Too Little, too Late. I looked at the President and his wife in the Gallery. For a moment, I felt sorry for him. Then, reality set in.
First of all, Bush is only the President. Much of the damage that has been done, was done by his staff and advisors.
Our country is floundering badly. The war in Irag can not be won on our terms. Too few men and women in the Military, too little material to sustain the war effort.
The administration has lost all of the court challenges over the loss of civil liberties and violations of the constitution. The most recent one, the opening of US first class mail with out a warrent or court order. Bush's Plan was reversed. Thanks to the ACLU.
No governor has ever really succeded as president, Even Reagan never measured up...a Nice man, no real leader. I am not sure that Bush was ever prepared for the task of being president.
Even John F. Kennedy felt isolated in the Oval office and never could understand the reasons for the cilvil rights movement. During the Cuban Missle crisis....he trusted no one, except his brother, Robert and two close advisors.
My hope is that George Bush will make no additional major mistakes. Time will tell if the Military increase will be a success.
I will say this, the problems will not go away, The next president will have to be a Great Leader to undue the damage done over the past six years. It took many years to undo the damage done by Nixon and his team of criminals.
During the Nixon years...we were near collapse. Gerald Ford became president with out being elected...a Good man....not a good president. Look at how many mistakes in judgement that Kissenger made in advising Presidents. Connie Rice, a nice person..a Phd...she is snubbed all over the world by Arab leaders. Rice has been the chief advisor to George Bush. In the back round is Cheney....what damage has he done to us that we are not yet aware of.
We will survive this, perhaps. Perhaps we will survive Geroge Bush.
Just lok at the gang that wants to be President... Is there one Great person among them? I think not.
Sandy
2007-01-24 19:53:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by Mav 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
Do any of you're making any statements no longer depending upon some man made label? i'm a Democrat & were for over 30 years longer than a number of you've been whining. i imagine the presentation became very good.yet it is no longer attainable , i'm a Dem. I also concept the Dem reaction became properly provided. Wow is that allowed? am i able to genuinely have constructive impressions of both? how will you go with effectiveness in an hour? Effectiveness on making those who hate & disrespect him because he in my view planned the 9/11 attack? in all likelihood minimum
2016-10-16 02:02:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by schwenck 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am not a George Bush by any stretch of the imagination, but I thought he did OK with his speech. What other choice do they have but to send more troops to Iraq??? And he even talked about the environment - something he has spent little or no time on at all. He has to scramble. His legacy will be Iraq unless he can come up with somthing else fast. I also felt a little bit sorry for him. Then I listened to the Democrat's rebuttal and I wish that Iraq had never happened!!!
2007-01-24 20:16:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by monkey 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
My impression is that he is scrambling. His own party is desserting his sinking ship. I give credit to mcain for not deserting, I don't give gim credit for being wrong about how to procceed. When the man who avoided all talk of domestic policy for 6 years suddenly tries to emphasize what has been disastrous handling of the budget, the killing off of social services, and of all things THE ENVIRONMENT, you know he's in trouble.
A President who had Whitman, hardly a conservationist, resign because of his disastrous environmental policies, felt that speaking about the environment was a stronger effort then his foreign policy. That says a lot about where his foriegn policy stands. When he did address Iraq, he spoke about the need for winning. The alternative to not winning, according to him, was a radical religious Iraq in a state of civil war. Has he looked at who he is supporting? We've been backing the same Shi'ites who gave us the Iranian Revolution in Iraq all along!
The result he talked about as the outcome of failure was the outcome of his ACTIONS. There was no other possible result. Anyone who told him that from CIA and State Department was ignored. Or their wives were exposed as agents. His state of the union address was a disaster because his Presidency has been a disaster. President Bush, whose family is as old oil money as it gets, is talking about energy policy reform? You have got to be kidding me. I didn't see these talking points in 2002.
2007-01-24 18:13:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
G W Bush's State of the Union Address?. Lies as usual.
2007-01-24 18:38:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by roadwarrior 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
His words did not fall on deaf ears,
but I'm afraid they were spoken with a mute voice.
Did you catch Jim Webb's rebuttal? Man, that guy laid the hammer down on Bush. Check out the link in case you missed it, I think he really caught onto what America has been trying to tell Junior Bush with his low approval ratings for years.
http://phillybits.blogspot.com/2007/01/senator-webbs-rebuttal.html
2007-01-24 18:08:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by nicklemeout 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
He's saw the domestic problems and is looking into it.
But he knows what he is doing while others were stll blurr out there in planet of apes.
2007-01-24 19:44:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
More incoherent psychobabble and poop flinging from the drooling, man-chimp.
2007-01-24 18:19:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by mikeygonebad07 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
it was just a shame that they cut him off before he had time to talk about his plan for hurricane katrina victims
p.s. "oooh...look at the basketball star and the video lady."- wtf?
2007-01-24 18:00:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by dr schmitty 7
·
1⤊
1⤋