benighted.

(greeny: per Ivy league, I have one word for you – legacies. I can say by direct experience that someone being an Ivy graduate, above all from a certain era, is not a guarantee that you’re brilliant or even particularly sharp. But intellectual sharpness is not what matters most, decisiveness may matter more. It’s nice to have both of course.)

25

Really? Did I miss the news about George W. Bush confessing about his past history of cocaine use? Or him being AWOL for a year from the National Guard? How about when he lowballed a bunch of Texas homeowners so he could buy the land out from under them and build a stadium for the Rangers? Or the insider trading allegations?

Yeah, Bush 'fessed up about his drinking problem, but he lied to everyone about when he last hit the bottle, and he’s still got a lot of “misspent youth” stuff hidden under the rug. Hardly seems like a confession worth giving credit for, IMO.

26

Yes … but he’s still a conservative president who doesn’t hold the Worldview That I Do. And that trumps ALL of those “good” things, plus anything else good he might ever do …

Right? I mean, he’s basically irredeemable … isn’t he?

27

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
[li]He hasn’t tried to blow sunshine up our asses. When asked about the war, he has repeatedly said that it will take a long time and cost casualties.[/li][/QUOTE]

Hmmm…I was dumping the old newspapers the other day, and I held onto the October 12 Washington Post, because it had the headline quoting Dubya saying that we had the Taliban “on the run”.

In light of how things have gone since, I’d describe that as ‘blowing sunshine up our asses’.

I’m trying to see an overall plan to this war - I think such a plan (not tactical details, mind you), at least to the Afghanistan portion of the conflict, is a reasonable thing for the Administration to share - and I fail to see one. We’ve bombed - to what purpose? It wasn’t preparatory to bringing in the infantry and tanks; mostly, it seems to have been a morale-booster for the Taliban, and helping to unify the Afghan people behind them against an outside enemy - us. Smart move, Shrub, Colin, Condoleeza, Dick.

Are we going to capture Osama with Special Ops forces alone? I don’t believe it. (If we don’t send in ‘real’ ground troops, and we do kill or capture ObL, remind me later so that I can eat crow.) Are we going to capture ObL by aiding the Northern Alliance in capturing Kabul? That won’t work either: controlling Kabul gives them one corner of the country, at best. Still plenty of room for bin Laden to avoid them/us. Are we going to send in a significant ground force? Good - but by doing an extended bombing campaign first, we’ve made it significantly harder for them to be perceived as rescuers of the people, rather than hostile invaders.

And now, on to the domestic front:

It was bad enough, last spring, when Dubya used his paper-thin Congressional majority and his nonexistent edge in popular support to shove an extremely partisan agenda down the country’s throat. (I guess this was the GOP’s answer to the Clinton health plan of '94, which deservedly failed. But at least universal health care was an attempted solution to a very real problem, whereas Bush’s tax cut was a solution in search of a problem.)

But in the wake of 9/11, there has understandably been a natural rally-'round-the-flag, we’re-all-in-this-together sentiment. Shrub is the unquestioned political beneficiary of this unusual sentiment. The question is, what has he done with it? The answer seems to be, he’s trying to Get His. He’s noticed that there were some tax cuts for rich people and big corporations that Congress didn’t pass last spring, and he’s using the current crisis as an excuse to try to ram some more of them through, in the name of ‘stimulus’. Ditto ANWR drilling. Ditto fast-track trade authority. Ditto that ‘Patriot Act’, which I suspect will see Supreme Court review - unfortunately, this Supreme Court hasn’t been worried about the Fourth Amendment.

But help actual people who have been laid off in the current troubles, rather than big corporations doing the laying-off, and people whose incomes aren’t exactly suffering - naw, can’t do that. Sorry.

I’m sorry, but I think he’s the same little…well, whatever you want to call him…that he’s always been. He rose to the occasion briefly, but now that’s gone, and he’s back to being what he’s always been.

28

Did I miss the part where there was any credible evidence that this ever occurred?

:rolleyes:

In all fairness, this Court did rule that pointing infrared detection devices at people’s walls was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I was quite surprised, but they did it nevertheless.

29

I’m not much on getting into political arguments but rjung, c’mon. What’s this?

This statement is comical.

