Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Does he inspire unity and cooperation?
Published on October 12, 2004 By COL Gene In Politics
When the voter during the second debate asked President Bush to name three mistakes he made as president, George W. displayed one of his greatest short commings - his inability to recognize flaws in himself, even when they are obvious.

In the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. pledged to restore more civility to American politics. Surely one of the mistakes that President Bush should have acknowledged to the voters question was that he had failed to achieve this pledge. In fact, he has made the rancor and political unrest much worse than at any time in modern times. Not since the American Civil War has there been more political unrest in America.

His failure to accomplish this is a clear indication of his inability to be an effective leader. His approach has done the very same thing with many people throught the world. Look at the reception he received when is addressed the U N last month - Dead Silence. The only applause came when he was about to leave the podium. It was as if their applause was to reflect his departure not at what he had to say.

The left in America hold George W. in distain. Most Democrats, if they are honest with themselves, will be voting aginst Bush more then for Senator Kerry. Their feelings are not because George W. is a Republican but because of his attitude and his total rejection of any positions that do not fit with the wishes of the conservatives. The right is just as bad or worse. People like Rush Limbaugh spew out their narrow minded positions at every opportunity. The conservatives can not complete a sentenence without blasting the Libs. They have only slightly less distain for the moderate Republicans, like myself. If you do not support the conservative ideas you are stupid according to profit, Rush! He claims that he ties half his brain behind his back to make it fair to the Libs. The truth is that if Rush had a brain twice its size, he could not complete a rational thought.

President Bush's answer to the question, name three mistakes you have made should surely have included his inability to bring cooperation and civility to American Politics. George Bush is strong but he is NOT a leader. A leader is one who has the ability to get people to go to a place they would not go by themselves. That is not George W. Bush. For that reason alone, America needs a change. We do not need another four years of devisiveness. We need a true leader that can unite America and enhance cooperation with the other nations of this world.

Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Oct 13, 2004

Reply #30 By: COL Gene - 10/13/2004 4:05:10 PM
drmiler

Every section on my book states the source. The information is correct. Some of the more important references I used are:

OMB (Office of Management and Budget)

CBO (Congressional Budget5 Office)

Dept of the Treasury, bureau of public debt

Hoover Institute

Brookings Institute

The Army War College

Former Tres Sec O'Neil and the Current Fed Chairman

Former Army CoS and several other 4 Star Generals

I have sited at least 28 unimpeachable sources.

Like it or not, my date is factual even though you believe it is not flattering to George W.


Excuse me but I never said anything about your data. It's ALL in how you put it out there.

Former Army CoS and several other 4 Star Generals
BTW retired "General Tommy Franks" is on the campaign trail now *for* Bush.
on Oct 13, 2004
Is President Bush a strong leader?

I guess that depends on what you mean by strong. He has gotten his way in this country, over the past four years, and that implies strength. Of course, war time presidents are normally followed, and his administration has certainly felt the need to return time and again to the existence of this war, in order to cement his power -- which implies weakness. Kind of hard to imagine any past wartime president repeatedly reminding the public of the need to be fearful.

If you look at the world, he has had a much tougher time getting his way, and, by all accounts, our nation's prestige has fallen. So it depends on whether you are counting that in your scoring.

Myself, I think the word "strong" may or may not not include what I see as the most important part of my judgment of him as a leader. The fact that he allowed his administration to seek legal loopholes on matters such as the humane treatment of prisoners set a tone of leadership, and, although the cause and effect are not totally clear, Americans have performed acts in this area that are sharply at odds with what I see as American values.

So, in my book, the president has led us into such fear that we are willing to abandon our own ideals, lacking the sense that we can both win and follow our traditional beliefs. I don't see this as strength.
on Oct 13, 2004
Gen Franks told Bush it took 300,000-400,000 troops and Bush did not take the advice of the top general planning the War. The inability to control the terrorism in Iraq is because of the choice Bush made and no one else. The Buck Stops at Bush!
on Oct 13, 2004

Reply #33 By: COL Gene - 10/13/2004 7:06:58 PM
Gen Franks told Bush it took 300,000-400,000 troops and Bush did not take the advice of the top general planning the War. The inability to control the terrorism in Iraq is because of the choice Bush made and no one else. The Buck Stops at Bush!


