As others have mentioned, I was happy with the way he handled the **immediate ** response to the 9/11 attacks. It was very impressive.
Since then, well, unfortunately, nothing 
This is a good point. I’ve been discounting his stance there as simply a political calculation to try to retain Latino voters, but you’re right, the political calculus could easily suggest the opposite as well.
Invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do.
When the space shuttle broke up over Texas he gave a darn fine speech. Sure someone else wrote it years before, but still it was a speech of Ronald Reagan quality. (I wonder if they wrote it for Saint Ronnie?)
After that, I draw a blank.
Maybe it was the right thing to do - but he can’t get any credit for doing the right thing in such an incompetent, self-defeating manner and then leaving with the job not finished.
This suggests that the task of overthrowing the Taliban is somewhat finished. Not only have we not overthrown them, we’ve succeeded in giving them a stronghold and cemented sympathy for them within the borders of a military ally.
I, as others have mentioned, have disqualified the things that started off with at least arguable appropriateness, and were subsequently mishandled or outright squandered. Afghanistan is #1 on that list.
I’ll concede Roberts, who I generally admire as a jurist, though his views often differ from my own. Roberts+Alito, though, is a little tough to take. Myers? Serious whiskey-tango-foxtrot episode. Struck me as clear evidence Bush is often on some other planet, where someone who he thinks is Jesus tells him what to do.
Sorry Loopy, your phrasing lost me. This oldster isn’t hip to your lingo. What the heck does “serious whiskey-tango-foxtrot” mean?
It’s military for “WTF”, which is short for “what the f*ck??” I’m saying the Myers nomination was sufficiently bizarre, just on its own, so as to lead a critical thinker to question the man’s basic judgement, and perhaps, sanity.
I can’t think of many examples where the President rose above the average. His best moments usually are either “anybody in the Oval Office would have done that” or “well he didn’t screw that up as bad as I worried he might”.
Post 9/11 - It was a traumatic moment. It would have been almost impossible for anything Bush not to have seemed meaningful. And making speeches is largely symbolic.
Afghanistan - Somebody (Al Franken?) pointed out that if Ralph Nader had won the election, he would have declared war on Afghanistan - it was automatic like declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. The armed forces won a quick and decisive military victory and existing political opposition in the country formed a national government. And since then distractions have negated everything we won and brought the country back almost to the point it was at before 9/11.
John Roberts - An average SCOTUS nominee. The best that can be said about him is he isn’t as bad as Bush’s other two nominees.
Immigration - Another situation where Bush didn’t do anything right but managed to avoid doing anything wrong.
Dubai port deal - I agree with Bush’s position on this issue. There was no need to prohibit the sale. But while the President tried to do the right thing, he didn’t actually accomplish it.
Tax cuts - It’s like this administration tried to find a plan that would contain every possible flaw of this idea while avoiding every possible merit.
Bush tried to do right with Social Security. I give him some credit for trying to get us the private accounts that many younger workers such as myself crave. However, he failed. Ultimately, this is what counts.
Bush has not been good about reigning in spending, and I do fault him for that. However, I must give him credit that the spending he does do is in line with that I was hoping for when I voted for him. In general, his budgets cut social programs and spend more on homeland security and the military. This is a good thing. However, like I said, congress has been spending shamefully and Bush hasn’t vetoed them as he should.
As others have stated, his tax cuts where great. They need to be made permanent, though. We’ll see if he’s able to get this done. He probably won’t be able to if the Democrats win control next week.
Also as others have stated, his SCOTUS picks have been good. Sure, Harriet was a disaster, but in the end we got somebody solid. Much like Bush doesn’t get credit for fixing SS because he failed even though his heart was in the right place, he should get credit for picking two great appointees even though he was basically forced into it by fellow republicans. No matter how it happened, we would certainly be seeing liberal judges being appointed if Kerry was president, and for that Bush gets credit in my eyes.
Bush has been a solid defender of the second ammendment. Lot’s of pro-gun legislation has been passed under his watch.
Bush hasn’t been able to do a lot because of the unpopularity of Iraq. When people are unhappy with things and a POTUS gets a low approval rating, it makes it very difficult to get anything done. I think Bush probably would have succeeded in privatizing Social Security if not for the Iraw war and it’s affect on his popularity. In the long run, though, this is a good thing.
Bush isn’t that much different than Clinton as far as his politics go. He’s usually in the mainstream and isn’t an extreme conservative just like Clinton wasn’t an extreme liberal. However, I’m always a fan of government NOT taking action, so it’s probably a good thing that he’s been unable to accomplish a lot in his presidency. The more the govt does generally the less well off we all are. Just like how people sometimes prefer a divided government, it’s kind of nice to have a unpopular president. It keeps him in check.
A few have mentioned this. Why are they so great? Were we not leaving a big enough debt to our children? The breaks were targeted to the wealthy. Did they go on a spending spree and jump start the economy?
Ditto for the so-called “death tax”. Republicans have been successful in framing the debate in this term. But what it really is should be called the Paris Hilton tax break. The overwhelming majority of estates have no tax due. Why should someone like Paris Hilton get to inherit millions and never pay a dime of tax? If anyone mentions “double taxation” they get sent to their room.
Thank goodness this thread has finally afforded people the opportunity to complain about Dubya! At last, the truth shall be known!
