Today, Time Magazine's Andrew Sullivan posted a comment I emailed to him regarding Bush's planning on his Blog.

It occurred to me that Bush's planning for after the election was no different than his planning for after the Iraq invasion. If he thought there was a decent chance either the house or the senate could be lost, would making moves earlier with Rumsfeld, Bolten, et al have been helpful before the election?

He didn't do anything because he truly believed the republicans would keep the house and senate. He said he had no other plan and by God, he was telling the truth there. When you compare it with the Iraq invasion, the parallels are stunning. Bush truly believed it would be a cakewalk, we'd be greeted as liberators, and we'd find WMD. Given all this, he had no other plan.

With those unlimited resources, I believe this consistent behavior is a clear indictment of his competence. Unfortunately, that's getting a lot of people killed in Iraq. Domestically, he's destroyed the republican party and no small part of it is due to Bush's failure to change and adapt.

The questions for debate is:
1. Do you believe Bush had a post-election strategy?
2. Does Bush's post-election behavior strengthen, weaken, or not change your judgment of his competence?

1. Do you believe Bush had a post-election strategy?

No. The only thing that has changed is not that much in regards to this administration, I don’t know if its because they are all sold into this plan, want to keep it running to protect themselves from really what is already obvious faults, massive ones, or simply bush is not capable of owning up or perceives that everything is going fine and all this was part of the plan, overall it all looks rather bad.

2. Does Bush's post-election behavior strengthen, weaken, or not change your judgment of his competence?

Its about the same for me personally, basically a vote of no confidence.

1. Sure. But, Bush is a big believer in the way of looking at things typified by Henry Ford in his famous quote...



Bush is not a defeatist and does not give light to the thoughts associated with such. His statements on Iraq and the election are a DIRECT result of this world view.

Bush obviously had a strategy since he already had a successor to Rumsfeld identified among other things.

2. Bush is a very competent man and competent president. What I see from democrats focuses on (1) Bush is an idiot because he doesn't agree with liberals (2) Bush is a moron because he doesn't look at the world like liberals do, (3) Bush is obviously incompetent because he hasn't adopted the defeatist attitude that liberals have, and finally (4) the war in Iraq wasn't wrapped up within the time span of a TV mini series so Bush is "incompetent".

The war that liberals have with Bush (in my view) is their war with those who don't adopt Liberal Theology, Liberal Dogma, and the Liberal Religion. They see Bush as a "heretic" or an "infidel" and treat him like religious fanatics of other faiths treat such.

George W. Bush is a graduate of Yale and has a Harvard MBA. He's the twice elected governor of one of our largest states. He's the twice elected president of the United States.

Saying he's "an idiot" or "incompetent" is both foolhardy and lacking of practical reason.

Has he made mistakes? Of *course*. But the nature of his job is each and every day, nearly half of the people in this country and the majority of the people around the world think that EVERYTHING the president does is wrong, hateful, and evil.

I've come to the conclusion that impression plays a bigger role in this country than reality; style rules over substance. And the keepers of the style/impression power are the media and they can make anyone look "good" or look "bad".... or "real bad".

Their die has been cast. They HATE Bush and they don't miss any occasion to make him look "real bad".

IN contrast, the previous president, who was impeached, accused of rape, sexual harassment, most likely committed felony perjury... is "liked" by the entertainment class and their "news" outlets in the major media. Therefore, they swept (and sweep) his transgressions under the rug to suit their agenda.

Bush, by any "objective" measure is more consistent, professional, and "competent" than Bill Clinton. He's put his vision of his "country's interests" ahead of his "personal interests" which was the opposite of Mr. Clinton.

Yet, he'll never get a break from the Bush bashers in the liberal media.

They can blame themselves one day for their lack of wisdom, clarity, and logic. But, I doubt it. The same people still congratulate themselves for their Vietnam-era treason and continue that tradition today.

1. Bush didn't have a post-election strategy. He didn't have a clue which is pretty much been the pattern of his whole life. He just goofs around and screws things up until Daddy Bush comes along and buys Junior out of whatever mess he's gotten into this time. Be it getting the United States stuck in a war even his new Defense Secretary says we aren't winning or making sure his old coke dealer stays safely locked away, Dubya can always count on Daddy Bush to get him out of the predicaments he gets himself into.

