What do you think of our current President?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Amsel

Try a tin foil hat.It blocks out the NSA mind reading probe rays.

Great - you must be a member of the Dennis Kucinich fan club!

Originally Posted by Amsel

On a serious note....I didn't make this stuff up just conversating.

So am I although you do bring up good points I worry more about some liberal attorney general taking advantage of what you say rather than some "neocon" - after all after 8 years where ARE the road blocks??????

[freebird]

Great points, Dave, a good debate.

Originally Posted by freebird

Ren, he is not ridiculed for being a honest & moral man, he is ridiculed for being seen as an arrogant,

Originally Posted by davparlr

Name a politician that is not arrogant, Obama?

There are some that are not. Obama is an inexperienced radical far left polititian. And arrogant.

Just to make things crystal clear. I don't like Obama's policies I wouldn't vote for him. I'm just stating my opinion that Bush has been a disapointment for some conservatives. I thought McCain would be a better President than Bush in 2000. I voted Consevative in the last 3 elections up here, & I would still choose Bush over Kerry or Obama

Originally Posted by freebird

Bush is seen as Stubborn

Originally Posted by davparlr

Not necessarily a bad characteristic.

Yes but it only works if you are RIGHT

Originally Posted by freebird

Dim Witted Texas Governor.

Originally Posted by davparlr

A Bush-bashing party line

He is not fluent, but not being fluent is not a sign of dim-wittedness. I have known many non-fluent people where very intelligent and I have know many fluent people who spoke nothing but air (including mostly politicians). Bush scored higher on his military entrance intelligence test than Kerry (no big deal). He also piloted a high performance jet fighter which requires a quick mind in order to stay ahead of the aircraft and where being slow and “dim-witted” leads to a smoking hole in the ground (See previous entry on the Bushs flying career).

Dave, I don't disagree that the "dim-wit" is mostly media hype. I was pointing out that the media don't ridicule him for being an "honest and moral" man, but for his perceived "dim-witted" and his verbal gaffes. It would be nice if he was a better speaker. But not a big deal, more important are his actions.

Originally Posted by freebird

under the thumb of the Neo-cons

Originally Posted by davparlr

I don’t think any Neo-cons, whoever they are, would claim Bush.

The "Neo-Cons" would be Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith and others in the administration

Originally Posted by freebird

I think alot of conservatives are disappointed with his leadership & managment.

Originally Posted by davparlr

It seems the planning and leadership seems first class now.

Huh? According to who? The mistakes in Iraq have proved very costly to the US, and the far left seems poised to grab the White House in addition tho the Congress. Hardly an ideal situation.

Originally Posted by davparlr

I think your analysis here is incorrect.

History will judge presidents more by results than by lower level accomplishments or failures

1. Foreign accomplishments
2. Domestic accomplishments
3. Economic accomplishments

In foreign accomplishments, Bush will be judged by Iraq.

Absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by davparlr

If Iraq turns out to be a stable democracy (this looking good but still risky, the answer won’t be known for a long time),

I think we will know in about 10 -15 years. It "looks good" temporarily, but {as I said earlier} more that 90% of new democracies in former colonies/mandates end up with civil war, genocide, revolution, tyranny, rampant corruption, etc. within 25 years. I have a feeling that it will end up as an unstable, unfriendly quasi-democracy dominated by Al-Sadr & Iranian Shia lackeys.

Originally Posted by davparlr

So, if the course is maintained, i.e., no rash removal of troops,

You can bet that President Obama will pull the plug & blame the whole mess on Bush.

Originally Posted by davparlr

If it does not, Bush will have a failed foreign policy.

Very Honest appraisal Dave, I agree that the final outcome in Iraq will be the biggest factor on judging Bush's success.

Originally Posted by davparlr

Judging the performance of a leader during the time of his leadership is fraught with danger

True enough, although losing both ends of Pennsylvania avenue is a bad enough legacy, especially if the new President is an far-left former coke-snorting Black Panther wannabe.... {now I'm gonna get some nasty comments from the left for that last quip..}

Originally Posted by davparlr

In domestic accomplishments, everything shrinks to insignificant in comparison to the war on terrorism. If Bush completes office with no terrorist attacks against the US, the efficiency of his policy will be inescapable, except by the hard Bush haters.

