Matthew, you being in the military should know more about ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY than anything. If you are Captain of a ship, and your ship runs aground when you are sleeping, then you are still ultimately responsible. That's part of being in charge. Same with an Army Colonel and one of his subordinate officers screwing something up. Maybe the screw up was not directly the colonel's fault, but he was responsible for the training and everyone under his command, and every action that leads up to that situation is his reponsibility.
Matthew said:
1. yes, of course, most major wars occupying and rebuilding other countries havent taken much less than two years
I don't blame Bush for the poor planning of the rebuilding or the failure of intelligence (it obviously wasn't directly his fault), but it comes down to ultimate responsibility. Plus, he appointed some of the decision makers.
Matthew said:
2. who cares, were still looking and the guy has been rendered obsolete. notice everything comes from "second in command" this or that.
It really doesn't matter. You are right. It disgusts me that Bush changed his opinion about this though. It also bugs me that the liberals use this as a political point. It's way too political on this one.
Matthew said:
3. again, who cares. if you were there, or knew s*** about the country before during and after you would know it was a great venture for the iraqis (you know, to save them from the murderous dictator who was dangerous. of course there are no connections, he had, what, 8 years with clinton plus more to ******* do whatever he wanted and hide whatever he wanted because the UN/Europe are a bunch of ******* worthless military powers?)
A lot of good could come out of changing Iraq, but there are two parts to making a decision of this magnitude: you have to make the decision then carry it out. Carrying it out is where his administration needs to put more attention.
Matthew said:
4. read up on alexander hamilton, you know, the guy on your ten dollar bills. its better to have a deficiet and spend money internally than to have a surplus. oh, and btw, we were attacked on our soil (remember that? probably not, CNN told you to forget), so its kinda hard to send troops overseas for 4 years for free
There is a lot more that goes into it than that. You should take an economics class. Deficits are okay to run for the short term(and can actually boost the economy), but big deficits can lead to problems. There is so much more to this and our foreign deficit.
Matthew said:
5. yes, compared to the rest of the world we have huge gas prices
and its all bush's fault to boot that we have gas prices. youre a ******* moron if you actually think its all bush's fault we have bad gas prices...i forgot, he's head of opec in his spare time.....but WAIT.....here is the ultimate irony - you think that the wars were wasteful, for oil etc, but support bush doing WHAT to lower the oil prices? ask nicely? bbaahahahahaa youre so ******* niave. you just prove the point time and again that not only are you a moron, have no idea what youre talking about, but that the war wasnt for oil.
It's obviously not Bush's fault we have high gas prices, but I'm sure he doesn't spend a lot of time trying to get to the actual problem because his business network involves people who are getting rich right now. In short, he won't work as hard to fix the problem as someone who had different interests.
Matthew said:
6. odd that FEMA's disaster response has taken about 3 days over the course of history. of course, this is bush's fault too. dammit, he was supposed to carry all those supplies himself, what a loser!
Bush appointed the director of FEMA, and had a poor public response to the situation. A leader of a country needs to be as public as possible to reassure those affected that everything is going to be okay. Public panic leads to economic and social problems. He could have done so much better on this. I do like the fact that he took responsibility. A good leader does that, and that's something that he has not done in the past.
I watch you guys from an outside perspective, and most of you are either very liberal or very conservative. The liberals try to take everything Bush does and make it sound like the end of the world, and the conservatives try to defend him even if he is obviously wrong. It's kind of funny actually. It's like someone stole your brains and ability to think about every situation critically, and replaced them with a polarized spouting machine.
I am not a fan of Bush as president. I like some of his qualities, but overall he is too conservate and too business minded for me. Plus, I don't like that he is affiliated with the evangelicals. He made a great choice for the Supreme Court in Roberts. Of all the bad stuff that has happened during his presidency, this may go down as his best choice.
I also suggest that everyone do research on McCain for 2008. There is no one in politics that has more bi-partisan friends than him, and he would be just what we need to bring this country together after being so bitterly divided politically. Think about a business, how much gets done if everyone is always fighting? Now, if we all start working together to find what's the best option in every scenario then it's more productive. Same thing with our country. Just a thought to end on. You guys can go back to your liberal-conservative bickering that hasn't changed in four years.
, I don't remember the numbers they put out I just remember them arguing over what needed to be done to fix it. I also remember Bush saying that his admin would cut it down. Then 9/11 hit and all hell broke lose. @ wars later our econome is doing better then it was before 9/11. With all that this admin has been threw our country is better then it was. Thats what I guess I'm trying to say. Bush isn't as bad as every one is trying to make him to be. Were was this lates poll? No one asked me to vote in it.