Bush is blustering that the Democrats taking control of Congress won't make his compromise his "principles." That's a laugh. He'd have to have a principle first.

This sick joke of a Chief Executive has bungled virtually every opportunity he has had to get the job right. He sat paralyzed with indecision as planes crashed out of the sky in New York and Washington, failed to connect the dots that indicated a terrorist attack was looming, flitted around the country in Air Force One as nearly 3000 Americans died on September 11 and then asserted himself only after Rudy Giuliani appeared more presidential than the geek holding the title.

Dubya took the country to war against a insane tyrant who had nothing to do with 9/11 based on a bald-faced lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was allowing his country to serve as a haven for Al Qaeda. The same cowardly chickenhawk who avoided serving his country during Vietnam dressed up in Top Gun drag to swoop down onto the deck of a aircraft carrier and arrogantly spout off the ridiculous line, "Mission Accomplished." Three years later and almost 3,000 American troops dead and thousands more physically and mentally scarred for life, Bush's billion-dollars-a-week war is no closer to being over now than it was then.

Bush's lies, unlike those of the former president, have destroyed the lives of thousands of American families who this Christmas will have a empty place where a father, brother, husband or son once loved, laughed and lived.

Bush probably believed Karl Rove's "math" that assured the boss that the Democrats would only gain a few House seats and not the whole shootin' match. We've already seen Rumsfeld, Ken Mehlman and John Bolton take the hint and beat it out of town. The copying machine at the White House is probably busy with all the resumes being printed.

Hopefully, Smilin' Dick Cheney will be the next rat to desert the sinking ship.

2. Not in the least. I already knew Bush to be a smirking moron without the warm seed of a fresh thought in
his empty head. Watching him becoming increasingly more irrelevant over the next two years is gonna be fun.

The title of Worst President Ever has become his to lose.

1. Do you believe Bush had a post-election strategy?

Yeah, Bush (er, make that Rove) had a post-election strategy predicated on the Republicans maintaining control of the Congress. Apparently pessimistic synthesis is not one of Rove's strengths, and Bush believes everything cronies like Rove tell him. This is no surprise, as this president has surrounded himself with people who agree with him and who are expected to "fall on their swords" to protect him. It is easy to ignore one's own responsibility in such an environment.

2. Does Bush's post-election behavior strengthen, weaken, or not change your judgment of his competence?

It does not change my judgment of the president one iota, but I have gained some respect for the American people who finally showed some backbone.


Perhaps the next quotation will expose the error in your thinking:

Does that look to you like a mini-series that has lasted too long, or will you allow that the American people have more at stake than impatience in this protracted war?

Way to demean the well-documented opinion of the American people--not just Democrats or "liberals"--when they said they'd had enough in last month's election by voting the perceived "bums" out. Evidently enough folks figured out that you don't have to be a Commie pinko or a Hollywood celebrity (yes, I know that to some people that would be viewed as a redundancy!) to see that this country has been mismanaged from the dishonestly-perpetrated misadventure in Iraq and the loss of some integral American freedoms to the ineptitude of the FEMA response in Louisiana and Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina.

And now Robert Gates, Bush's new choice for Secretary of Defense, has admitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee that we are "not winning" the war in Iraq. My gosh, finally some honesty?

The fact is that President Bush's timing for getting rid of Rumsfeld is most loudly criticized by Republicans who could have used that in their campaigns had he done it sooner, not Democrats.

Well yes. That's my point. The war has proven to be difficult. And when the going has gotten tough, the American people have been going.

