The "Comforter in Chief"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not a Bush supporter and I didn't vote for him either time, but he's not all bad. I'm sure he never sat down and thought, How can I really ** up the US? It may seem that way but I doubt it was his intent. Personally, I think one of the few good things that he accomplished was setting the wheels in motion to protect the country after 9/11. Measures were taken to tighten securtiy and plug holes in the system, holes that never should have been there to begin with, but it need to be done. And I have no doubt that our gov. actions here and abroad have thwarted any terrorist actions for the past 7 years.

So, from a Bush basher, I give him credit for keeping the country safe. Let the flaming begin.

My personal view of GWB is simply that he was inadequate for the role of the President. If our electoral process worked correctly, and if people has more active involvement in politics and in scrutinising prospective candidates, and if there was less emphasis (and money spent) on political advertising I tend to think the GWB's of the world wouldn't be given the time of day.

But that's not the case - we have a system where campaign marketing is more influential than that personal qualities of the candidates, and so we end up with a succession of mediocre, promise-all/deliver nothing politicians.

As usual - politics demands the best, but attracts the worst.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Sister Fracas 5]

how heartless of you!

[Fandango 1,439]

If we were talking about a corporation - it would be hard to argue that the CEO could convincingly eschew ultimate responsibility for the performance of the company by blaming it all on middle-management.

We aren't talking about a corporation of course - but the principle is the same. Bush is the President, as such he has the ultimate responsibility for policies (like wars) that are initiated under his administration. That doesn't mean that elected officials in Congress don't have responsibility also - or that those subordinate officials didn't fail their constituents by not having the guts to go against their party, the President or their conscience.

It's called 'checks and balances' for a reason! Congress certainly did fail their constituents if they merely voted for the war because they 'didn't have the guts to go against their party'. I call bull$hit.

Yes it is. But even given that Congress failed Bush still holds the ultimate responsibility by virtue of his holding the highest office in the land, an office that demands that he assume and accept that responsiblity.

He is impotent without Congressional permission. There's enough responsibility to go around. Don't have tunnel vision!

Gotta go get some last min food stuff....bbl maybe.

Merry Christmas/Happy Hanukkah/Happy Holidays everyone!

I don't have tunnel vision.

I said quite explicitly that I think Congress failed in their duty with regards to the Iraq war and should be held to account (whether that means impeachment or being voted out of office). That doesn't change the fact that the role of President is one that requires the person who holds it to assume ultimate responsiblity for policies (like wars) that they initiate, even if the checks and balances that could have prevented it didn't operate correctly.

Oh right, I misread you there.

I'm not saying that Bush holds no responsibility, but clearly we disagree with how much is placed at his feet.

But you're going on the premise that the checks and balances 'didn't operate correctly', and I think that's something we can't ever say with any authority. Who knows? Politics is certainly a dirty game and it's all manipulation of public opinion. I tend to think that those who voted for the war did so knowingly and willingly, and what they say in the public eye may not necessarily be how they really feel. Despite all the jokes and whatnot, I really don't think every elected official in Congress is that easily hoodwinked. But politics is a game of covering your a$$, so kudos I guess to those who were able to convince everyone it was only Bush to blame...accepting such a blatant falsehood that can so easily be disproven with fact shouldn't be such an easy thing to pull off, yet they all did. So it's their stealthy skills, or the majority's ignorance...or a combo of the two...but the end result is the same.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

how heartless of you!

you republican!

[zqt3344 21]

nor would the Barry Hussien Obamas of the world, for they are no better, nothing but total BS artists that tell everyone what they want to hear and use it to get elected and have no experience or clue what they are doing at all. At least Bush was a governor unlike a community organizer. America is in for a long 4 years coming up.

I'm not a Bush supporter and I didn't vote for him either time, but he's not all bad. I'm sure he never sat down and thought, How can I really ** up the US? It may seem that way but I doubt it was his intent. Personally, I think one of the few good things that he accomplished was setting the wheels in motion to protect the country after 9/11. Measures were taken to tighten securtiy and plug holes in the system, holes that never should have been there to begin with, but it need to be done. And I have no doubt that our gov. actions here and abroad have thwarted any terrorist actions for the past 7 years.

So, from a Bush basher, I give him credit for keeping the country safe. Let the flaming begin.

My personal view of GWB is simply that he was inadequate for the role of the President. If our electoral process worked correctly, and if people has more active involvement in politics and in scrutinising prospective candidates, and if there was less emphasis (and money spent) on political advertising I tend to think the GWB's of the world wouldn't be given the time of day.

But that's not the case - we have a system where campaign marketing is more influential than that personal qualities of the candidates, and so we end up with a succession of mediocre, promise-all/deliver nothing politicians.

As usual - politics demands the best, but attracts the worst.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Oh right, I misread you there.

I'm not saying that Bush holds no responsibility, but clearly we disagree with how much is placed at his feet.

