Why do you think he is? What is his most memorable failure?
2007-03-01 20:04:24 · 13 answers · asked by MekTekPhil 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am really asking a question, I have in no way pushed my opinions on anyone. If you don't feel he was a failure, do not answer.
2007-03-01 20:21:22 · update #1
No, our economy is not the strongest in the world. Japans is, and our economy is actually collapsing, look at the stock market, property sales, social security, medicare...the list goes on...
2007-03-01 20:24:52 · update #2
I am not pushing my opinions down peoples throats...if you do not want to read...and asnwer then don't...you have that choice...im not forcing anyone...isnt this a free country?
2007-03-01 20:28:10 · update #3
Well, I wouldn't put him at complete failure, though I am no fan of his.
I think his biggest downsides are as follows:
1) His lack of experiance - He was a one term governor of Texas- that is it. Not much of a resume there.
2) His inabilty to change his position until it is long past clear to everybody else he made a mistake.
3) His original reliance on Iran-Contra conspiritors as advisers. These guys already HAD a history of thumbing their noses at congress. Take a look at some of their pedagrees. Poindexter, as you might recall, was Oliver North's boss, and had to be pardoned by H W Bush for his role in that affair. There were others in the same boat.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
-Dio
2007-03-01 20:15:26 · answer #1 · answered by diogenese19348 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
sure, to a pair degree. the undertaking is, with the mess the international/united states is in now, no rely if we get a individual who in basic terms compounds the blunders already made, or one that has a actual shot at beginning to restoration them. a individual who in basic terms would not have what it takes to discover suggestions, and subsequently we could each and every thing visit pot extra isn't inevitably to blame for the mess. which will already be there until now they take place of work. they does not be worse than Bush; they only might not be stellar adequate to freshen up the convoluted mess he has made. That actuality does not stop human beings from pointing hands and screaming approximately what a unfavorable President they make. Or sick-recommended human beings from believing it. have faith me, we can nevertheless bypass down, if too lots harm has already been performed. undergo in strategies, the subsequent President purely gets 4 years (assuming they stay via it), and that they are certain to stand lots of the main vicious opposition we've ever seen in American politics. If we don't decide on an exceedingly proficient President, they won't get a 2d term, and the Republicans will positioned yet another neocon interior the White abode. Then, we can fairly kiss our butts so long.
2016-10-17 02:11:27 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is a COMPLETE failure because he is a divider. All that crap about compassionate conservatism was hogwash.
The jerk carried Rumsfeld a hell of a lot longer than he should have, and even blew the last election because he was too stupid to let him go before the voters weighed in.
Bush can't think! When are we going to get it??
I can't think of a WORSE president to lead America than this bum.
In short, Bush is a complete failure because he failed at job number 1: he divided this country during wartime, and did such a lousy job of running the war that he wound up destabilizing the middle east. What a LOSER!
2007-03-01 22:03:07 · answer #3 · answered by Truth 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The only way you can convince others that Bush is a failure is to make up fictitious reasons.
The US economy is the strongest in world history and is still growing. Most economists attribute this to the tax cuts of the Bush Administration.
The US is fighting an extremely successful war on terror, the first of its kind, and the Bush Administration pioneered it.
Despite cutting tax cuts, the US now has the highest tax revenues in history. Most economists, again, attribute this to the tax cuts which led to impressively low unemployment. When everyone is working, everyone is paying taxes, too, and that's what makes the revenues go up.
One of Bush's legacies will be the two nominees to the Supreme court who will hold the liberal "destroy American culture" campaign at bay. We'll not begin receiving the dividends of this legacy immediately but over the next few decades.
Because of our exceptional economy, we've had plenty of money to spend on all the natural disasters that have occurred in the last 6 years, to pay for the war on terror, and to begin balancing the budget, something Clinton couldn't do in the long-term.
2007-03-01 20:12:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
Bush is not yet a complete failure, but he is failing. Bush only sees one side of an issue and seems to be unwilling to negotiate or compromise.
His most memorable failure is that he says he bases his war strategy on the advice of the generals, but when they disagree with him they quickly "retire". It seems that we have more "retired" generals than we have serving generals, many seem to be rather young to be retired.
2007-03-01 20:18:18 · answer #5 · answered by Paul K 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He's not a complete failure...
The media only reports the bad news because they hate him. He doesn't support the liberal agenda the news people support so the news spins everything as negatively as possible.
His policies have resulted in low inflation, low unemployment, low interest rates.
Consider Carter's policies and their results in double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and double digit interest rates.
Bush beat Carter there...
Bush's security measures have resulted in ZERO successful terror attacks on US soil since 9/11/01. That sounds like success to me.
As for the Iraq war... We won the war. We are in the occupation phase which only happens AFTER you win. Note that statistically, the casualty rate for US soldiers over there is EXTREMELY low. The soldiers are safer over there than they are at Ft Hood in Texas.
We have 40,000 to 44,000 deaths on our highways due to DUI every year.
LA alone has over 400 murders a year.
You want to complain about a war being lost... There's 2.
And don't complain about Bush and Katrina relief... all Bush could do was approve money for relief. He approved it. Its the incompetence of Louisiana's governor and New Orleans' mayor and the stupidity of the New Orleans residents that allowed the death rate to be so high and the relief effort to be so abysmally botched up.
2007-03-01 20:17:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Bad genetics.
Most memorable failure? Mission accomplished!
A more complete failure, there has never been in the history of the United States. And his position in world history don't look to good either.
All of you, who are giving me thumbs down, know damned good and well that I'm right. At this point only your sympathy is keeping you from agreeing. You feel sorry for the fool! I look at what he's done and I want him hung!
2007-03-01 20:15:44 · answer #7 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Why haven't you stopped beating your wife yet?
Why ask why?
{edit: Correct. You are not pushing your opinions down other people's throats. You are instead assuming facts not in evidence ... to use a famous lawyer's phrase.}
2007-03-01 20:23:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
This is not a question.
This is a attempt to bash Bush by shoving your oppinion down peoples throat,camofloged in the paint of a "question"
I do not feel inclined to waste my time scolding your hate.
2007-03-01 20:18:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Why do people ask questions that aren't really questions, just ways to push their own opinions on people?
2007-03-01 20:07:38 · answer #10 · answered by Jack S 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