Polls indicated 74% support for the Iraq war when it started. Now that the cost has risen, they are starting to turn against it. It's lasted longer than a mini-series and it's not been wrapped up by Bruce Willis with the bad guys clearly identified and vanquished. Bush could have won this war in short order. But we would have devastated that nation beyond repair. Instead, he has waged a "kinder and gentler" war which has put our troops at greater risk. The wisdom of that approach is debatable. But Bush, if he's guilty of anything in Iraq is idealism. He really believes that human beings ALL desire freedom and that the Iraqis, when given the chance, would throw off the chains of Saddam Baath party slavery and embrace the Americans as liberators. Personally, I'm a lot more cynical. I think that there are people in this world who can't handle freedom. Furthermore, I supported the war to remove Saddam and to get bases on the border of Iran who is the big Kahuna in the Islamist terrorist global effort. But Idealism isn't Incompetence. Jimmy Carter is still held in high esteem by liberals (and the press) in spite of the fact that he bungled his way through 4 years. His BIGGEST failure was to withdraw support from the US-supported Shah of Iran for idealistic reasons. That action, more than ANY other in modern history contributed to the Islamist threat that we currently face. Yet, Carter is given a pass and Bush is hammered non-stop. Double standard? Of course.




First point. The war in Iraq was not "dishonest". Bush, and the democrats who voted with him acted in good faith based on the information they had available at the time. Hindsight is 20-20. Bush and the previous administration believed that Saddam had WMD's. These are historical facts. It's tedious to keep reminding people over and over and over again of these FACTS.

Second point, FEMA was faced with a disaster in Katrina of unprecedented proportions. Furthermore, that government agency was not the only government agency that dropped the ball. Yet, Bush is singled out for "blame" in the response to this disaster.... which was a NATURAL disaster. The mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin totally dropped the ball. The governor of LA Blanco totally dropped the ball. It was a typical government operation. Bungled. There is no evidence that it would have been less bungled had a democrat been president. In fact, a FAR smaller government operation..... microscopic in comparison that took place during the Clinton administration was even MORE bungled than Katrina where heroic acts occurred in great numbers but were largely ignored. That bungled government operation took place in Waco, Texas. Also, what "integral freedoms" have YOU lost as a result of the Bush presidency?

Third point. Mr. Gates indeed said that we are not "winning the war" in Iraq. He also stated (and you omitted this part) that we are "not losing the war either". Rightly or wrongly, we ARE in a war in Iraq and we are there as a result of a bi-partisan authorization. The democrats won a slim majority and now have the power to fully defund the Iraq war. Yet, Pelosi and Reid have stated that they won't do this.... in spite of their repeated demands that we "cut and run" from that war. Why is that? Why do the democrats, when faced with REAL votes or the REAL power to stop the war..... pass on the opportunity? It seems to me that they are afraid to be out in front on that issue and prefer to be in a position to second guess the president. That's not leadership. That's just partisan sniping and it's done at the expense of our brave troops who are undermined EVERY time American citizens give aid and comfort to our enemy by giving them HOPE that they will prevail over the "soft and cowardly" Americans who cannot face the sacrifices required to win this war.

Final point. Bush obviously decided to get rid of Rumsfeld "before" the election. Therefore, he HAD a plan. The fact that he didn't share it with YOU or the democrats does not indicate that he "had no clue". Republicans were angry at Bush because they wanted the potential political impact of changing out Rumsfeld. But Bush made it 100% clear that he rejected such thinking because he did not want our brave troops to believe that decisions involving their leadership were motivated by politics. That's a commendable position and one that Bush never really gets credit for.

Throughout this challenge, there is ONE person who has consistently been on the side of the troops. And that's our President. Perhaps that explains why they still support him with overwhelming majorities and why they continue to re-enlist and fight this war.

We can still win the war in Iraq and I believe that we must. If we fail, if we turn this into another Vietnam, we will suffer the consequences as a nation.

Polls stated the high percentage of American people for the war in Iraq because Bush and his administration made claims of Iraq 1) allegedly being in cahoots with terrorists (not true), 2) having WMDs (not found), 3) having aluminum tubing for nuclear warheads (not true--they were too small in diameter), 4) having sought quantities of yellowcake uranium in Niger (not true), and the final biggie, 5) implying that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 (never proven). Now, when someone uses a number of reasons to boldly assert the need to invade a belligerent country, only to have the reasons turn out to be totally bogus, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? I call it dishonest. Yes, hindsight IS 20/20. And you know all this, don't you?

Bush and Company claimed that it didn't know how bad Hurricane Katrina turned out to be. None of his administration watched The Weather Channel or CNN in the preceding days? Curmudgeon and I noticed that it was a "bend over and kiss your a-- goodbye" category storm, and we just watch television. The warnings were there. In addition, even international organizations had rescuers in place before FEMA responded adequately. I remember seeing Canadians evacuating people.

