board77

I'm sorry, but I'm curious what it is people are looking for?

Admission he was completely wrong for going into Iraq? What does that accomplish exactly?

To just resign his presidencey because things have gotten "so bad?" So you want Cheney?

Completely change his government philosophy so that he's not acting as the voters who elected him would have expected him to?

I don't know what I want from him, but I see an awful lot of people around here saying that they're not getting it, that's for sure.

Yes, admission of his catrastrophic error in invading Iraq, and impeachment of he and the Vice President for politicizing our intelligence agencies and misleading Congress in order to lead the nation into an unjust and unnecessary war.

Cerin wrote:

Yes, admission of his catrastrophic error in invading Iraq, and impeachment of he and the Vice President for politicizing our intelligence agencies and misleading Congress in order to lead the nation into an unjust and unnecessary war.

And what does this accomplish?

Justice.

An honest relationship with the citizens of America?

*~Pips~*

And relieving the country of the further consequences of such dangerous, damaging and incompetent governance.

Justice? What about the fact that it would make every Terrorist in the world think that they WON? What about the fact that it would make every country in the world that hates us think they were justified in that hatred? What about throwing into chaos a government and military that is at its best fully extended throughout the world (probably over-extended)?

How is it going to improve the lives of even one person in America?

So the president and vice president are the only dangerous and incompetent leaders?

That's news to me. Somehow I don't think that getting rid of these two people would solve anything.

edit: chaos is a word that came to my mind as well, hal.

Cerin wrote:

And relieving the country of the further consequences of such dangerous, damaging and incompetent governance.

how does it relieve the country of further consequences? Would it mean pulling all our troops out of Iraq? How do you know who would replace them would handle things any better? You'd rather have someone that wasn't elected to fill the role of president running things? How many people need to be removed before we get to the right one?

This is a president elected TWICE, most recently AFTER all the decisions that require justice now. The American people chose this.

halplm wrote:

Justice? What about the fact that it would make every Terrorist in the world think that they WON? What about the fact that it would make every country in the world that hates us think they were justified in that hatred? What about throwing into chaos a government and military that is at its best fully extended throughout the world (probably over-extended)?

How is it going to improve the lives of even one person in America?

Guess what? Lying doesn't solve anything in the long run! It just makes you look like a total fuckwit who isn't fit to lead the country!

"Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to decieve."

*~Pips~*

Right now, what I want is someone who doesn't hang out for two days doing photo-ops while one one of the great cities of America festers in its own juices. Someone who is capable of demonstrating the leadership that his supporters claim for him, as opposed to the "What, Me Worry?" air of hostile indifference the rest of the world sees.

Part of being President...hell, part of being an ADULT...is knowing that sometimes you have to put aside what you want to do and do what is expected of you, preferably in a timely fashion.

Axordil wrote:

Right now, what I want is someone who doesn't hang out for two days doing photo-ops while one one of the great cities of America festers in its own juices. Someone who is capable of demonstrating the leadership that his supporters claim for him, as opposed to the "What, Me Worry?" air of hostile indifference the rest of the world sees.

Part of being President...hell, part of being an ADULT...is knowing that sometimes you have to put aside what you want to do and do what is expected of you, preferably in a timely fashion.

That, is something you and I can both agree on 100%.

Quote:

Admission he was completely wrong for going into Iraq? What does that accomplish exactly?

No, because it accomplishes nothing, but I do not want to see something like it happen again (possibly with Iran). If it gets to that, then I'll be really pissed.

Quote:

To just resign his presidencey because things have gotten "so bad?" So you want Cheney?

Not at all. I'm way more afraid of Doomsayer Cheney. Plus, isn't Cheney running things already?

Quote:

Completely change his government philosophy so that he's not acting as the voters who elected him would have expected him to?

I'd prefer him actually unite, and engage the opposing opinion, and, heavens forbid, perhaps consider more of a compromise. He promised to be a uniter, not a divider. He was divisive in his first term, but he seems to be getting better this term (although his push for ID to be taught along side evolution despite its lack of scientific value, and the great Terry Schiavo fiasco definitely do not help).

Bush isn't the best president, but he isn't the worst ever, especially since all of the bullshit surrounding the election injustices has died down. I don't even think I'd blame Bush for the political climate in this country. It was probably a long time coming since the Reagan days, but it seems that people are aligning more with "teams" and politics is turning into sports. "Don't listen to that guy, he's just a Democrat." "All Republicans are evil." Comments like this. I can't honestly say that I think people are making educated political decisions, just making sure they show full, unyielding support for whatever team they have signed with. This might have been the case in the past as well, but I can only really speak for the Reagan to Bush Jr. years since those are the only years I've experienced.

I agree with that too, TED

What do I want?

Impeachment of Bush and most senior members of his administration, to be replaced by politicians who actually care about serving others rather than themselves.

Iavas_Saar wrote:

What do I want?

Impeachment of Bush and most senior members of his administration, to be replaced by politicians who actually care about serving others rather than themselves.

And I would tell you that there's no such thing.

Actually, what Ax said really sums up my greatest displeasure with GWB. He seems far too isolated by action, thought, and deed. I am sure he is a very well-meaning guy, I truly do, but there seems to be such a disconnect with him and the real world. He chooses to surround himself with some of the worst of the Republican Party, and who knows, maybe this was part of the deal to get himself into office to begin with - heaven help us when we do not know who is actually making the decisions in Washington these days. And his notorious stubborness certainly does not help matters. All truly great politicians learn the art of diplomacy and compromise, or at least trying to listen to the other points of views at times, and knowing what is causing the greatest unrest and displeasure during their administrations. Bush seems to distance himself from this, as if repeating the same patriotic stuff over and over again will somehow solve the issues.

He would be a great leader for something like the BSA, or a political fundraising machine, I just do not think he is good presidential material. But, there again, what have we had to vote against him with?

I would like Bush to invent a time machine, go back in time, and convince himself to not run for President EVER. That would be cool.



Short of that, I guess not much. He already made the worst fuckup he's likely to make (the mega-uber fuckup that is Iraq) so for now I guess we just wait for him to go away and hopefully never see his kind again.

That's a very good question, halplm. I see a lot of people attack GWB, but not enough constructive criticism of his performance. Personally, I'd probably call for three things:

1) The speediest possible resolution to the Iraq conflict coupled with serious attempts to bring Afghanistan under control and expand the search for Al-Qaeda cells and bases.

2) A serious attack on the deficit, including cutting industry subsidies or raising taxes if necessary.

3) Giving less spotlight to the religious right and listening more to the moderates within the Republican Party (eg: Arnold or John McCain).

If it wasn't for Iraq, the deficit and the religious right, I wouldn't have too much of an issue with the GOP.

LM--

But then, he'd be Eisenhower.