Stick a fork in him...

I think you and I seem to be diametrically opposed in the political realm, but that we are both open minded, intelligent people as well that can have a decent discourse about something with out castigating one another. At least that is how I read you. A great thing on BT.
I voted for Bush, and have been sorely disappointed as I am a proponent of smaller government, among other things. W has been a miserable fiscal failure, at the least. I wasn't happy with him round election time last year either. You can't polish a turd. I read a great book that you might be interested in called "Impostor" by Bruce Bartlett. He was an accounting guy for Reagan and for GWB for a short period of time. It is less a hate baook, as some of these were against Clinton, Bush, Gore and Hillary, and more of a well though out scrutiny of his fiscal policies and what the potential long term effects may be. I thought it an interesting read. If you read it, let me know what you think!

I'm in the same boat as you, except I never voted for Bush. I voted for Gore in '00 and Badnarik in '04. Bartlett's book is quality, it really showcases just how abominable Bush's fiscal policy has been thus far and backs it all up with logic and factual evidence.

As for McClellan, I feel a little sorry for him. Being press secretary for this administration has to be one of the worst jobs on the planet. It was hilarious to watch him squirm during press conferences, but man what a beating he'd take.

Some would argue that each President inherits the last President's economic issues. So, when we hit a depression, we blame the current administration. However, it was generally the policies of the last administration that caused it.
I am a conservative, I admit it, but I don't have any real support for any party. I personally feel that the President is a figurehead anymore, and Congress is too busy fighting amongst themselves to really accomplish anything.

To quote Mel Gibson, "Why should a trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 1,000 tyrants 3 miles away?" A good point, really.

To make sure I clarify, I'm blaming Bush's administration for the fiscal policy while he is in office. The tax cuts, Medicare, steel tarriffs; pretty much every decision he's made economically is exactly the opposite of what I would be in favor of. I'll agree that there is only so much under each president's control and that a lot of times they're like the quarterback of a football team, they get too much credit when the team wins and too much blame when they lose. That being said, I think that the WH - with the help of Congress of course - has spent money like a Beverly Hills teenager on spring break at Rodeo Drive with Daddy's credit cards and need to be taken to task for it.

Understandable, but let's also focus on Congress here. All those issues need to be approved by Congress. The President can write policy, but it's not actually in place until approved.

As for the spending money part...I think that to an extent, Clinton is somewhat to blame. A good portion of that money is being spent on military things. I would argue that if Clinton hadn't spent his term in office downgrading our military and intelligence capabilities, we might not have to play catch-up like we do now. Additionally, if members of the past administration had paid more heed to information they received, we might have been able to mitigate some of these international issues we are now facing, and I mean beyond Iraq and terrorism. Finally, what ever happened to having the troops "home by Christmas" from Bosnia? We STILL have people there. Where's the outrage on that?

The POTUS can veto any legislation he doesn't agree with. Exactly how many times has he exercised that power? Oh yeah...that number you can't divide by.

Edited by run4yrlif 2006-04-19 11:14 AM

This post isn't absolving Clinton of all guilt in fiscal matters, but given the choice between a president who used a burgeoning economy to create budget surpluses and a 'conservative' president that doesn't understand that cutting taxes and increasing spending is an EITHER/OR proposition, not an AND proposition, I'll take Clinton every time.

It's not Clinton's fault we're in Iraq with a bill that's passing into the hundreds of billions. It's not Clinton's fault that Bush is passing a Medicare prescription bill that will cost hundreds of billions more(that my generation will be paying for until well after I'm dead). It's not Clinton's fault that Bush enacted steel tarriffs that have provoked dozens of tarriffs in other countries against US products. Clinton had his faults, granted, but given the scale of the current admin's blunders I'd wish for the days when a hummer was the biggest problem. I fail to see how anyone that labels themselves a 'conservative' can ally themselves with a president that is anything but 'conservative' by any economic measure.

