Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

What EXACTLY are George W. Bush's qualifications to be President ?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Troy McClure, Sep 29, 2003.

Tags:

Page 2 of 3

AroundTheWorld Member

Joined:

Feb 3, 2000

Messages:

83,288

Likes Received:

62,281

Originally posted by bamaslammer
But having a SAPBJ (Special Assistant for Presidential Blow Jobs)does help tremendously.
Click to expand...

#21 AroundTheWorld, Sep 29, 2003

SWTsig Member

Joined:

Dec 20, 2002

Messages:

14,055

Likes Received:

3,755

if anyone here seriously thinks that the state of this nation is better off now then when Clinton was in office, their posting priviledges should be immediately revoked and a complete psychological examination should be administered to determine whether or not said person is a risk to the general public.

that is all.

#22 SWTsig, Sep 29, 2003
GATER Member

Joined:

Jun 25, 2000

Messages:

8,325

Likes Received:

78

Originally posted by Troy McClure
I am being serious. I want to know why anyone would seriously think he would be good as the leader of our nation...
Click to expand...

He kept his mouth shut just enough to appear less objectionable than Al Gore.

#23 GATER, Sep 29, 2003
Last edited: Sep 29, 2003
TheFreak Member

Joined:

Feb 18, 1999

Messages:

18,304

Likes Received:

3,310

Originally posted by pgabriel
I'm glad you put a question mark at the end of the first sentence. Yes, there is question about him meeting that qualification also.
Click to expand...

Not among people with brains.

#24 TheFreak, Sep 29, 2003
treeman Member

Joined:

Nov 27, 1999

Messages:

7,146

Likes Received:

261

He's won two wars in two years time (something no other president has ever done), has protected the country from Al Qaeda attacks, has not sold the country to the Europeans as Democrats would like, has told the UN to do its job or get out of the way (a good thing), and has generally done everything right in the War on Terror. Not perfectly, but he has made hard choices and taken the hard steps that are necessary to win that war. Having balls should count for something.

If you want to see what a nutless foreign policy gets you, just take a look at the last two Democratic administrations - Carter and Clinton.

What are his qualifications? Well, usually when you're applying for a job it helps to have work experience...

#25 treeman, Sep 29, 2003
mc mark Member

Joined:

Aug 31, 1999

Messages:

26,195

Likes Received:

471

Originally posted by treeman
Well, usually when you're applying for a job it helps to have work experience...
Click to expand...

damit! you made me spit martini all over the screen!

#26 mc mark, Sep 29, 2003
AroundTheWorld Member

Joined:

Feb 3, 2000

Messages:

83,288

Likes Received:

62,281

Originally posted by treeman
has not sold the country to the Europeans as Democrats would like
Click to expand...

Could you explain this one?

#27 AroundTheWorld, Sep 29, 2003

treeman Member

Joined:

Nov 27, 1999

Messages:

7,146

Likes Received:

261

They appear to want to make the US subordinate to the UN, and to accede to every French demand they can find. At least that's how it seems sometimes.

#28 treeman, Sep 29, 2003
AroundTheWorld Member

Joined:

Feb 3, 2000

Messages:

83,288

Likes Received:

62,281

A bit simplistic...

#29 AroundTheWorld, Sep 29, 2003
Panda Member

Joined:

Jun 5, 2002

Messages:

4,130

Likes Received:

1

What EXACTLY are George W. Bush's qualifications to be President ?
Click to expand...

There's too many fans of Planet of the Apes.

#30 Panda, Sep 29, 2003
thadeus Member

Joined:

Sep 14, 2003

Messages:

8,313

Likes Received:

726

He touched me in the places a bathing suit covers.

#31 thadeus, Sep 29, 2003
Cohen Member

Joined:

Oct 1, 1999

Messages:

10,751

Likes Received:

6

Originally posted by Sir Jackie Chiles
Could you explain this one?
Click to expand...

