Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[CraigD]

Well that explains a lot: its pretty clear that the Bush Administration thinks that it should be judged by its piers...

 

So if she floats, she's made of wood, :shrug:

Buffy

Not sure where your statement is coming from...I have only suggested that their are no piers to judge what any of the President's do, during their tenure.

Buffy and others are enjoying a joke stemming from your confusion of the homophone peer (an equal in rank) and pier (a boat dock, often made of wood), one of the subtleties of English language spelling that all but the most sophisticated computer spelling checkers fail to catch.

 

:phones: Bad Buffy and others!

 

It’s worse when you confuse words that don’t even sound alike. I once spoke at length before a room of about 50 people about how a particular programming convention was not a “pancreas”, until, after 15 minutes and 3 or so repetitions, someone interrupted to suggest “don’t you mean ‘panacea’?” ;)

[paigetheoracle]

Jackson, most of that seems to have little to do with my point, except for the sentence:which itslef is obscure in parts and doesn't seem relevant either.

Its-lef is obscure (it sure is!)

[Buffy]

I have only suggested that their are no piers to judge what any of the President's do, during their tenure.

That's a pretty extreme definition. By that you would have to insist that Jeff Skilling could only be judged by a jury of CEOs and Jeffrey Dahmer could only be judged by cannibalistic serial killers.

 

This definition makes no sense and I know of no one who makes it except in the context of justifying the Unitary Executive theory, which is considered radically extremist by all but neo-cons.

 

This view ignores the fact that the Constitution sets up the three branches of government as co-equal with duties of *oversight* and *advice and consent*. If this view were accepted, then the President would be under no obligation whatsoever to submit any spending even remotely related to war to Congress for approval.

 

What's worse is that the Administration is arguing that this is not just limited to war-related decisions, but allows for no oversight whatsoever of illegal use of the Justice Department to engage in programs to disenfranchise voters to the benefit of the Republican party.

 

You are advocating a radical departure from the very foundations of our government, and I consider this attitude just as much a threat to our country as Osama.

 

Much of their work is held for years after leaving office and much classified material is never released.

Except to those with clearances which would include the Intelligence Committees of Congress, who have not had all information released to them, and Gonzalez' very clear and repeated misrepresentations to Congress has done nothing but increase the evidence that Bush does not think that there should be any oversight whatsoever.

 

Again I'll point out that you have not addressed the distinction between "expressing and opinion" and "carrying out actions proscribed by law." My dad is a Fox News watcher too, and this one has sent him over the edge into the Bush-is-way-out-of-line camp.

Bush, IMO and to my knowledge, has not tried to set new practice for future leaders, but has used what other before have done, to lessor degrees.

"Everybody else does it!" Even my 12-year-old knows this is no excuse. If Richard Nixon okayed breaking into the Democratic National Committee offices, its okay for Bush to do too? I don't think so.

All politicians are judged by the public.

This is another great misdirection, pointing to elections as the "only legitimate mechanism" for controlling any elected official. If this is the case, why is there even a clause covering impeachment in the Constitution?

I feel Bush II, is not under public pressure to leave office... Although there is an appearance of this projected by Congress, the public has not embraced their actions.

Its getting there. Just wait a few more months, now that the Administration has no more ability to stifle oversight, and even Republicans are starting to revolt.

 

As to your misspellings: I think it is quite obvious that you are highly intelligent, making those misspellings appear to be a cynical attempt to gain sympathy for your radical viewpoint. If that is not the case, I apologize but urge you to think through the implications of what you are advocating rather than just having blind faith that Dick Cheney knows what he's doing and that we have no standing to judge.

 

Being conservative means not being radical,

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

I found it ironic that you were angered by my quoting something that you had chosen to delete based upon a quote from you in another thread (US Immigration)...

 

There is a bit of a difference, Bill. You quoted something I deleted after I'd deleted it. What I did in the US Immigration thread was describe how I was quoting a post (that was unedited) and that I was only doing so to keep a record, a record likely needed due to the serial nature with which that user goes back into the forums weeks/months after their posts and deletes them. But yeah, I can see how they may be the same in your mind.

 

You [Jackson33] are advocating a radical departure from the very foundations of our government, and I consider this attitude just as much a threat to our country as Osama.

