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.

 

Why is Everything Blamed on Bush?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I know the guy is not the greatest President we have ever had. If he is the worst why did we elect him twice?

We've blamed the guy for : 911, Global warming, Iraq (guilty), Terrorism, anti-terrorism, The Red Sox beating the Yankees, etc...

Why? Let me hear it. What do you think?




posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Bush is just a puppet and a bufoon to boot, those who are running America dont want someone smart in office who would realise what they are up to hence the Bush Monkey.

So as the figure head he takes all the crap while those who should be getting it in the neck are busy up to no good.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Because other people are to ignorant to see past the fact the President effects relitivally little in terms of laws etc. If a law gets passed, anything that harms say civil liberties or what ever..... is the fault of the House. And usually, almost always, there is a backing from Congress. We went to war. Its a stupid war. Did Bush put us there? No. Congress did. With only 3 members voting no. Yet it is all Bushes fault? Hes just someone to blame.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
He was elected twice? News to me. Last I heard the Supreme Court gave him the Presidency in 2000 and just a week ago Ohio's 2004 recount was proven to be fraudulent.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
The main reason for this is that he is the President of the United States. He is not popular as he goes on record taking sides on issues that he should remain quiet on and did ultimately mislead the country in stating that Iraq had weapons of Mass destruction. He is the comander and chief of the military but fails to give a goal for victory leaving it open for interpretation. He chooses not to take any responsibility for any of the actions of those under him, choosing to squirm off. The country is going down in debt due to his actions and any time questions of impeachment is brought up, those who do are quietly told to sit down and outvoted. He has managed to instead of taking the opportunity to bridge gaps, has managed to get the majority of the world upset at him. He chooses to alinate the minorty, and has authorized acts that would otherwise be considered illegale. Instead of taking care of problems, he comes up with solutions which will ultimately come to no good.
That in my opinion is why he is not liked and blamed for alot.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Is not a surprise that Presidents are always remembered more for their failures than for their good deeds.

Bush have so many failures under his term that is hard to wait for him to finish his presidency to start the blame, is many still blaming Clinton with today's problems.

But do not worry is plenty of people that loves Bush very much.


Fox channel news does.


[edit on 3-2-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
If a law gets passed, anything that harms say civil liberties or what ever..... is the fault of the House.


I would agree with you on the law aspect but where I fail to agree with you is the fact that laws aren't the only thing that can have an impact upon civil liberties. Let's not forget executive orders, they can certainly impact rights and civil liberties. They are kind of like an overide switch and bush has to sign his name to each one. Do I think he is responsible for all things bad? No, but he is by no means innocent. By taking the oath of office he put himself in the position to be held accountable, and accountable he should be. Some presidents have been loved for the things they do, some have been hated. But with his 33% rating of people who think he is doing a good job, I think the 66% who don't can't be that wrong. The worst thing he does in my opinion is drags his religious views into the way this country is governed, and his policy. There is nothing more dangerous than a person who thinks they are doing whats right based upon their religion... look at the hijackers. And to say the iraq invasion was justifiable because Saddam violated a UN resolution is malarkey, look at north korea don't you think kim has done some violating of UN rules and regulations. Oh they don't have any oil over there so their people don't need liberating. And to hang saddam for war crimes is fine but don't forget we were his ally while most of his atrocities were carried out. Did we say anything about it when he was fighting iran? No, he was in our best interests then. Rummy sure had a big smile shaking his hand.





posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   
How many terrorist attacks happened during Clinton's Presidency. He did nothing other than an airstrike.

I'm saying might Bush's original plan have been noble. It failed, but the failure was not in the trying but the execution of the plan.

This is why his dad never went in to Iraq. He knew it would tear up the Country.

GW is just a kid who tried to out do his dad and failed in that aspect.

But his isn't Satan, the Anti-christ, etc. He's just a normal guy who tried.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Royal76]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
I'm saying might Bush's original plan have been noble. It failed, but the failure was not in the trying but the execution of the plan.

This is why his dad never went in to Iraq. He knew it would tear up the Country.
But his isn't Satan, the Anti-christ, etc. He's just a normal guy who tried.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Royal76]


True, the plan did fail, but even Nixon knew enough to bring troops home. The problem is that he is not coming clean or accpeting responsibility for his actions or even letting those who he puts in charge have a free hand. I am not saying that other American Presidents have not failed or have done no wrong, no they have, but his failures and other items are being caught alot faster. Consider how many people in the US are suffering, yet why give support to other countries to relieve them of their suffering? Africa may have an AIDS problem but I relate that to the polio epidemic that hit this country. It was not a bill or a law the wiped it out, but a pen held by a standing president that did. FDR with one pen stroke, gave an executive order to put wiping out Polio and coming up with a vaccine so non would go through such. Bush has that authority, but chooses not to use it. The executive branch, if I understand the checks and balances system is to enforce the law and strike down those that are not. With the problems of the country growing at an alarming rate, perhaps he needs to focus more on internal issues than a doomed issue.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by shizzle5150

Originally posted by Rockpuck
If a law gets passed, anything that harms say civil liberties or what ever..... is the fault of the House.


I would agree with you on the law aspect but where I fail to agree with you is the fact that laws aren't the only thing that can have an impact upon civil liberties. Let's not forget executive orders, they can certainly impact rights and civil liberties. They are kind of like an overide switch and bush has to sign his name to each one.


That is a little bit of a stretch. The executive order power is not the power to legislate by fiat, but merely to manage things that go on inside of the executive branch. Therefore, by using executive power, the president can change how resources are allocated, order the military, and do anything else under his authority. But is precludes him from legislating except for where congress has ceded the power.

This is great power, yes, but it is limited in its application.




top topics



 
0

log in

join