Is there anyone here who thinks that BUSH did a good job while being President?

[independent thinker]

Originally Posted by tinman01

Now me I see DC as a team effort because that is exactly what it is.
Many of Bush's failures can and should be traced back to the house and Senate. He has choked on more than a few calls. He choked on bad intel from the CIA, the Mussad and MI-6. But then so did every congressman and senator that voted to go to Iraq.
The economy. It amazes me that Barney Frank and company saw this coming for 2 years and yet did nothing to prevent it.
The last 2 years has been the worst performance of our Gov in history. For good reason. They only knew how to waste money and put no effort into getting anything of value done.
WE really should fire every sitting politician in office. They have all failed us. Not just Bush.

You are correct. Bush is an easy scapegoat and vote for change is a brilliant strategy. But that is all it is. One man can't undo the damage that has been done.

[garisonthebull]

Well Bush was not a very good President. He wasn't as bad as my party paints him to be either. He did have a lot against him from the beginning. The 9/11 attack was well under way before he took office. Then when that happened it began a spiral for him. It effected the economy, peoples views on feeling safe, and backed him in a corner to do some things.

The invasion of Afghanastan had begun. This was a good offensive move by him to take action for 9/11. He moved swiftly and had full intent so it seemed to get Bin Laden. Then came his errors.

He began to Point mis dirrected fingers in the direction of Iraq. Yes it was nation under the control of a bad dictator and had ties with terrorist groups. He tried for too short of a time to convince the UN that action was needed there. He did not listen to the United Nations he called them pacifists and went about things on his own. This was a horrible foriegn policy error. This move and this move alone destroyed his reputaion as well as Americas reputaion to other countries. When the invasion of Iraq was begun he pulled forces from Afghanastan. He offered up A large portion of Bin Ladens chace to the local Afghani goverment. It was here that Americans began to dislike him. When the capture of Sadam Hussien happened he took a short boost in his favorability but when no WMDs were found everyone began to question the necessity of the US taking a war on on that front. To this day it is questionable if that war was due to a US security threat, vengence for his fathers failure to finish the job, a ploy to gain control of oil, or a chance for his VP Cheney to get contracts to repair oil facilities. In my opinion it was a combination of all of those things. Once Iraq no longer had Hussein in power and there were no WMDs many Americans felt that US military resources could be better served in Afghanastan hunting Bin Laden or possibly staging in South Korea to keep the North Korean threat at a hold as there are known WMDs in the hands of a mad man who is only a larger tank of gas and a couple ICBM micro chips from truly being a threat to US soil. The Iraq war has cost this country a billion dollars a month and the lives of fathers, sons, brothers wifes, daughters and mothers. But does it really now knowing what we know protect our citezens on home soil? Does it hunt down the man responsable for 9/11? Next month many of our nations finest will die there and one billion dollars of our taxes will be spent there.

Bush had little if nothing to do with the bad performance of first responders in New Orleans. But It seemed fitting that with all that was going wrong in our country to some how point him as a target in that issue. Further Presidential intervention may have helped but it is all speculative. In a natural dissaster of that magnitude no combination of agentcies could react in an efficient manner. There is too much going on and too much to cinsider. Each agency involved made terrible mistakes and mis appropriated resources and funds. It was a lesson I hope out nation learned from. But in all Bush is in the clear with me on that.

Bush however made serious errors when it came to the economic crissis. The housing industry and banking industry seriously was screwing up our nation. The Chief of Banks, Speaker of the House and Senate Minority Leader should not have had to call Bush to a meeting within the last moments the way that they did. Bush should have had some forethought to calling the meeting months ago when every citzen in America was well aware of what was going on. Bush in his desire to keep consumer confidence and avoid panic kept saying "We are not in a rescetion" this only served to make him look dumb. Everyone knew that when prices rise jobs are lost and equity is plumeting, we are in a rescetion. His denial in this matter and failure to take preventative action was a bad move. When the senate and finacial leaders met to try to resolve this Bush seemed blind sided. He really was skirting the issue for too long forcing them to move on their own.

Lots of blame is put on the Democratic party when it comes to this issue on the bail out. But what is not looked at is that Bush would not agree to the Bill if holding bad bank practices accountable was part of the solution. $750,000,000,000.00 is sure a lot of money. To give banks that utilized sub prime mortgages bail out fund without making them reform in turn is not a good idea it only continues the problem for longer because loan reform did not occure, Yes I know what many of my republican brothers out there are thinking, didn't my parties hero Bill Clinton create housing reform to help first time home buyers get homes yes. But he could have predicted they way banks would try to cash in on this. He left out specifications on just what banks could do in terms of qualifying people. He did not stipulate what kinds of fluctating interst rates could o. Yes Clinton messed up here. But over all Clinton had a finacial surpluss and no real deficit to speak of. Bush is far from that success.

Tommarow dawns a new day. If Either canidate gets elected it will be a new day for America come January.

[sacredgrooves]

I think he was great in some regards, and not so great in others. He let me down with immigration and not getting us an option (key word there) for privatized SS. He stood strong against terrorism even in the face of constant disdain from the left. I am not a fan of the nation building portion of the Iraq war, but certainly agreed to going in and getting Saddam. Personally, I believe if you go to war, the loser should rebuild their own country, but I understand why it is deemed necessary. I wish he would of been more vocal against his critics. I also believe his critics made sure anything he did would be looked upon as failure, no matter what it was. I admit, your tactics are well honed, and your bull-horns are loud and non-stop.
I was impressed with his handling of the recession from the .com/9-11 era. He kept us afloat in what could of been a depression if mishandled. I do not like his deficit spending. I was all for cutting taxes, but you have to cut spending as well. There are plenty of gov't failed programs to choose from.
I was happy to at least have 8 years without worrying about the gov't taking over health care. Of course, we also got 8 years of immigrants sneaking across our borders and putting a substantial financial burden on our health care and school systems.
In a nutshell, I think his 1st term was more or less outstanding, but the 2nd term left a lot to be desired.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by AONE

Bill O'Reilly and the other slime buckets at FauxNews. But what do you expect from them?

