What Bush Got Right

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: star3 @ 08/10/2008 1:28:33 PM

    Something Plastic Americans don't understand is that we went to Afghanistan because that is where the terrorist were who planned the 9/11 attack (I feel like I'm explaining the alphabet to kindergartens). We are in Iraq because Saddam Hussien invited us when he insinuated his country had WMDs and were prepared to use them. You don't do that to a country that has just been attacked and is still in shock, unless you are asking for trouble. That is equivilent to watching someone's home burn to the ground while you stand there bragging about what a big stash of matches you have. So, yes, he invited, we RSVPed. If you don't want in on the action, then don't strut around the fringes making veiled threats, then assuming we won't respond. You want "change" in America, but if something isn't broke, why fix it? From my perspective, America has done just fine for over 200 years, so what needs changing? We were the youngest nation on the planet, yet became the most powerful within a relative short time, while many other nations had millenniums to accomplish the same thing, yet did not. Sure, we've had our share of problems, and made our share of mistakes, but we've, also, always managed to fix them without any help from outsiders. America has never claimed to be perfect, after all, this is planet Earth, not Utopia, so we have to deal with human frailties, the same as any other country. However, I do not see that any other country is expected to apologize for their lifestyle, or for enjoying freedom, so why are some of you dis-honoring the legacy our forefathers left us by feeling the need to apologize to those who can't understand something they have never experienced anyway? To you plastic Americans, I will neve have any respect for you until you do one of two things--either get your heart in America, or get your ass out of it! Liberals aren't wrong in wanting to avoid war--most of us do--but they are wrong in believing its always possible. As for Bin Laden, many of us feel its God's job to judge Bin Laden, its our job to arrange that meeting. The hippies thought they had the answer to the world's problems by sitting around a campfire singing "Kum Ba Ya"; while that is nice in theory, it doesn't work in reality. The hippie era, like the dinosaur era, is extinct, but unlike the dinosaurs, we can't use the hippies to make fossil fuel. Thanks for your time.

  • Posted By: KeepingItReal in the US @ 08/10/2008 1:21:51 PM

    Fareed, the VERY reason his poll numbers are lagging are because President Bush failed to stick to his conservative ideology in his second term; he failed his base. You can't make a liberal like you by skewing liberal. That's why Mr. Bush is in the low 30's for approval for the 23rd consecutive month. He's appointed fools like Paulson while good people like Wolfowitz and Bolton are out.

  • Posted By: Thought @ 08/10/2008 12:56:24 PM

    Where is the critique on the Democrats? did they not hold the congress for the past two years?

    Why are there NO viable third and 4th parties in this country? Even a Billionaire can not start one... the LAWS prevent it!!!!

    WE LIVE IN AN OLIGARCHY! THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC! in places live Canada third parties do provide competition, renewal, and opportunity. In the USA is ossified.

    • Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/10/2008 1:09:12 PM

      Quote:" Why are there NO viable third and 4th parties in this country? Even a Billionaire can not start one...

      One can only dream.... Even if an Independent could get elected however, I'm not sure how much they'd actually get done dealing with either side of our partisan politicians. A 6 percent approval rating... pathetic.

  • Posted By: Thought @ 08/10/2008 12:27:07 PM

    great editor, can't see anything pass five lines.

  • Posted By: Thought @ 08/10/2008 12:25:26 PM

    Congress actually is a branch of government and the Democrats have had control of it for tow years ant not done a thing why would we give two branches to them?

  • Posted By: Thought @ 08/10/2008 12:24:02 PM

    WHAT! ACTUAL THOUGHT? I"M STUNNED? WHATS NEXT?

    Jimmy Cartter was not the complete noob as presdient we've been led to believe he was

    Congress catully is a brach of government and the emoctats have had contol of it ofr tow yrears ant not done a thing why would we give atwo brancehs to them?

  • Posted By: Thought @ 08/10/2008 12:20:57 PM

    WHAT! ACTUAL THOUGHT? I AM STUNNED

    Next :
    o Jimmy Carter wasn't completely ineffective as president.