I'd consider it potentially an even greater threat.

 

 

"How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?"

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

 

 

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.

[jackson33]

Buffy; My objective in this thread is in arguing against the idea, that this President, above most in the past has been both stead fast and worked under the rules of the game, or not some kind of incompetent that stumbled into a 8 year job.

 

You, Infinite with others, would seem to think that a person can operate that function of the US Government, with the approval of 300 million people and nearly that many opinions of what the total overview should be look like.

You are also indirectly saying, there are no *Secret, Top Secret or Need to Know* items that should remain so, if you feel they are potentially illegal, immoral or wrong for any other reason. This is simply not true, the arguments having been made along these lines by every President since Washington. These few people that have held the Office, in some manner must have an assumption of correctly operating under the powers given.

 

Impeachment can apply to only certain people in the Executive and Judicial branches of Government. Even House Member and Senators can only be relieved of duty, House 51% vote, Senate 67% vote, when assumed have done criminal activity. They then, like any person in the Nation are subject to the remedies and protections of the legal system. The same would be and is true for any person actually Impeached (removed from office).

 

PRECEDENT, Buffy, is not approving a break in or any domestic violation of our laws. Actions taken and for what reason's are set precedent. I would rather not go there, however over the years many such actions have taken place setting up such precedent. I would have to try defending much of what I personally disapprove of. Under Civil and Criminal Law, these same precedents have been used to convict, declare innocents or impose a sentence since the government has been. We no longer buy/sell people, abuse others or restrict participations for precedents set long ago. Today we don't hang folks for stealing a horse or send people to jail for debt problems or sexual preferences. Washington himself, argued many times the structure of separation and the check/balance co-existence.

 

Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld/Gonzales/Rice and many others have done good jobs. That does not mean I have or do approve of all their actions, certainly not blindly follow. Frankly, each as been involved in decision I would argue not the correct action. However every time I have disagreed with these folks or the hundred of many administrations before, my first though or for that matter have never thought Impeachment or in any way making blind accusations to justify my parties view.

 

As for *Pier*, that was an error which I should have noticed having actually done some work for *Pier One Imports* for awhile. Nor am I or do I claim to be above average intelligence. I am disappointed in the method you handled the issue and was confused by the response received. Since I prefer rebuttal type discussion and do claim to be opinionated, I have no grounds to complain....

[CraigD]

Another week has passed. Gosh. How will I EVER find another issue which speaks poorly of our nations <cough cough ahem> leader?

 

 

Bush Is Prepared to Veto Bill to Expand Child Insurance - New York Times

 

 

 

Queue now the incoherent off-point distractors. :wink:

If it has enough bi-partisan support then Congress can over ride the veto.

My initial thought was this, as well. Entitlement programs involving healthcare and children often enjoy strong support for constituencies of congresspeople regardless of party affiliation, so, I reason, if this bill is a particularly good one, a veto override could enact it despite a veto.

Otherwise we will have to live with the billions of dollars in savings. Or the Congress can find middle ground with the President who has proposed a *modest* 20% increase in spending on the program instead of the 140% working through the Senate or the 200% working through the House.

It’s important, and a fundamental principle of analysis, to avoid considering percentage ratios out of context. In context of the $2.9 trillion FY 2008 Federal budget, a 140% increase in a $25 million program increases its share of the total budget from about 0.9% to about 2.1%, while a 20% increases it to about 1.2%.

 

By comparison, non-emergency defense spending (the largest single category of federal spending since it surpassed the Social Security entitlement program in 2007) was increased only 4% between FY 2006 and 2007, but as a share of the total budget, increased from 23.7% of $2.2 trillion to 25.0% of $2.7 trillion.

 

A naive analysis, then, would suggest that a decrease in defense spending to 2000 levels (about 21.8% of $1.8 trillion) would result in a savings of about $89 billion, many times the amount necessary to increase spending on the SCHIP program. As there appears to be growing support in all political parties and coequal branches of government for a decrease in military spending and expeditioning, there appears to be a strong possibility of such a “peace dividend” in the near future.

