reply to post by semperfortis
My disdain for President Bush comes from policy his administration enacted. President Bush the person from what I understand is actually a nice guy,
someone personable and people that know him come away liking the man. For someone that has had so many things said negatively about him and his
policies, it's interesting that those that work for him feel that he is a good person. That makes me proud to call him Mr. President.
You are absolutely correct in the fact that the legislative branch also holds much of the blame for the problems I have listed above. Absolutely. As
far as the bailout is concerned I am deeply troubled that our legislative branch went against the will of a majority of Americans and voted to rob our
treasury and hand out the money to people that obviously cannot handle it to begin with.
The reason that Bush gets most of the blame for the ails in our government is because as the commander in chief it is his leadership that is supposed
to drive this country in a direction.
I do agree that to go forward in a direction even though people all around you say to go another way takes courage. It does take courage of
conviction to stay a path that is unpopular if you believe that it is the right course to take.
What I do for a living is not exactly popular either, but it is necessary.
But there are those of us out here that do respect and admire what you do for a living and are eternally grateful for the job you do.
I believe that Bush wanted to do right by the American people, he wanted to keep America safe. One thing he has done is worked tirelessly to that end.
That makes me proud to call him Mr. President. The way he did this however does not make me proud.
Condoning torture does not make me proud to call him Mr. President. This instance the legislative branch had no control over the
Executive Order 13440
condoning water boarding as a legal interrogation tactic.
You are correct that not all of the blame for many of the problems rests solely on the hands of our 43rd president. But some things do.
President Bush did even through folly and failure, kept this country safe. Do the means in which he did this justify the end? Is the limitations to
our freedoms justifiable by the fact that in the last 8 years a repeated attack like that on September 11 2001 hasn't happened?
Perhaps. Perhaps, illegal wire tapping is justified, perhaps broadening the powers of law enforcement is justified in the patriot act. Perhaps the
ultimate goal of keeping American citizens safe justifies sacrificing some of our primary ideals of freedom.
The past 8 years, President Bush's primary goal was successful. That goal was to prevent another terrorist attack like that on 9/11, this makes me
proud to call him Mr. President.