Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest BushBacker

A Win For Bush

Recommended Posts

I hardly think the world's only remaining SuperPower is viewed as powerful when after four years its CinC can't manage to pacify and stabilize a small country like Iraq with the world's most powerful military.

If the US military employed the type of methods that Hussein himself would have used, or that China might use in our place (killing whoever made a peep, for example), you can rest assured that the area would be pacified.

Other nations would regard that type of action as strong, albeit brutal.

In the US, you get a bunch of people calling for the the commander of the armed services to resign if war prisoners get mistreated.

That is regarded as weakness.

That's the way it is.

If they prefer a weak Aerica they're certainly getting a weak American leader.

And you'll turn around within a few posts and claim that Bush has seized unconstitutional power, won't you? Or do you depart from your liberal brethren on that one?

That's the hilarious thing about so many liberals. They argue out of both sides of their mouths. What's a good explanation for that other than blind hatred of Bush?

Weak in foreign policy

Weak in historical knowledge

Weak in long term strategy

and

EXTREMELY WEAK in leadership ability

I suppose I should start answering these types of arguments in kind.

You don't have any argument above. All you've got is a string of unsupported assertions.

I could counter with an argument that matches yours in strength with "Is not!."

But let my argument instead consist of numerous points already made in this thread that have been ignored and avoided by those on your side.

They don't want to talk about how Turkey opposes U.S. withdrawal from an unstable Iraq because of a perceived threat from a Kurdish state.

They want to blame Bush instead of themselves for Saudi Arabia stating that they would help arm Iraq's Sunnis to help prevent genocide.

They don't want to talk about the central findings of U.S. intelligence (and the intelligence services of our allies) leading up to the Iraq War, somehow supposing the minority views should rightly have guided foreign policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

President Bush has begun to admit he's a screw-up. Haven't you watched TV lately? Everybody can sit here and argue back and forth, citing news articles that MIGHT be credible and then repeating the same things for months at a time... or you can just read (or listen to) what the Bastard has to say about himself.

60 Minutes Interview with Bush:

PELLEY: You know better than I do that many Americans feel that your administration has not been straight with the country, has not been honest. To those people you say what?

BUSH: On what issue?

PELLEY: Well, sir . . .

BUSH: Like the weapons of mass destruction?

PELLEY: No weapons of mass destruction.

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: No credible connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: The Office of Management and Budget said this war would cost somewhere between $50 billion and $60 billion and now we're over 400.

BUSH: I gotcha. I gotcha. I gotcha.

PELLEY: The perception, sir, more than any one of those points, is that the administration has not been straight with . . .

BUSH: Well, I strongly disagree with that, of course. There were a lot of people, both Republicans and Democrats, who felt there were weapons of mass destruction. Many of the leaders in the Congress spoke strongly about the fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons prior to my arrival in Washington, DC. And we're all looking at the same intelligence. So I strongly reject that this administration hasn't been straight with the American people. The minute we found out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so. Scott, all I can do is just tell the truth, tell people exactly what's on my mind, which is what I do.

And Bryan, only somebody as smart as you could ever defend Bush so well. It's a shame that you're wasting your intelligence defending a liar/murderer.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/14/...119_page4.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BushBacker
President Bush has begun to admit he's a screw-up.  Haven't you watched TV lately?  Everybody can sit here and argue back and forth, citing news articles that MIGHT be credible and then repeating the same things for months at a time... or you can just read (or listen to) what the Bastard has to say about himself.

60 Minutes Interview with Bush:

PELLEY: You know better than I do that many Americans feel that your administration has not been straight with the country, has not been honest. To those people you say what?

BUSH: On what issue?

PELLEY: Well, sir . . .

BUSH: Like the weapons of mass destruction?

PELLEY: No weapons of mass destruction.

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: No credible connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: The Office of Management and Budget said this war would cost somewhere between $50 billion and $60 billion and now we're over 400.

BUSH: I gotcha. I gotcha. I gotcha.

