L-1011-500 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 368 posts, RR: 2 Posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1171 times:
Short and Simple - Do you think Bush has handled this situation well? Has your opinion of him changed in anyway since the attacks?
Personally, I thought he was a great president, and now I think the integrity and honor of his cabinet and he himself has shown through even clearer. Nice job GW. I have even greater respect for him now, and there isn't another president I would rather have up there (esp. not Gore/Clinton)
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7808 posts, RR: 54 Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1054 times:
Couldn't disagree more, I think he's completely out of his depth and got there because the support his family carries with (say) the Supreme Court. These second-rate presidents have been America's Achilles Heel for decades now. I personally liked Clinton - for instance he went to the Gaza Strip, which took balls and proved he was genuinely interested in creating peace. Ditto Belfast. But I know a lot of Americans didn't like him.
But let's be real: Johnson (Vietnam), Nixon (where the hell do I start?), Ford (the man for whom the expression was coined, "Can't walk and chew gum at the same time"), Carter (Iran), Reagan (where the hell do I start), Bush sr (inconclusive end to Gulf War; recession; comment about the Simpsons), Clinton (couldn't keep his hands off tarts; lied, albeit about his personal life).
You guys have only had one two-term president (I don't count Reagan cos he genuinely wasn't in command towards the end) since the 50s and a lesser man would have been hounded out of office - Clinton. I don't think any president since Eisenhower has reflected even an ounce of the greatness of the nation that elected them. Bush sr is one of the worst examples and people like him in the hot seat is a luxury America can no longer afford.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7808 posts, RR: 54 Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1039 times:
Must agree with that, if I was American I'd be a Democrat by a mile but Gore didn't thrill me at all and I don't think he'd be doing much better now. It's a terrible situation and needs real leadership, and Gore is just as useless as the others. Guiliani 2004.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
VirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1034 times:
I didn't like Bush SR one bit for his lack of action in dealing with Libya on PA 103. As well as caving in to the Saudis and not invading Baghdad. Saddam is still in power. Hopefully Bush Jr will have more backbone than his father ever did. I persoanlly think he is doing a much better job than Gore. Clinton would've done next to nothing aside from lauching some missles.
Bove From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1027 times:
"W" may be dumber than a pile of bricks, but resurrecting the old Cold War spooks for his foreign policy team turned out to be exactly the way to go...this is no time for Madeline Halfbright to be running the show.
I have no sympathy for Gore whatsoever. He shot himself in the foot with his over-reliance on media-savvy experts to craft his every move and thought. Having said that, American people by and large do not like intellectuals. Draw your own conclusions about that one .
Hepkat From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 2341 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 1011 times:
First of all, I don't think Bush has any other choice as how to approach this situation. If we remember, his administration took quite a PR beating for pissing off our closest allies during the first 6 months in office. Here in Europe it was all over the news. People were just indignant that he would dare make policy decisions unilaterally. That said, this WTC attack was a blessing in disguise. It gave Bush a second chance to get it right, which he did by carefully consulting with leaders before making a move. But I tell you, ANY president would have had to make the same decision, as it's simply the most prudent choice to make given the sensitivity of this issue. I think whether Gore, Jackson or my Aunt Edna, the president would have received similar council from his cabinet.
That said, my one biggest gripe with Bush is that he doesn't seem to know what he's doing. I get the impression that its his advisers who're running the show. Haven't you guys ever noticed whenever he's asked important questions at news conferences? This man genuinely has no clue! He stumbles and fumbles for any answer, and most of them sound like comments from a grade schooler. It is rather embarassing when foreign diplomats visit the White House, using English as a second language, and still manage to give more credible sounding and confident replies to tough questions from the media.
Many people say he has a speech impediment. That's fine. You can't and shouldn't hold that against him, he has no control over that. But apart from that, the guy just doesn't seem to display that confidence on screen that says, "this is my administration, I call the shots, I'm confident that I know what I'm doing". His sentences lack coherence, logic or any sense whatsoever. His inability to properly and confidently make a convincing statement on government policy or decisions leads me to believe his advisers are really running the White House, with him just stamping the presidential seal wherever they tell him. Whenever Condoleeza Rice holds a press conference, she looks 10 times the President that he is. It's so bad that everytime he speaks on TV, I usually have to change the channel, it's that painful!
Airplanenut From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 649 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 998 times:
You said HANDLED the situation... there is no judging until the attacks are all over. At the moment, i think he is handling it well... I just don't think he should try to get a job as an English teacher...
Some of his ideas didn't make any sense, so I didn't like him... but this might make him a good pres... it all depends on what he does/could do.
EIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1540 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 979 times:
The Bush administration has been faced with an unprecedented situation, and it seems that his administration has dealt with the situation pretty well thus far (and obviously, there is still a lot that could go wrong).
That being said, I do disagree with Bush in regards to his stance on the environment and his position on social issues. But, we are in a time of crisis right now, and therefore, these issues pale in significance.
It goes without saying that Bush is no intellectual. However, history has shown us that great intellectuals as well as business leaders don't tend to fare well in the Oval Office. In general, these people try and "run the show" too much, which usually results in placing the government in a state of gridlock. Bush, on the other hand, seems to be acting as more of a figurehead, letting his cabinet and advisors run the show.
Some have criticized Bush's ability to handle press conferences, and I would agree that he can't give the succinct, polished answers of Bill Clinton or Colin Powell. However, it seems that his delivery has improved during the course of the past year. At least to me, he doesn't come across as being as "stiff" as he once did, and it seems like he has a better grasp of the issues (there's no doubt that he really scared me a couple times during the campaign).
Stratofish From Germany, joined Sep 2001, 1038 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 941 times:
Could not agree more to the 2 above.
Although he so far did surprisingly well in the wake of the attacks. But I would be able to sleep a lot more comfortable if anyone who owns a brain was in his position. (BTW: GW has no backbone, his backbone IS his father.
Stretch 8 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2561 posts, RR: 17 Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 924 times:
Bush is underrated, especially by people in this forum who refer to him as an "idiot." He has "found his voice" in this crisis (Hillary Clinton's words), and we are well served by the Bush "War cabinet." It is still early in the war, but I believe Bush will come out of this the way Truman came out of his era; reviled at first, respected in history.
Maggs swings, it's a drive deep to left! The Tigers are going to the World Series!!!
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 923 times:
I still think it's way to early to know whether he's a great president, a good president or a bad one. He's only been in office 9 months. You can't judge a man's incumbency in tne presidency based on 9 months.
I never thought he was a bad guy-I never thought his dad was ,either. I just never agreed with the broad outlines of their policies. Yet I'm behind President Bush now, 1000% without hesitation. And if the election were held today, I'd vote for him, which would be the first GOP candidate for president I would ever have voted for.
The jury is still out on what his presidency will be. We know already what will define it, but we don't know how he will define what it will be. Only a few presidents in history-Lincoln and FDR are the ones who come to mind, ever had such a monumental task facing him so early into his incumbency.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 920 times:
"People were just indignant that he would dare make policy decisions unilaterally."
And just what the hell does THAT mean Hekpat? Since when does the US have to get permission from Europe to make policy for the United States? If an American said that about a European country, you'd be down his/her throat. What an absurd statement to make!!
And if a pacifistic coward like yourself doesn't like him, then I'm completely satisfied with the job he's doing.
Hepkat From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 2341 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 921 times:
Alpha 1, I think your constant name calling and intimidation tactics are becoming stale. Your constant verbal attacks only demonstrates to us how weak you really are. I've never seen you reply to anyone you disagreed with without having to first belittle them. It's getting tired. Give it up.
Mcdougald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day ago) and read 908 times:
EIPremier wrote: "However, history has shown us that great intellectuals as well as business leaders don't tend to fare well in the Oval Office."
Few from either group ever go into politics. It wouldn't be a rewarding career for them.
I recently attended a speech given by a columnist who has been watching the political scene since the '50s. He said that those who go into politics are almost evenly split among three groups:
- One-third go into politics out of a genuine desire to do good things for the wider community. (These are the ones who rarely or never appear on TV or in the newspapers. Some bow out after a term or two out of frustration.)
- The next third are 'insanely ambitious' and go into politics purely because they want one of the 'top jobs'.
- The final third -- and this fact isn't well known -- are 'surprisingly insecure', and get a high out of having a staff licking and stuffing envelopes and putting up lawn signs (with their names emblasoned across in large letters) on their behalf.
The result? Most legislatures, parliaments, congresses or whatever are simply lousy places to work. Why go into politics when there are better jobs available, without the 60-80 hour weeks, incessant ego games, loss of privacy and disruption of family life?
N400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (12 years 2 months 22 hours ago) and read 899 times:
I think he has done a superb job durin these times... and yes, he is a 'good guy'.
And, dammit.. I agree with Alpha 100% again. This is like the twilight zone.
Anyway, a couple of his statements I've really liked-- and they were both unscripted (seems he does it best that way). The first was at the site when he had the bullhorn and said that Usama "will hear all of us soon," and just this weekend when he returned to the White House from Camp David.
I couldn't have asked for a better person in the Oval Office during these trying times.
25 We're Nuts: Zach, you are becoming way too Liberal. Seriously! Eight months ago, you were calling Bush the lessor of two evils, and a "Liberal". But now he has re
26 N400QX: LOL.. no no no... I still think hes a bit too left on most issues, BUT I do believe he is handling this situation very well and is actually treating t
27 We're Nuts: Welcome to the dark side. Glad you could join! Pffff, typical Liberal drivel.
28 Goodbye: George Bush needs to read up on his geography, and needs to take english lessons. His language is most atrocious for someone who is meant to be in con
29 Alpha 1: Goodbye, you gave us no instances of either of your charges, and if the best you can do is say what you did about our president, it doesn't hold much
30 Aloha 737-200: "Short and Simple - Do you think Bush has handled this situation well? Has your opinion of him changed in anyway since the attacks? Personally, I thou
31 Stratofish: Just to be sure I got that right: Did anyone in this forum say Bush is TOO FAR LEFT on many issues??? That´s beyond comprehension! Do those guys know
32 We're Nuts: Don't mind N400QX, he's just a whacko.
33 Leftseat86: This pretty much sums up what Bush represents to me: