Has GW Bush done anything right? - Page 4




View Poll Results :Has GW Bush done anything right since assuming the office of President of the United
YES 17 54.84%
NO 10 32.26%
UNDECIDED 4 12.90%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
March 10th, 2006  
LeEnfield
 
 
I don't thin that there can be very many American Presidents that have had to face the trouble that Bush has had to face, which started just months after he was sworn in for his first term. Now if I would make a criticism of Bush it would be over his poor public speaking, and to quite honest he often looks like he is a few sandwiches short of picnic. He has improved over the years but does not look part of the worlds leading Statesman. Now Clinton being a Lawyer was full of confidence from his trial work and could talk the hind leg of a donkey, but much of what Clinton had done in foreign affairs came back to bite Bush
March 10th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Rabs

9-11 costs about $15 Billion to rebuild. Katrina about $100 Billion, TOPS. Factor in another $440 (to date) Billion for both wars. Thats $550 Billion total to date. Our Dificit is $413 Billion Per year!

So you cannot just say war, 9/11 and Iraq are whats killing us, the math just doesnt add up. Armor for troops only costs $450-$1000 per soldier. Say 150,000 suits x $1000 and thats 1.5 Million, which is chump change. The reason our troops still dont have body armor is not because of price, but because of the ENTIRE problem plaguing the Iraq war from the very start. I.N.C.O.M.P.E.N.T.A.N.C.E.

So what is killing us? The Bush Tax cuts, (in my mind, the only time in history that a leader has passed a huge tax cut during a time of war). The astronomical amount of Washington Pork (of which Bush has never vetoed a single spending bill) and the fraud, waste, from Bush cronies.

Still costing us money. People feel entitled to some form of compensation for the loss of family and friends etc. Not to mention the government rules and regs now in place for security reasons..take it all the way out and I guarantee you will find more than 15bil in there.

Again we are still rebuilding and paying out the nose for people and damages.



The Marine Corps alone has well over 150,000 personnel. Along the lines of 300,000 persons, then add in the Navy, Army, Airforce...not to mention uparmoring vehicles in the process, then add in the materials for support other than just beans, bullets and bandaids.

Not trying to split hairs or justify anything just putting it in more of a perspective. You need gear, support etc for not only personnel in theater, but also for those incoming, those staying behind to train, etc.

Not to mention the amount of money we pay civilians and other civilian companies that do jobs that military personnel used to do. Thank you Mr Clinton for downsizing. look at the cost to pay a civilian vs cost to pay military service members to do the same job...so on and so forth.

As for the tax cuts. I dunno, never really paid attention at the time. I would think the tax cuts should have been suspended at the very least. At the very worst reverse the law.

Like I said, I am not trying to affirm or deny anyone's point of view. Some things have more reasons behind them than others will be able to see because they may not have all the information at hand.
March 10th, 2006  
mmarsh
 
 
Mainerrhodes

1. I was referring to reconstruction costs, not lawsuits etc. $15 Billion estimated repair cost for fixing the Pentagon rebuilding lower Manhattan etc. You could add another Billion or two, but I dont thing it will rise much more than the estimate. As for paying yes your right, I'm originally from Manhattan, I know that area like the back of my hand the damage was extensive (they had to raze more than four square blocks). That cost moolah...

2. Again I was referring to those serving in combat zones (130000 Iraq+12000 Afganistan). But even if you were to buy for the entire US military (all servicemen all branches) it would still cost about the price of a single F/A-22A Fighter.

3. It isnt 100% correct to criticize Clinton for downsizing. Since Reagan the military was cut by Bush I and then by Clinton in 1993, but in 1998 Clinton signed a 7 year plan to bring military spending just below where Reagan left it in 1988. Besides there is no way Clinton could have known we would be where we are now back in 1993. That was 12 years ago.

4. You'd think by now Bush would at the very least freeze the tax cuts. But not only has he not but he's actively talkng about MORE tax cuts next year. Simply unbelievable. I cannot help but wonder if Bush is not trying to bankrupt the US Treasury on purpose as his policies seem to be the exact opposite of any economic sense.

LeeEnfield

Actually they have. FDR at WWII, and Lincoln during the US Civil War. Both presidents had to deal with threats much greater than al-Qaeda and they both succeded without wreaking the country during the process. I don't fault Bush for being a poor speaker, Truman for example wasn't a great orator. Bush's problem is incompentance and arrogence. The man is so arrogent he simply cannot admit hes wrong, which only serves to make all the mistakes he made much worse. I also think that while Bush likes the glory+power of being a U.S President, he is completely disinterested in the actual job. This seems to be a common criticism we hear from ex-Whitehouse Officials.
--
Boots
March 10th, 2006  
Missileer
 
 
Some problems we bring on ourselves but most are brought on by big Government bureaucracy. Every President has to drag that ball and chain along when he comes in and goes out.