PELLEY: The perception, sir, more than any one of those points, is that the administration has not been straight with . . .

BUSH: Well, I strongly disagree with that, of course. There were a lot of people, both Republicans and Democrats, who felt there were weapons of mass destruction. Many of the leaders in the Congress spoke strongly about the fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons prior to my arrival in Washington, DC. And we're all looking at the same intelligence. So I strongly reject that this administration hasn't been straight with the American people. The minute we found out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so. Scott, all I can do is just tell the truth, tell people exactly what's on my mind, which is what I do.

And Bryan, only somebody as smart as you could ever defend Bush so well.  It's a shame that you're wasting your intelligence defending a liar/murderer. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/14/...119_page4.shtml

This is a brain on drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stop the Stupidity
If the US military employed the type of methods that Hussein himself would have used, or that China might use in our place (killing whoever made a peep, for example), you can rest assured that the area would be pacified.

Would have or MIGHT use?

That's just speculative, possibly, maybe, could be crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President Bush has begun to admit he's a screw-up.  Haven't you watched TV lately?  Everybody can sit here and argue back and forth, citing news articles that MIGHT be credible and then repeating the same things for months at a time... or you can just read (or listen to) what the Bastard has to say about himself.

60 Minutes Interview with Bush:

PELLEY: You know better than I do that many Americans feel that your administration has not been straight with the country, has not been honest. To those people you say what?

BUSH: On what issue?

PELLEY: Well, sir . . .

BUSH: Like the weapons of mass destruction?

PELLEY: No weapons of mass destruction.

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: No credible connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: The Office of Management and Budget said this war would cost somewhere between $50 billion and $60 billion and now we're over 400.

BUSH: I gotcha. I gotcha. I gotcha.

PELLEY: The perception, sir, more than any one of those points, is that the administration has not been straight with . . .

BUSH: Well, I strongly disagree with that, of course. There were a lot of people, both Republicans and Democrats, who felt there were weapons of mass destruction. Many of the leaders in the Congress spoke strongly about the fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons prior to my arrival in Washington, DC. And we're all looking at the same intelligence. So I strongly reject that this administration hasn't been straight with the American people. The minute we found out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so. Scott, all I can do is just tell the truth, tell people exactly what's on my mind, which is what I do.

And Bryan, only somebody as smart as you could ever defend Bush so well.  It's a shame that you're wasting your intelligence defending a liar/murderer. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/14/...119_page4.shtml

Where is the part where Bush supposedly admits that he is a screwup?

Where he says "yeah" it should be obvious that he's just acknowledging the specific areas that the interviewer intends to ask him about.

Did you see the John Edwards interview with Tim Russert?

(Videotape, October 7, 2002)

SEN. EDWARDS: My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I’m a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that is presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he’s used them in the past, and that he’s doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: “ A grave threat to America,” do you still believe that?

SEN. EDWARDS: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/

Former Clinton administration officials, eh? Even they were in that lyin' Bush's back pocket!

It's hilarious how far the "reality-based community" has drifted from reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall

Ok, I'll say it. I hate Bush and all of his money grubbing, no good mother F**KING cronies. It's one thing to support a party, but to "blindly" support incompetence because of party affilation or simply not wanting to admit that a mistake has been made is inexcusable. Bryan mentioned "Blind Hatred" for Bush. Your God Damn right and I'm willing to admit it. So Bryan, are you willing to admit your "Blind Support" for Bush? Are you willing to overlook his entire presidency simply because you voted for him? Give him a pass because he's "your guy"?

If that's the case then people like you are the clear example of why our Federal Govt is mired in bullshit.

You seem very intelligent yet sadly gullible. BTW have you heard that Rupert Mudoch has stated that FOX news agenda was to bolster the need to go to war? Now, he apparently has seen the error of his ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I'll say it. I hate Bush and all of his money grubbing, no good mother F**KING cronies. It's one thing to support a party, but to "blindly" support incompetence because of party affilation or simply not wanting to admit that a mistake has been made is inexcusable.  Bryan mentioned "Blind Hatred" for Bush. Your God Damn right and I'm willing to admit it. So Bryan, are you willing to admit your "Blind Support" for Bush?