 

(Source: Wikipedia article “United States federal budget”)

[freeztar]

You, Infinite with others, would seem to think that a person can operate that function of the US Government, with the approval of 300 million people and nearly that many opinions of what the total overview should be look like.

You are also indirectly saying, there are no *Secret, Top Secret or Need to Know* items that should remain so, if you feel they are potentially illegal, immoral or wrong for any other reason.

 

I don't think anybody is saying that Jackson. The difference between "approval" and "legality" is not trivial. Of course there will always be people who will disagree with any president, but that's a separate issue. The president should not be above the law by virtue of the system of checks and balances. That does not mean that the president must be transparent in his actions, but rather, that he is accountable for them.

 

This is simply not true, the arguments having been made along these lines by every President since Washington. These few people that have held the Office, in some manner must have an assumption of correctly operating under the powers given.

 

ok.

 

Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld/Gonzales/Rice and many others have done good jobs.

 

That's debatable.

 

That does not mean I have or do approve of all their actions, certainly not blindly follow. Frankly, each as been involved in decision I would argue not the correct action. However every time I have disagreed with these folks or the hundred of many administrations before, my first though or for that matter have never thought Impeachment or in any way making blind accusations to justify my parties view.

 

I don't think anybody here is crying impeachment, at least not seriously anyways.

[Buffy]

My objective in this thread is in arguing ...that this President...[is] not some kind of incompetent that stumbled into a 8 year job.

There are two unrelated notions here. He clearly did not "stumble" into the job: he has a tremendous ego and a strong sense of entitlement, and a long-standing ambition to lead. Nothing in that--not even the sense of entitlement, in and of itself--is bad, it simply shows that he's gotten where he is specifically because he wants to be. Moreover, he has clearly demonstrated social skills that are far above the norm, although some find the hostile "frat boy" angle extremely distasteful, he has shown a self-aware ability to suppress this hostility and anger in public in most situations.

 

Incompetence is a relative and actually non-pejorative term. In The Peter Principle, Dr. Lawrence J. Peter states "In an organization, people rise to their level of incompetence." He clearly states, that people are fully competent for certain jobs, they just tend to be promoted to the point where their competence is insufficient for that position. This is to say that the requirements for a particular position may or may not be within the capabilities of even highly intelligent people.

 

I argue that one of the most important skills of a chief executive is to learn and to be willing to change positions based on input. I believe most people in executive positions of any type will tell you "this isn't like what I thought it would be," and to that extent there is some validity to your argument that no one knows what its like until they've walked in another person's moccasins, but the main argument that I and many others have about Bush's abilities is that he is incurious and does not feel the need to understand the processes that he is making decisions about, decides only based on his "gut feel," and more than anything else refuses to modify any past decision because he has an absolute belief that changing one's mind is proof of weakness.

 

You might want to read Reagan's diaries that were recently published: there's some interesting stuff in there on this topic. Reagan had very strong and unwavering beliefs, but he *often* changed his opinion based on the advice and most importantly the *results* of his initiatives. He came into the job with a strong belief that the Soviets could not be trusted, but found based on interactions with Gorbachev, that progress could be made through negotiations. So he pursued that policy. He was forthright in accepting responsibility and agreeing with the errors in the Iran-Contra debacle.

 

Bush is no Ronald Reagan.

 

In fact he shows every sign of wanting to drive us off a cliff just so long as he doesn't have to admit that maybe a different strategy would be a good idea. The inability to admit that a strategy is not working and find alternatives is actually called out in The Peter Principle as a specific indicator that someone has reached their level of incompetence, and many other management theories agree with this notion.

You are also indirectly saying, there are no *Secret, Top Secret or Need to Know* items that should remain so, if you feel they are potentially illegal, immoral or wrong for any other reason.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the position.

 

Everyone--even Democrats--understands the national security requirements for secrecy. This is specifically why the only requirement for disclosure of secret programs is limited to those Congressional Committees that have official oversight into these programs. These members of congress are required to have security clearances appropriate for the information being disclosed. This process is well established as a means for Congress to have oversight, and at the same time limit knowledge on a need to know basis.