Why... looking to make a purchase?

#32 Cohen, Sep 29, 2003
GATER Member

Joined:

Jun 25, 2000

Messages:

8,325

Likes Received:

78

Originally posted by MadMax
He was Governor of Texas

I'd say that's more of a qualification than governor of some other state....like Arkansas for example
Click to expand...

Since the size of the state is so important, it's too bad for the Republicans that the Constitution prohibits Arnold from running for Prez in 2008.

#33 GATER, Sep 29, 2003

myco Member

Joined:

Jul 14, 2002

Messages:

816

Likes Received:

280

Originally posted by SWTsig
if anyone here seriously thinks that the state of this nation is better off now then when Clinton was in office, their posting priviledges should be immediately revoked and a complete psychological examination should be administered to determine whether or not said person is a risk to the general public.

that is all.
Click to expand...

If only we could see how Clinton would have handled 9/11.

#34 myco, Sep 30, 2003
AroundTheWorld Member

Joined:

Feb 3, 2000

Messages:

83,288

Likes Received:

62,281

Originally posted by Cohen
Why... looking to make a purchase?
Click to expand...

I'd do cherry-picking...would take Florida, Hawaii, Texas...probably also California (but only if I don't have to take on their debt), New York, Massachusetts...not so sure about Iowa, North Dakota and that kind of stuff.

#35 AroundTheWorld, Sep 30, 2003
No Worries Member

Joined:

Jun 30, 1999

Messages:

32,894

Likes Received:

20,675

Originally posted by treeman
has protected the country from Al Qaeda attacks
Click to expand...

So 9-11 happen during Clinton's watch?

#36 No Worries, Sep 30, 2003
No Worries Member

Joined:

Jun 30, 1999

Messages:

32,894

Likes Received:

20,675

I can think of 250 million reasons that GWB is qualified for President (at least on the next go round).

#37 No Worries, Sep 30, 2003
RocketMan Tex Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 1999

Messages:

18,452

Likes Received:

119

Originally posted by treeman
He's won two wars in two years time (something no other president has ever done), has protected the country from Al Qaeda attacks, has not sold the country to the Europeans as Democrats would like, has told the UN to do its job or get out of the way (a good thing), and has generally done everything right in the War on Terror. Not perfectly, but he has made hard choices and taken the hard steps that are necessary to win that war. Having balls should count for something.

If you want to see what a nutless foreign policy gets you, just take a look at the last two Democratic administrations - Carter and Clinton.

Click to expand...

It's good to know that the US Armed Forces have no penalty for smoking crack cocaine while on duty.

Sapling my friend, if you believe the shizzle you posted above, I truly feel sorry for you. Pure unadulterated drivel straight from the FOX News neocon spin machine.

#38 RocketMan Tex, Sep 30, 2003

bamaslammer Member

Joined:

Jun 11, 2003

Messages:

3,853

Likes Received:

4

Originally posted by myco
If only we could see how Clinton would have handled 9/11.
Click to expand...

Well here is how Clinton handled one terrorist attack:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004081

An Unheeded Warning
When al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, Bill Clinton shrugged.

BY RICHARD MINITER
Tuesday, September 30, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

(Editor's note: This is excerpted from "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," which you can buy it from the OpinionJournal bookstore.)

The White House:
On a Saturday morning, a day after the World Trade Center explosion, there was no sense of crisis in the White House. The bombers of the Twin Towers had changed little in the routine of President Clinton. The sheer scale of the blast had not sunk in. The few presidential aides in the West Wing were casually dressed and focused on the president's economic policy. The few reporters hanging around the briefing room were there to cover the president's radio address, which would focus on his economic stimulus package. Later that day, Chelsea's friends would arrive from Little Rock to celebrate her 13th birthday; Hillary had planned a party on the second floor of the White House residence.
President Clinton sat in the Oval Office scribbling. He was preparing for his weekly radio address and, as usual, making last-minute revisions.