No. I think Bush is a poor public speaker (not all of the time, but enough for it to be a serious liability), and he's far too willing to compromise with the left on spending, including the expansion of the Medicare entitlement. He hasn't exercised veto power enough, and his administration has communicated the necessity of the Iraq War poorly (though Tony Snow has been a big improvement as press secretary).

Are you willing to overlook his entire presidency simply because you voted for him? Give him a pass because he's "your guy"?

I judge presidents and presidential candidates by their policies, not their personalities.

If that's the case then people like you are the clear example of why our Federal Govt is mired in bullshit.

It's not the case. But people like you are a dime a dozen, repeating ridiculous claims about Bush even though you cannot support them with evidence or logic.

You seem very intelligent yet sadly gullible.

You're invited to specify one point on which I am gullible, and to subsequently support your claim with evidence and argument.

Should I worry?

BTW have you heard that Rupert Mudoch has stated that FOX news agenda was to bolster the need to go to war? Now, he apparently has seen the error of his ways.

Very probably taken out of context.

I've seen the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BushBacker
Ok, I'll say it. I hate Bush and all of his money grubbing, no good mother F**KING cronies. It's one thing to support a party, but to "blindly" support incompetence because of party affilation or simply not wanting to admit that a mistake has been made is inexcusable.  Bryan mentioned "Blind Hatred" for Bush. Your God Damn right and I'm willing to admit it. So Bryan, are you willing to admit your "Blind Support" for Bush? Are you willing to overlook his entire presidency simply because you voted for him? Give him a pass because he's "your guy"?

    If that's the case then people like you are the clear example of why our Federal Govt is mired in bullshit. 

    You seem very intelligent yet sadly gullible. BTW have you heard that Rupert Mudoch has stated that FOX news agenda was to bolster the need to go to war? Now, he apparently has seen the error of his ways.

Clearly, there's a need for some anger management here. LOL !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stop the Stupidity
Other nations would regard that type of action as strong, albeit brutal.

In the US, you get a bunch of people calling for the the commander of the armed services to resign if war prisoners get mistreated.

That is regarded as weakness.

That's the way it is.

And you'll turn around within a few posts and claim that Bush has seized unconstitutional power, won't you?  Or do you depart from your liberal brethren on that one?

That's the hilarious thing about so many liberals.  They argue out of both sides of their mouths.  What's a good explanation for that other than blind hatred of Bush?

You seem to be implying that using constitutional power only is a sign of weakness, that's complete and utter nonsense.

If you want to talk about arguing out of both sides of one's mouth let's bring the neo-cons who try to justify invasion citing Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions and then turnaround and invade without UN sanction. Don't cite UN resolutions if you have no faith in the UN to act.

Blind hatred of Bush? You are completely WRONG!

Number one, I don't hate the man, I actually feel sorry for him, I think he's in way over his head and is doubly cursed with poor advisors.

Number two, I hate his arrogance, his unwillingness to listen to others, and his self rightousness with eyes wide open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

"Where is the part where Bush supposedly admits that he is a screwup?

Where he says "yeah" it should be obvious that he's just acknowledging the specific areas that the interviewer intends to ask him about."

"The minute we found out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so."

There's the part where he admits he is a screwup. And the yeah wasn't him acknowledging the specific areas that the interviewer intends to ask him about. It was him acknowledging that there were no weapons of mass destruction found. And I know there are many Democrats and Republicans who thought there were weapons too, believe me, but I'm not affiliated with any party, Bry-Guy. I'm not going to take the blame off anybody. I'm just stating that your president is admitting his failures.

Also, think back to when the war started. Edwards isn't a proud man. He isn't somebody who is going to stand up against the president. He was scared, because he knew he'd have that used against him in 2004 and 2008. Everybody has an agenda, Bryan. He wants to be in the White House someday.

