A challenge: The Bush Administration, what's right, what's wrong? NO Debate!

Puffy2

DIS Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2000
Messages
3,248
A little early in the evening to be hitting the gin don't you think? Please give us a list of all the successes during the Bush administration. Let's make it easy, can you come up with 10?

This thread is inspired by a quote from another thread (see above).

Please, NO DEBATE.

I just would like to see a list of :
what you think the Bush Administration has done RIGHT.
And a list of what you think the Bush Adminstration has done WRONG.

Think and type carefully! If you are going to make claims, be prepared with a link or reference to documentation to back it up.

Please, no one argue the points - that will cluter the posts and make it difficult for people to read the lists. You CAN however, ask for documentation if documentation isn't listed.

Thanks and lets see how this goes.
 
All I know is that their spin doctors are a pile of rubbish.

Also Bush looks best wearing a green tie, IMO.



Rich::
 

Failure #1:

The Bush Administration has consistently favored the interests of corporate America over working Americans.

In October, 2004, the Bu$h Administration gave a gift to corporate America by cutting the rights of 6 million American workers to receive overtime time pay. Workers affected include those making more than $23,660 per year and at some time are considered to be executives or administrative or professional employees— this could include nurses, day care workers, store supervisors, and many more.


Documentation for further analysis:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200408\CUL20040823b.html

and

http://www.detroitbuildingtrades.org/newspapr/oct12004.html

Lawmakers try to save overtime provisions; Bush threatens veto
WASHINGTON (PAI) - A lot of Republicans are joining Democrats in the fight to save overtime pay. But there's one Republican - the man in the Oval Office - who is adamant in taking away overtime rights for millions of U.S. workers….
And
http://www.workingamerica.org/issues/ot.cfm
On Aug. 23, 2004, the Bush administration’s changes to the rules that determine who is eligible for overtime pay went into effect. The changes affect some 6 million workers, including nurses, nursery school and prekindergarten teachers, store supervisors and many others. Millions of working people could face unpredictable work schedules and reduced pay because employers may not have to pay a premium for demanding that employees work more than 40 hours a week, according to an Economic Policy Institute report.
The Bush administration's new rules put millions of people at risk of losing their overtime pay. As of Aug. 23, 2004:
• Millions of salaried workers making between $23,660 and $100,000 who were previously eligible to receive overtime pay could be reclassified as executives or administrative or professional employees—and no longer qualify for overtime pay.
• Workers earning relatively low salaries who have supervisory responsibilities or management-related responsibilities can be penalized, as could workers with advanced education or specialized training. Some of the workers affected could be nursery school and prekindergarten teachers, nurses, retail managers, insurance claims adjusters and medical therapists.
• Employees who are not eligible to receive overtime pay could also be hurt because companies would most likely demand overtime hours from them instead of employees who are eligible.
• Anyone making $100,000 or more a year would likely lose overtime pay, effectively eliminating many middle-income wage earners’ much-needed extra pay.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s own estimates, the Bush administration’s proposed rule changes could mean 107,000 workers (47,000 hourly and 60,000 salaried) can now be converted to exempt salary status as a result of the new test for highly compensated workers.

The Bush administration says the new rules give overtime protections to more workers by allowing anyone who earns $23,660 or less to automatically qualify for overtime pay. But many of those workers, such as fast-food employees, were already covered. And the Labor Department has spelled out for employers how they can avoid paying overtime to low-wage workers.

Many working families depend on paid overtime to pay bills. In this time of declining wages and increasing costs of health care, prescription drugs, child care and other essential expenses, the Bush administration's overtime pay cut highlights a trend that rewards corporations while creating economic hardship for America's workers.
 
The Bu$h Administration planned to invade Iraq prior to any crediable evidence of weapons of mass destruction and USED the fear of weapons of mass destruction to manipulate the congress and the American people into going along with the questionable war. Evidence shows that Bush knew the the intelligence was weak and didn't care. In other words, he and the Bush Administraion LIED to the American people and the congress.

documentation: (and this is even from Fox News...imagine that!)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158228,00.html

Downing Street Memo Mostly Ignored in U.S.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos



WASHINGTON — A British government memo that critics say proves the Bush administration manipulated evidence about weapons of mass destruction in order to carry out a plan to overthrow Saddam Hussein (search) has received little attention in the mainstream media, frustrating opponents of the Iraq war.