 

Arguing that such oversight constitutes saying that "no *Secret, Top Secret or Need to Know* items that should remain so" is patently false and a cynical attempt to either say that no member of congress should be trusted or worse, that no one has the right to have any oversight over the activities of the Executive Branch (which Cheney/Addington/Yoo all strongly try to defend using arguments that are *entirely without precedent* to address that claim of yours).

 

This is where the arguments are, as I see them, dangerously anti-Constitutional, and a threat to our country, and should be offensive to every patriotic American.

PRECEDENT, Buffy, is not approving a break in or any domestic violation of our laws. Actions taken and for what reason's are set precedent.

And there is endless evidence that this Administration is breaking with precedent not only in scale but in kind.

 

It is doing everything it can to claim that there *should be no Congressional oversight* of any of its activities. This is *entirely* without precedent. Witholding information on intelligence and war plans is not only without precedent but its not wise: the way that you gain trust is not simply to say "trust us" and then explicitly mislead even those with a "need to know": you need to gain buy-in and lead as a *partnership*.

 

As Reagan said, "trust, but verify."

Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld/Gonzales/Rice and many others have done good jobs. That does not mean I have or do approve of all their actions, certainly not blindly follow. Frankly, each as been involved in decision I would argue not the correct action. However every time I have disagreed with these folks or the hundred of many administrations before, my first though or for that matter have never thought Impeachment or in any way making blind accusations to justify my parties view.

Glad to hear that you strongly advocated against Clinton's impeachment....

 

I'd suggest that you take a look at how you judge their actions. These people have not been successful by many many measures, most importantly *their own*. Cheney's predictions in particular have been so far off as to be laughable. "Greeted as liberators", "weeks rather than months," "last throes" and having those who predicted costs in excess of $100B fired (latest estimate is $1.2 trillion).

 

To go back to the "run government like a business" meme, these folks would have been run out their jobs by the Board of Directors long ago given their "results".

 

Its no wonder that Bush has studiously avoided allowing anyone to set specific "goals." But *because of that* its gotten to the point that the Iraqi government *knows* there are no consequences for lack of progress: they know that Bush is setting things up so that they're covered for the forseeable future.

 

While you claim that you do not blindly follow these folks, there seem to be no consequences for their not meeting your expectations--assuming you have any--and you may wish to consider how we progress if there is no critical feedback *in a timely manner* (between elections) to the actions of the Executive.

 

Rebuttling,

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Please don't take this personally Jackson, but overall I get very frustrated by your posts since you so consistenly respond with issues that nobody was discussing. I'll chalk it up to the possibility that you are much better at sensing subtleties than myself, but part of it is that so often your words are rather difficult to follow. Now, I'm a relatively well read man, so it's not for my own lack of vocabulary and syntax knowledge that I struggle.

 

Were I to summarize, I think most of the posters have indicated that they are unhappy with the work being done by the President. I'd suggest none of them claim the job is easy, nor that the job doesn't require difficult decisions and different legal interpretations.

 

Many of us here in America are growing increasingly frustrated, sensing that we are not being treated as an intelligent populace capable of being told the truth and coming to understand it. The approach so often used in the administration is to treat us like children, presenting intensely twisted versions of the truth, as if we will start screaming if somebody doesn't hand us a lollipop (although, of course, some would).

 

Many are also frustrated by the lack of accountability, and how poor actions and disturbingly poor decisions are so frequently rewarded. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence and validation of wrong doing an attitude of arrogance and superiority, with no repurcussions visited, leaves a horrible distaste in many of our mouths.

 

Additionally, a common phenomena seems to be the lack of progress. I am not specifically referring to Iraq, nor am I suggesting that NO progress is being made, just that this area is sadly lacking. Yet, instead of focussing on real substantive issues, hornets nests are consistently rattled to get the people riled up and distract their attention from the real problems we face as a people and as a planet. Those problems are so difficult that many simply want to ignore them. To help lessen the people's attention on these issues, we are given modern day gladiator battles complete with blood and guts, and 24 hour coverage. This is why I keep calling out the comment "Look, a pterodactyl!" (thank you bill for correcting my spelling).

