At What Point Did You Realize Bush Was a Disaster?

[PitPat]

Not that I voted for him anyway, since I tend to lean left most of the time.

I was aware of his evangelical background, but his first poor policy decision that gave me the "Oh man, he's going to be a lot worse than I thought" feeling was his Aug 2001 stem cell order.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Bush's worst judgement after the Mexico City Policy was 'We will fight them over there so we do not have to fight them here'.

I never knew that 'there' was expendable, whilst the US is not.

 

[Mark6]

Bush's worst judgement after the Mexico City Policy was 'We will fight them over there so we do not have to fight them here'.

I never knew that 'there' was expendable, whilst the US is not.

Prioritizing one's own country over others is a major part of President's job, as far as I am concerned. Just like I would expect Prime Minister of France to prioritize France over "here". Overall idea I completely agree with.

Its execution, OTOH...

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Prioritizing one's own country over others is a major part of President's job, as far as I am concerned. Just like I would expect Prime Minister of France to prioritize France over "here". Overall idea I completely agree with.

Why?

Incidently, you mean the President of France.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

...snip...
I voted for Bush Jr. in 2000, and again in 2004, and if he were able to run again, I'd vote for him again now in 2008. I would prefer him over McCain, and I certainly would prefer him over Obama.

I think I can understand someone feeling as you do if they believed terrorism was not only the number one priority facing the U.S., but far outstripped all other priorities. Does that characterize your position? Do you think Bush has been a good president on the economy, social issues, international relations beyond the wars, use of the “bully pulpit,” and other matters outside terrorism?

I guess I’m wondering if people who voted for him twice and don't regret it are proud of him as president in general terms, or is it just a lesser-of-two-evils situation. If you feel like answering.


And just for the record...

Instead, we've got Bush Jr. who has taken us into the war that was needed to prevent further such attacks, but that war is becoming unpopular, and he is being blamed for it.

For many of us, the war in Iraq isn’t “becoming unpopular.” It was seen as a tragically bad idea before it even started. In which case, I hope you can understand why we feel Bush is exactly to blame.

 

[Mark6]

Yes, of course Sarkozy is a President. That was very silly of me. As to why...

Whoever occupies the White House was elected by US population. Not by world population. He is sworn to protect, and is responsible to, citizens of the United States. Not to citizens of the world. Just like Sarkozy is responsible to citizens of France, and ANY elected official in any representative democracy, is responsible to his electorate. That's why it is called representative democracy -- the elected official represents his country/state/town/etc. and is charged with their well-being. Not with well-being of anyone else.

Which is not to say that lives of people "over there" are worthless, but they are not primary responsibility of US President. Preventing or minimizing casualties of his people, especially civilians, should be his priority. Just like Sarkozy's priority should be the safety of his people.

 

[BenBurch]

I realized it some time in late 1998. That is when I decided to abandon the Libertarian Party and throw in my lot with the Democrats to defeat him.

 

[corplinx]

At What Point Did You Realize Bush Was a Disaster?

When he used crib notes on his arm to get past the oath of office.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I voted for him because I wanted to get out of the social security mess. But I also have congress to blame for that. By my calculations they still has time.....

And just for the record...

For many of us, the war in Iraq isn’t “becoming unpopular.” It was seen as a tragically bad idea before it even started. In which case, I hope you can understand why we feel Bush is exactly to blame.

I do not understand considering it is the job of congress to declare war.

 

[Oliver]

How did Bush get the nomination, let alone the Presidency in the first place?

The Media didn't attack him for some reason.

My last straw: Mission Accomplished

 

[Loss Leader]

I do not understand considering it is the job of congress to declare war.

Except that no President has asked Congress for a declaration of war since WWII. Whether it's constitutional or not, Presidents started going to war without asking first when they started suspecting that Congress might say no.

ETA: The Attorney General today floated the idea of asking Congress for a declaration of war against Al Quada - over six years after the "war" started.

 

[BeAChooser]

I realized it some time in late 1998. That is when I decided to abandon the Libertarian Party and throw in my lot with the Democrats to defeat him.

I rather doubt you were a member of the Libertarian Party if you voted for Gore. In fact, I hear lot of folks talking like "I wasn't a Democrat" here. Pardon my skepticism.

 

[BenBurch]

I rather doubt you were a member of the Libertarian Party if you voted for Gore. In fact, I hear lot of folks talking like "I wasn't a Democrat" here. Pardon my skepticism.

Well, I absolutely was; Since Roger MacBride in 1976.

 

[geni]

Bush Jr. also, has had the misfortune of being the one who was President when the 9/11 attacks took place. No matter who was President at that time, and no matter what response was offered to 9/11, the President was unavoidably going to make a lot of enemies.

