Though it shouldn't surprise me, I think what still shocks me the most if you think about it is the fact that 27% strongly approved. Are you kidding me?? I know there are sheep, but 27% of people polled strongly approved of the job George W. Bush has done?! I mean what more does it take to look yourself in the mirror and say, "my god, I've lost all touch with reality." Noone's going to criticize you for being unloyal to your man, this isn't like some gang or something. We're talking about the lives of fellow citizens at stake here due to one man's gross incompetence. What hasn't gone wrong that could have gone wrong? Sheep will always be sheep I suppose...
Would you be open to a recall election? I'd like to change my vote! And let me apologize to the country for the way I voted. I really disliked Kerry, and figured it would be better to stay with Bush thinking he couldn't muck up anything else. I figured he'd have the best chance of fixing Iraq. I was horribly wrong.
That is a great post. I don't find fault with how anyone votes, but I have such a hard time when some hard core Bush supporters can see no wrong with anything at all that has happened. It is extremely refreshing to hear someone honestly say they believe Bush has handeled things poorly, who was a supporter of him.
1. You're telling me with a straight face that it's good we haven't yet caught the greatest villain in United States history? It would make him a martyr? How about capturing him and crippling his organization. 2. I don't know what you mean by this. 3. It's alot more tragic when the war is started unethically and there is no clear purpose. 4. Surely you can't be serious. I guess you're right though. Being on vacation nearby helped him fly over New Orleans in his plane and survey the damage from a safe distance. 5. "Brownie you're doing a heck of a job." The slogan which pretty much epitomizes the entire mockery with which FEMA handled this disaster, and you're defending him?
Didn't matter. You were in a blue state anyway, though would have been one less vote to account for Cheney's mandate.
Actually there were investigations on that incident that primarily centered on what the Chicago city government did and didn't do. The heatwave is a hard disaster to compare to the hurricane. It was slow moving and wasn't considered more of a nuissance so authorities and the media were slow to realize the extent of it. That the local and Fed government should've done something is easy to say in retrospect but this was a situation that practically no one realized was happening while everyone was aware that Katrina was a massive storm, there were many predictions that in a hurricane greater than category 3 would flood NO or at the minimum that widespread damage across at least a two states would happen. A better comparison would be to the Fed's response to the flooding along the Mississippi and the Red River in 1997. In that case a small city, Grand Forks South Dakota, was also flooded along with several other communities in MN, IA, and MO. While there were many problems with dealing with those floods generally FEMA got good marks and Fed help got to Grand Forks in a timely manner. Unlike Mike Brown James Witt the FEMA director under Clinton has been considered one of the best FEMA directors even earning praise from GW Bush in one of the 2000 Presidential debates.
No offense Giddyup but I think you need to study history if you think what GW Bush is going through is anywhere near what FDR went through. As for those who think Clinton had it easy I would say we are once again victims of short term memory. Here's just a partial list: -Came in under a recession and major deficits. - Major flooding in the Midwest in 1993 -WTC Bombing in 1993. -Major terror plot to bomb the Holland Tunnel, power plants and airplanes by Ramzi Yousef in 1993 who was captured. -The Northridge Earthquake in 1993 - Major train crash into Mississippi in 1993 - Waco in 1994. - US troops to Haiti in 1994 - Torrential storms on the West Coast in winter of 1994-95 - OK City in 1995. - Deadly Heat Wave in 1995. - Severe flooding in the Midwest in 1997 - Torrential storms and mudslides on the West Coast in Winter of 1997-98 - Terrorist attack on Embassy's in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998 - Military campaign in Serbia and Bosnia in 1998 - Operation Desert Fox in 1998 Under the Clinton Admin. there were more declared natural disasters than any other Admin. in the history of FEMA. During the Clinton Admin its not like the weather, the seas and earth stayed placid. One of the reasons why a lot of people forget all of the challenges both natural and man made during the Clinton Admin is that under the Clinton Admin FEMA director did such a good job. This isn't to say that things haven't been tough under the GW Bush Admin just that its a mistake to argue that things were easy under Clinton.
Off the top of my head. Lincoln, FDR, Monroe, Hoover, LBJ, Carter, Wilson, McKinney, Andrew Johnson, Nixon, Coolidge As far as when as a major US city been destroyed in a natural disaster I would expect you should remember that city about 45 miles south of you and that City where Tony Bennet misplaced his heart. Oh yeah and Memphis was abandoned in the 1880's due to a scarlet fever epidemic.
Which of those presidents had two major cities devastated (NY and NO) and two or more major economic blows (dot-com, Enron and 9/11) to withstand? Which ones had to suffer the single greatest terror attack on US soil which hit at the heart of her greatest city? 9/11 will reverberate for a long time in this country. Everybody's welcome to their opinion, but can you make a case for any of those other presidents that comes close to Bush's baggage? What city is 45 miles south of me that needs remembering? Memphis was temporarily abandoned, right? I know the Grizzlies haven't always drawn well but I think the town has been re-populated for a long time. Was it destroyed as NO was? The World Series was being played in SF when the quake occurred. Did they cancel the series? New Orleans is probably going to lose both of their professional franchises due to Katrina.