 

I suggest that you face such opposition in this thread because you are consistently arguing (often off-topic) points with which many of us are already very familiar. You do so as if we collectively do not understand some very basic points, when in fact the discussion at hand had little to do with the topics of your response. You tend to respond as if we're each so far off base and uninformed that you must teach us about presidential authority and separation of powers. That, or you're just a contrary sort of fellow, but frankly, it's often insulting.

 

Also, there are some hugely encompassing points you've been arguing which demonstrate just how effective the public steering kool-aid is. It's okay that we disagree on some things. In fact, that's good. However, it's imperative that you immerse yourself in the understanding that a President is still a human being and should not be allowed to do as they please without consequence. The decisions they make impact all of us, and I don't just mean people who live in the US.

 

I contend that it's not wrong of us to ask for more, nor to be outraged when we get so little.

 

 

Cheers. :hihi:

[paigetheoracle]

Buffy and others are enjoying a joke stemming from your confusion of the homophone peer (an equal in rank) and pier (a boat dock, often made of wood), one of the subtleties of English language spelling that all but the most sophisticated computer spelling checkers fail to catch.

 

:lol: Bad Buffy and others!

 

It’s worse when you confuse words that don’t even sound alike. I once spoke at length before a room of about 50 people about how a particular programming convention was not a “pancreas”, until, after 15 minutes and 3 or so repetitions, someone interrupted to suggest “don’t you mean ‘panacea’?” :shade:

 

Yes we did but I made the same point as you, however I turned it into a joke.

 

Interesting side note - we don't get confused or make a fuss about spoken language because context makes clear, which of the spelling/ meanings we mean. Well it's not (programming convention, a pancreas - so you were right in a 'subtle, homey kind of way')

[paigetheoracle]

Please don't take this personally Jackson, but overall I get very frustrated by your posts since you so consistenly respond with issues that nobody was discussing. I'll chalk it up to the possibility that you are much better at sensing subtleties than myself, but part of it is that so often your words are rather difficult to follow. Now, I'm a relatively well read man, so it's not for my own lack of vocabulary and syntax knowledge that I struggle.

 

Were I to summarize, I think most of the posters have indicated that they are unhappy with the work being done by the President. I'd suggest none of them claim the job is easy, nor that the job doesn't require difficult decisions and different legal interpretations.

 

Many of us here in America are growing increasingly frustrated, sensing that we are not being treated as an intelligent populace capable of being told the truth and coming to understand it. The approach so often used in the administration is to treat us like children, presenting intensely twisted versions of the truth, as if we will start screaming if somebody doesn't hand us a lollipop (although, of course, some would).

 

Many are also frustrated by the lack of accountability, and how poor actions and disturbingly poor decisions are so frequently rewarded. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence and validation of wrong doing an attitude of arrogance and superiority, with no repurcussions visited, leaves a horrible distaste in many of our mouths.

 

Additionally, a common phenomena seems to be the lack of progress. I am not specifically referring to Iraq, nor am I suggesting that NO progress is being made, just that this area is sadly lacking. Yet, instead of focussing on real substantive issues, hornets nests are consistently rattled to get the people riled up and distract their attention from the real problems we face as a people and as a planet. Those problems are so difficult that many simply want to ignore them. To help lessen the people's attention on these issues, we are given modern day gladiator battles complete with blood and guts, and 24 hour coverage. This is why I keep calling out the comment "Look, a pterodactyl!" (thank you bill for correcting my spelling).

 

I suggest that you face such opposition in this thread because you are consistently arguing (often off-topic) points with which many of us are already very familiar. You do so as if we collectively do not understand some very basic points, when in fact the discussion at hand had little to do with the topics of your response. You tend to respond as if we're each so far off base and uninformed that you must teach us about presidential authority and separation of powers. That, or you're just a contrary sort of fellow, but frankly, it's often insulting.

 

Also, there are some hugely encompassing points you've been arguing which demonstrate just how effective the public steering kool-aid is. It's okay that we disagree on some things. In fact, that's good. However, it's imperative that you immerse yourself in the understanding that a President is still a human being and should not be allowed to do as they please without consequence. The decisions they make impact all of us, and I don't just mean people who live in the US.

 

I contend that it's not wrong of us to ask for more, nor to be outraged when we get so little.

 

 

Cheers. :lol:

 

Firstly Infinite, maybe he steers off the point and refers to material not asked for because he's training to be a politician.