It was the 39th day of his presidency, and so far it wasn't going well. The president's military salute--a few fingers sheepishly and momentarily touching his forehead--was faulted. National Security Adviser Tony Lake went to see the president about the "salute issue" and they had practiced for a few minutes in the Oval Office. Now his military salute photographed well as he walked across the South Lawn to board Marine One, the presidential helicopter.

Yet few press complaints were so easily resolved.

Mr. Clinton had lost his second attorney-general nominee, Kimba Wood, when nanny-payment problems raised a red flag. The president's offhand remarks about Iraq and his subsequent "don't ask, don't tell" fudge on his controversial plan to integrate homosexuals into the military had also touched off rounds of critical newspaper stories. The Clinton administration--the first Democrats in the White House since 1981--seemed to be crumbling.

Now Mr. Clinton was trying to regain the initiative. He was finally ready to announce the details of his economic stimulus package, the centerpiece of his 1992 campaign. Then the World Trade Center was attacked. Should he depart from his plans and his script and say something about the headline-making attack on New York's tallest towers? At first, he couldn't decide.

New York's Gov. Mario Cuomo telephoned the president while the Twin Towers were still being evacuated. Messrs. Clinton and Cuomo had a difficult relationship. Mr. Clinton had spent much of 1991 wondering if the New York governor was going to challenge him in the Democratic presidential primaries, and much of 1992 trying to get Mr. Cuomo's full-throated support.

But this phone call was surprisingly simple: Mr. Cuomo simply wanted to brief the president and get his assurance that New York State would enjoy the full support of the federal government. Mr. Clinton must have quickly realized that this was a common kind of phone call that governors made after disasters. He had made a few of these calls himself. Perhaps this was the reason Mr. Clinton didn't seem to fully grasp that this disaster was not natural, but man-made. That it was terrorism.

Mr. Cuomo told Mr. Clinton that a bomb had most likely caused the World Trade Center blast--a conclusion that the Clinton White House still chose to consider "speculation." After conferring with his aides, the president asked his press secretary, Dee Dee Myers, to put out the cautious line that the New York authorities "have reason to believe it was a bomb but are not definite." This was a grudging admission of the obvious, but it gave Mr. Clinton time to decide whether and to act.

Why was Mr. Clinton so anxious to discount the idea that the Twin Towers had been bombed? A bomb suggested a terrorist act. A terrorist act of this magnitude required a strong response. And strong action was politically dangerous if it misfired. So, from the day of the World Trade Center bombing until the last day of the Clinton administration, the president demanded absolute proof before acting against terrorists. Ambiguity suited his purposes.
To preserve that ambiguity, either Mr. Clinton ignored the overwhelming evidence that the towers were bombed or the White House staff failed to keep him fully informed. Perhaps the presient had not yet been told that the FBI's top bomb expert believed that the World Trade Center was bombed or that the New York FBI investigation was proceeding on that basis. Or perhaps the president had not been told that the bomb was planted by terrorists, although the FBI had made that determination within hours.

The president knew that he would have to add something about the World Trade Center explosion to his Saturday radio address. But what? His staff had spent much of Friday working on the speech. Now, on Saturday morning, Mr. Clinton was doing some reworking of his own. Strangely, despite the mounting evidence, Mr. Clinton still wasn't willing to say that New York's tallest towers had been bombed.

While he worked on his speech, the president was told that FBI Director William Sessions was on the line. The president didn't relish this call either. Sessions, a Bush appointee, was plagued by petty scandals, and Mr. Clinton planned to replace him.

Mr. Clinton picked up the receiver. The director told the president that the FBI's New York office now felt confident that a bomb had caused the blast at the World Trade Center. The president probably wasn't listening very closely; he had come to see Mr. Sessions as a political time bomb, not a source of information about an actual bomb.