I can't agree with this, the fact that a terrorist attack did or did not take place cannot be totally the effect of the President

[freebird]

Originally Posted by davparlr

Second impact will be immigration where he greatly misunderstood the intent of the population and will not have accomplished a lot in his terms. Although illegal immigration is now being reduced significantly, I do not think he contributed much .

Unfortunately true. Illegal Immigration is going to be a ticking time bomb. I have a feeling that President Obama will be only to happy to sign into a law giving citizenship to 20 million Illegals. {& future Democratic voters...}

Originally Posted by davparlr

As I have said before, the economy has also been amazing. In spite of speculation burst in the Dot.coms, big business corruption (Enron), 9-11, two wars, Katrina, skyrocketing fuel prices (which, by itself, caused large recessions in the past), and speculation burst in housing market, there has only been a slowdown and, so far, no recession at all. I cannot foresee anything that could affect that by the time he leaves office. In spite of that, democrats claim the economy has failed. Anyone who thinks this economy is a failure is economically uninformed.

I wouldn't call it a "failure", but the plunging dollar, loss of manufacturing jobs, huge trade defecit, massive government debt {held by the Chinese!} are significant problems that have only exacerbated in the last 7 years.

Originally Posted by davparlr

Probably not as much as you think. After any two terms there are often changes in government (examine history).

But less likely in wartime. {Republican} Grant followed Lincoln, Truman followed Roosevelt. The Republicans SHOULD have been well ahead at this point, due to voters unease with Democrats defence abilities.

Originally Posted by davparlr

I think you will find that Iran and Korea started its nuclear programs during the Clinton Administration. If anything negative, Bush, reeling under criticism, let the Europeans try to deal with Iran.

I would far rather have seen him deal with Iraq quickly and get out, leaving the "nation building" experiment for another day. Then in the quick aftermath of a successful Iraq, Iran would have been much easier to deal with.

I agree with you though, Clinton was more concerned with where to put his "cigar" than in dealing with Iran/Korea, he let the problem fester. I wouldn't have voted for Clinton.

Originally Posted by davparlr

I don’t think we have a weakened military. We are only stressed because we try to fight wars without stress to living a normal life. With 1.4 million active military and 1.4 million reserve units and 48% of the world military budget, it hard to imagine that committing less than 5% of our forces would make us weak. I am sure surging to do necessary added combat would only stress us a little.

I am not in the military. I think Adler's post speakes volumes, far more than anything I could say.

Originally Posted by davparlr

Many leaders make bad decisions to start, only to turn thing around. Lincoln lost battle after battle with one bad general after another until he found one that could win. Roosevelt threw many an American to their death at Kasserine Pass.

Huh? Roosevelt was not in charge at Kassarine, an inexperienced and weak officer {Fredandall} dropped the ball, Eisenhower got rid of him quickly.

Originally Posted by davparlr

Churchill had his Dieppe.

I think you mean Gallipoli actually, the Dieppe fiasco was mainly Mountbatten's poor planning.

Originally Posted by davparlr

Eisenhower and Bradley failed to anticipate the Battle of the Bulge and got 19000 soldiers killed. None of these are considered bad leaders.

Poor intelligence allowed the buildup to be undetected. The Germans were bound to counterattack, and the Allies dealt with it. I don't consider the bulge to be their "failings"

Originally Posted by davparlr

Bush started badly, not with war, which was brilliant,

Agreed, the military attack went well, except that there were not enough troops to secure all of the important areas.

Originally Posted by davparlr

by botching the following peace keeping effort. However, he learned and changed a commander, finding one that knows how to win.

Yes after a couple of years of drifting into chaos.

Originally Posted by davparlr

Things in Iraq seem to be going quite well now

Time will tell. I hope you are right.

Originally Posted by davparlr

It would not be a by a “hail Mary’ pass but tenaciousness. Like Grant, even when faced by defeats by Lee at The Wilderness and Cold Harbor, and a bloody stalemate at Petersburg, was stubborn and continued to fight on to the victory. He was considered stubborn, and great.

General Custer was also considered stubborn. It really depends on the outcome....

Originally Posted by davparlr

I’m not defending that idiot FEMA director, but there were only six deaths in the dome. I believe one heart attack, one drug overdose, one suicide, three natural causes. No deaths by exposure. Just more lousy reporting with many gobbling it up.

Lousy reporting? They just reported the disorganization in FEMA. I don't blame Bush for Katrina, it would have been a little smarter if he had turned on the TV news before saying that "Brownie" did a good job. Makes him look foolish & out of touch, thats all.

Originally Posted by davparlr

You realize that the federal government cannot provide help until requested by the state, right? The democratic governor of Louisiana waited 24 hours to grant permission even when pressed by the government. A critical 24 hours. This wasn’t reported very much, only blame given to Bush.

Actually I think it was more balanced than that. The real fool in this seems to be the "chocolate" Mayor Nagin

Originally Posted by davparlr

Strange. Had as much experience as Reagan, Carter, and Clinton.

Yes and Clinton was not a great President, Carter was even worse. Seems Reagan was much wiser. {Could sure use another Reagan right abot now...}

Originally Posted by freebird

No, I think it means that if you elect a stubborn President who does likes to ignore good advice, you end up with problems! He didn't understand that in Washington you can't just dictate to people what to do, you must learn to work with them.

Originally Posted by davparlr

And exactly who in the government today does this?

Ah, John McCain is a name that comes to mind. {Or Ronald Reagan}

[Njaco]

We have lost more liberties under Bush then all the presidents put together.Has anyone had the time to read Patriot act I & II?Bush paved the way for an ultra strong central goverment.

How about the Sedition Act by Woodrow Wilson? Half of us would be thrown in jail right now for posting what we have on this site.....

Sedition Act of 1918 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Sedition Act of 1918 was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who was concerned that dissent, in time of war, was a significant threat to morale. The passing of this act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime."

I would say that is a direct violation of the Constitution. Freedom of speech???????

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

So am I although you do bring up good points I worry more about some liberal attorney general taking advantage of what you say rather than some "neocon" - after all after 8 years where ARE the road blocks??????

That's always my point too - what law abiding American has been crushed by the Patriot Act?

[Amsel]

Originally Posted by mkloby

That's always my point too - what law abiding American has been crushed by the Patriot Act?

True.As a real American it doesn't matter if they say it's only for terrorists.What matters most is the direct violation and dismantling of the Constitution.Most politicians today think it's "just a piece of paper".Most Americans have forgotten how great the sacrifice to obtain it was.I do not harbor those illusions.I sometimes think that this generation is the most politically cowed and brainwashed American era since Concord Bridge.

[Njaco]

I sometimes think that this generation is the most politically cowed and brainwashed American era since Concord Bridge.

At times I can agree whole heartedly!

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Amsel

True.As a real American it doesn't matter if they say it's only for terrorists.What matters most is the direct violation and dismantling of the Constitution.Most politicians today think it's "just a piece of paper".Most Americans have forgotten how great the sacrifice to obtain it was.I do not harbor those illusions.I sometimes think that this generation is the most politically cowed and brainwashed American era since Concord Bridge.

As a real American? Please elaborate - what do you mean by that comment??? I don't believe that most of it is in violation of the Constitution, and what was in violation was struck down... but I MUST clearly be brainwashed. What generation is "this" generation to which you are referring? How is the Patriot Act gutting the Third Amendment?

Being the REAL American that you are, please use the spacebar following your periods at the end of sentences - it helps us fake Americans read better.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Being the REAL American that you are, please use the spacebar following your periods at the end of sentences - it helps us fake Americans read better.

Ahh, glad to have you back.

Seriously though, what freedoms have we lost? I have not felt any loss of my freedoms. But then again I guess I am brainwashed like all the other people of our generation.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Ahh, glad to have you back.

Seriously though, what freedoms have we lost? I have not felt any loss of my freedoms. But then again I guess I am brainwashed like all the other people of our generation.

Nope, you live in Europe

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Nope, you live in Europe

But I am an American citizen and work on a US Army base and return to the United States several times a year.

I may speak German, have German blood in me, but I am an American citizen. I served my country in time of war and I have felt no loss of freedom. I guess that means I am brainwashed though...

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

But I am an American citizen and work on a US Army base and return to the United States several times a year.

I may speak German, have German blood in me, but I am an American citizen. I served my country in time of war and I have felt no loss of freedom. I guess that means I am brainwashed though...

Of course you're brainwashed. Have been living in Europe for much too long.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Marcel