And what did he cite as his information about Saddam he got from the Clinton Administration. Was it old or new? Was it the same information that Colin Powell lost all of his credibility on when he went to the U.N.? I'm just curious how far that statement goes. What I'm not curious about is how that would warm a Republican's heart. It's a joy to see a Democrat implicate Clinton into this whole mess. No? I can see you got off when you read that. I can also see how this statement moves Edwards a little to the right, closer to center. Closer to swing voters, the citizens of this country who are afraid of Democrats who are weak on defense, but fulfill their economic and social needs. Because that's what wins elections - how you play on your country's fears. Bush did it in 04, despite all of his failures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Doubting Thomas
That's the way it is.

And you'll turn around within a few posts and claim that Bush has seized unconstitutional power, won't you?  Or do you depart from your liberal brethren on that one?

How kind of you to offer to put YOUR words in other peoples' mouths. Quite the ego you have.

And as far as weakness, I think the FACT that Bush has issued more signing statements than all other presidents COMBINED shows a GREAT WEAKNESS in his ability and willingness to govern within the bounds of the Constitution.

Then again, he's arguably a great phony, a man born into wealth and privilege who's down home swaggerin' Texas good ol' boy act is getting very old. He plays a rube pretty well, we can only wish he was as accomplished at playing a statesman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Where is the part where Bush supposedly admits that he is a screwup?

Where he says "yeah" it should be obvious that he's just acknowledging the specific areas that the interviewer intends to ask him about."

"The minute we found out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so."

There's the part where he admits he is a screwup.

Why do you think Bush is admitting that he is a screwup by admitting that Iraq did not have WMD stockpiles when the preponderance of evidence indicated that Iraq did not have large stockpiles of WMD?

And the yeah wasn't him acknowledging the specific areas that the interviewer intends to ask him about.  It was him acknowledging that there were no weapons of mass destruction found.

Hmmm. Possibly. It would be easier to tell with audio.

Regardless, it doesn't appear to mean what you say it means.

You appear to be arguing that Bush is a screwup because he accepted the CIA's intelligence reports as a basis for concluding that Iraq had large stockpiles of WMD.

That seem like a ridiculous conclusion, on the face of it (though maybe you have some additional explanation you haven't gotten to yet).

And I know there are many Democrats and Republicans who thought there were weapons too, believe me, but I'm not affiliated with any party, Bry-Guy.  I'm not going to take the blame off anybody.  I'm just stating that your president is admitting his failures.

Okay, great. I commited a typo. I'm a screwup, too. Wnt to start a thread about me?

Also, think back to when the war started.  Edwards isn't a proud man.  He isn't somebody who is going to stand up against the president.  He was scared, because he knew he'd have that used against him in 2004 and 2008.  Everybody has an agenda, Bryan.  He wants to be in the White House someday.

Yes, and?

I can't tell what you're trying to say. You think that Bush is a screw-up. You're saying that Edwards is a screw-up, too?

And what did he cite as his information about Saddam he got from the Clinton Administration.  Was it old or new?

No newer than the Clinton administration.

Does that mean that Edwards screwed up by trying to based his decision on old information (IYO)?

Was it the same information that Colin Powell lost all of his credibility on when he went to the U.N.?

Ah. You think Powell is a screw-up, too.

Who are you going to vote for next election, might I ask?

I'm just curious how far that statement goes.  What I'm not curious about is how that would warm a Republican's heart.  It's a joy to see a Democrat implicate Clinton into this whole mess.  No?

It's a shock to seem a Democrat tell the truth when the party line has been that Bush lied ("People died").

It won't surprise me a bit if the average liberal can't connect the dots thanks to his Bush-hatin' eyeglasses.

I can see you got off when you read that.

It's an obvious support of the commonsense view of the nature of foreign intelligence. The president who doesn't accept what the foreign intelligence experts tell him is a screwup, unless he has good reason to think otherwise.

