Effective at what? What has he done well ... since he's done a poor job of international relations, planning post-war Iraq, improving the economy, and protecting the environment. I would agree that he has been very effective is his intent was to do a crappy job on all of these relatively critical responsibilities.
He's cut taxes, which I agree with. He started successful campaigns in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Iraq rebuilding is mixed right now, but improving IMO. The Department of Homeland Security was created. He continues to push for free trade. People talk about poor relations with France and Europe, but our relationship with Britain, India, China, and Japan are pretty good. He is taking a pretty hard line on Yasser Arafar. I think the Justice Department went strongly after corporate criminals in Enron and Arthur Andersen.
I'll give Bush credit for a few things. Tax cuts, Homeland Security...probably good, but the jury's still out. Our foreign affairs suck...most of the planet is pissed at Bush. The early policy of ignoring the Middle East didn't work too damn well at all. Global trade negotiations are all failing miserably. Iraq may be improving, but the advance planning for the post-war is beginning to look naive and inept. Letting the Justice dept use the Patriot Act for non-terrorist investigations pushed it way over the edge. Overall, I'd give him a D+ ...not too effective IMO. I don't flunk him because of the guts he had to head to Afghanistan and Iraq...even if the administration handled it poorly. I'll bump it someday to a C+ or higher if it's ever determined that the changes made in homeland security by the administration were directly responsible for averting some serious attacks, but until then, I think he's screwed-up quite a bit.
Good Rejoinder, BigTexxx. But Bush's low work ethic leaves a bad taste, esp since we Americans are working harder and harder.
...or not at all, thanks to recent layoffs. In almost any other field, if you take 100 days off a year, you're fired or demoted. But because he has an "R-" in front of his name, people give him a free pass. Shouldn't your president work at least as hard as you?
whether a president is in the white house, on air force one, at camp david, or "on vacation" in crawford/little rock, he is constantly working. even when clinton was getting "orally serviced" once, he was on the phone with the joint chiefs. presidents may leave washington dc, but they don't get many breaks from work. i am surprised this article made it past an editor, considering how misleading and irrelevant the content.
Like FD and kurtk said. I don't think the guy is exactly drinking beer and pitching horseshoes on his "vacation" days. Isn't this whole thing kind of silly? No President is ever "off the clock" so to speak. Not even Clinton. Seems like grasping at straws to me.
"I'm gonna be on the job, 24/7. That's 24 hours a week, 7 months a year." George W. Bush Will Ferrell classic If you would like to see something truly amazing about Bush look at the number of news conferences he grants compared to Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc.
How many of these guys are in Prison now? honestly I'm curious I know Ken Lay still walking the street Rocket River
I knew someone that worked in the governers office when he was governer and said that he was notorious for playing solataire for a couple of hours every afternoon. I guess he is alot like the rest of us.
Rumor has it that George W. spends 5-6 hours a day here at Clutch BBS to stay in touch with the common everyday folks of America. His dad does live in Houston ---
Bush is a very productive president compared to Clinton. Clinton burned himself out and was always behind work, so he couldnt take vacations. Bush is very productive, so he can take more vacations. other things... Clinton only went to war once during his two terms while bush has done it twice. It took Clinton 6 years for a lot of moral people to hate him. It took Bush only three years for all moral people to hate him. Clinton got caught lying in his sixth year. Bush got caught in his third year. Clinton was responsible for several american troops getting killed in somalia over a few days to help some piss-poor country. Bush is responsible for getting hundreds of american troops killed over several months to help some uh... help us? Obviously, Bush is PART OF SOMETHING BIG!!!!
Substitute Bill Clinton for Bush over the past six months and you will see my point. What would TV talking heads be saying today? William Kristol, Sean Hannity and the others would be demanding Clinton's impeachment. They would be screaming that there were no weapons of mass destruction and Clinton knew it. He lied to the United Nations, to the American people, and he deliberately and unnecessarily placed American troops in harm's way. And if that was insufficient to start an impeachment proceeding, they would be screaming that he did all of this without a congressional declaration of war. This would be "Wag the Dog" all over again. A war to divert attention from a flagging economy. And, to top it off, Clinton did not secure the Iraqi nuclear sites to prevent looting, did not protect the national museum, did not capture Saddam or his sons. He led people to believe that the invasion of Iraq was about 9/11, not oil. They would save the best until last. Do you remember the famous haircut on Air Force One? Clinton supposedly had his hair cut while planes were diverted around Los Angeles International Airport. It didn't happen, but Clinton was condemned on right-wing talk shows throughout America for this alleged waste of funds. Imagine if Bill Clinton had slowed down an aircraft carrier and had landed on the deck in a jet for photo ops for his campaign. Oh, my goodness! The folks at Fox would be in cardiac arrest. Rush would froth at the mouth. And suppose the White House of Bill Clinton had lied to the media by explaining that Clinton had to fly by jet because the ship was too far out to sea for a helicopter, and then admitted that the story wasn't true when reporters could see San Diego from the deck. Suppose Clinton had given no-bid contracts worth billions of dollars to Democrats who contributed to his campaign. These would be high crimes and misdemeanors, and most of us would agree. Bill Clinton would be impeached and found guilty. No speech by Dale Bumpers could save him. So how have the media treated Bush? Magazines extol him for flying the jet, appearing in uniform, acting like he knew what he would have known had he not skipped out on the real war -- Vietnam, or his Air National Guard duties. No condemnation for wasted tax dollars or using the Navy for political ends. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Oh well, mistakes are for this world, and perfection is for the next. The double standard is breathtaking. http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/7805
Clinton screwed-up a food mission in some piss-poor country. Bush has had to deal w/ 9-11, which could have (arguably) been avoided if Clinton had done his job.
Interesting fact: ... under Clinton, the infamous and idiotic crime bill of 1994 is enacted...a blatant pissslap at the 2nd admendment ... under Bush Jr., the idiotic and infamous crime bill of 1994 WILL FOR A FACT expire next year, 2004...(A notion even Clinton himself concedes will happen) What the heck, a ten year hiadus was jacked-up!!!
Damn right it's arguable. Bill Clinton did more against terrorism than other president in U.S. history -- that's a fact. But because Bush didn't do his job, people are blaming the guy before him. Talk about passing the buck.