Doubtful. Al-Qaeda didn't have many allies at that point and the only one with something close to nation state status would have been the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

Islamic leaders for the most part hate Al-Qaeda compared to getting together a collition against Iraq picking up allies against Al-Qaeda would have been fairly easy.

If Gore had been elected instead of Bush Jr., then most likely he would have responded about the same way that his predecessor did to the 1993 attacks on the World Trade Center (that is, not at all in any meaningful way),

No reason to think so. The clinton administration were prepared to use a fair bit of force when they felt it necessary and the 9/11 attacks would have solved his not being allowed to take casulties problem. No I can't see Gore haveing a problem with backing the northern alliance to remove the taliban

and by now, we would surely have seen several more similar attacks, and thousands more Americans killed on our own soil; and Gore would be blamed for allowing it all to happen.

Al-Qaeda have never really managed to rack up much in the way of frequency in their attacks. Even doing nothing which seems unlikely would likely not have meant any attacks for the next few years.

Instead, we've got Bush Jr. who has taken us into the war that was needed to prevent further such attacks, but that war is becoming unpopular, and he is being blamed for it.

Nope still a fairly solid degree of support for afganistan even if such support doesn't appear to exptend to troops on the ground in high risk areas.

I voted for Bush Jr. in 2000, and again in 2004, and if he were able to run again, I'd vote for him again now in 2008. I would prefer him over McCain, and I certainly would prefer him over Obama.

Niether McCain nor Obama seem to have much in the way of a problem with war in afganistan. Obama apparent dissire to do something about the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan suggests a fair degree of enthusiasm to neutralise al-Qaeda even if it probably wouldn't be a good idea politicaly. McCain seems to suffer the standard republican issue of not getting the sunni shia thing but I'm sure that can be fixed.

 

[SezMe]

He is sworn to protect, and is responsible to, citizens of the United States.

Not quite true:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It is the law of the land, the US Constitution, that the President is sworn to protect. And he's done a piss poor job of it - in fact, he's been found by federal courts to have violated it.

 

[SezMe]

Bush Jr. also, has had the misfortune of being the one who was President when the 9/11 attacks took place.

I think you're wrong here. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy, but it was also an unparalleled opportunity for American leadership. In fact, I remember getting the chills when Bush gave his "graveyard of history" speech, though I was not a fan of Bush or the alleged "clash of civilizations". I imagine a strong president would be going down in history next to Lincoln and FDR.

I'm with epeos here. Out of the great tragedy of 911 could have come enormous good. In fact, out of all the blunders of this administration, I think the missed opportunity following 911 might well be the worst.

The French said, "We are all Americans". There were candle light vigils in Iran. The weeks and months following 911 could have, under real enlightened leadership, seen a nearly united front against terrorism that would have yielded results in numerous fields. Bush lacked the vision and courage to seize an opportunity almost unparalled in US history.

 

[David Wong]

How did Bush get the nomination, let alone the Presidency in the first place?

Surely the Republican party wasn't that stretched for Christian Fundamentalists. The man is like a slightly less charming Huckabee with the mind of Alan Keyes.

Name recognition, very personable, won a surprising election in Texas and seemed to do a good job there. I can't think of any candidates who were all that great at the time.

 

[David Wong]

Also... if someone had come in here on 9/12/01 and said that seven more years would pass without any additional terror attacks, I think every one of us would be ready to lift Bush on our shoulders and sing songs in his praise.

Whatever you can say about his policies, they have prevented another attack. To say that terrorists simply haven't chosen to attack us would be absolutely ludicrous and indefensible. On 9/12/01 he was given that mandate first and foremost, and he carried it through.

Katrina was a mess, he's cringe-worthy in public, all these things are true. But give credit where it's due.

 

[Texas]

I'm with epeos here. Out of the great tragedy of 911 could have come enormous good. In fact, out of all the blunders of this administration, I think the missed opportunity following 911 might well be the worst.

The French said, "We are all Americans". There were candle light vigils in Iran. The weeks and months following 911 could have, under real enlightened leadership, seen a nearly united front against terrorism that would have yielded results in numerous fields. Bush lacked the vision and courage to seize an opportunity almost unparalled in US history.

Then in the next editions the French press were almost gloating. This idea that the "world" was our oyster immediately following 911 are both false and insulting.

 

[geni]

Also... if someone had come in here on 9/12/01 and said that seven more years would pass without any additional terror attacks, I think every one of us would be ready to lift Bush on our shoulders and sing songs in his praise.

Um no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7/7