 

As for the point about how the administration treats the public and acts - surely you cannot expect a child (GW) to act any other way but project his own personality into the world? The rewarding of the stupid, lazy and incompetent over the sensible, hardworking and practical (adult) is unfortunately not restricted to the USA either (Britain is rapidly going down hill because of it too - spoilt children allowed to act how they want and rewarded for their bad behaviour - whether its criminals sent on holiday for their crimes or ordinary people murdered or sent to jail for trying to protecting themselves/ hard workers sacked or demoted in favour of paper pushers, while hospital wards run rife with disease because basic hygiene is abandoned and staff refuse to do any work: No lifting of patients, no cleaning of wards etc. plus see the thread about placating Muslims in British Schools as well as the bullying and murder of teachers and ordinary pupils alike (Supernanny, Dog training programs, Bratcamp etc. all show the way as do nature programs about dominance behaviour but they are all but ignored. It's a worldwide problem and it's about the breakdown of Western Civilization at the very least).

 

Distractions? Likewise what do you expect from somebody who is a child in an adults body and trying to hide it? He doesn't want to face reality. He doesn't want to make tough decisions. He just wants to go outside and play on the Whitehouse lawn. As for the secrecy and hiding things from the public. He's a child pretending to be an adult and afraid his actions are going to be found out and reversed (He's going to get a good spanking from God for messing up the world - see Star Trek 'Squire of Gothos' episode).

 

Buffy, as for Jackson33 seeming to be highly intelligent. You're fooling yourself as he's trying to fool himself about GW and his government. The spelling thing aside, if he was as intelligent as you and the others (me included) fighting the same corner are, he wouldn't be taking the stance he is would he? He's naive at the very least but then so is Bush. Would you turn over control of your car to a three you old? Well that is what you've done by voting Bush in (A Russian pilot did that with his son (true story) and the plane crashed, killing all onboard). What we have here is The Emperors New Clothes Syndrome and everybody trying to convince themselves to some degree that George Bush is not a power mad dictator out to ruin his country through sheer incompetence. The sophisticated argue with their mouths and minds - the crude with their fists and bodies - where do you think GW comes in this spectrum or Adolf Hitler? If you're intelligent it is because you've sought out the truth and are humble enough to have done that. Addicts, no matter what they're addicted to (power, substances etc) chase after illusions - the self-led (thinkers) stop themselves to seek out the truth. To quote The Church of the Subgenius 'Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes - pull the wool over your own eyes!'. How can you tell if you're an addict? You lie, cheat, steal and even kill to protect your addiction. Only the honest are free to discover the truth (They don't panic and run to hide their prejudices but stop and change (adjust their awareness to the world around them AS IT IS, not as they'd want it to be: Realists not idealists. Presence drives out absence and truth (awareness) floods in, which teaches you the life lessons you need to survive and grow as beings.

 

Leaders are pimps and followers, wimps (weak, addicted to a cause). Become self-led and go nowhere special but here (calm and disarm yourself as it's your paranoia (ignorance0 that drives the insanity wagon of war and self-righteous inter-fear-ence.

 

Enough said? (or too much?):shade:

[Qfwfq]

Its-lef is obscure (it sure is!)

Sure, that sentence's elf was totally obscure. I beg you're pardon but elves are known to be very mischievous and that's what made me get the spelling wrong.

 

Also, there is far more to nitpick about in Jackson's posts, including "In the US, we have a ragging debate going on..."; you might have been funnier by asking him what kind of slime they wipe up, before throwing them.

[paigetheoracle]

Sure, that sentence's elf was totally obscure. I beg you're pardon but elves are known to be very mischievous and that's what made me get the spelling wrong.

 

Also, there is far more to nitpick about in Jackson's posts, including "In the US, we have a ragging debate going on..."; you might have been funnier by asking him what kind of slime they wipe up, before throwing them.

 

Sadly you're right (see my post above yours for confirmation).

[paigetheoracle]

Buffy with regards to your quote about Bush being as dangerous as Bin Laden, sadly he is more dangerous and has killed more through the Iraq invasion than 9/11 did. Also he is potentially more dangerous because I don't think Bin Laden has got his hands on a nuclear bomb yet and even if he did, think about the retaliation possible by the USA in comparison.

