1. It proves that America is determined to go after the real terrorists, the real mastermind of 9/11, and it also proves that America has the means to capture those REAL terrorists who killed 3000 innocent Americans. 2. It's not Bush's army or Kerry's army. It's the army of United States of America, to protect the citizens and its allies, and it's NOT supposed to serve any personal agenda or party goal. Maybe you are right there, the real problem is that some people, maybe including GWB think that's Bush's army. 3. It is tragic that people die in war. But if people were not sent to wrong war, based on lies, they don't need to die. In other words, another president could have avoid that tragic happening. 4. What did he do wrong? Nothing worng with planning and starting a vacation, but it IS wrong to continue a vacation when a city is sunk, when a one of the worst natural disaster hit the country, when thousands people are dying without water and food. 5. Puting a liar without any related experience in a very important position to deal with emergency situations was plain wrong. Praising an imcompetent person after a miserable failure is wrong. What would I have done? For me, it's somehow a little bit more important to fix the problem and save the dying people, than to "encourage" a incompetent failure. 6. In conclusion, if it couldn't be worse, only upside, for any other given president, you still glad that "your man" won, how does that translate to "loving America"? BTW, you want examples that a US president to deal a little bit more real problem? How about Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Now THAT is some powerful evidence.... You're welcome to your opinion but don't confuse it with facts, okay?
It was a rhetorical question meant to illustrate that there have been very few US presidents who have been dealt such a difficult hand... Maybe Lincoln, maybe FDR-- but not in my opinion. It's a short list for sure.
Are you suggesting we purposefully avoid catching Bin Laden. Imagine a situation where our troops have him surrounded. Would you want the president to immediately order the forces to let Bin Laden go because we don't want him to be a martyr? As far as Brown and what should have been done, we need to go back further. If Gore or Kerry were president Brown wouldn't have been in that position in the first place.
<B>real_egal 1. It proves that America is determined to go after the real terrorists, the real mastermind of 9/11, and it also proves that America has the means to capture those REAL terrorists who killed 3000 innocent Americans.</b> I've said all along that I'm content with keeping enough pressure on OBL to keep him moving and make his task much more difficult while we actually kill the drones that work for his "cause." <B>2. It's not Bush's army or Kerry's army. It's the army of United States of America, to protect the citizens and its allies, and it's NOT supposed to serve any personal agenda or party goal. Maybe you are right there, the real problem is that some people, maybe including GWB think that's Bush's army.</B> I was only pointing up that, under a Kerry presidency, the army would have been identical to the one under Bush's presidency. Who approves monies to outfit those forces anyway? <B>3. It is tragic that people die in war. But if people were not sent to wrong war, based on lies, they don't need to die. In other words, another president could have avoid that tragic happening.</B> The entire war was not based on WMDs. It is part of the War on Terrorism. With what degree of certainty can you tell me what another president would have done--- other than Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich? <B>4. What did he do wrong? Nothing worng with planning and starting a vacation, but it IS wrong to continue a vacation when a city is sunk, when a one of the worst natural disaster hit the country, when thousands people are dying without water and food.</B> Your vacation is not his vacation, okay? Anyway, I heard he made a hole-in-one at Putt-Putt when he could have been saving victims himself. <B>5. Puting a liar without any related experience in a very important position to deal with emergency situations was plain wrong. Praising an imcompetent person after a miserable failure is wrong. What would I have done? For me, it's somehow a little bit more important to fix the problem and save the dying people, than to "encourage" a incompetent failure.</b> Did anybody know he was a liar? I assume you are talking about his job description. I do believe that that promotion came from the predecessor in that job who had hired the man in the first place. Raise all the stink you want about "the buck stops here" but let's be practical about it. <B>6. In conclusion, if it couldn't be worse, only upside, for any other given president, you still glad that "your man" won, how does that translate to "loving America"?</b> It could be worse. <B>BTW, you want examples that a US president to deal a little bit more real problem? How about Franklin D. Roosevelt?</b> FDR had it easy comparably speaking IMHO.
No, I don't mean that. I just mean to say that it has never raised my hackles that we haven't thrown "all resources" into the hunt for OBL. I think that keeping him alive for awhile enable us to better "map" his organization by following communications which surely were ongoing to keep him safe. Now that FEMA director is not a cabinet level position, how political is that appointment?
Maybe Lincoln? Maybe FDR? You got to be kidding or quite ignorant about US history. I also nominate Madison who was President when the British burned down the WH during the US's second war with Britian. I do agree that the list is rather short.
I think the FEMA appointment is 100% political in Brownie's case. IT certainly wasn't based on qualifications considering he had none. It comes under homeland security and the executive branch.
Just another attempt to not have Bush or the GOP take responsibility for the mess the country is in. I am surprised he did not mention Clinton's faults. 9/11 was a great opportunity for a president to rally folks around the flag. Bush hit a homerun politically on that one and all of his successes have been predicated on that. The "war on terror" was bs designed to put the nation on a war footing and misdirect the country into a needless invasion of Iraq, and reckless neocons schemes, insted of focusing on Bin Laden, so it was a self created failure. Bush's pathetic response to Katrina, as most agree, was his own fault,due to laziness and not watching or reading news. His reckless cuts in natural disaster protection aggravated the problem so he could give tax cuts to the well-off. The increased deficit is fault, which will be aggravated by Katrina, as he had already put the country into a fiscal hole prior to Katrina. At least Giddy can finally agree that all is not great in Aemrica. I suspect that he will be gleefully posting the next time that say weekly unemployment figures come back better than expected that Dubya has triumphed over diversity. and is a wonderful CEO for the country.
The "not in my opinion" was meant for FDR only. I think that Linoln had it tougher for sure (note that I am the one who first submitted that Lincoln had it tougher).
Not surprising that Bush's rating is that low. A lot of conservatives are very disappointed in him too.
1. You don't believe that him being out there taunting his enemies doesn't inspire his followers? You are quite ignorant of history, it seems. 3. People only die in wars if there is a war in the first place. Anything (good or bad) that comes out of the Iraq war gets directly attributed to Bush. 4. Have you even followed the news on this? Take a look at the Newsweek story posted on these forums.
He was recommended by his predecessor (who hired him) without hesitation based on his strong background in ethics.
I still believe that dealing with WWII, Hitler and Japanese were much more difficult than dealing with OBL and Katrina. However, your logic doesn't hold. Even if the problems GWB faced was the toughest in human history, he failed, which means he wasn't up to the toughtest tasks. What makes you think that others wouldn't do better? Yes, there is always possibility that Kerry could do worse or similar, but isn't there possibility that he would do better or much better? On the other hand, IF in Brownie's term nothing happens, he wouldn't be exposed as incompetent. But the real situation was, something did happen, he's not up for the task, and he was removed. You could still argue that nobody dealt with Katrina before. What does it serve? He's a failure facing real challenge? Would you still argue that NO ONE would do better? Isn't that your logic?
When I first came to North America, in all interviews, people from protential employers asked me, what RELATED experience, skills set, and education background I had for the applying position. Every time, I changed a job, RELATED working experience was on top of the list. Nobody ever questioned my background in ethics. It's important, but without working experience to start with, I would NOT get a single interview.
Failed? Is America over? Done with? My sky looks exactly the same as it did the day that Bill Clinton (for you glynch) left office. My "logic" was to challenge the assumption so prevalent here that anyone else could have done better. No doubt that Hitler and the Japanese were tough, but they weren't on our soil as were 9/11 and Katrina (has any American ever seen a major US city disappear). The attack on Pearl Harbor spurred the US economy. What did the dot-com bomb and the 9/11 attack do to the economy of the US? Very different.
whats the whole point of going to Afghanistan? wage war on a muslim country & ressurect its drug trade? so its okay to turn Saddam into a martyr? are you sure about this? And if Kerry goes to war, do you think he will make the same decisions bush and neocons did? timing, strategy, un involvement, etc.. what if the war was unjustified in the first place? what if planning was not done right? so being "close" to the disaster is a very good thing? he should have been honest to the people of the US.. what does he owe brown?
Is it ethical to lie on your resume? Besides which, didn't his predecessor get the job by being a campaign staffer or manager for Bush/Cheney in 2000?
He failed in his job, I didn't say America failed. Because he failed in the all major events, why can't people assume that others could do better, even a tiny little bit better? How many American soldiers died in WWII? Just because it wasn't on American soil, it was easy and didn't count? What did dot-com do to America? Let me guess, in late 80's, every other American company was paniced to adapt Japanese mode, dot-com bomb changed that, made America the sole leader in new technologies again; it generated huge profits for American companies; it attracted record-high foreign investment in American stocks and treasuries; it gave America the only surplus in recent years; it provided America huge funds in developing and deploying newest and most advanced military technologies. You tell me, what did the dot-com bomb do to America. You want to compare it with the attack on Pearl Habour? Go ahead and compare it.