But you're going on the premise that the checks and balances 'didn't operate correctly', and I think that's something we can't ever say with any authority. Who knows? Politics is certainly a dirty game and it's all manipulation of public opinion. I tend to think that those who voted for the war did so knowingly and willingly, and what they say in the public eye may not necessarily be how they really feel. Despite all the jokes and whatnot, I really don't think every elected official in Congress is that easily hoodwinked. But politics is a game of covering your a$$, so kudos I guess to those who were able to convince everyone it was only Bush to blame...accepting such a blatant falsehood that can so easily be disproven with fact shouldn't be such an easy thing to pull off, yet they all did. So it's their stealthy skills, or the majority's ignorance...or a combo of the two...but the end result is the same.

I'm more puzzled by the people who will stand behind a politician, no matter what, no matter how wrong they were, with undying loyalty.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If we were talking about a corporation - it would be hard to argue that the CEO could convincingly eschew ultimate responsibility for the performance of the company by blaming it all on middle-management.

We aren't talking about a corporation of course - but the principle is the same. Bush is the President, as such he has the ultimate responsibility for policies (like wars) that are initiated under his administration. That doesn't mean that elected officials in Congress don't have responsibility also - or that those subordinate officials didn't fail their constituents by not having the guts to go against their party, the President or their conscience.

It's called 'checks and balances' for a reason! Congress certainly did fail their constituents if they merely voted for the war because they 'didn't have the guts to go against their party'. I call bull$hit.

Yes it is. But even given that Congress failed Bush still holds the ultimate responsibility by virtue of his holding the highest office in the land, an office that demands that he assume and accept that responsiblity.

He is impotent without Congressional permission. There's enough responsibility to go around. Don't have tunnel vision!

Gotta go get some last min food stuff....bbl maybe.

Merry Christmas/Happy Hanukkah/Happy Holidays everyone!

I don't have tunnel vision.

I said quite explicitly that I think Congress failed in their duty with regards to the Iraq war and should be held to account (whether that means impeachment or being voted out of office). That doesn't change the fact that the role of President is one that requires the person who holds it to assume ultimate responsiblity for policies (like wars) that they initiate, even if the checks and balances that could have prevented it didn't operate correctly.

Oh right, I misread you there.

I'm not saying that Bush holds no responsibility, but clearly we disagree with how much is placed at his feet.

But you're going on the premise that the checks and balances 'didn't operate correctly', and I think that's something we can't ever say with any authority. Who knows? Politics is certainly a dirty game and it's all manipulation of public opinion. I tend to think that those who voted for the war did so knowingly and willingly, and what they say in the public eye may not necessarily be how they really feel. Despite all the jokes and whatnot, I really don't think every elected official in Congress is that easily hoodwinked. But politics is a game of covering your a$$, so kudos I guess to those who were able to convince everyone it was only Bush to blame...accepting such a blatant falsehood that can so easily be disproven with fact shouldn't be such an easy thing to pull off, yet they all did. So it's their stealthy skills, or the majority's ignorance...or a combo of the two...but the end result is the same.

I have more respect for politicians who resign when it comes to things that go against their conscience. In that respect I'm more disgusted by Blair than Bush, as Blair didn't have the ethical conscience to resign while the best of his cabinet did.

[Sister Fracas 5]

how heartless of you!

you republican!

could be...who knows...

I could actually be incanada or ziquitty3334466

[zqt3344 21]

Sister sister sister, that is ZQT3344 and don't you forget it, burn it in your memory.

how heartless of you!

you republican!

could be...who knows...

I could actually be incanada or ziquitty3334466

[Sister Fracas 5]

Sister sister sister, that is ZQT3344 and don't you forget it, burn it in your memory.

m'kay...

[zqt3344 21]

hahaahhaaaahahahhahhahhah

Sister sister sister, that is ZQT3344 and don't you forget it, burn it in your memory.

m'kay...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

hahaahhaaaahahahhahhahhah

Seriously. You really need to cut back on the caffeine...

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

how heartless of you!

you republican!

could be...who knows...

I could actually be incanada or ziquitty3334466

i miss incanada

[mox 298]

I'll give Bush credit where credit is due. If he really wrote 4,000 personal letters to the families of soldiers who were killed (that's about 2 letters a day since the beginning of the war, so it's conceivable) then good on him. I have no doubt that he feels compassion towards the families and probably even a real sense of remorse. The man is human after all, whatever his faults.

Having said that, I resent the fact that the man still believes he did the right thing by invading Iraq and most likely does not lose a night's sleep over any of it. I resent that thousands of American servicemen and women were killed, and many thousands more were injured and are disabled for the rest of their lives, all because he believes he is fighting a war directed by God. "Comfortor In Chief" my asz. I only hope one day he'll wake up screaming in a cold sweat as it finally dawns on him just what he really did. Given his predilection to being insulated from the real world though, I don't ever see that happening. But one can hope.

[Sister Fracas 5]

hahaahhaaaahahahhahhahhah

Seriously. You really need to cut back on the caffeine...

or drugs...