Let’s all read the OP before posting, shall we?
See? I managed to mention the one thing he did that impressed me, and I did it without adding a paragraph of disclaimers and cheap shots.
Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?*
Right- just about the whole world was behind us on Afganistan. Iraq- not so much. Note that there were several huge differnences in Afganistan: There was clear and strong evidence that Afg/Taliban supported Al-Quada. We didn’t invade a soverign nation. No-one recognized the Taliban as the legit gov’t of Afg- what we did was intervene on one side of a civil war.
His Hawaiin park was a suprise to everyone, and a very Good thing. 
His Tax cuts may or may not have given the economy a boost. Or it could just be that the economy cycles. After all, the Repubs claimed that about the fantasitic economy we had during the Clinton years. :dubious: In any case, the tax cuts aren’t helping many here much, and are going to run this nation into bankruptcy- unless countered by some real spending cuts. In any case, cuts to the Estate tax can’t help the economy the way that cuts to the Income tax supposedly do. (Yes, I think that Income tax cuts do and did give the economy a slight boost. But enough is enough. Bankrupt USA= Bad.)
I agree that Roberts was a great appointment.
Not much for 6 years, eh? 
They’re good because people get to keep more of their money. That’s a good thing. Taxes hurt people; it’s money you take away from them that they would be much better off using. And no matter what anyone tells you, you can’t limit most taxes just to rich people.
The deficit is generally caused by much higher SPENDING, on which Republicans have an atrocious record. The U.S. federal government brings in more tax revenue now than it did in 2000. There is no excuse for the ballooning deficit, even given tax cuts; the deficit is the direct result of stupid, wasteful spending.
Lower taxes are a good thing for lots of reasons. I don’t expect you to agree, of course, but don’t pretend that there isn’t a huge amount of support out there for lower taxes. Even liberal Massachusetts nearly voted to cut the income tax entirely. They did vote to reduce it more than once.
As to why: I guess it all boils down to the fact that people are better at spending thier own money than the government is for them. They are more efficient, more rational, more deserving at spending the money that they earn for their own bennefit than the government is.
This is because of spending, not taxes. The Bush cuts were small, it’s spending that’s out of control. You won’t see anyone defending that.
This is simply false. Everyone got a cut. The rich got a cut just like everyone else, but of couse it comes out to be more money because they pay a lot more.
Oh, I forgot that one. Add this to my list of Bush positives. People shouldn’t be taxed for dying. (Unpaid capital gains should be paid upon death, though, before the inheritors get the money.)
Well, I’m sorry, but it’s difficult to conceal one’s need to hold one’s nose when closely examining the redeeming qualities of manure. Actually, manure is not a good analogy, since it’s so useful in supporting the growth of plants, plus it never hurt anyone by its own volition, but you see what I mean. Occasionally we get threads in here, the “What did (some bastard world leader) do right?” variety, and it’s the usual approach. Conscience sort of compels one to add disclaimers.
I’m thinking, I’m thinking.
:smack: Missed the Supreme Court nominiations. Yeah, I have to agree…even though I’m unsure of Bush’s actual hand in the choices, they were good solid choices in the end. I also agree his stance on immigration came as a bit of a surprise…and that he stuck too it was definitely a bonus. I have to give him that…when he thinks he’s right, he sticks too it and doesn’t cave in to whats popular. Unfortunately, this generally is a bad thing considering what he thinks is right or wrong. (Not taking a swipe at the man here, just pointing out reality)
Definitely
Going in after bin Laden as the primary objective (which I don’t believe WAS our primary objective at that point) would have been a blood bath. Its funny that so many Dems have latched onto this theme when they don’t seem to realize what it would have meant in the cost of US soldiers blood…hell, and Afghani blood too for that matter. In order for us to get sufficient force into that area (look at an elevation map of the Tora Bora region sometime), it would have taken literally hundreds of thousands of troops. It would have been a meat grinder…and all for one man?
I totally disagree with you here. I think the way we did it was the optimal way a nation like the US SHOULD fight such a war. Special forces units on the ground, air support, logistics and liason support with local groups, let them do most of the donkey work (its going to be THEIR country after all if they win). No massive invasion, no logistics nightmares, no huge bulls-eye painted on our troops.
My problem was, after what I consider a brilliant initial game plan, after the Taliban tucked tail and were swept from the field, we dropped the ball. THAT was the time to ship in a large number of garrison forces (US garrison forces, as opposed to leaving it up to the Euro’s and dropping the whole mess in their less than capable laps). It was the time to spend some serious cash on helping the Afghani’s with everything from food to new infrastructure. Instead, after the Taliban were in full retreat, we shifted focus to Iraq and left Afghanistan to hang…allowing the Taliban to come back from being nearly wiped out. Snatching defeat from the grim jaws of victory…Bush should trade mark that.
-XT
Really? What was our primary objective, then? Why didn’t we attack Afghanistan sooner, then? Why did Bush give the Taliban the opportunity to turn over bin Laden and avoid attack then?
Agreed. I’m not a big fan of the “you break it, you buy it” theory. Most countries have enemies. Certainly asshole dictatorships like Saddam’s regime and the Taliban have enemies. It makes sense to simply assist them in doing the overthrow. Then they are in place to run their country, with us assisting and maybe nudging them in the direction we would like them to go (democracy).