Dallas has a big problem, we're 800 policemen short. Since that problem will take a while to resolve, a couple of gun clubs chipped in about $20,000.00 for AR-15s and M16s for the cop on the beat. They are qualifying as we speak, at least, they won't be outgunned. Before only SWAT and Tactical teams had that level of firepower. Sometimes, you have to suck it up and help yourself.
March 10th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Mainerrhodes

1. I was referring to reconstruction costs, not lawsuits etc. $15 Billion estimated repair cost for fixing the Pentagon rebuilding lower Manhattan etc. You could add another Billion or two, but I dont thing it will rise much more than the estimate. As for paying yes your right, I'm originally from Manhattan, I know that area like the back of my hand the damage was extensive (they had to raze more than four square blocks). That cost moolah...
Right, and who pays for that? The government or the people?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
2. Again I was referring to those serving in combat zones (130000 Iraq+12000 Afganistan). But even if you were to buy for the entire US military (all servicemen all branches) it would still cost about the price of a single F/A-22A Fighter.
You can not just count the military that is in country and say one per person. You have to count the entire military and then some to account for damaged items, increase in manpower, etc. It is not as if we can just step off the plane and swap equipment from one person to the other either. Person A gets Person B's gear. Sorry it does not work like that. That means you have to have enough at the very least to equip 2x what is in country plus damaged, lost, stolen gear. Not to mention gear for training etc. Like I said before, it is more than just the military in theater that has to be equipped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
3. It isnt 100% correct to criticize Clinton for downsizing. Since Reagan the military was cut by Bush I and then by Clinton in 1993, but in 1998 Clinton signed a 7 year plan to bring military spending just below where Reagan left it in 1988. Besides there is no way Clinton could have known we would be where we are now back in 1993. That was 12 years ago.
You are right. But he did start the ball rolling on larger and larger downsizing efforts. When you say that there is no way Clinton could have known what would happen 12 years from now, then you also have to agree there is no way Bush could have known the war would drag out this long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
4. You'd think by now Bush would at the very least freeze the tax cuts. But not only has he not but he's actively talkng about MORE tax cuts next year. Simply unbelievable. I cannot help but wonder if Bush is not trying to bankrupt the US Treasury on purpose as his policies seem to be the exact opposite of any economic sense.
I have to agree on the first part of this point. Congress could have at least froze or put off the tax cuts for awhile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
LeeEnfield

Actually they have. FDR at WWII, and Lincoln during the US Civil War. Both presidents had to deal with threats much greater than al-Qaeda and they both succeded without wreaking the country during the process. I don't fault Bush for being a poor speaker, Truman for example wasn't a great orator. Bush's problem is incompentance and arrogence. The man is so arrogent he simply cannot admit hes wrong, which only serves to make all the mistakes he made much worse. I also think that while Bush likes the glory+power of being a U.S President, he is completely disinterested in the actual job. This seems to be a common criticism we hear from ex-Whitehouse Officials.
Comparing today's politics to those of yesterday is apples and oranges. People back then were 100% for or against. Not many stood on the sidelines and egged one side or the other on. They did not have the media to contend with nearly so much as they do today. I am fairly certain he is not "disinterested", perhaps 'overwhelmed' is a more accurate word.

Unfortunately there are too many times when a person (Presidents included) are too proud to admit they are wrong and then backtrack and fix the mistake.
March 10th, 2006  
Chief Bones
 
 
I really like the thought that is going into your posts ... maybe we could address Bush's leadership skills (or) lack of leadership skills and how they have impacted not only US citizens opinions but the opinions of the rest of the world.

I really think we have not only made many friends ... but ... we now have many many more enemies than we did prior to 9/11 ........ it seems that there is a greater number of people actively fighting United States interests abroad than ever before.

How do you think this will impact future president's ability to conduct foreign affairs ... after all ... Bush is on the downhill side of his presidency and someone else will ultimately inherit the mess Bush has created.

Bush has targeted the Middle East and seemingly ignored other trouble spots that could end up being greater sources of danger to our country. North Korea and Iran come to mind. Bush tends to give away the house while getting token agreements from foreign leaders when he addresses these areas.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ... GOOD AREA FOR DISCUSSION?????
March 10th, 2006  
mmarsh
 
 
MarineRhodes

Right, and who pays for that? The government or the people?

1. Isnt that the samething? The government does, which really means its you and me in taxes.

2. I agree. But the opposite is true too. You are not going to buy body armor plus spares for people who will never use it. I mean what are the chances a naval seaman will need a bulletproof vest on board a aircraft carrier? Or a cook at the Pentagon? Its beyond the point, because as I stated even if you calculated for every serviceman in any possible situation the price is nominal compared to other spending bonanzas. Like I said in the case of the body armor, it wasnt money that was lacking it was compentance on the part of the Pentagon in not making sure there was enough to go around.

3. (Part 1) Clinton certainly downsized the military I dont deny that. Downsizing the military is perfectly fine if you dont plan to go to war. But as the Islamic threat grew such as the Embassy Bombings and the USS Cole he reversed course and brought spending back up. You might say he failed to anticipate the Islamic threat, the 9/11 commision said so. But they also faulted Bush as well for the very samething. The warnings Clinton ignored, Bush also ignored.