Then WHY is Gen. Franks campaigning for Bush? If he's so bad you would think the Gen. would distance himself from the campaign.
on Oct 14, 2004

i apologize; i guess i got a little carried away

W has not killed a LOT of people, like joseph stalin and adoph hitler - only a few;
and i don't think he killed anyone directly/puposefully; i mean he's such a nice guy

i think his legacy will depend on the outcome of his Iraq Inc. acquisition.
There IS a small chance that Iraq will change the world for the better,
but the odds are against it; only time will tell

pete
on Oct 14, 2004
I do not know why Franks support Bush but he did tell the Pres that we neded 300,000-400,000 troops. Most of the 4 star military do not support Bush and the way he conducted the war or his refusal to enlarge the size of the Army. In the 2000 campaign Bush said the Army as at leat 40,000 too small and when he got into office did nothing to correct the problem he identified. Some Commander-in-Chief!
on Oct 14, 2004

Reply #36 By: COL Gene - 10/14/2004 4:30:45 PM
I do not know why Franks support Bush but he did tell the Pres that we neded 300,000-400,000 troops. Most of the 4 star military do not support Bush and the way he conducted the war or his refusal to enlarge the size of the Army. In the 2000 campaign Bush said the Army as at leat 40,000 too small and when he got into office did nothing to correct the problem he identified. Some Commander-in-Chief!


Maybe so. But I can tell you why Franks supports him. Because he thinks Bush is doing a good job otherwise he would not support him. I really could care less what the other 4 stars think. since Gen Franks was the man in charge.
on Oct 14, 2004
The results tell the story. We do not have control in Iraq and Americans have died because we did not have the troops needed to maintain control. That is because Bush did not lsiten to the people who knew what was required including Gen Franks.
on Oct 14, 2004

Reply #38 By: COL Gene - 10/14/2004 7:06:52 PM
The results tell the story. We do not have control in Iraq and Americans have died because we did not have the troops needed to maintain control. That is because Bush did not lsiten to the people who knew what was required including Gen Franks.


You *still* don't get it do you? If Bush is so bad Franks would not back his play. End of sentence. Obviously he's doing *something* right.
on Oct 15, 2004
Franks is one person and the events in Iraq are many. Tell the famlies of the dead and injured that we have control in Iraq. We allowed terrorists to come into Iraq from other countries because we could not control the borders. We did not stop terrorists from using the explosives in the Amo dumps. We did not control the areas that opposed the war and the 400,000 former Saddam military. All that took place because we did not have the level of forces needed and George W. was told that from the planning stage through the occupation. Paul Bremer pleaded for more troops when it was clear we were loosing control. Bush did nothing. The result - More dead and injured Americans; delay in rebuilding Iraq and the people look at us as the new BAD GUYS. That is a lot more important than one General who does not agree with almost all the other Generals and civilian leaders. He might use the same lodgic as you use for all I know!
on Oct 15, 2004
drmiler

Here is why Franks supports Bush:

Franks told Bush it required 300,000- 400,000 troops to fight the Iraq War. He must have at some time caved into Bush given the fact he fought the war with less then half the troops he needed. Rather than stand his ground like the Army CoS, he compermised what he knew was needed. Now we have a mess. If he now says, Bush was wrong, then the question of why did you agree to this? To agree to something that will not work is asking for just what we got! All trhis does not change the most basic issue, Bush screwed up and Americans are being killed because of that error! Some Commander -in- Chief! Bush does not even understand he made an error.
on Oct 15, 2004
if mistakes of bush are being discussed, here is my 2 cents worth. Here goes; first, appointing an ideologue like wolfowitz to the unders sec for defence. He is not interested in political settlement anywhere. The greatest americn president teddy rosevelt SAId talk softly, but carry a big stick. IT appears now tjhat only clusterbombs do the talking not diplomats and politicians. second, letting go on al Qaeda and attacking IRAQ. tHIRD, NOT allowing the political process to take rooti inIraq and piggy backing on allawi who is just considered a QUISLING IN iraq and commans no respect. as a consequence of these and other failures,using dispropotionate force in civillians areas of fallujah and samara.
on Oct 15, 2004
drmiler, "To say that he is bad and shouldn't be in office is one thing. But to compare him to Stalin or Hitler (both of who killed a LOT of people) is BEYOND comprehension."

The last time I checked there were over 1,000 U.S. troops, I don't know how many allied troops, and over 11,000 iraqi civilians dead because of G.W.'s antics in Iraq. Not to mention the more than 7,000 wounded Americans soldiers (I know the wounded No.# is way up there but I don't know the latest figures off of the top of my head.) So, while it is not fair to say that Bush had the same "evil" intentions as Stalin or Hitler, I think the point being made here is that all 3 are/were strong leaders but none of them used that strength WISELY.