    O
    o The democratic led congress has responsibility for government (one branch they've been in charge of for 2 years)

    TThe

  • Posted By: Slave of The Subduer @ 08/10/2008 12:08:46 PM

    In the end did Bush really get anything right, I wonder.... but of now that is not the point. The American people really need to consider who will be the lesser evil, since both their options for president are evil. Who will focus on jobs, people in the country and try to conduct new more beneficial foriegn policy. Obama represents change but I believe all his hype is what is...hype. McCain represents "same-change" and may prove uterly worthless like his friend goerge. Maybe America's time is up, and neither president will be able to fill the hole bush put the country in. War criminal or not he will not be persicuted until the day of jugdement. The american people really need to think this one through, because you only have 2 losers to vote for, and the third loser left the race, she might have been in reality america's only hope, but she was too emotionaly outstruck to stand upright...and now look at your choices an man who ia as dumb as goerge, and another idiot who is more of a celebrity then leader material. let's see the last outcome of this country, bombs away!!!!!

  • Posted By: rnbsn08 @ 08/09/2008 8:53:08 PM

    I think Bush has been a great president. Hind-sight is always 20/20, isn't it? He does not make decisions by poll numbers, he has integrity and faith that guides his decisions. Certainly, any leader who is a great leader makes decisions that he may make differently - given the facts as they are now known. Our economy is great...stable...and Americans are wealthier than ever. Let's not forget he faced two incredible tragedies during his term. 9-11 was on the equivalent with Pearl Harbor, and Katrina was devestating. Mistakes made with Katrina, although laid at his feet - were totally the result of incompetent local leaders. The economy's bumps have been due to people spending and borrowing foolishly.

    Yes, say what you will, he has faced incredible odds and has lead with honor.

    Histroy will tell the true story...eventually, just wait and see.

    • Posted By: Honestly57 @ 08/09/2008 9:29:25 PM

      True history will show that this administration should be on trial at The Hague! Only extremely revised history would be kind to them in any way.

      • Posted By: Mariana S @ 08/09/2008 11:58:17 PM

        OHHHHHHH....I HOPE that happens. I HOPE Bush gets put on trial. BEcause it will expose the left sooooo much. WHich is why it will never happen.

        • Posted By: Honestly57 @ 08/10/2008 11:58:48 AM

          It won't happen because war criminal are only brought to justice after they are defeated. The United States is too powerful for that.

          It's more likely that history will be revised. An example of how well that works is the way we're taught that native Americans deserved their fate because they were savages.

        • Posted By: raddave @ 08/10/2008 1:46:30 AM

          How would Bush going on trial at an international tribunal would "expose" the left?

    • Posted By: raddave @ 08/09/2008 11:51:04 PM

      President Bush has so much integrity that he cooked up evidence to get us into a war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, had no ties to terrorists, and did not have WMDs.

    • Posted By: samsung @ 08/09/2008 9:26:35 PM

      rnbsno8@o8:
      I hope you're a millioner or else I don't know what country you line in, Maybe delusion Land.

  • Posted By: Tea6 @ 08/10/2008 11:05:21 AM

    The US has lost over 25 million jobs in job growth due to President Bushs support of offshoring, outsourcing and illegal immigration. It is time for workers in these other countries to quit leaching off the US job market. Their own countries should create jobs for them.
    Lets hope the next president does not continue these foolish policies.

  • Posted By: Right is RIGHT!!! @ 08/10/2008 10:48:44 AM

    Too little, too late, yes the next president may carry some of the moderate policies forward. However, the damage was done. Now its going to affect the next generation by means that I don't dare imagine. I don't believe history will be kind to Bush et al no matter how you want to sugarcoat the damage.

  • Posted By: sgoldbarg @ 08/10/2008 10:41:12 AM

    The appeasement of Russia, north Korea, and Sudan make babybush the Neville Chamberlain of our time.

    Zakaria's attempt to find something good to say about the bushcheneymccain cabal reminds me of the praise for Mussolini: "He made the trains run on time," and Hitler: "He built the autobahn."

  • Posted By: dkcloud357 @ 08/10/2008 9:14:55 AM

    Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/10/2008 9:08:10 AM
    Comment: The price of oil is ultimately set by world supply and demand, not the Iraq war.

