As America has learned from Lincoln and FDR, a successful wartime leader displays six key traits: credibility, patience, bipartisanship, communication with opponents, appeals to reason and a focus on the overall mission,,Does Bush have any of them?
2007-02-01 06:25:19 · 20 answers · asked by JS 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I would give him two of your six traits, patience and focus on the mission. He has been completely focused on success in Iraq and has patiently awaited that success. President Bush has failed though to communicate with those that disagree with him, create a common bipartisan goal in Iraq, and communicate truthfully and honestly to the American people. It really doesn't matter how focused you are on succeeding, if you don't build a consensus that your plan is the best plan (not necessarily the right or wrong plan) with both the politicians in Washington and the American people, you will fail and I believe President Bush is learning this lesson the hard way right now.
I find it interesting too that I actually analyze and do something referred to as "thinking" about the situation and don't say either of the ignorant talking points responses from either side (Bush is a dumbass or Bush is God), and I still get a thumbs down. Really shows how stupid, closed-minded, and ignorant some people really are, doesn't it?
2007-02-01 06:34:58 · answer #1 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Lincoln and FDR don't fit in your 6 key traits.
Lincoln was basically at war with the democrats cause the democrats controlled the south The democrats HATED Lincoln during the Civil War. There was no bipartisanship. FDR never communicated with Hitler so your question is flawed.
2007-02-01 06:57:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Go back and read what those war time leaders actually did.
http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/whitepapers/lincoln.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753748/posts
Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus 3 times.
During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeascorpus three times: first, on April 27, 1861, again on September 24, 1862, a few days after signing the Emancipation Proclamation, and finally on September 15, 1863. Although there is no exact record of the total number arrested during the Civil War, the Commissary General of prisoners listed 13,535 citizens arrested from February 1862 to April 1865. It should come as no surprise then that freedom from arbitrary arrest became the most important constitutional issue in the early part of the Civil War. This freedom was limited by the fact that the majority of the loyal North, both Democrats and Republicans, believed that secession was not a constitutional right and that a rebellion was underway. That elevated constitutional issues to paramount concern. Thus, these suspensions of rights enhanced the controversy regarding the constitutionality and amount of power allotted to the President. They also encouraged such government agencies as the Post Office to restrict free press by confiscating controversial issues of newspapers and other publications. These suspensions may have encouraged citizens to take the law into their own hands such as in the cases where they destroyed Copperhead presses. We now turn to an examination of these suspensions of the writ of habeascorpus in order to assess their First Amendment implications, their Constitutional justifications, and their impact on citizens and the press.
FDR
By 1942, 10,000 civil servants were reading and censoring a million pieces of mail weekly, especially those to or from POW's and other internees. (At the same time, they watched for potentially valuable information. Loose lips could also sink the other guy's ships.) GI's writing home-all subject to censorship by officers-were prohibited from mentioning anything about the military situation around them.(But warrantless searches of Al Qaeda makes Bush Big Brother? I guess FDR was Super Brother then) sound familiar?
2007-02-01 06:39:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
LMFAO!!! Those definitely weren't characteristics that FDR and lincoln displayed.
credibility, hahahahahahahahaha suspension of habeas corpus hahahahahaha
Patience, if FDR waited any longer we would be speaking German or Japanese
Bipartisianship hahahahhahahahaha, either both sides knew the war was worth it or the other side did not exist(lincoln)
Communication with opponents, hahahahahahaha, well, if the other side is open to communication
ok, i will give you this one because Bush is definitely not doing this by fighting a PC war. FDR and Lincoln knew how to win wars...no PC
2007-02-01 06:47:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
I pray for Obama. I admit i did no longer pray for Bush, i do no longer think he's a real Christian. Karl Rove in lots of situations joked correct to the non secular communities they tried to attraction to as being "nutty". He observed them as something to be manipulated to get votes. inspite of the incontrovertible fact that, I even have by no skill needed to work out any president fail. i'm apalled on the Republican's who declare to need to work out Obama fail. they have subsidized faraway from that fact, yet i've got self belief it prepare their actual theory. they are turning out to be so partisan that they won't be able to positioned social gathering aside and be American first. it is tragic and intensely undesirable for our united states. we are one united states, and there is no longer place in American for individuals to actively hate and need for the failure of our President.
2016-09-28 07:03:37 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let me rate them on a scale from one to ten. With one possessing none of that quality, and ten having as much of that quality as possible.
credibility: 1
patience: 10
bipartisanship: 1
communication with opponents:1
appeals to reason: 2
focus on the overall mission: ? ( what EXACTLY is the mission ?)
2007-02-01 06:36:45 · answer #6 · answered by Count Acumen 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They said Tom Hagan wasn't a good wartime consigliare either but things turned out ok for the godfather
2007-02-01 06:31:52 · answer #7 · answered by song gurl 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Yes and it is not his fault that people blame 9/11 on the government or give creditability to a traitor like Hanoi Jane
2007-02-01 06:50:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
He's a selfish, ignorant, dishonest, degenerate, draftdodging psycho who thinks Je$u$ anointed him and talks to him every night.
As for the bobbleheads he hired to guide him, Cheney is just a bribe-dealing Enron type with simple-minded Nazi-Con views on foreign policy. Neo-Condi Rice is an affirmative-action bimbo who got her degrees by cramming for exams and retaining no permanent knowledge. Everyone working for Dumbo Dubya is a no-talent, greedy, ambitious brown-nose.
2007-02-01 06:34:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
if you'd actually study the Civil War, you'd know that Lincoln was reviled far more than even Bush now for his handling of the war. if you want a leader who wasn't, you're correct with FDR because Republicans have always had more character than the De ms do
2007-02-01 06:29:59 · answer #10 · answered by kapute2 5 · 3⤊ 5⤋