COL Gene, I think your article is very insightful and I agree with every word of it. I am a Democrat, which some of you may or may not already know. Some bloggers here like to lable me as a "screaming" or "extreme left" "liberal" and while I concede that I do have opinions that some would NOT characterize as "conservative" I resent all these lables from people who have never met me and don't know a whole lot about me. In most of my articles, I support Kerry...although I do not always agree with his positions and you can damn well believe that if he wins I will be all over him if I think he's out of line. I also criticize Bush and his policies because I think they are a total disaster, however, I am equally critical of Prime Minister Blair's involvement in Iraq who happens to be the leader of the "screaming liberal" labor Party in the U.K. How ironic? I have not posted articles to my blog site that are critical of PM Blair only because we are close to the election and I try to make my articles current and relative to the major events in the U.S. and I have only been blogging here for about a week. I will concede that I have been partisan in my support of Kerry in my articles because this is an election and I want my party to win but the majority of my critiques have been directed at bad policy and those advocating them.

COL Gene, I wish there were more Republicans like you...I know they are out there but they seem to either be a dying breed or too afraid of the extreme right to admit to it. I have seen how the extreme-right has gone after moderate Republicans with targeted campaigns to unseat them. Just look at what they tried to do to Senator Arlen Spector (R-Pa), what they try and do to John McCain, and what they did to Sen. Jeffords...who got so fed up with it, he became an Independent. I admire Republican Senators like Chuck Hagle. Now I know some people here will bring up Zell Miller (D-GA) as an example of a Dem. who more or less defected to Bush....but let me tell you Zell Miller is about 2 fries short of a "Happy Meal" so that is not exactly a good example to use. I've had this opinion of Zell looooonnnggg before G.W. Bush and the GOP leadership put him front and center at the GOP convention for nothing more than political expediency, which I think speaks for itself. Zell Miller is one of those fruitcakes that proposed a bill that says the Surpreme Court would no longer be the final arbitor of the U.S. Constitution and delegate that job to the executive branch who would apply Biblical law. Not only would this DESTROY the separation of powers (checks and balances) between the judiciary and the executive branch which the Founding Fathers went to great pains to establish, it would also destroy just about everything else our Constitution stands for. Secondly, I'd like to see how they would enforce "coveting your neighbors wife" without the accused "bearing false witness." Yeah, that would make good "Court TV" but it wouldn't do much for our democracy. Am I the only one who sees how stupid and dangerous this is? Is criticizing this or any other hair-brained policy "extremist" or "liberal?" And THIS is the nutjob the GOP leadership and Bush put front and center at their convention? I hope you moderates can win back the Republican congressional leadership positions...because the ones that are there now are just as bad as rooty-tooty Zell Miller. Oh, and one final remark about dear good 'ole boy Zell...if he is so proud of co-sponosoring the bill I mention above, why doesn't he list it on his official Senate website like he does all of his other sponsored and co-sponsored bills? Almost all of the other sponsors/co-sponsors to this bill were Republican and It's these types of secretive, back-door trompings of the Constitution that really gets me pissed about the right. I know the left isn't perfect either...but I don't see them pulling crap as extreme as this. If they are, let me know about it.


on Oct 15, 2004

Reply #41 By: COL Gene - 10/15/2004 7:03:37 AM
drmiler

Here is why Franks supports Bush:

Franks told Bush it required 300,000- 400,000 troops to fight the Iraq War. He must have at some time caved into Bush given the fact he fought the war with less then half the troops he needed. Rather than stand his ground like the Army CoS, he compermised what he knew was needed. Now we have a mess. If he now says, Bush was wrong, then the question of why did you agree to this?


Good arguement but you premise is wrong. He was in the military at the time. And we both were also in. Do you remember the oath you took when you joined? He was sworn to obey his C in C (Bush)
on Oct 15, 2004

Reply #43 By: T_Bone4Justice - 10/15/2004 9:03:23 AM
drmiler, "To say that he is bad and shouldn't be in office is one thing. But to compare him to Stalin or Hitler (both of who killed a LOT of people) is BEYOND comprehension."

The last time I checked there were over 1,000 U.S. troops,


Sorry but GW is only resposible for the 1000 Americans dead not the rest. And even if he was, it *still* falls FAR short of the millions that Hitler and Stalin killed.


before G.W. Bush and the GOP leadership put him front and center at the GOP convention for nothing more than political expediency, which I think speaks for itself. Zell Miller is one of those fruitcakes that proposed a bill that says the Surpreme Court would no longer be the final arbitor of the U.S. Constitution.

As far as I remember the supreme court is not *supposed* to be the final arbitrator of the Constitution. They are there to interpret the *law*!

4 Pages1 2 3 4