 

This thread makes sad reading and listening to what Jackson33 said in his last post at least he is willing to face the consequences of his actions even if George Bush isn't.

[jackson33]

Infinite; I introduced *Impeachment* to give some clarity to what the founding fathers, must have been suggesting in the formation of the Constitution, itself. The Judicial and Executive, having a somewhat different system for reason of stability and the use of *Check/Balances*.

 

However, many suggested actions, asserted in many post are in fact Impeachable acts. Not only that, under US and International Law many are punishable by death. Even the Thread *Moron, assuming incompetence* is enough to remove the Chief Executive, from office. You and Freeztar, in saying no one is crying *Impeachment* is saying the posters are not serious in their assessments and/or accusations. I suggest the inference is obvious and out of place.

 

One example; Bush as not ordered the Militants in Iraq (regardless of origin) to kill innocents, having our troops there trying to protect who others seem to want dead. International law, does say, the coalition has a responsibility to maintain the status quo, rebuild to degree and help in the formation of a new government.

 

I would agree, the process SEEMS to be slow. No less a Movie or TV watcher when a War from beginning to end or Saving The World from some arch enemy can be handled in an hour or several hours, it requires some history to make comparisons. Since this would be off topic, per your definition, I will only suggest that governments, societal change and acceptance of these changes take time.

 

 

Buffy; Please note, I am addressing your statements only, not adding anything new to the thread...

 

Bush, is not even close to Reagan and don't recall ever saying that on this or any thread. However and as said before, was pounded on a daily basis with much of what is said of Bush and again similar to what every President has tolerated. Its part of the game, the part which makes me wonder WHY any one would want the job.

 

Personally, I oppose Impeachment, under the current rules, period. Clinton's

actions with in his personal life were not and are not our business and certainly not considered criminal, even dismissable reason in any environment other than if under some moral contractual code. The oath of office, has no such moral code, which would have eliminated many of our greatest leaders.

I am likewise concerned with *Oversight Hearings* which require nothing more than a simple complaint to instigate. Do you honestly think the 300 such hearings instigated in the first 100 days was necessary?? (yes, Infinite- off topic).

 

Business is there to make money, government makes no money. Failure in business then easy to determine. Government (ALL) approval/disapproval are based by individual assessments. Many like minded people will judge on the degree of importance to their lives and although like minded will have a different conclusion. This actually the theme of my argument referring to a President. We cannot possibly know all thats needed or should be known to make this decision. Most I fear are making these decisions on factors that have nothing to do with job performance. "He is a Republican", "He cheated in Florida-Ohio or some place", "He wares a cowboy hat and boots or he is from Texas", "He is too religious- or not religious enough" and the hundreds of things which in todays technological media you can see hourly.

 

Finally, yes I do have expectation with the apparent primary cause for argument. *War on Terror*. In short a stable Iraq government, the easing of tensions in all the Mid-East, that Israel be recognized by all in the area and that the Worlds current economic growth continues. I don't expect us to invade Iran, maintain and grow friendships with Russia, China, Mexico and Latin America, all of which is being attempted...IMO.....

 

Others; Think I address any unanswered comment made in the above post. If my spelling is offensive, I apologize and do use *ABC*, try to re read before posting. It really does not bother me, when like errors are made by others. Generally I can grasp the point and move on.

[Buffy]

Business is there to make money, government makes no money. Failure in business then easy to determine. Government (ALL) approval/disapproval are based by individual assessments.

If this were true, there would not be so much effort expended on the theory and practice of performance evaluations.

 

While in some cases performance can be quantified, it can lead to bad decisions more often than not: even stellar sales people can have a bad quarter, and CEOs who are judged solely by quarterly results tend to run companies into the ground over the long term because they are mis-motivated.

 

The most widely accepted mechanism for evaluation is based on "management by objective" where the employee and the boss agree on objectives for the coming term, and performance is evaluated based *both* on performance and conditions that affect that performance.

 

Most notably, among top executives, the objectives are set by the executive herself, usually with only minor input from the board. This is exactly similar to the President's situation.