After a few minutes, Mr. Clinton hung up and went back to scribbling. He kept crossing out words and writing new ones--but "bomb" was not one of them. Mr. Clinton's radio address reflected his beliefs about the World Trade Center attack. He treated it like a disaster, a humanitarian crisis, like a twister in Arkansas, but not as an attack. Indeed, the bombing was a sideshow, a distraction from what the president really wanted to discuss--his economic agenda.

This would be Mr. Clinton's first and last extended speech on the plot to topple the Twin Towers. Frankly, this is surprising. How does a president shrug away a major terror attack with a few words in a radio address heard by a fraction of the American people? The president's speech clearly demonstrated that he did not sense the importance of the 1993 bombing. Because they reveal so much, Mr. Clinton's remarks on the attack follow in full:
"Good morning. Before I talk with you about our economic program this morning, I want to say a word to the good people of New York City and to all Americans who've been so deeply affected by the tragedy that struck Manhattan yesterday." This opening suggests that Mr. Clinton didn't want to shift away from his campaign-winning "it's the economy, stupid" theme, referring to the attack as a "tragedy," a sad event, not an aggressive act requiring a strong response.

Mr. Clinton continued: "A number of innocent people lost their lives. Hundreds were injured, and thousands were struck with fear in their hearts when an explosion rocked the basement of the World Trade Center. To their families, you're in the thoughts and prayers of my family and in the synagogues and churches last night; today and tomorrow, you will be remembered and thought of again and again." This is an admirable attempt at reassurance, reminiscent of President Bush's consoling words following the Sept. 11 attacks. But again, it misses the mark: these people were murdered, not struck by lightning.

The young president hammered away at his compassionate theme, anxious to leave no one out. "My thoughts are also with the police, the firefighters, the emergency response teams and the citizens whose countless acts of bravery averted even more bloodshed. Their reaction and their valor reminds us of how often Americans are at their best when we face the worst."

Next, Mr. Clinton came to the place where he had to report on his administration's actions and plans. These amounted to phone calls--and only phone calls. "I thank all the people who reached out to the injured and the frightened amid the tumult that shook lower Manhattan. Following the explosion, I spoke with New York's Governor Mario Cuomo and New York City Mayor David Dinkins to assure them that the full measure of federal law-enforcement resources will be brought to bear on this investigation." This was a pivotal decision, though Mr. Clinton did not seem to realize its full implications at the time. The terror attack would be treated as a criminal matter, not a threat to national security. This approach would hobble Clinton's war on terror for years.

Mr. Clinton expanded on the law-enforcement theme, signaling that terrorists need not fear an armed response. "Just this morning I spoke with FBI Director Sessions, who assured me that the FBI and the Treasury Department are working closely with the New York City police and fire departments. Working together we'll find out who was involved and why this happened. Americans should know we'll do everything in our power to keep them safe in their streets, their offices and their homes. Feeling safe is an essential part of being secure. And that's important to all of us."

Then, Mr. Clinton suddenly shifted the subject. "I also want to take this opportunity this morning to talk about another crucial aspect of our security, our economic security . . ."

As the president shifted to discuss his economic package, which consumed the bulk of his speech, his voice warmed up and slowed down. It was clear to listeners, certainly those in the press, where the president's real interests lay. Almost every contemporary press account of President Clinton's Saturday radio speech leads with the details of the president's economic package and the support that he was garnering around the country. And, of course, the bulk of the radio address was on Mr. Clinton's economic plan.

But note that his remarks on the bombing were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kind of things governors say after floods or tornadoes. Significantly, President Clinton said nothing about hunting down or punishing the perpetrators. Not even a ritualistic denunciation of "these cowardly acts" or a mention of the shock value of an attack on a skyscraping symbol of America.