There was no such reason for Clinton, and there was no such reason for Bush. I have nothing against Clinton except for the fact that he really was a lying weasel. His presidency wasn't that bad once Hillarycare got swept out the door. He signed tons of conservative legislation, allowing the bulk of the GOP congress' "Contract with America" to become law.

I already know that my position on this issue is solid. Edwards' admission on television puts the realistic view where the "reality-based community" has more pressure to actually deal with reality.

They can either figure that Edwards is lying, admit that the intelligence really did indicate that Hussein very probably had WMDs, or they can take your tack and try to figure out how to dismiss it all since the Clinton administration information was too old to be relevant to Bush's situation (though that appears to leave Edwards in the position of being a double screw-up).

I can also see how this statement moves Edwards a little to the right, closer to center.  Closer to swing voters, the citizens of this country who are afraid of Democrats who are weak on defense, but fulfill their economic and social needs.

The Democrats are flat bonkers on the economy. Hopefully you'll never have to find out how much.

So you're casting Edwards as trying to move to the center by admitting that he made a mistake by voting for the war (despite the fact that the intelligence information he received from the Clinton and Bush administrations indicated that Hussein very probably had large stockpiles of WMD?

Because that's what wins elections - how you play on your country's fears.  Bush did it in 04, despite all of his failures.

Too bad John F. Kerry didn't think of that (worst economy since the Great Depression, shipping your jobs away, losing respect ("dangerously ineffective" "dangerously isolated") in the world, energy policy leaves U.S. "dependent, vulnerable, and exposed," "we face unsustainable borrowing and rising interest rates," and that's just to name a few).

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/platfo...004platform.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
No.  I think Bush is a poor public speaker (not all of the time, but enough for it to be a serious liability), and he's far too willing to compromise with the left on spending, including the expansion of the Medicare entitlement.  He hasn't exercised veto power enough, and his administration has communicated the necessity of the Iraq War poorly (though Tony Snow has been a big improvement as press secretary).

I judge presidents and presidential candidates by their policies, not their personalities.

It's not the case.  But people like you are a dime a dozen, repeating ridiculous claims about Bush even though you cannot support them with evidence or logic.

 

You're invited to specify one point on which I am gullible, and to subsequently support your claim with evidence and argument.

Should I worry?

Very probably taken out of context.

I've seen the story.

I never said anything about GW's personality, I don't like his policies or those of any of his high level ass kissers. Almost seven years of this guy and you need me to explain what the problem is? Your making my point for me because either you don't see, or refuse to see what the problems are which to me implies that you are gullible. I could give you pages of examples of which I'm sure you would shrug away as untrue or that " I can't prove it". We all know what alot of the hot button issues are and what many of the latest revalations regarding those issues are.

Your the self-appointed expert here on this site so why don't you show me proof

that GW is such an outstanding president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How kind of you to offer to put YOUR words in other peoples' mouths.  Quite the ego you have.

lol

A prediction is putting words in other people's mouths, eh?

Note how your irony indicts you.

And as far as weakness, I think the FACT that Bush has issued more signing statements than all other presidents COMBINED shows a GREAT WEAKNESS in his ability and willingness to govern within the bounds of the Constitution.

Aha! The old "strength as a weakeness" ploy. How predictable.

Then again, he's arguably a great phony, a man born into wealth and privilege who's down home swaggerin' Texas good ol' boy act is getting very old.  He plays a rube pretty well, we can only wish he was as accomplished at playing a statesman.

And then right back to the personal attacks, ignoring the leadership record.

The thing is, your criticism is perfectly typical of the left. It's vacuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said anything about GW's personality, I don't like his policies or those of any of his high level ass kissers. Almost seven years of this guy and you need me to explain what the problem is?

It would be unusual if you could do so coherently (judging from the typical job done in the press and in the blogs).

Your making my point for me because either you don't see, or refuse to see what the problems are which to me implies that you are gullible.

