To be fair, he came into office with the odds stacked against him. His predecessor was a youthful, charismatic leader whose following seemed more like that of a rock star than a politician. And the nation was coming off years of peace and prosperity. In many respects, he had nowhere to go but down. Nonetheless, consider the following:He took office under circumstances that some consider suspicious, even treacherous.Many argue that he cynically used goodwill the nation bestowed upon him in the wake of national tragedy to lead us into an unpopular and unwinnable war.He expanded the scope of the federal government in ways no one could have foreseen, adding new roles for everything from education to Medicare, even as the cost of the war spiraled out of control. Many feel his final legacy will be one of bloated government and fiscal bankruptcy.Furthermore, his determination to do things his way, combined with disdain for detractors, has earned him a reputation for being petulant and insular. Not exactly traits we might hope for in a president.
2006-09-24 06:28:03 · 9 answers · asked by The internal demon 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Did i struck a cord?did i strike a cord?do you agree or disagree?what if i was to tell you that I’m talking about Lyndon Johnson, not George W. Bush?did your reaction change?
http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/003183.html
2006-09-24 06:29:34 · update #1
It is clear from the way this question is written that you don't really want the answer. A little bit of education in macro economics and world history will enlighten you more that I ever could.
2006-09-24 06:30:18 · answer #1 · answered by Fermat 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I realize that you're having an orgasm at the thought of your own cleverness...
...but actually...entirely by accident...you've made an interesting point.
With the blood red shining example of LBJ's tragic mistakes in the conduct of the Viet Nam war...
...how COULD George be that appallingly, disgustingly, completely STUPID and follow down that exact same path?
I've always suspected that there's something poisoned in Texas water...
2006-09-24 13:44:11 · answer #2 · answered by St. Hell 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Come on people, they wanted to get rid of Clinton for a ********,this man put our men into a war that was uncalled for,surely our cia and spy groups arent that bad.I stand by our goverment because it is our's but Bush was wrong and as Americans we should have called for him to step down. I am sure some will disagree and thats ok.
2006-09-24 13:40:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well said my friend. There is no way you can convince the Bush suppprts of his obvious acts. It will take a lifetime to undo them
2006-09-24 13:39:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
ironically, the two presidents (?) from texas have something in common. both were (are) power mad, both used political manuvering to get their ways, and both killed thousands of american soldiers.
bush was appointed president by a supreme court dominated by judges appointed by his father, johnson became president by having kennedy killed.
2006-09-24 17:15:10 · answer #5 · answered by grumpy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is bad but not the worst.
Herbert Hoover was far worse.
Both Republicans.
2006-09-24 13:30:04 · answer #6 · answered by Villain 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Nope, we Republicans hated Bill, so the liberals have someone they can hate now too. So your question is a stupid one, cause both parties will line up behind who they support.
2006-09-24 13:32:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes he is! Enough said on that one!
2006-09-24 13:58:36 · answer #8 · answered by brian 2010 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, that title would belong to Carter.
2006-09-24 13:31:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