Why were his words so thin? President Clinton believed that he had a historic opportunity to restore American prosperity and reposition the Democrats as the party of growth and hope. This was partly achieved over the next eight years, ironically with the help of a Republican-led Congress. Mr. Clinton also had an opportunity to transform his party on national-security issues--to overcome its 1960s-era hesitancy to use force and to remake it as a strong defender of freedom, justice and security. Instead, Mr. Clinton shrank back. He had an opportunity to stop an escalating wave of terror attacks, guided by Osama bin Laden, in the first weeks of his administration. But tragically for the nation, he didn't see it.
Of course, presidents are not clairvoyant. Yet at the time, the president's political opponents may have seen more clearly the pivotal role the World Trade Center bombing would play in American history. On the day after the bombing, the minority whip of the House, Newt Gingrich, said that the president should be "cautious" in cutting the defense budget, as Mr. Clinton planned to do. Citing the Twin Towers bombing, Mr. Gingrich said, "There's a very real requirement for human intelligence and military strength. Every time we have any display of weakness, any display of timidity . . . here are people on the planet eager to take advantage of us." These would prove to be prescient words--words, unfortunately, that Mr. Clinton did not heed.

Mr. Clinton's first historic opportunity to wage war on terrorism did not quickly drift away like a plume of smoke after the World Trade Center bombing. It lingered for days and weeks. Within days, evidence quickly accumulated that an Islamic terror cell, supported from abroad, had carried out the attack. There were front-page newspaper stories about the arrest of Mohammed Salameh and the presence of a network of dangerous Islamic radicals, with a hub in Jersey City. Yet the president appeared uninterested.

President Clinton did not visit the World Trade Center in 1993. Perhaps if he had, he might have understood the enormity of the damage. What might have happened if Mr. Clinton had seen the immense crater or talked to the family of Monica Smith?
Four days after the attack, Mr. Clinton was across the Hudson River in New Brunswick, N.J., discussing job-training programs. There, he urged the public not to "overreact" to the World Trade Center bombing. But he didn't cross the river and see the damage for himself.

It would have taken a few minutes, but Mr. Clinton did not bother.

Why didn't he go? One implausible rationale offered by Clinton officials is that unnamed New York officials urged the president to avoid the site. One senior Clinton official--through an anonymous quote in the Boston Globe--noted that "Clinton had a full schedule in New Jersey, with no opening for a visit to the site in Manhattan." Full schedule. The site in Manhattan. The sheer clinical distance of those words, days after the attack, speaks volumes.

Dick Morris, a former Clinton adviser, offers two more-likely explanations. Mr. Clinton saw himself as a comforter who needed to reassure an anxious public (in New Jersey, he urged Americans to "keep your courage up and go about your lives"), and he saw the attack as a criminal matter, not a terror strike. "In what is likely, in retrospect, to be judged the single greatest omission of his presidency, Clinton chose to treat the Trade Center attack as an isolated criminal act, devoid of serious foreign policy or military implications," writes Mr. Morris. President Clinton just didn't get it.

Over the next month, the president made four fateful decisions. He did not keep the bombing before the public with speeches and actions. He left the case in the hands of the FBI, which was headed by a man he did not trust and was waiting to fire. He treated the bombing as a law-enforcement matter, not a counterintelligence investigation, thus cutting the CIA out of the fight against terrorism. And he did not even meet with his handpicked CIA director to consider alternative approaches to combating international terrorism aimed at Americans. This ensured future victories for bin Laden.
Click to expand...

#39 bamaslammer, Sep 30, 2003
GreenVegan76 Member

Joined:

May 14, 2003

Messages:

3,336

Likes Received:

1

Why do some people refuse to admit that George W. Bush is just a man? He's not a diety. He makes mistakes. He craps every morning, just like the rest of us. But people contort themselves into horrifying positions defending this man like he walks on water. Are people so desperate for a Christ figure in their lives that they look to (shudder) George W. Bush?

Letting Bush takes his lumps for his mistakes is a *GOOD THING* for this country.

#40 GreenVegan76, Sep 30, 2003

(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Page 2 of 3

Share This Page