So if I question your assertions you launch the personal attacks.

Very convincing.

I could give you pages of examples of which I'm sure you would shrug away as untrue or that " I can't prove it".

I'd be content with one significant example where you present a solid case.

Again, the technique of no matter what I say you won't believe it!!!! is old, tired, and vacuous.

We all know what alot of the hot button issues are and what many of the latest revalations regarding those issues are.

We do?

Do we have one or more examples?

Your the self-appointed expert here on this site so why don't you show me proof

that GW is such an outstanding president.

If you can't make even the simplest case to support the accusations you've already launched, what makes me think you can follow the simplest argument that I might offer?

Your attempt to escape your burden of proof by offering me a burden of proof is noted, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Doubting Thomas
lol

Aha!  The old "strength as a weakeness" ploy.  How predictable.

The thing is, your criticism is perfectly typical of the left.  It's vacuous.

So, you consider his use of signing statements and inability and unwillingness to act within the bounds of the Constitution a strength? Would you care to explain that typical inane response of the right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Doubting Thomas
lol

.

And then right back to the personal attacks, ignoring the leadership record.

The thing is, your criticism is perfectly typical of the left.  It's vacuous.

Saying he was born to wealth and priviege and is a phony putting on a down home country boy act is hardly a personal attack, it's the truth, something you're apparently averse to.

Your commentary is typically off-point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
It would be unusual if you could do so coherently (judging from the typical job done in the press and in the blogs).

So if I question your assertions you launch the personal attacks.

Very convincing.

I'd be content with one significant example where you present a solid case.

Again, the technique of no matter what I say you won't believe it!!!! is old, tired, and vacuous.

We do? 

Do we have one or more examples?

If you can't make even the simplest case to support the accusations you've already launched, what makes me think you can follow the simplest argument that I might offer?

Your attempt to escape your burden of proof by offering me a burden of proof is noted, of course.

Ok, fine. The response to hurricane Katrina is one issue. Speaking of old, tired, and vacuous, you mean like blaming the press?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stop the Stupidity
No.  I think Bush is a poor public speaker (not all of the time, but enough for it to be a serious liability), and he's far too willing to compromise with the left on spending, including the expansion of the Medicare entitlement.  He hasn't exercised veto power enough, and his administration has communicated the necessity of the Iraq War poorly (though Tony Snow has been a big improvement as press secretary).

What is it with you neo-Nazi-cons that you're fine with sending hundreds of billions of $ to Iraq where there's aleady reports of much waste and current and former Iraqi offials building villas throughout Europe, financed with? And you were so comfortable with Vietnamese officials making off with milions of $ meant to aid the country yet you'll do your best to ensure that the US remains the last major industrialised nation where health care for everyone is not a given?

Try learning four words: AMERICA AND AMERICANS FIRST!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve_C

Bush is a boob, a tool, a disaster.

And about 70% of the country thinks so too.

Worst President Ever.

But you guys keep cheering him on, someone has to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BushBacker
Bush is a boob, a tool, a disaster.

And about 70% of the country thinks so too.

Worst President Ever.

But you guys keep cheering him on, someone has to.

Bush will be remembered as a great president. He has protected us since 9/11 by taking the fight to the enemy. While terrorist attacks have occurred around the world, he has kept us safe. In addition: market is way up, unemployment is way down, economy is way up, deficit is way down, and he's lowered our taxes.

If you're a Daffy Defeatocrat who's still crying for Gore and Kerry then you'll think Bush is the "worst president ever", but the facts don't back you up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you consider his use of signing statements and inability and unwillingness to act within the bounds of the Constitution a strength?

Of course, though I do not entirely accept the premise of your question.

Acting outside the bounds of the Constitution is by definition a strengthening of presidential power. That should be obvious.

Would you care to explain that typical inane response of the right?

Questions that contain a questionable premise (such as yours above) constitute complex question fallacies.

Do you want a reputation for arguing fallaciously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...