And there remains in Arkansas FEMA trailers sunken up to their hubcaps in mud which didn't make it to Louisiana for the homeless.

I reject out of hand your assertion that Bush wanted a "kinder and gentler" war(!) and that was the problem with his lack of a plan for the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. For a man who states he has no faith you seem to demonstrate a lot of faith in a president who has hardly come close to the hype from those who voted for him for his professed faith. David Cho wrote an interesting book about that, but it is off the subject for this thread.

And as far as Pelosi and Reid go, their refusal to cut the funding for the war does not mean that they don't want to pull the troops out. That would be draconian for those troops already over there. Certainly you don't want them to pull the Snidely Whiplash type of foreclosing on the mortgage maneuver--no, I guess you would like that, because such a move would buttress your already low opinion of a Democratic leadership that hasn't yet received the reins of Congressional power. How about we wait and see what the Democratic leadership does after they actually have assumed control?

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, regardless of what you think about them, bear no direct relevance to this discussion. You have done this before in many threads, and I would assert that if it is necessary to bring up failed policies from other administrations to defend the current president, then your defense is lame. I would bring to your attention that even Christopher Buckley in The New Republic has criticized this president and asserted that it was time for the Republicans to lose control. Pat Buchanan has criticized this president. Colin Powell, now that he has been out of public service for a while, is not backing "his" president's policies but has chosen to call the situation in Iraq a "civil war." These are conservatives.

Yes, Mr. Gates said we are "not losing" the war either. But he characterizes it as "unacceptable," something which you did not mention, either. So, if the U.S. is "not winning" but "not losing" it must either be a stalemate or a Mexican standoff--take your pick. In any case, it's not the victory hyped by the Bush administration for so many months, so forgive me if I feel that either Mr. Bush has been in a state of denial over Iraq or has been obfuscating with the American people.

And forgive me, but trying to be "kinder and gentler" toward the Iraqis and in so doing putting our troops in more danger does not merit the statement, "there is ONE person who has consistently been on the side of the troops". Yeah, he's on their side just so long as they are doing what he tells them to. And I would call your attention to the exchange that took place between Bush and incoming Senator Webb when he asked him, "How's your boy?" Not everyone in uniform holds President Bush in high regard, their feelings about the war notwithstanding.

The fact remains that President Bush is indeed an ideologue who has until recently been insulated from the criticism of the American public and has pursued a poorly thought-out agenda for this country and its relationship with other nations. No clear plan for the WOT, having made a costly mistake by diverting troops and money into Iraq instead of maintaining his focus on Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden, not planning for the peace, detaining Americans, many of them without habeas corpus in the Guantanamo detention center, bypassing the FISA courts and personally sanctioning the wiretapping of domestic calls, making PR visits to the badly-hit Gulf states after Katrina but not getting the needed help there, and spending far more money than the alleged spendthrift Democrats who preceded him in the office, with less to show for it. On top of it all, he doesn't seem to listen to anyone, including his father.

Can you spell "incompetent"?

1. Do you believe Bush had a post-election strategy?

So is Karl Rove an evil genius or some guy that's gotten lucky in the past?

Bush did believe that Republicans would retain control. Did he have a contingency plan? What kind of plan would you suggest? Sandbagging the White House to protect it from a DNC frontal assault? What kind of "plan" should he have had just in case the loyal opposition won the election?

I've forwarded before my reasoning for why Rumsfeld was not sack pre-election: his successor would have been filibustered by the Democrats. Now that Democrats have won, Rumsfeld was quickly shown the door so that a reasonably acceptable (to Republicans) replacement could be nominated. The Democrats are pinned down by their need to "work with the White House" and can't appear too combative at this time. It is a good time to replace Rumsfeld (and Bolton, in all likelihood who just resigned).

So before the election, Rumsfeld's leaving would be blood in the water and after January, Democrats will control the Senate. This is Bush's window of opportunity and he's taking it.