30

Hey, the “Bill Clinton’s death squad offed Vince Foster” rumors got started on even less. And AFAIK Dubya still can’t give a simple yes-or-no answer to the question of whether he’s used cocaine. For a candidate who vowed to restore “honor and dignity” to the White House, I find his weasly evasions to be glaringly hypocritical.

Start here,.and pay particular attention after the sixth paragraph.

Dubya is just lucky that he’s got Jerry Falwell on his side, or else we’d be seeing “Bush’s Sinister Agenda” videotapes being sold on The 700 Club already.

31

I partially agree with Sam Stone but I need to comment on his post:

Many opposition leaders did not have a chance to get back to afganistan or were virually ingnored. A chance to get even more defectors from the taliban did not happen because the bombing started IMO a tad too soon. One revel leader complained but decided to still go forward and he was captured and killed. The US failed in a rescue attempt:
http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,3132355%5E15642,00.html

Tony Blair is shaming him in that regard:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/whitehouse/la-000089275nov08.story
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=103796

The main leaker was Orrin Hatch:
http://www.wtsp.com/attack/000_investigation.htm
And because of that, the information was unilaterally reduced to the senate and house. All the other members that knew how to keep a secret were unfairly put in the dark and they complained, I can not find the source but my recollection was that Bush was slapped for doing that, so he compromised because the lawmakers reminded him that it is in the constitution that the president should inform them about military actions.

I grant you this one but Bush even copied his dad on the police badge manuever:

Being a commander in chief gives the president more responsibilities in that front, not less. The constitution was set that way to prevent a military without civilian control. Yes, he is not micro-managing, but in the end he is accountable for the actions of the military.

That was good but you are confusing symbolism with action (although I saw it as a “take that Osama!” moment that even I enjoyed and did go beyond politics).
It is Chenney the one that they are protecting like the family jewels, his placement in secret or military places shows to me that he is busy controlling the military actions, I can not shake the sensation that the members of the administration still consider Cheney the most important member.

Maybe yes, so far. But my complaint remains that he is blowing sunshine to us in the domestic front:
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/45768_normalop.shtml

As for me, I still (barely) agree with the military actions but I do hope Bush was wrong on the war lasting a long time:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1106-10.htm

32

So what? I didn’t believe those either. Does this comment have something to do with something, or is it just more hand-waving?

So, if I ask him if he’s ever fucked a horse, and he refuses to answer the question, can I get in his shit for not confessing about his past history of horse-fucking?

I take it, after this, your response was really, “No, there was never any credible evidence that George W. Bush has ever used cocaine, but I still think he did anyway?” Because your non-answer sure looks like that. Talk about weasely evasion.

33

Here, let me help you see the relevant Bits from rjung’s link http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#rangers

34

It wasn’t an option. Also you are implying that he’s actually running the show, which many of us doubt.

This article makes it clear that even now they cant send in special ops to good effect because they have no idea where to send them.

I imaging him screaming at his handlers in frustration (in private, of course) in those first few days: “I’m !@#!@# President of the United States, and I !@#!@# demand that you find something for me to bomb!!!”

Sucks to be you George…

35

He sure wanted to, I have long suspected this is why Cheney kept him out of the loop on airforce one. As for the rest, I can’t fault the current strategy largely because the control of information is too tight for second guessing. it does seem to be a highly fluid strategy which may be best but hardly suggests clear goals.

36

Bush-bashing on the SDMB.
How refreshing.

37

I’m looking for the right one, damn thing has moved on me…

38

As long as we’re fighting, the guy’s got my support until November, 2004.

And, I’ll say the same thing next year, when an across-the-board tax hike to pay for our little war-let shifts still more of the tax burden onto me.

And, I’ll say the same thing when Shrub’s Secretary of Interior is thrown in jail for contempt of court, and when later investigations show rampant insider influence and corruption.

And, I’ll say the same thing when a “strict constructionist” Supreme Court nominee gets appointed, and Miranda and Roe fly out the window.

And come November, 2004, I’ll say “thanks, George,” and punch whatever button is directly below George in the ballot booth.

Until then, yeah, I’m all for the guy. I wish him luck, even. But he’s already fucked me without a kiss, and I’ll not soon forget that.

39

I am sorry millo, we keep forgetting that in these times we should simply agree with pointless laudatory posts about the chimp.

40

Here it is.