As for Bosnia, "home by Christmas" sounds a lot like "mission accomplished" to me. Both unsupportable statements, both deserve to be remembered. Bosnia hasn't cost the lives of thousands of American troops though, and the presence in Bosnia actually has an end in sight.

I'll reiterate someone else's recommendation for Bartlett's book. The guy is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative with plenty of conservative credentials, and his book showcases just how far Dubya is from anything resembling a conservative. It's a pretty quick read, well worth your time imo.

Ditto .........

Ok, I'm not absolving Bush of all criticism either. I guess my real point is that I get tired of seeing all the blame go on this President for every problem. The fact is EVERY President has issues that people don't agree with. I'm merely trying to point out that, in my opinion, there is lots of blame to go around, and that Bill Clinton was not a superb President. Personally, I feel that he did a horrible job, especially in terms of international relations and national security. But, again, that's my opinion.

I guess I want to see a look at both sides, and not just why this President is so horrible. It could be worse. We could live in France.

Personally, I don't think he's done all that bad a job. I think that he has put a little too much faith in some of his advisors, but overall, I'm not dissatisfied.

This will get me jumped on, I'm sure.

Nah, you have every right to your opinion, and you can espouse it as much as you like. It's the beauty of America, you can believe Bush has done alright all you want. You're just wrong.

One common thread I've found in most of these discussions(not just here but anywhere) is that those who are still satisfied with Bush at this point are pretty much going to be in his camp through anything short of Dubya getting pulled over with a pile of dead babies in his trunk. Even then, they'll probably blame it on activist judges(just kidding). For a president who came in on a platform of being a 'uniter', I can't recall a president being this divisive. Then again I wasn't alive for Vietnam, so I'll defer to someone who was alive in the 60s to compare/contrast the situation.

Well, I guess I say I'm satisfied because I have a decent job, I have the freedoms I did before, and I don't seem to be any worse off than I was before he was President. That may seem selfish, but I don't see too many people that are currently struggling because of the policies implemented by this administration. I personally am all for getting my Social Security money back now, so I can choose to do what I want with it. In terms of Medicare, I will admit that I am not as on top of that one as others may be. Steel....again, not as on top of it. I work in the construction supply industry, and we seem to be doing quite well still. We aren't in a depression, growth is slower, but certainly not stagnant. I don't hear much about unemployment rates. The only real complaints I hear about are related to the war. In terms of that, well, I don't blame the President for "tactical errors". Tactical errors are made by tactical commanders, strategic errors are made by strategic commanders. The President is neither. The generals and captains are the ones that make war plans. The SecDef has a hand in some of those issues as well. But I think that more focus should be placed on how to fix the issues, and not on who is to blame for it right now. Save that till afterwards.

Medicare isn't really a problem now, it's how the costs are going to balloon over the next couple decades where the problem lies. We simply don't have enough money in the budget to finance the costs when the Baby Boomers start retiring en masse, the cost of medicare is going to cost trillions over the next 75 years, to the point that either it's going to have to be scaled back or taxes are going to have to be hiked way up. I don't have the book in front of me so I can't give you specific numbers, but suffice it to say that if Bartlett's prediction is even halfway right we're in for some serious trouble.

As for steel, that one didn't really affect steel so much directly. The tarriff caused a lot of friction with other countries who started instituting their own tarriffs on other items(like oranges for example). It was essentially a protectionist policy that thumbed its nose at other countries, the net effect being a reduction in our steel exports and more expensive imports of various products.

I agree with the theory that during the midst of an operation it can be counterproductive to start looking for blame, but with a war that has such ill-defined goals and no end point in sight, it's hard to say at what point it becomes "okay" to question the leadership. If this occupation lasts another 5 years and we wait until then to re-examine everything, it's going to be an entirely different administration that will be taking the heat for the actions of the current one, and I think that's wrong. This administration is the one that decided to invade Iraq, and I think they should be held accountable to the results while they're still in office. We have been there for 3 years now, at what point would you consider it alright to question their effectiveness as leaders, especially given the mounting evidence that we were led - by action or omission - into a war under false pretenses? I'm sensitive to your hesitance to criticize and I'm not looking for a witch hunt, but I do expect the WH & Congress to be held accountable for their decisions.