(Part 2). That would be true if you accept the notion that Bush came into office not knowing he would invade Iraq. HORSE HOCKEY! as Colonel Potter from M*A*S*H would say.

I firmly believe that Bush came into office knowing perfectly well he was going to invade Iraq, the NEOCONS, thinktanks such as the Heritage Foundation, conservative Republican hawks in Congress had been begging Bush I and Clinton to do invade Iraq. Incidently Bush I referred to them (Wolfowitz and Perle) as 'the crazies' and kept them at a distance. Junior lacked the common sense of his Dad.

Second of all, Bush was warned by Pentagon officals such as General Shinski that a War in Iraq would quickly turn into a insurgent conflict. Not only did Bush not listen to good advice but he punished those that didnt toe the NEOCON line. And the NEOCONs (the self-declared military geniuses that they are ) were of course totally and competely off on everything. I'm not in the military, but I am a student of history, and often in history its very hard to predict what can happen in the course of world events. This WASN'T one of those times. Had Bush done his homework he might have remembered the British in Egypt and Palestine, and the French in Algeria. Iraq is a carbon copy of these previous conflicts.

4. I disagree, both Lincoln and FDR had to deal with the media. There was no live TV, but there was newpapers, photographs, and later movies and radio broadcasts. The Spanish-American War was started by the predecessors of FOX NEWS, namely journalists Hearst and Pulitizer.
There were even combat journalists. I used to have on audio tape a radio broadcast from a journalist doing a broadcast on Omaha just hours after the assault, you can still here arty fire in the background. Lastly I would say he's disinterested in subjects he cares nothing about (like helping the poor and disadvantaged in America) and overwhelmed in subjects that he actually tries to do something like Iraq.
March 10th, 2006  
Tessa
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Come on Chief Bones, you're a smart guy so take a look at the issue again. I'm not a bush guy. I'm an atheist college student that loves tons of premarital sex and makes sure every chick I'm with would have an abortion if the condom broke. A "values voter" I am not.

But you tell me Afghanistan wasn't a phenomenal campaign? That's one.
The economy has turned around. That's two.

And please please tell me you predicted 9/11. On 9/10 if you handed me that memo saying "Bin Laddin is going to destroy twin towers" there isn't anything I could have done about it. Why? BECAUSE I'M NOT NUTS ENOUGH TO THINK OF FLYING AIRPLANES INTO BUILDINGS. No one pre-9/11 was that nuts!

On Iraq; even if he was looking at the country pre-9/11 I'm not against that. We have been continuously at war with Iraq since 1991. We just had a cease fire that was periodically interrupted by them shooting at our planes and us bombing them.

Now you tell me you are sitting in that White house and the chief of the CIA walks into your office and tells you Iraq has all these horrible chemical and biological weapons. When you ask him how sure he is he responds, and I quote Tennet, "It's a slam dunk Mr. President."

Now you tell me you would risk the lives of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe even in the millions of American lives after 9/11 when the guy in charge in intelligence puts that in your lap. You tell me you would do different.

Bush is a stubborn a**hole who doesn't want to deal with the press or the American people. That's why he glossed over Tennet and gave him the meddel of freedom... pardon me while I puke. That's why he doesn't give a damn about what the average American thinks about issues. And that's why he's been such a failure in his second term.

Even in 2004 I would have voted him out if we had a halfway decent canadite but instead I had Kerry... *pukes again*. But, Chief Bones, just because he's an a** this month doesn't mean he never did anything good ever.
I'm with Whispering Death.. I believe he has said it all.

I am voting No, since I agree with the above reasons and I can not even count one good thing Bush has done to be honest. I believe other who could be sitting on the president-role would have done a better job then him.. at any time.
March 10th, 2006  
Rabs
 
 
I agree sir the spending is out of control, way out of control. Like the 500 million dollar bridge to an island with 50 people, its just out of the ballpark. Most of the pork is by republicans to, shame on them.

However, I'm no economist but listening to real economist, I think the tax cuts helped pull the US out of recession.


I
Quote:
'm with Whispering Death.. I believe he has said it all.
jesus dont feed the ego please
March 11th, 2006  
chinese-canadian
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabs
I agree sir the spending is out of control, way out of control. Like the 500 million dollar bridge to an island with 50 people, its just out of the ballpark. Most of the pork is by republicans to, shame on them.

However, I'm no economist but listening to real economist, I think the tax cuts helped pull the US out of recession.


I
jesus dont feed the ego please
where the hell was the recession???
do you even know what is a recession?
recession is when over two quarters of consecutive falling of GDP..

U.S was growing fastly for 8 straight years with clean budget for god's sake...and here comes Bush, tax cuts for the super rich and bankrupt the nation

and 9/11, I doubt it is as worse as Asian economic crisis in Clinton's time, yet Clinton pulled it over and maintained a balanced budget


HOwever, as I have said before, I think national security and global strategy are what Bush is good at doing (maybe not presenting)