Shows how little you know:

"His (Bush's) legacy is toast."
- Bill O'Reilly, 9-18-08

"American is not in great shape this year."
- Bill O'Reilly, Feb., '08

Considering what Bill has done (helping to pass Jessica's Law across the U.S., revealing judges who give short sentences to child molesters, revealing the fact that money donated to the Red Cross after 9/11 wasn't going where it was supposed to), we need MORE "slime buckets!"

[tigerwoodsyall]

Originally Posted by garisonthebull

Well Bush was not a very good President. He wasn't as bad as my party paints him to be either. He did have a lot against him from the beginning. The 9/11 attack was well under way before he took office. Then when that happened it began a spiral for him. It effected the economy, peoples views on feeling safe, and backed him in a corner to do some things.

The invasion of Afghanastan had begun. This was a good offensive move by him to take action for 9/11. He moved swiftly and had full intent so it seemed to get Bin Laden. Then came his errors.

He began to Point mis dirrected fingers in the direction of Iraq. Yes it was nation under the control of a bad dictator and had ties with terrorist groups. He tried for too short of a time to convince the UN that action was needed there. He did not listen to the United Nations he called them pacifists and went about things on his own. This was a horrible foriegn policy error. This move and this move alone destroyed his reputaion as well as Americas reputaion to other countries. When the invasion of Iraq was begun he pulled forces from Afghanastan. He offered up A large portion of Bin Ladens chace to the local Afghani goverment. It was here that Americans began to dislike him. When the capture of Sadam Hussien happened he took a short boost in his favorability but when no WMDs were found everyone began to question the necessity of the US taking a war on on that front. To this day it is questionable if that war was due to a US security threat, vengence for his fathers failure to finish the job, a ploy to gain control of oil, or a chance for his VP Cheney to get contracts to repair oil facilities. In my opinion it was a combination of all of those things. Once Iraq no longer had Hussein in power and there were no WMDs many Americans felt that US military resources could be better served in Afghanastan hunting Bin Laden or possibly staging in South Korea to keep the North Korean threat at a hold as there are known WMDs in the hands of a mad man who is only a larger tank of gas and a couple ICBM micro chips from truly being a threat to US soil. The Iraq war has cost this country a billion dollars a month and the lives of fathers, sons, brothers wifes, daughters and mothers. But does it really now knowing what we know protect our citezens on home soil? Does it hunt down the man responsable for 9/11? Next month many of our nations finest will die there and one billion dollars of our taxes will be spent there.

Bush had little if nothing to do with the bad performance of first responders in New Orleans. But It seemed fitting that with all that was going wrong in our country to some how point him as a target in that issue. Further Presidential intervention may have helped but it is all speculative. In a natural dissaster of that magnitude no combination of agentcies could react in an efficient manner. There is too much going on and too much to cinsider. Each agency involved made terrible mistakes and mis appropriated resources and funds. It was a lesson I hope out nation learned from. But in all Bush is in the clear with me on that.

Bush however made serious errors when it came to the economic crissis. The housing industry and banking industry seriously was screwing up our nation. The Chief of Banks, Speaker of the House and Senate Minority Leader should not have had to call Bush to a meeting within the last moments the way that they did. Bush should have had some forethought to calling the meeting months ago when every citzen in America was well aware of what was going on. Bush in his desire to keep consumer confidence and avoid panic kept saying "We are not in a rescetion" this only served to make him look dumb. Everyone knew that when prices rise jobs are lost and equity is plumeting, we are in a rescetion. His denial in this matter and failure to take preventative action was a bad move. When the senate and finacial leaders met to try to resolve this Bush seemed blind sided. He really was skirting the issue for too long forcing them to move on their own.

Lots of blame is put on the Democratic party when it comes to this issue on the bail out. But what is not looked at is that Bush would not agree to the Bill if holding bad bank practices accountable was part of the solution. $750,000,000,000.00 is sure a lot of money. To give banks that utilized sub prime mortgages bail out fund without making them reform in turn is not a good idea it only continues the problem for longer because loan reform did not occure, Yes I know what many of my republican brothers out there are thinking, didn't my parties hero Bill Clinton create housing reform to help first time home buyers get homes yes. But he could have predicted they way banks would try to cash in on this. He left out specifications on just what banks could do in terms of qualifying people. He did not stipulate what kinds of fluctating interst rates could o. Yes Clinton messed up here. But over all Clinton had a finacial surpluss and no real deficit to speak of. Bush is far from that success.

Tommarow dawns a new day. If Either canidate gets elected it will be a new day for America come January.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I think people make the man appear more of a boob than he really is.
I applaud him for taking the decisive action of going after bin laden in afghan., but then again it didn't take a genius to figure out that the United States was going to do SOMETHING after 9/11.

Who knows IF Iraq ever turns into a bastion for democracy in the middle east Bush will seem like genius. I spent a year over there and its a cestpool so I don't expect it to get that good though. So much of his presidency is dependant on Iraq..

[KRAMERCAT]

Oh, Bush was great, prescient even. He knew that a plane crashed into the first tower when no one else did, and when there was no video of it on tv until the NEXT day. Oh, I guess he just ASSUMED it was on tv. LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWSv0NZBRw&feature=related