In all honesty, I would have to give him a zero. I cannot imagine anyone being a worse President than he has been.
2007-02-10
18:52:55
·
29 answers
·
asked by
Longhaired Freaky Person
4
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
rdappa - I think he handled 9/11 terribly. Forgetting about the event itself, which I would not fault him for, al Qaeda is now stronger than ever, bin Laden and Mullah Omar are still at large, and Afghanistan does not have enough forces to be stabilized.
Meanwhile, al Qaeda is in Iraq, and it wasn't on 9/11.
How much more awful could he be at stemming the terror threat?
2007-02-10
19:22:21 ·
update #1
I would give him a 5 in just the fact that he hasn't closed the border, the terrorists came from the other border, people just want that one between Mexico and US closed for the pure fact that they're Mexicans I guess, but in reality, that's not where the terrorists came from, that's where the hardworkers come from. But yeah, 5/100.
2007-02-10 19:18:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by Kunggpao 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
5
2007-02-11 02:57:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by mrlebowski99 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
I would have to rank Bush rather lowly based on his performance! I would rate him a great deal lower than his approval rating either way. Even my most conservative friends are very dissapointed with him and that's probably a big reason that the Democrats took control in the House and Senate. Before I forget, I would give Bush a 10 on a 1-100 scale and this is from a formerly staunch Republican.
I think Bush has largely sold out his base by doing nothing about illegal immigration, the Dubai Ports Issue, and of course downsizing (layoffs). There isn't a clear strategy in Iraq, and many of our nations bravest and brightest are being used as target practice by radical Islamist freaks.
Think about the Pendleton 8 who are facing execution for killing an armed Iraqi insurgent. Bush is P.C. when he shouldn't be and in this and many other cases, he is obviously above listening to the populace as pleas for these men to receive a pardon.
I personally was most offended by his remarks pertaining to General Motors and Ford Motor. Sadly, I feel Haliburton would recieve government assistance if their bottom line was hurthing. While these automakers are struggling, their competition has recieved government benefits for opening plants in the United States and do not have to answer to unions. Don't misunderstand buddy, I'm a big union guy and the majority of my family have benefitted from union membership. But it is unfair for these two great American companies to face unfair competition from foreign companies opening factories in our country (with non-unionized labor) and worse, vehicles made in Korea and China with virtual slave labor.
The bottom line is that Bush does not seem to care about the middle class or the poor.
These business practices are unfair, and if Bush has his way, America will become a country based on a service economy with virtually no manufacturing base. My question is, who is going to build our planes and tanks when a nation arrises as a legitimate threat to our nation? To put it simply, with the exception of keeping another terrorist attack from happening in the United States, President Bush has done a poor job.
Considering my answer is based on facts and is unique from the others, a best answer would be appreciated very much! I could use one!
2007-02-11 03:01:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by Guerrilla M 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
Alright, Im not going to answer that for political reasons, but I will do this. The Scooter Libby trial going on right now to find out about who leaked the name of Valerie Plame. I have a feeling that a great deal of information will surface not directly related to that but will warrant an impeachement of the President. If that is what you would like. I am a Red so I really dont need to see him impeached, but if thats what you want then thats where I would look if I were you. Oh and the UN and the Geneva Convention.
2007-02-11 03:00:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
80%, Clinton 70% , Carter 20%, Hover 10%, Lincoln 50%.
As far as the general population goes, they are more prosperous under Bush than even Clinton (because of two year of recession at the end of the Clinton administration).
Technically the Bush administration should never of had to deal with Katrina. By rules of natural disaster, it's the responsiblity of the governor to handle the crises. She was hiding under a desk, the mayor of new Orleans was hiding under a desk and the whole liberal (they vote for liberal politicians by a wide margin) natural disaster team decided to flee rather than help the people of New Orleans. The people of New Orleans continue to vote with their "feet" and leave/not come back.
The wars in Afganistan and Iraq are going better than WWII which lasted for 3 years of war for the U.S. (that killed 2,000 Americans daily) and 9 years of rebuilding plus created the Cold War that lasted for 40 years. The U.S. is projected by the latest generals to be finished with Iraq sometime this year or early next year. Afganistan is suppose to turn in favor of NATO and Afganistan some time in 2009.
2007-02-11 03:24:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by gregory_dittman 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
A zero? Would Al Gore be any better at handling 9/11? or war? or hurricanes? or tsunamis? nuclear talks? the Mexican border? oil prices?
You may not give a lot of credit to Pres. Bush, but you have to admit that there has been a lot of crap thrown at him that most of us would shrivel at.
If you were to look ahead into the future and then look back, you might give him a little more credit.
Score: 84
2007-02-11 03:18:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by rdappa 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
He's probably the dumbest president we've ever had, but our country is thriving and very powerful compared to most other times in our history, so I don't know if I would call him the worst president ever. I think I would go about 25 out of 100.
2007-02-11 02:56:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by martin h 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
I would rate him between 80 - 85%. I have deducted points for: tactics used in Iraq; failure to fence off the border to Mexico immediately; failure to send all illegals out of the country immediately.
2007-02-11 10:36:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by clwkcmo 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
50
2007-02-11 02:56:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by LODxRIOTxFF5 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Buchanan is far worse, no matter which side of the political aisle one stands
But none the less, i would rate Bush as a 67%, as he has done well except that he has not closed the border, he wont pardon the 2 border patrol agents, he wont pardon the Hadatha men, he wont fight the Democrats like a man, he wont fight the islamofascists like a man, and HE WONT CLOSE THE BORDER!!!!
I've said it many times, but the front line to the war on terror is the mexico/American border, and Bush is ignoring it. Its INSANE!
2007-02-11 02:58:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