2. Does Bush's post-election behavior strengthen, weaken, or not change your judgment of his competence?

Bush has made mistakes--no doubt there. As has every other Chief Executive. He's done a bunch of good things as well, for which he gets little if any credit. Bush is what he is: an un-conservative Republican who correctly believes that this country is under assault by jihadists. His fiscal restraint is weak because he wants to do good using the power of the government (not very conservative of him). His strategy on the WoT may be flawed, but I don't see any other plans coming out of the UN or Paris or anywhere else.

It took less than two hours for the terrorist to kill 3000 innocent civilians and yet after 5 years, have been unable to reach the same results against our military.

Perhaps it is because our troops are a little better armed and physically protected than the people attacked in 2001, and they aren't all in one place at one time. Tell me, with the shattered lives of the troops and their families, are their losses any less tragic than the losses sustained in the attacks on 9/11? Or do we just assume that it "goes with the territory" and that the troops knowing full well that they are in harm's way means they don't have a right to grieve or rage over a protracted war with no end in sight?

Please, let's try to stick to the subject, that being the competence of one President George W. Bush.

1. Do you believe Bush had a post-election strategy?

No, the man lives in a bubble that insulates him from the rest of the world. Maybe someone in the Republican Party thought about what would happen if the Congress went Demo in the House. I think it was a huge surprise to all when both houses went Democratic.

However, there's really only one strategy for a lame duck President dealing with an opposition Congress:

Make way for the next Republican presidential nominee.

Trouble is, how to do this? The Republican Party as a whole has moved too far right. It's not going to convincingly take the center while Democrats sit squarely upon it. The strategy right now seems to be trash Obama and hope Hillary gets the nomination. That's a losing strategy, I think.

My honest suggestion for the Republican Party is to ditch the idealists, turn to the realists, and start talking about the solutions to problems that people face each day. I doubt this will happen.

Meanwhile, the political climate has changed drastically over the past year in the US. The trends will likely continue on through 2007 and into 2008. The ship has finally turned, it has taken quite a while to do this, and it will take quite a while to turn it back, if that is at all possible within the next twenty or so years.

Anyway, President Bush had no plan, nor did the Republican Party. Reality kicked butt. So, will the Democrats be wise enough to keep to the center?

Yep. Of that I have no doubt, and I know this has been planned out.

2. Does Bush's post-election behavior strengthen, weaken, or not change your judgment of his competence?

My judgement on his competence has not changed since before he was elected the first time by the USSC. What has evolved since then has surprised me in its boldness and depressed me in its foolishness. Quite a bit of anger developed between surprise and depression. Now I'm feeling neutral about it. Only two more years, lame duck President, Democratic Congress for those two years. Phew, no new adventures in nation-building.

Note that in the final month of this Republican Congress, a bill on the abortion issue is being pushed through that would require anesthesia for fetuses about to be aborted. It's a bill designed as an appeal to emotions that have been sorely abused over the past six years.

My opinion of the Republican Party has changed over the past six years. It's much lower than it once was. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has allowed moderate and realistic former Republicans to join its ranks. I'm not only okay with this but hopeful that we'll finally have the leadership we need to move on into the 21st century.

I never devalued their lives in any way. Many military families understand their obligations and responsibilities. Even today, 5 years into this conflict, why does the majority of our military personnel still support Bush?

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/MILITARYPOLL.php



Were you not the one who posted the casualty totals?

Nope, Paladin Elspeth was quoting the casualty totals that I update. It bears reminding that there are real people dying over in Iraq in Dubya's stupid, pointless and unnecessary war.

It comes as no surprise to me that many soldiers still believe in the war. Who wants to think they are fighting and dying for no good reason? Who wants to die for George Bush's incompetently waged war? Who wants to die for a lie?

If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army.

– Frederick the Great

First off DR- I would like to commend you on YOUR ability to stick to your principles even when the party you obviously loved- the republicans, turned away from your principles, you turned away from them. I have not seen much of that on this board or anywhere in the US until recently, but you have been steadfast for a very long time- I can respect that in someone that has different views than I- someone that doesnt' follow someone else blindly because they STATE they are the same thing, but are clearly not- so my stien goe sup to you!

1. Do you believe Bush had a post-election strategy?

Rove knows how to get GW appointed prez, but he really is quite lame for the republican party as a whole- I would have to say Bill Clinton is somewhat the same here- Clinton himself is a get elected machine- but had no coat tails either. The HUGE difference here is in post-election strategy- Bill Clinton adapted and overcame his repub opponents, and in the end, left the country (if not the office itself ) in far better shape than when he came to power.