I guess because I don't necessarily hold the President accountable. He may have initiated the call, but Congress approved it, and the generals created the plan for it. Is it the President's fault that people tell him we're all good to go, and he believed them? Maybe to a point, yes. As for the reasons for going, well, that's a separate thing in my book. Personally, I think the fact that they would shoot missiles at our planes would be reason enough. I think Saddam's general destabilizing effect in the area was enough.

I'm 29. I'm already facing the fact that I will not have government subsidies when I retire. Hence the reason that I feel I shouldn't have to pay into it. The fact is that SS is poorly implemented anyways. We're each supposed to have our own account that we pay into. Unfortunately, that money that I'm paying is going towards someone other than me. Hence the reason it's going bankrupt (Yes, I know this is oversimplifying, but still).

As for the tariffs. I think that the pressure was put on by a dying steel industry. Ultimately, has anyone lost their jobs because of these tariffs or protectionist acts? Honestly, I don't know. In my trade, we lose them to cheap labor (IT). And, if I'm not mistaken, Congress had to approve that. Right? So....can we blame Congress for that too?

Personally, I think he is dealing with the criticism. He hasn't quit yet. He hasn't backed down, generally speaking. Besides, stating that all the blame and glory falls on his shoulders is like saying that a CEO is the sole person responsible for a company's success or failure. I know he picked his cabinet, and I know his cabinet picked the people under them. But at a certain level, they're just employees, and those employees feed info up the chain. So, ultimately, if the guy at the bottom has misleading info, so will the guy at the top. I suppose this depends on what one's definition is of dealing with criticism.

In terms of Iraq, I think some of it is cultural. You tend to get a lot of Insh'Allah (sp?)...."It is Allah's will." Besides, there was violence in Europe after WWII. The German Werewolves were committing political murders and terrorist acts for a while after the end of open hostilities. And these are people with a similar culture to ours. It's obviously going to take longer with a completely different culture. Most of them are people who see planting a bomb as a way of making a couple extra bucks.

I was not referring to the decision to enter WWII. I was referring to the fact that after the end of open hostilities, similar events occured, just to a lesser extent in Germany.

I doubt anyone thought that we would show up, blow up some things, and poof, democracy and stability. However, the President DID say before hand that it was going to be a long road. Which was an honest statement, at least.

And I don't think our only goal is stabilization. There are other goals as well. Namely the removal of Saddam from power. Which we did. Personally, I figured we would intervene in one of those countries eventually. It was a matter of time. We need to shift our strategic forces out of Europe and closer to the SE Asia / Middle East area anyways. Makes force projection easier. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if we end up establishing a level of permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for not taking cultural issues into consideration, that's something that this country as a whole is bad at. A British officer even made that point in an article written in one of the Army's professional magazines.

Ultimately, my original point was that I don't feel that things are any worse under this President than the past two Presidents.

It is STUNNING to me that anyone is still willing to defend this administration.

Me too. You're good people.

I think it's safe to say that Iraq will have multiple permanent bases. I'll even venture that we're going to transfer the personnel & equipment in Saudi Arabia over to Iraq sometime after the drawdown(whenever that happens). This whole thing is a giant chess match; if you notice we're now bracketing Iran on both sides with forces in Iraq & Afghanistan. It's my opinion that Bussh & Co thought the invasion/occupation of Iraq was going to go remarkably smoothly, then they could prep for going after Iran. Unfortunately they made just about every possible tactical & strategic error and are now bogged down in Iraq, and the public in the US has no stomach for another war...not that there could be another war since even Bush has said that the troops are going to be in Iraq until well after his presidency is over. It's fubar, and it didn't have to be this way.

We're getting off-topic though, as the original topic was McClellan, and I could go on and on about this administration's errors. I'll save it for another thread.