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

16 answers

Absolutely not. Being the President of the United States of America is the most challenging job and position you can have in the world because the decisions you make not only affect the United States but the whole entire world. George W. Bush is doing the best he can and although he is not perfect, I approve of him, I always have approved of him and I always will approve of him.

2007-07-25 14:13:42 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. Knowledgeable VI 7 · 2 3

Without a doubt.

First, I read a lot. For example, I read in Newsweek and the Economist that Saddam Hussien was a secular Muslim and was hated by Osama bin Ladn and the rest of the jihadists, who had called for his overthrow and the establishment of a fundamentalist state.

Second, I think about what I have read. It is apparent from the above that Saddam would not have been involved with Osama in action planning of any kind. Also, Saddam's removal must be handled with care to prevent any slide into the jihadist camp. Better Saddam than an Iraq united with Iran and Afghanistan.

Third, I respect the process of government and the right of others to oppose the government in a democracy. I would not encourage my supporters to use a majority tamper with the checks and balances that the authors of the Constitution put in place to ensure fair play and the protection of minority rights. I would not encourage my staff to misuse privileged information to destroy the careers of my critics or their families, and I would insist that any who did were punished to the full extent of the law.

Finally, I would insist that we strive to maintain the practice of respectful debate and reasoned compromise that has made the United Sates of America what it is today. I would lead by example, and insist my allies do the same.

George W. Bush has done none of these things. Perhaps he cannot; perhaps he chooses not to. Whatever the reason he has been a disgrace to the Oval Office.

His decision to attack Iraq as revenge for 9/11 was misguided and unwise. Our allies in Afghanistan knew that Saddam was not involved, and begged us not to widen the war into an unnecessary theatre. George W. Bush knew better.

He has plunged us into an unconventional war, which he is waging with conventional weapons and strategy. We are the redcoats, and the jihadists get to be the minutemen. How can we escape with our self respect, let alone win?

Surely a Texan knows the value of each martyr. Has he forgotten the Alamo?

Then there is the domestic front. The entire Bush league culture of vilification and character assassination cannot be better expressed than in the destruction of Valerie Plame's career to punish her husband for questioning the truth of White House statements. Not even Rush Limbaugh's endless tirades against Senator Clinton can equal the plain visciousness of that act.

Karl Rove was convicted of covering for someone who did the deed. By pardoning him even partially George W. Bush has condoned his behaviour. This is so disgraceful that it staggers any unbiased student of history.

The only word is honourless. The President has become an accessory after the fact, which is far more serious than boffing an intern. This is worthy of Nixon and Harding, but not of the American people.

The man is a disgrace. I could do better standing on my head. So could you.

2007-07-25 14:41:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Certainly better then either Clinton, but yes. However, what I think doesn't matter as I have little money and can only have a single vote. That is a shame. There are undoubtably many very capable people out there without elitest connections who would make better Presidents then most candidates.

2007-07-25 14:26:39 · answer #3 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 1 0

Absolutely, without question I would be a better president. He had everything his way, a republican house and congress, patriotism after 911. He blew it, what a disgrace. Most people would have used that global goodwill to do something positive, not bush jr. He is a war criminal just waiting for judgment day.

2007-07-25 16:55:45 · answer #4 · answered by Follow the money 7 · 1 1

Since doing nothing would be an improvement, most people would have done a better job than Bush. Any decent person of normal intelligence would have done a vastly superior job.

2007-07-25 14:14:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

I think Al Gore and John Kerry would both have been better presidents than Bush.

2007-07-25 14:15:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

No. I know I would be. At least I won't be on permanent vacation, I can speak coherently, I don't have a shady background or connections, I have an understanding of basic government issues and current events, and I don't have any experience on being a corrupt politician.

2007-07-25 14:12:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

It would be hard! Plus being president is a very hard job!

2007-07-25 14:10:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

yes, even my 4 year old would do a better job for god-sakes

2007-07-25 14:29:10 · answer #9 · answered by Jessy 5 · 1 0

I don't know about been President. But I would make a great first lady lol

2007-07-25 14:13:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

fedest.com, questions and answers