2. Does Bush's post-election behavior strengthen, weaken, or not change your judgment of his competence?

I have known he wasn't the man for the job since he won the primary in SC by using race baiting techniques of Rove- that just was the thing that was shown to me as a very incompetant person. A person that is good doesn't really need this strategy.

And then, when I started to look a bit into his background- I realized- there was nothing there. Oh sure, at first glance- looks pretty good. I found that he has used affirmative action for rich white dudes his whole life- he has been put to the front of the line in front of, in some cases, hundreds, of better qualified and more competant poeple his whole life- he can never has accomplished a single thing without AA for the rich.

His MBA, his military service, his Ivy league school- none of it he would have recieved without being WHO his is- rather than WHAT he is. There were FIVE HUNDRED poeple ahead of him in line for flight school and that guard unit- his entry into that school was discrimating against every person in front of him JUST BECAUSE HE WAS RICH AND WELL CONNECTED.

This set the pattern for his whole life- he was an abject failure IN EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS HE HAD TO RUN- he had to be bailed out- or bailed in, to every single deal. If not for his connections- everything he has touched has turned to crap, and his papa's friends bailed him out. That set the stage for his presidency.

The governership in Texas might have been one of his bright spots, if he had any kind of legacy left afterwards. That, and it is a "weak governer" state (thanks to Molly Ivans for explaining the Texas system so well ) :

http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display...mp;view=excerpt

the governor of Texas is actually the fifth most powerful statewide office: behind lieutenant governor, attorney general, comptroller, and land commissioner but ahead of agriculture commissioner and railroad commissioner. Which is not to say it's a piddly office. For one thing, it's a bully pulpit. Although truly effective governors are rare in Texas history, a few have made deep impressions and major changes. Besides, people think you're important if you're the governor, and in politics, perception rules. Of course Texans still think their attorney general, the state's civil lawyer, has something to do with law enforcement too.

So the guy has shown himself capable of winning election by courting the religious right vote, and in his state, the hispanic vote, but as an actual executive, absolutely incompetant moron. Beyond intellectually lazy, his just isn't that deep. His record shows that over and over.

There is some small joy in saying "I told you so" since 2000, but I am sure that doesn't comfort the families of the 30000 casualities with missing limbs and no ability to earn a living for themselves returning from the war that is another fool's errand.

To answer the question- no, I knew all along he was an intellectual midget, and incompetant and horrible for the entire country- all you have to do is look at the record of his silver spoon no-earning life.

No, I do not believe so. He assumed he was going to win, and as such did not plan for anything else. The president has consistently shown a complete inability to consider a 'Plan B' in any field, no matter how unrealistic and unfathomable his plan A is. Asserting as some have that he had a sucessor planned for Rumsfeld, thus he must have had a post-election plan, doesn't even make any sense. Sucessors are named from a pre-approved list, we have no idea when he chose Rumsfeld's sucessor, it could well have been on the day he fired Rumsfeld.



It doesn't change it. Regardless of whether or not he proved 'clever' or foresighted' in the mid-term election craze is such small potatoes compared to his glorious inadequacies as a President in every other field. It is hard to imagine anyone defending Bush's conduct of the Iraq war, the list of failures is well documented and well known. The fact of the increasing chaos, increasing death rate and lack of governance of the Iraqi government speaks for itself. Add to that the fact that Bush Jr has now completely given up on Iraq reconstruction efforts as well.