  • Posted By: dkcloud357 @ 08/10/2008 9:13:36 AM

    For the next president, simply reversing this administration's policies is not the answer. But you have to admit , it is a good place to start. It always takes longer to fix something that is broke than it did to break it in the first place. Obama wants to repair , while McCain wants to keep breaking.

  • Posted By: dkcloud357 @ 08/10/2008 9:04:05 AM

    For the next president, simply reversing this administration's policies is not the answer. But you have to admit that it is a good start.

  • Posted By: old dad @ 08/09/2008 10:43:48 PM

    The author Zakeria or whatever his name, is why I terminated my Newsweek subscription several years ago. The blind hatred of Bush has cost Newsweek, Time, NY Times, et al, $$$ but they still wonder why they are loosing readers. Z loves to write about Bush's 32% approval, but forgets about the last two Democrap presidents who had a lower rating and the current Democrap Congress who has a 9% rating.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 08/09/2008 11:44:57 PM

      President Bush set an all time low approval rating record. The last "democrap" president's approval ratings never fell below 50%. The approval rating for congress is for both repugnant and democrat parties, not just the "democraps."

      • Posted By: sammy135 @ 08/10/2008 3:04:38 AM

        WHAT CRACK ARE YOU ON CLINTON'S APPROVAL RATING WHILE IN OFFICE WASN'T OVER 50% THE WHOLE 8 YEARS OF HIS PRESIDENCY AND IT WASN'T OVER 50% HIS YEARS OUT OF OFFICE MORE LIKE 42% I THINK YOU FORGET THAT CLINTON HAS NEVER BEEN ELECTED WITH MORE THEN 50% OF THE AMERICAN ELECTIVE , BOTH OF CLINTON'S ELECTIONS WERE WON WITH LESS THE 50% OF THE POPULAR VOTE.

        • Posted By: raddave @ 08/10/2008 8:30:17 AM

          It does not matter because he had the majority of the electorial votes and he did have more of the votes than either of his opponents, Bush's first "victory" he actually had less than Gore in the popular vote. And, I am afraid to break it to you, Bush set a record for the all time lowest approval rating. In December 1998, Clinton had an approval rating of 78%, higher than even Ronald Regans highest approval rating. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/ and he left office with a 65% approval rating. http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/02/bush-cant-buy-bill-clintons-approval.html

          If you would actually do some research and not base it off your opinion, you would have seen that you are full of crap.

          • Posted By: raddave @ 08/10/2008 8:31:45 AM

            BTW, Clintons's 65% approval rating when he left office was higher than Ronald Regan's was when he left office. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html

  • Posted By: pyramid @ 08/10/2008 1:15:02 AM

    What is really funny is that the majority of congress voted with Bush to go into Iraq. Also the majority of americans supported going into Iraq and helping the people there. So why only blame Bush now?

    • Posted By: raddave @ 08/10/2008 8:17:31 AM

      Because he lied to the American people to get us into Iraq.

  • Posted By: burbank @ 08/10/2008 7:03:54 AM

    The President's approval rating stands at 32%, Congress' approval rating (which is controlled by democrats) stands at 6%. The bigger failure is not the executive, but the legslative branch of government where all policy is debated and then accepted or rejected. The President can propose, but it is Congress that disposes.

    • Posted By: Rathbern @ 08/10/2008 8:16:07 AM

      What about the first 6 years of his presidency?? I seem to remember a GOP majority in the legislative branch, frought with corruption. Where did you get 6% approval ratings? the Washinton times....Check your facts

    • Posted By: raddave @ 08/10/2008 8:14:10 AM

      The democrats may control congress, but they do not have a big enough majority to accomplish anything. And there is too much partisianship on BOTH sides of the ailes.

  • Posted By: ajaxtheleast @ 08/10/2008 6:58:34 AM

    So what I gather from the above is that for this piece of work to get something "right"
    everything else has to first go "wrong".

    Also did anybody see "oil" mentioned as one of the reasons in recounting
    the "blunders" for going into Iraq??

  • Posted By: ojibwa @ 08/10/2008 6:50:53 AM

    very, very conservative, as usual - this writer

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse