It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush -- Just Bad Timing?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
First off...

I am Canadian

I'm Not a Bush Supporter

I've been thinking back and forth alittle bit and wondering what some thoughts on this are. As I've said I'm not much of a Bush supporter at all, but I've been thinking if he really is that bad of a President or if it's been just a really bad time to be President.

With 9/11, this Middle-East conflict, Iraq, Al-Qaeda etc., how much could you possibly expect from a President? How many people can you expect to keep happy when there is so much bad in the world, and your on top of the ladder to have all of the fingers pointed at you.

Too many innocent lives have been lost for Bush's hands to be clean here, but is he really to blame with everything that has gone on? Would his approval ratings be so low if it wasn't for all of these unforeseen tragedies?




posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
chiss, You forgot to mention the president selling out to the oil companys at Cheneys insistence so we can enjoy $3.00 a gal gasoline, and energy companys making record profits at the expense of the middle class. If it was truly supply and demand, how do the oil companys and their stock holders reconcile their war profits?

The presidents approval ratings aren't so much a result of bad timing, but arrogance.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by whaaa]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Plenty of great presidents have been born of hard times. Some presidents are right, some get lucky, and others miscalculate and have to reap the whirlwind.

Bush is definately a president in hard times, not unlike Hoover or even Jefferson, and like those he hasn't done the best job with it.

But not everyone blows it with tough times. Time will tell if George Bush ends up being a Lincoln or an FDR but I'll put my money against that at any odds. A lot of people will say we won't know for decades but the fact of the matter is that it will start to come into focus in just a few years. The same people who say "it's too soon to judge Bush" will often enough tell you that it's soon enough to say that the DoHS is preventing another terrorist attack in America.

We'll leave Iraq or we won't. We'll leave it stable or unstable. Gas prices have gone out of control or they haven't. Our trade policies will cost us jobs or they won't.

Some of this we already know. Some of it we'll know in a couple of years. George Bush's legacy will be written before he's dead... unless of course there is a God, in which case my question is 'what's the holdup?'.

Bush is the wrong man at the wrong time. I'm not denying the timing is bad, I'm just saying he'd be a mistake even in good times, albeit a less costly one.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   


My distaste in Bush has been refueled.

I appreciate the posts, coming back with information instead of saying -- WHAT! -- ARE YOU AN IDIOT? --




posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Timing in this life means a lot. And It seems to me that with the mid east in real termoil, the best place for the President to look Presidential would be in the Whitehouse, not Crawford. Not only bad timing, but bad taste. Anyway, letem eat cake. Chiss, sorry about the taste references, but I had an attack of corny.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
chiss, You forgot to mention the president selling out to the oil companys at Cheneys insistence so we can enjoy $3.00 a gal gasoline, and energy companys making record profits at the expense of the middle class. If it was truly supply and demand, how do the oil companys and their stock holders reconcile their war profits?

I'm curious - just how did Bush "sell out" to the oilco's? What specific deal did he make?

He could have waved a magic wand and started drilling offshore and in ANWR the very first day he took office. He has proposed it for years, btw.

He could have waved a magic wand and funded alternative energy sources from the very first day he took office. He has always supported alternate energy sources, btw.

And even if he had done both of those, we'd still be years away from reaping the benefits.

But he doesn't have a magic wand. He must work with those in Congress who oppose him. He must face lengthy delays because of enviromentalists who think a caribou is more importan than a child.

So what could he have done? Nationalize the oil industry? Do a little artificial price-fixing on the cost of a barrel of oil? Ignore the geopolitics of oil?

What, exactly?



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Bomber, I can't tell you what deals were made because they were made in secret and the American public was frozen out of energy making policy. Thanks to Dick Cheney, who in my opinion is the true puppet master. So I guess you're right; it wasn't the President that sold out. He only followed directions.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bombers8
He could have waved a magic wand and started drilling offshore and in ANWR
(snip)
He must face lengthy delays because of enviromentalists who think a caribou is more importan than a child.


George Bush on the other hand knows full well that a child is more important than a caribou, which is why he's pursuing policies that kill enemy's children now and leaving the enemy's caribou alone.

Thankyou folks, I'm here all week. (/Stephen Colbert Impersonation)

Bush DOES NOT have to work with his opponents. Like many others, I thought that he might have to get a little political, make a few deals, understand that the world is shades of grey, but 6 years later... boy, we were WAY OFF on that one.

He doesn't have to do it and lo and behold he doesn't do it. This "hostile" congress you speak of has only cornered Bush into a veto ONCE. In so doing he underscored the point that he does not work with his opponents. The man does not bargain with terrorists... or democrats...... or moderate republicans.

He's for alternative technology. Where's the real, serious funding then? You can't drill for technology in ANWR! There isn't any technology down there.

This country has a nifty ability to get stuff done when we mean business. The president decides he wants to send a man to the moon, and go figure, we find a way in an AMAZING timeframe. Look how nicely we helped nuclear physics along once we had a fire lit under us.