The military may or may not believe in the war, but the same polls quoted above also show the military overwhelmingly wants out of Iraq. So do polls of the Iraqi people. So do polls of the American people. But this thread isn't about that, its about 'competency'. So what else can we discuss regarding Bush Jr's performance?
-War on Terror: How soon we forget. Remember Bin laden, still at large? Bush Jr tried to DISBAND the Unit dedicated to hunting him down, and was only stopped when both republicans and Democrats voted to reopen and refund it. In the meantime, Afghanistan is falling into chaos, the Taliban now owns a significant percentage of the country again, and Al qaida (remember them?) Is stronger now then that have been at any time since before 9/11.
-Domestic Security: The ... I won't say violating, as thats a whole other debate, but shall we say infringement on civil rights of the Amerivan citizen, and the granting of unprecidented powers to the President has resulted in the US being LESS SAFE than it was four years ago according to the US National Intelligence Estimate. Actually, the reason for that is the war in Iraq and ignoring the war on terror, but just worthwhile knowing what these vast new government powers have brought...
-Economy: Jury still out on this one. Unemployment is almost as low as it was when he took office, but the dollar is far weaker and deficit spending is at its worst (ratio to GDP) in the entire history of the United States. The housing bubble which kept things artifically healthy is collapsing, so now perhaps we shall see.
-Foreign relations: After a president who cultivated foreign relations actively, and as a result had the highest popularity among allied nation in 30 years, we have a presient with the abolute lowest largely due to his intentional snubbing of the international community on global issues.
-I can go on. Violation of treaties (START and ABM treaties) violation of the geneva convention, attempts to legalise torture, faith based initiatives, scrapping Kyoto (and not proposing any alternatives), Katrina and so on...

And don't let the endless list of failures be the end of it. Can anyone name any SUCESSES? I mean, any? He got a tax cut for the rich passed... Anything else?

So given his laundry list of failings, no, the lack of post-election planning does not alter my opinion of the man.



Oh, and as an aside, saying the war 'takes longer than a mini-series' is a bit inane don't you think?

It has also taken longer than the US participation in WWII, and all of WWI, Korea, the US Civil war, the Boer war, the Spanish-American war, the Zulu war, the Franco-Prussian war, the Russo-Japanese war, ... in fact this war has lasted longer than every single war since the end of Napoleon with the exception of all of WWII and Vietnam.

Oh, and lets not forget while we are adding up dates, that THIS war is not over yet, and doesn't show signs of being anywhere near over judging by the steadily increasing capacity, strength and organisation of the Insurgencies...

My apologies to Paladin. It wasn't your quote.

You want to know the difference between me and you LH? I put principles over politics. You don't. You are defending the most liberal president since Jimmy Carter by attacking liberals and not stopping for one second to acknowledge the huge amount of republicans like me who decided it was time to throw the bums out. At least show some intellectual honesty. If you are going to blame liberals, blame the fair percentage of republicans like me who repudiated Bush and his policies.

The facts are not on your side. All you have is empty rhetoric and it's this empty rhetoric that has put liberals in charge once again for many years. You whine about liberals every chance you get and never whine about Bush's completely liberal agenda. I could never really figure out why liberals hate Bush so much - Bush is practically one of them. Your defense of Bush's liberal agenda and lack of objectives in Iraq kinda makes you a bigger lib if you ask me. Pot, meet kettle.

Anyhow, on the subject of Iraq, Bush clearly ignored advisors telling him all the things that have happened in Iraq would happen. And on top of rejecting that advice, he made no effort whatsoever to be ready with a backup plan. He bet the farm on this policy, his decisions, and his gut. There is not one thing he's gotten right with Iraq, yet he "stays the course" because he has no other course. He never left that option open.

With the election, same thing. When even his own party warned of great losses, Bush could have done some things to minimize the damage he caused and started a recovery earlier. That may have scared up a lot more republican votes. But no - he was certain, much like he was certain what would happen in Iraq - that the republicans would win. And just like Iraq, he got it all wrong. And to follow up, he had no plan. Instead, the democrats own him. He left himself no options.

Yet, all this is ok with you because he puts an R next to his name.

Besides tax cuts and his leadership right around 9/11, I honestly can't tell you anything he's gotten right. This isn't a president who's made mistakes - this is a president who rarely gets anything right.

Step up to the plate LH and be a man. Start taking swipes at half the republican base that helped fire the republicans when you take shots at the libs. Make your paintbrush a lot wider. Show the world how proud you are of our liberal president and his liberal policies. Show the republicans who repudiated Bush this last election why nation building and amnesty for illegals is great republican policy. Show the disgruntled republicans like me why 5,000 earmarks in a spending bill is great republican policy. Show us all how making crap up as you go is great leadership when you have virtually unlimited resources to help guide you.

You should be embarrassed and demand better. Unfortunatly for you, that would require principles.