You are still at it? It's just unbelievable. You kept saying about dot-com blow. What exactly did dot-com do to America economy? It created the only surplus in recent years, it attracted record high foreign investment in US stock markets and treasuries, it created tons of new jobs. Yes, it cooled down eventually. What exact humongous impact did it to the US economy, except some IT jobs were lost, which were created during the dot-com boom in the first place? I can't believe you kept comparing stuff like dot-com to WWII. Oh yeah, it's really really tough for GWB, because he had a surplus, money in the bank to start with. Economy works in cycles, he got the downturn, before he started the job, he kept talking about recession, which wasn't true. After he started the job, no mention to recession, but how strong it was, which isn't true either. yeah, keep blame Clinton, it's so damn hard to do any job having some money in hands, he has to turn that surplus into record high deficit. Yes, keep blame 9/11. Didn't you just say that attack at Pearl Habour spur US economy? Why couldn't 9/11? What's the difference? Can we say leadership? FDR could make that as positive energy to US economy, but GWB could only make 9/11 as excuse to attack Iraq, yes, it's so tough for him to twist and spin like that. It's funny that you talked about Enron. For you, millions people dying world wide years long huge event, is much easier than a single company scandal. Anderson and Worldcom were dealt with, by the way, how was the Enron thing dealt? How many people involved were arrested and charged? By the way, which sector is Enron in? Let's just step back a million steps. Let's assume that GWB had the toughest job in human history. So, he failed in all major events is expected? In other words, he's not supposed to deal with tough situations, just like Brownie. Then, why do you want him to be your leader? Next time, try to explain to your employer, or listen to your employee's explanation, the failure was due to the difficulty of the job, it's SUPPOSED to fail, because the person put in is incompetent. Let's see whether your employer or you as an employer yourself would give that explanation a pass and celebrate the "heck of a good job".
Lincoln had numerous cities destroyed in a war where Amerians were fighting Americans. It was a real war, and far more devastating and costly than anything we have gone throught. Atlanta was burned as was everything else on the path to the sea, that was torched and destroyed. Andrew Johnson had to repair the nation after Lincoln was killed, and then he was impeached. San Francisco was burned to the ground a hundred years before the earthquakes. IT was totally burned. FDR had pearl harbor attacked, and we fought against an enemy that was a real threat to us. Carter faced an energy crisis that was real. It wasn't just about high gas prices it was about literally running out of oil. Not all of these guys were handed a govt. surplus and a plan to fight terrorism when they entered the whitehouse either. Bush was.
Do you remember during the 2000 election cycle how the Republicans pimped Cheney as the experience factor that counterbalanced W's lack thereof? Republicans in 2000 were basically saying that their top man had little relevant experience, but not to worry the VP did. After four plus years of *real* experience as President, W still lacks the wherewithal for the job, especially in the face of adversity. Maybe if W had been governor of a state, he would have stepped in when FEMA and Louisiana's governor Blanco were failing to connect. But wait ...
<B>real_egal What exactly did dot-com do to America economy? It created the only surplus in recent years, it attracted record high foreign investment in US stock markets and treasuries, it created tons of new jobs. Yes, it cooled down eventually.</b> Monster.com became just Monster. <b>Economy works in cycles, he got the downturn, before he started the job, he kept talking about recession, which wasn't true. After he started the job, no mention to recession, but how strong it was, which isn't true either. yeah, keep blame Clinton, it's so damn hard to do any job having some money in hands, he has to turn that surplus into record high deficit.</b> Aren't you saying that a recession hadn't begun before GWB took office? I'm not blaming Clinton (nice try though); I'm just saying that some of thse things are larger than the presidency. <b>Yes, keep blame 9/11. Didn't you just say that attack at Pearl Habour spur US economy? Why couldn't 9/11? What's the difference? Can we say leadership? FDR could make that as positive energy to US economy, but GWB could only make 9/11 as excuse to attack Iraq, yes, it's so tough for him to twist and spin like that.</b> The way I hear it, people were signing up for the US military before FDR had cleared his throat for a radio address. Let's not forget that GWB was universally praised and supported for his entry into Afghanistan and removal of The Taliban. We didn't just jump on Iraq with both feet first thing. There were months of deliberation-- September of '01 to March of '03 before we sought to remove Saddam. That's 17-18 months. <B>Let's just step back a million steps. Let's assume that GWB had the toughest job in human history. So, he failed in all major events is expected? In other words, he's not supposed to deal with tough situations, just like Brownie. Then, why do you want him to be your leader?</b> I find that he does deal with tough situations. He makes tough, unpopular choices and he sticks to his guns. It is fine for you to not like the way he chooses to deal with them, but I think it is wrong to call full and immediate remediation of a problem "failure." That is for history to judge not you.
good example.. monster.com is still the same profitable company after your so-called "bubble" so you're basically saying, bush used 911 as an excuse to attack Iraq.. why? because bush already has come to the conclusion that saddam was involved in 911 immediately after it? or do you mean the deliberation started when saddam tried to assasinate his father.. or when he started his presidency as richard clarke has said..
<B>vlaurelio good example.. monster.com is still the same profitable company after your so-called "bubble"</b> Are saying that there was no bursting dot-com bubble? <B>so you're basically saying, bush used 911 as an excuse to attack Iraq.. why? because bush already has come to the conclusion that saddam was involved in 911 immediately after it? or do you mean the deliberation started when saddam tried to assasinate his father..</b> No. No. No.
politics aside (if that's possible)...am i misunderstanding you?? are you saying there was NOT dotcom bubble effect? that there was not a correction to that around 2000??
there was a but not as big as to blame the disappearance of the $250B surplus, ballooning of the deficit to $300B, and other economic problems the country is having right now..
so what do you mean by saying this you're basically saying the three of those mainly attributed to the deficit? and not the Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts for the rich?
so what do you mean when you say this? If you say that Bush started planning the war after 911, then he already have some evidence that Iraq was involved in it? I would think they would plan to attack OBL and the taliban first.
