English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

22 answers

The shorter list would be how he's strengthened the US. Those things would be, uh, ummm, well there's, uh, umm. Hell, I can't think of one.

2006-12-03 15:22:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 6

at the same time as the Presidency first all started, it change into an unofficial statement that the President change into to be someone who change into extra efficient than the uncomplicated man or woman. The President change into peculiarly persons and change into to be respected. An celebration is FDR. you'll under no circumstances see a image of FDR is a wheelchair. He had polio and change into crippled. Eisenhaur made the place of work to be of God like high quality seeing that he defeated the Germans. Then Nixon got here into place of work and he tarnished it slightly with committing against the law then lied about it. Carter change right into a screw up from the starting up. Reagin helped fix numerous the comprehend, even if the wear and tear and tear change into performed with the aid of Nixon. (I disregarded Ford for a reason, he wasn't to have ever been President) the first Bush spoke of Reagin and appeared pitiful. Then Clinton got here and he acted like one persons. Made us sense major. He couldn't fix the comprehend of the job. He purely had to get elected, so he resulted to even if that approaches that would want to paintings to get him in there. What did he do to weaken america Presidency--no longer something. yet he did no longer something to bolster it both.

2016-11-23 15:30:28 · answer #2 · answered by Erika 4 · 0 0

Bush and Cheney try to stop 9/11 investigation
You do remember that both Bush and Cheney quietly asked the then-leaders of the House and Senate, Gephardt and Daschle, not to investigate the pre-9/11 period for reasons of national security. Perhaps one of the things they'd like to keep hidden was the fact that they were warned by the outgoing Clinton Administration specifically about the enormous dangers posed by Osama bin Laden/Al Qaida, but, in their arrogance, the incoming Bush Administration decided not to pay any attention to those warnings; instead, they said they were going to set up their own commission to look into terrorism, with Dick Cheney as head. Cheney -- too busy putting together an energy policy with Kenneth Lay's Enron and the other energy companies -- did nothing and the promised report on terrorism never materialized.

Bush and Rumsfeld arrogantly refuse to provide WMD evidence
This has not stopped our national misleaders from insisting that they are our ticket to security. But for that assertion there has been as little evidence offered as there has been for the claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to Americans or that he had anything to do with al-Qaeda. "We don't need no stinkin' evidence" is the attitude that oozes from President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The Future of Freedom Foundation

2006-12-03 15:29:09 · answer #3 · answered by dstr 6 · 6 5

How do I love thee?
Let me count the ways.
Shall I compare thee to a foreign civil war?
Thy visage is colder then that desertly air.

Ah heck. I'm sorry, I just can't remember enough of the sonnet to be able to even satarize Bush based off of it (and English majors, I apologize for the messing with meter and rhyme --the basic formal sonnet structure).

2006-12-03 15:45:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 4

Absolutely nothing. Has done nothing to weaken or demean the country or his office.

2006-12-03 16:05:23 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 2 4

I could name a lot more things that questions like this do to weaken and demean the United States.

2006-12-03 15:21:34 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 7 8

None, just the opposite. That's the crux of the problem he has taken dictatorial powers to himself that the office has no right to.
This destroys the intended friction between the branches of government that the founding Fathers so wisely gave us and is replacing it with totalitarianism.

2006-12-03 15:33:50 · answer #7 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 8 3

Not listening to the American people, not helping the poor, not changing course in Iraq after the American people begged for a course change, lying for years about the condition of the "War on Terror".

2006-12-03 15:28:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7 5

He fathered George W. Bush . . . That one thing pretty much set it all in motion!. . .See, what unprotected sex can do? Good lord, and to think that it was/is his party that preaches abstinence!!!

Um. . or did you mean "Dubya" to begin with?. . .in that case. . I don't think I have enough cyber ink to write it all down!!

2006-12-03 15:53:20 · answer #9 · answered by zambranoray 3 · 1 5

Lack of focus in policy, the war in Iraq, broad sweeping powers in the hunt against terrorists

2006-12-03 15:21:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6 6

For starters, he is the first sitting President to start a war without cause. There were no weapons of mass destruction and Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.

2006-12-03 15:20:21 · answer #11 · answered by Wiser1 6 · 10 9

fedest.com, questions and answers