 

Obviously this is somewhat objective, and the question of judging performance becomes one of closeness.

 

You need to be concerned about a performance where virtually all of the *self-defined* objectives are missed (see the recitation of Cheney's missed objectives in my previous post).

 

What is evidence that someone is actually incompetent is when they begin to refuse to state *any* objectives, and when this occurs in combination with severe negative results with no obvious action to remedy them.

 

Thus it becomes very pressing when every "positive" point is tied to a negative bottom line effect: a "strong economy" is canceled by rapidly increasing disparity in wealth and income, and "low unemployment" is canceled by underemployment and increasingly unaffordable health care. In Iraq, vague claims of progress are not backed up by any semblance of facts, and if anything, virtually nothing has changed in the last four years, while in that same period of time in WWII with much more formidable opponents, America fought the equivalent of two wars, steadily winning battles showing real progress after just the first 12 months of the war. If you're a social conservative, abortion is still legal, teachers are still not allowed to lead the class in a Christian prayer, and children are still being taught that gay people are not perverts.

 

Even if you think he's succeeded in making us safe from terrorists, vague claims like this are "demonstrated" by breathless claims of cracking "terrorist cells" none of whom have any demonstrable ties to terrorist organizations and look like the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight.

 

It becomes very difficult to look at this record and say "whether he's doing a good job is just a matter of subjective opinion."

 

I'm not saying you can't, just that you may wish to consider that its really very hard to find anything positive at all in Bush's actions unless you have a net worth of more than $10m...

 

Bottom line: if you want people to think you're doing a good job, don't tell people "You don't need to understand anything, just trust me because I know I'm right," set reasonable objectives and *achieve them*.

 

Too much time spent doing evaluations,

Buffy

[jackson33]

Buffy; A somewhat narrow response to my post and to some off topic, but indirectly you are making my overall point....

 

In Business, we have a direct way to respond to periodical down turns, error in judgment of to show distrust in management. We SELL there stocks, driving the value of the Managements Company down. We also judge the CEO or usually the CFO, on projection for the quarter in, while the previous quarters conclude. (We are in the heat of this today as the June 30, ended the last quarter). Any projected or estimate is assumed based on knowledge of trends in the fields of a company. Bad quarters, regardless of competency are not well accepted. Two straight bad expectations are really bad, management then at fault, period. You might check out Google, which reported less than expectations an hour ago and lost 5% of its total value in minutes. Thats billions in dollars to the 2 founders which have chose not to give out expectations, leaving it to unqualified followers who simply guess based on previous reports.

 

Bush II, has established his expectations on the eventual out come, still talking Iraq. Generally its what I mentioned as mine in my last post. These as he has stated on several occasions have no time line, other than he will have passed powers on to the next president or that even some results are generations off. Unlike a business, where profits dictate opinions, the President is responsible for every imaginable element in the US. The Economy was until recently has always led the list. Today, the US, World and local economies are all at record levels, with all the rhetoric that goes with it...Low inflation, low unemployment and the rest. Trying to replace the generalities with sub-topics such as under employed, just who has the wealth and Universal Health Care, makes no sense to me. Each could be argued but I will leave it with; We are all better off....

 

IMO; We as a Nation are safer, because of what some consider a bullish attitude from government. Let me add something here; If we are attacked after the Bush administration is gone, I am not going to be the first one out there saying "I told you so". Most of what politicians say and what they in fact will do are entirely different things. First, I don't think this Country will elect a wimp/pacifist as President, who would revert back to what Clinton HAD to accept as precautions. Second, the general public is now aware of potential problems and for the most part co-participating with law enforcement and government entities. Third, any would be terrorist knows 1-2 and that the court system WILL, not tolerate even the thought of terrorist activity, domestic or not...

 

Side note; W/O saying what I know your inferring; The recent group of fumbling thugs, found in advance in England, were the very people many relied on for their & their families health care. Be careful in under estimating wrong intentions from would be's, that get lucky...

 

To brag on achievement, is not part of the American system. For a politician to say he/she has done this or that and for you, are campaign methods only. Actual results are best kept to the supporters of that politician or there party.

Bush quit running for office in November of 03 and knows nothing he claims will help him or his party in the future.