Now we know full well that there was every reason to be concerned about oil even in 2001. Do you mean to tell me that no amount of R&D funding, no amount of international cooperation, no amount of manpower, could have POSSIBLY given us the FAINTEST glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel? How much money could it possibly take to get some progress? Do you think maybe $300,000,000,000 would make a difference? Because it occurs to me that President Bush, for all his faults, did do an outstanding job of coming up with $300,000,000,000 when he felt it was important for the future of America. That's one hell of a magic wand the way I see it.

Bush has had a VERY difficult presidency. He has been in a position of needing to face EXTREMELY complex issues in some cases, and many of these issues fell on him because those who came before him, great men as they may have been, simply did not have the courage and the wisdom to confront those problems before they came to a head.

Be that as it may, these things fell on Bush and we expect the President of the United States to confront such pressing issues, make the tough decisions, and take us in the right direction. Bush however has chosen to think smaller in many regards and not make those difficult positions that past mistakes have caused to be thrust upon us with such great urgency now. President Clinton barely thought about Bin Laden at all, and as a result he came down on us. In response, when Bush should have pulled out all the stops he kept it small and Bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora. It was over 30 years ago that an oil embargo put America on notice about its oil dependence and that was ignored, and when it sprang up on us in the form of 2 then 3 then almost 4 dollar gas, in the form of a major oil producers such as Venezuela and Iran posing obvious threats to us via that leverage, etc, President Bush has been a little too calm, moved a little too slowly, and not made the dramatic moves we need to get out of danger fast. It's good to keep your composure and act calmly when your timing is right, but when your timing is wrong it's another story. When you see your toddler headed towards a busy street early you can walk over calmly and get him, but when he's at the curb before you see him you're supposed to drop your coffee cup and bolt for him with absolutely no sense of dignity or grace, because at this point it's not about being calm under fire, it's about getting there before it's too friggin late.

It might be bad timing, but again I say that Bush ought to see that and react accordingly. He's a bad man to have at a bad time. I think in 2004 he should have said "sorry guys, this isn't very fun. I think I'm gonna go buy another baseball team and trade away its star player. When things are OK again I'll come back and run for another term."

(/rant)



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Not only that, I think that Mr. Bush does not know how to be an effective leader for the times he is in. Because of his lack of leadership, we in America have been severely let down not only in domestic issues, but in foreign policy as well.

I believe that he is a self-centered, haughty, self-indulgent man who cares little about the people he governs. Furthermore, he has no clue whatsoever of the implications of his acts overseas. And now that he is in too deep over his head, he goes back to the usual pathos to keep the American masses coddled and forgetful over their lack of support regarding the second Iraqi war. Instead, he uses rhetoric to incite the populace to brow beat and punish those who are different.

He has caused irreputable harm through the divisions he has fostered. What is worse, he makes no secret about his greed and need for conquest.

It's not just about bringing "democracy" to the Middle East. It's about rewarding his friends with more defense and oil contracts.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
George Bush on the other hand knows full well that a child is more important than a caribou, which is why he's pursuing policies that kill enemy's children now and leaving the enemy's caribou alone.

I won't even address the ridiculous assertion that his policy is to kill children. For you to even suggest it is absurd.

As for ANWR,

Those predictions, which once seemed unthinkable, emerged as far more likely in the wake of a 51-49 Senate vote to allow drilling for oil and natural gas in a protected part of the Alaskan wilderness. The vote was a major victory for President Bush and his supporters in business and elsewhere who had long advocated drilling in ANWR as a way to ease the nation's dependence on foreign supplies.

The breakthrough came after two days of heavy lobbying on both sides of an emotional issue that has dominated environmental politics for nearly a decade. Until yesterday, opponents had always been able to stop legislation to open ANWR, an ecologically rich and largely untouched area of northern Alaska that defenders said is far too valuable to threaten with development

seattlepi.nwsource.com...

No, of course he had no opposition. And it's funny how the energy crisis just seemed to coincide with the beginning of his first term, isn't it?


Bush DOES NOT have to work with his opponents. Like many others, I thought that he might have to get a little political, make a few deals, understand that the world is shades of grey, but 6 years later... boy, we were WAY OFF on that one.

See above for a rebuttal to your incorrect assertion.

Another example of your incorrect assertion that he doesn't need to work with congress:

Senate approves more offshore drilling

Your sense of animosity is misdirected. You should not let your hatred for Bush overshadow your ability to think straight.

If you want to talk about hypocrisy, just look at Kennedy&Kerry, who are in favor of alternate energy, except when the windmills might block their clear view of Europe. Then, it's "Not in my back yard!"



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bombers8
I won't even address the ridiculous assertion that his policy is to kill children. For you to even suggest it is absurd.


Yes, humor is often absurd. Humor is also often used to draw attention to a much less absurd fact that would otherwise be very dry and depressing. In this case, the admittedly absurd notion that killing children is a primary goal of Bush's policies serves as a reminder that while Democrats go too far to one side by wanting to protect against collateral damage to caribou, Bush goes too far in a much more sinister direction by accepting HUMAN BEINGS, including children, as collateral damage, and does so in a disgustingly cavalier manner.


And it's funny how the energy crisis just seemed to coincide with the beginning of his first term, isn't it?

Oh, is that because the evil democratic congress (oh wait, we don't have one of those) voted to raise the price of oil just to screw Bush? The drilling bans weren't put in place on Bush's watch, they were there before. This problem came to a head on Bush's watch.
I don't blame him for causing it I've been very clear that the errors of his predecessors have allowed these problems to fester until they came to a point where they could no longer be ignored. My problem is that Bush hasn't done what he needs to do to fix these problems.
I'd LOVE to see you elaborate on this quip though. Who exactly conspired to make a Greek Tragedy out of both this issue and Bush's ability to respond to it?

What exactly did Bush try to do that would really fix the problem?

He refuses to target his tax cuts narrowly enough, he demands hundreds of billions of dollars to occupy a strategically untennable position, he puts us on the outs with the 4th biggest oil supplier to the US with an ill-conceived coup attempt... he's got money for everything BUT fixing the oil problem.

But oh no, he's got a plan. Congress is just stopping him. Bush has got a plan alright. He's got a plan that would reduce oil prices by only fifty cents a barrel, which in case you're interested, translates into 2 cent break at the pump. On the bright side, it would be a roughly 20 billion dollar windfall for US oil companies.
And when would his "plan" do this for us? The oil would start flowing in 2013. Too little, too late.

You must also take into account that we only have so much refining and tanking capacity. No amount of offshoring or drilling in ANWR is going to save us as our demand continues to spike, but Bush refuses to make truly bold moves. He wants to make small moves that make him look good for the short term and help the rich far more than the common man.

He's not willing to rock the boat with ambitious funding for alternative energy. 1.2 Billion dollars over 5 years for fuel cells is not very ambitious compared to 300 Billion over 5 years for dead people.
A tax credit to encourage people who are in the market for a new car to buy one that uses less gas IF they itemize... that's great. Want to take a wild guess at how much that's going to help most of us?

Biodiesel is being used. Right now, as I type, there are vehicles in France running on 30% biodiesel. This started in the 90s. You can produce the stuff with algae on land that is otherwise not really arable. How many production facilities has Bush asked the government to fund construction for?

He throws a single billion at some R&D guys and says "well, we'll have it in 20+ years, but why don't we go ahead and give my buddies in the oil industry an annual 20 billion by opening up ANWR. It's all posturing. There's been no action.

What would people have said if FDR had told them "I'm giving a trivial slice of the budget to a think tank to come up with ways to get you jobs, but if you think I'm actually going to spend real money and create jobs for you in the near term, you're nuts". I'll give you a hint: they said it to Hoover.

As for your attempts to sidestep my points, I never claimed Bush didn't have opposition.
I said George Bush doesn't work with them, even though several of them are of his own party. When the voice of the people is on occasion represented in Washington DC (in the form of Republicans breaking ranks because they know they can't back Bush's bad ideas and then go home to face their constituents) your defense of Bush is that he has opponents? No kidding he has opponents. Inaction and tokenism should be opposed.

Nor did I ever claim that Bush didn't need to work with those opponents. Forgive me if it went over your head, but given my criticism of Bush I think it is obvious that my point is this: he needs to but he doesn't.

Don't believe me? Have you forgotten his threat to veto the Patriot Act's renewal if it was weakened? He would do nothing before he did it anyone else's way

Then of course there's the tried and true "wild eyed liberal" defense. I don't hate Bush's policies because I hate Bush. I hate Bush because I hate his policies. I supported him in 2000, I voted for him in 2004 (actually I voted against Kerry in 2004 but oh well). Most people who stuck with this man as long as I did simply will never change their minds. I've poked fun at him, I've disagreed with him on social issues because I do not like religiously-motivated policy, but I gave him a shot. Nearly 6 years later, the verdict is in. I was wrong about Bush. His focus is wrong, his agenda is dangerous, and above all, when it comes to the trying issues which the mistakes of his predecessors have thrust upon him, his policy consists wholly of lies, lipservice, and stalling.


And last but not least, this thread is not about democrats. At this point I'm sure you would like to talk about just about anything other than Bush because the man is beyond defense, but he is the topic of this thread. For the record, I'll say that the democratic party can kiss the least sanitary part of my body, but that's as far as I will follow that red herring.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Bad timing ?
There is some of that but nobody forced the Bush admin to invade Iraq and get struck in quicksand something that anybody who put any thought into the conflict saw coming. Now that Bush is in his 2nd term blaming the dems for any current problems is just lame.

Perhaps Americans are the victims of the two party system but thats there problem.
:Gose off and complains about minor partys in power in NZ :

[edit on 8-8-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Bad timing ?
There is some of that but nobody forced the Bush admin to invade Iraq and get struck in quicksand



While I agree with your statement, I feel that, what happen in 9/11 was exactly the fuel needed to do just that. . .

Bush wanted Iraq, the timing was just perfect, it wasn't afghanistan but Iraq.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join