DO you agree with House Speaker Pelosi that Bush is a “a total failure'”

Pelosi is the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. She is in the line of succession to be President if something happened to the President. She is second in line behind the Vice President. If something happened to Bush and Cheney, Pelosi would become the President of the United States. She is the highest ranking woman in the U.S. government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

 

Do you think the history books are going to rank him great just as they do Carter?

 

Depends on who writes the history books I suppose lol. But I dont like Carter all that much as a president or as a person now. Bush has his fair share of mistakes but no more then any other president and he is blamed for a lot of stuff that was not even his fault in entirety

 

NO!

Bush was a "total success"

*gives a thumbs up and waves a mini-American flag*

 

most Americans think that President Bush is a total failure.. maybe this is not always so in the outside world.. President Bush has helped Africa more than any other United States president.

 

By sending billions that the US itself does not have is not in reality helping anyone.

 

Obviously Bush is a total failure. Unfortunately she (Pelosi) hasn't been much better. She (and the rest of the Dems in Congress) were elected to impeach Bush and end the war in Iraq. They haven't done their job.

 

All that Pelosi has done is to travel to Damascus Syria, a country listed as a state sponsor of terror, and kiss up to Syrian President Bashar Assad .

 

I can't think of anyone at this moment, that is a "total failure". Putting politics aside, I cannot help but admire the fact that he is a dog lover. Look, his dog Barney has his own page on Whitehouse.gov

 

Yea if you put his stance on the economy a side I would like him more as well.

 

That dude is really ugly.

But uh.. yeah I don't have any problems with "meeting with the enemy" - that's a dumb argument. Got anything better?

We should be meeting with our enemies. That's what powerful nations do. This George W. Bush strategy of ... I don't even know what his strategy is supposed to be, and I don't think he does either. Talk like a cowboy I guess it is. It's a total failure. It's nonsense. I'm tired of these scare tactics and fear mongering. ITS GOOD TO TALK TO PEOPLE. Good or bad, it doesn't matter.

 

I think he has been miserable. One area that I have not seen articulated is his use of politics and particularly the phrase "win in Iraq". I believe he has totally lied to the US on this topic while using it for purely political reasons.

It has been documented that we never had the troop levels to adequately fight Iraq....let alone have another war in Afghanistan, which is still going on 8 years after the fact, and in fact getting worse.

this article from 2005 points out that we were and remain short on ground troops to be effective in Iraq.

For years now various military experts have claimed how Iraq has particularly strained the Army and the Marines. We have called up endless Reserves and National Guard to be stationed in Iraq and now Afghanistan because we don't have adequate troop levels. Stays have been extended well beyond the norm. The needs of the war itself have strained the ground troops aspect of the military beyond its capacity.

When the surge started it was stated that there was a limited time period for that volume of troops because of this strain on numbers of soldiers. The cutback on troops coincided with the time table to reduce numbers because of this limitation.

Currently Bush is using new language to speak about a drawdown in Iraq and to move troops to Afghanistan. Again the two go hand in hand because we don't have the volume of troops to do the job effectively in both places.

When it became obvious that US soldiers were dying as a result of hidden planted bombs (IED's)....the newer ultra protective vehicles with curved bottoms were shown to be one effective deterrant. The administration fell down on the job on delivering lots of these quickly. It took prodding from outside sources including both Republican and Democratic members of Congress to speed up delivery of these protective vehicles. The administration was slow, beaurocratic, and non responsive. Another example of a half assed effort in reality...while the politics of the Bush Administration kept emphasizing "winning".

When Bush uses the term Win.....one might think of Roosevelts efforts after Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt raised a huge huge army, turned the economic efforts of factories into building efforts for the war effort, called for sustained sacrifice from the entire nation.

By the way, the US involvement in WWII ended 3 and 1/2 years after we entered the war.

It is now close to 5 and 1/2 years in Iraq and 7 + years in Afghanistan. The political language of "winning" in Iraq is still being used......but the effort is deeply half assed IMHO and doesn't reflect the political language in any way whatsoever. It has been an unmitigated lie to America and the world.

On top of all the other things one can criticize Bush for I think he should be criticized for substituting political slogans that were the total opposite of what he really practiced.....and further wasted American lives, resources, and clarity in the process.

The Congress has done a crummy job since Democrats have taken the majority. Within the Senate most anything they propose for passage is negated in that they basically need a 60 vote majority for passage which they can't get. They have not effectively articulated the problem...and/or forced some votes for further debate and possible filibuster. At least that would have showcased issues being dealt with rather than getting nowhere.

The Democrats in Congress haven't been effective. I believe that is a problem in the leadership in both the Senate and the House.

But yes....I think Bush has been a failure with regard to the interests of the US.

 

I think the problem is that the US is reluctant to bring in the troops. A lot of people are still trying to fight Vietnam. General Westmoreland continually promised victory if he had more troops and was unable to deliver.

There was also a case that Rumsfield and the the adminstration were trying to fight the war on the cheap. They were also dealt a bad hand when Turkey refused to allow the 4th Infantry Division that was deployed there to enter Iraq.

In hindsight if we had another 2 active divisions and 5 national guard division deployed to round up the Iraqi Army and let them cool off as POWs for a while. We would have been better of today.

In the matter of WW2, the US was involved since 1937 with supplying France and Britian with weapons and gunboat clashes with Japan. The US started the draft in 1940 and we still have troops in Germany and Japan.

 

Bush has been the biggest failure and worst disaster in the world for many many a year, let us hope that the prick manages to leave office without causing any more damage to the world than he already has done.