That's the whole central issue. We dislike Bush because he has absolutely no respect whatsoever for the office of the Presidency, the Constitution, the American Public, or most of what America is supposed to stand for. But when we have anything to say about any of that, it's "You might disagree with him personally, but you should still have respect for the office of the President."
Just like you all did for Bubba, eh?
It is Bush who brings disgrace to the Office, to the Country, and to us. We are only reflections of how badly he is doing, and from what you see in any public forum anywhere on the face of this planet, no one human being has ever done such a miserable, wretched, and thoroughly incompetent job of anything since the dawn of mankind.
So, who is disgracing the Presidency? The Smirking Baboon of Doom, or the sixty-two percent of us (and the ninety-eight percent of the rest of the world) who despises him and nearly all of his actions and inactions?
2006-08-26
05:47:16
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
So far six out of seven of you have automatically assumed I am a democrat and that I was less harsh on Clinton. Totally wrong on both counts. It's just that I lived through that pointless witch-hunt six years too many already, something that was best left between Bubba and Billary, and no threat whatsoever to democracy.
Now, six years later, that stale laundry still seems to be more relevant to conservs/repubs than the many far worse lies and sins of the Bush administration.
All I'm saying is that to the outsider, Conservs look to me like the worst types of hypocrites by saying we need to respect the oval office now, but for eight long years under Clinton, "we" did everything but mail dogsh!t to it. If what Bill did was a Bic lighter, what George has done so far is a conflagration. There are gargantuan amounts of shameless and mindless hypocrisy going on here, and it's impossible to miss seeing it.
And so far, all but one response has done nothing but prove my point.
2006-08-26
06:28:04 ·
update #1
Don't forget about the upteen percent of Repubs who sit silently saying the same thing you are saying....especially ever since Katrina!
The party is so out of touch with itself.
2006-08-26 06:56:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jake 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't think the central issue should not be one of partisanship. This issue is whether or not Bush is the man to lead the country right now. It's clear to most people that he is not. His popularity polls pretty much confirm that. Should the Bush bashing stop? Yes. Your pretty much flogging a dead horse. Is Bush disgracing the Presidency? No. He just a great disappointment.
Bush was not elected to lead a war on terrorism. He inherited that problem. Bush was elected because the American people wanted a President who would reinstate some integrity to the office. The country was pretty much tired and embarrased over the sex scandels during the Clinton years. Had the war on terror existed in 1999, it's likely the Republican party would have chosen another candidate to run for office, a person who every one agreed was equiped to handle the problem.
2006-08-26 14:16:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by Overt Operative 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Bush is using the powers provided to him under the auspices of the US Constitution. He most definately is not disrespecting the office.
Lets keep in mind here that he only has limited powers. Any authority to deploy troops for any actions must be authorized by congress. Any wiretapping or such actions must be approved by the courts. As they were in previous conflicts. He is just pushing the envelope a little to see how far he can go. He has teams of legal anylists that advise him in what he can or can't do. I'm sure they would not recommend something that is illegal, maybe on the fringe, but not totally illegal.
If we are so despised by the rest of the world, as you say. Then why do they always come to the US for leadership when they want things, such as a cease fire between Israel and Lebanon, leadership for problems such as North Korea, and Iran? We set the standard for diplomacy.
Mostly what I hear of complaints about the actions of our fine country are from our own citizens. The complaints from overseas, from places like Iran, are film clips of organized rallies showing people burning US flags and carrying posters. Heck, we can make up footage of the Illegal Mexican rallies and make it look like Mexico is taking over the US. It's just propaganda.
And your statement about our President "no one human being has ever done such a miserable, wretched, and thoroughly incompetent job of anything since the dawn of mankind." Is simply not true, Hitler comitted atrocities, the likes of which mankind had never seen before.
Bush simply responded to an attack on our country, in which three thousand of our friends and neighbors were murdered. He also toppled a dictator that comitted atrocities against his own people. ANd if you look at the positioning of our troops in the middle east, we are in prime positions to quell anything that Iran might be thinking of doing. We have troops to the east, west of Iran and allies to the north, with the ability to blockade Iran to the south. So, in my opinion, whatever you think of Bush and his administration, including Rummy, it is my opinion that they are doing the right thing to help bring peace and stability to the middle east. And if the democrats would stop and look at the big picture, they would see the same. But I guess it is much easier to walk around with your eyes closed and then curse and cast blame when you bump into something you don't understand.
By the way, no president in the last one hundred years brought more shame and disgust to the office of the President than the one who played hide the salami with a girl under his desk. Not even Nixon brought that kind of embarrassment to the people of the United States.
2006-08-26 13:20:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
It proper social protocol to respect the office of an elected official. Whether the dog catcher, Hwy Commissioner or president they deserve traditional respect.
Does this respect mean that there are no dogs to catch or pot holes in the road? And likewise it does not mean that Washington has entered into a Golden Age of Perfection.
Go big Red Go
2006-08-26 13:11:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by 43 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Didn't they say the same thing when the first elected president, was impeached on perjury charges? Talk about disgrace! That's you boy!
Note the elected president qualifier...just to save you!
2006-08-26 13:01:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by trumain 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
I believe the people you are referring to, are referring to Bush Bashers-such as yourself , who seem to have no other purpose in life than bashing the President-who-is keeping terrorism off our soil ( something Bubba refused to do ). I doubt you have ever heard the word "respect", other than in an Aretha Franklin song .
While it empowers you to dump on a sitting president in time of war( while GIVING AID & COMFORT TO THE ENEMY WHILE OUR TROOPS ARE DODGING BULLETS ) , thank God our president remains focused on the job he was elected to do ; in
spite of a few commediens trying to get in the way .
2006-08-26 13:01:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by missmayzie 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
We have a president who uses the flag as toilet paper and then expects everyone to salute it.
2006-08-26 17:41:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by iknowtruthismine 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Conservs actually said: "You should respect the orifice of the President" because it is from this place where cometh his ideas.
2006-08-26 12:58:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by heyrobo 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
amen
the whole politics of fear makes me sick!
the alleged war against terror in iraq is the very thing to stir up more terrorists
2006-08-26 13:01:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by doug c 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Why should I explain anything to a person who thinks that a sloppy blowj ob in the oval office is great.
Burn your flag, minion.
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
2006-08-26 12:55:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