The "Downing Street Memo" — first published by The Sunday Times of London on May 1 — summarizes a high-level meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair (search) and his senior national security team on July 23, 2002, months before the March 2003 coalition invasion of Iraq.

The memo suggests that British intelligence analysts were concerned that the Bush administration was marching to war on wobbly evidence that Saddam posed a serious threat to the world.


Click here to read the memo.

In the memo, written by top Blair aide Matthew Rycroft (search), Foreign Secretary Jack Straw indicated in the meeting that it "seemed clear" Bush had already decided to take military action.

"But the case was thin," reads the memo on Straw's impressions. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The memo also paraphrased former head of the British Secret Intelligence Services, Richard Dearlove, fresh from meetings in the United States. The memo said Dearlove believed "military action was now seen as inevitable."

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo reads. "But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy," according to Dearlove's impressions.
"The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The memo, which received sporadic reporting in major newspapers in the United States throughout May, has sparked an outcry from more than 88 Democratic members of Congress who have signed two letters to President Bush demanding a response.

Led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the signatories are mostly representatives who opposed the war in Iraq and make up the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Conyers says the mainstream media have ignored the story and let President Bush off the hook. He noted that liberal blogs and alternative media have been keeping the story alive. "But these voices are too few and too diffuse to overcome the blatant biases of our cable channels and the negligence and neglect of our major newspapers," Conyers said in a recent statement.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said there is "no need" to respond to the memos, the authenticity of which has not been denied.

Dante Zappala does not agree. For Zappala, the Downing Street Memo strikes a critical and personal chord. His brother, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, 30, a soldier in the Pennsylvania National Guard, was killed in Baghdad 13 months ago on what Zappala said was a mission to find weapons there.

"My family knows the consequences of the decision they made to go to war," said Zappala, 29, of Philadelphia. He is a member of Military Families Speak Out, a group that opposes the war and, according to Zappala, now has more than 2,000 members.

"I can't speak for what the TV news decides to focus their attention on," Zappala said. "They seem to have a willful deference to all relevant information. I think they've really just dropped the ball on this."

But not everyone believes the Downing Street Memo represents a "smoking gun" and deserves more attention.

"As a smoking gun it leaves a lot to be desired," said Kevin Aylward, a northern Virginia-based technology consultant who runs the conservative-leaning blog, Wizbangblog.com. "It's interesting, but it's probably fourth- or fifth-hand information."

Aylward added: "I suspect the more interesting story at this point, seeing it three weeks later, is who is behind the letter-writing campaign to push it in the media."

Several popular left-leaning blogs have taken up the cause to keep the story alive, encouraging readers to contact media outlets. A Web site, DowningStreetMemo.com, tells readers to contact the White House directly with complaints.

"This is a test of the left-wing blogosphere," said Jim Pinkerton, syndicated columnist and regular contributor to FOX News Watch, who pointed out that The Sunday Times article came out just before the British election and apparently had little effect on voters' decisions.

"In many ways that memo might prove all of the arguments the critics of the war have made," he added. "But the bulk of Americans don't agree, or don't seem that alarmed, so it is a power test to see if they can drive it back on the agenda."

Ellis Henican, a columnist for New York Newsday and a FOX News contributor, said the allegations of evidence-fixing had been made before the 2004 election by former senior administration officials Richard Clarke (search) and Paul O'Neill (search), and while many people believe they were right, it had little impact on the re-election of Bush in November.

"It's a little late," he said of the memo story, adding that people are resigned to the fact that the United States is in Iraq for the long term, regardless of what events led to the war. "We're kind of stuck."

That's no excuse, said Zappala, who argues someone has to be made accountable for the lives lost on false pretenses. "The goal was always to invade Iraq whatever obstacles, legal and moral, were in our way," he said. "I feel that we deserve an amount of accountability by our officials for the decisions they make."
 
Oh, come on people, surely yall know of some "right" and some "wrong" things that you can document.

Here's another one. Under Clinton and the democrats, Clinton left Bush a SURPLUS ...under Bush and the republicans, we now have skyrocket national debt!

Debt Under Clinton : ZERO!

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace
September 27, 2000


Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion….

AND BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR…close to 6.4 TRILLION IN DEBT UNDER BUSH:Thursday, February 20, 2003 Posted: 11:59 AM EST (1659 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/20/debt.limit.ap/
Government hits national debt ceiling
Treasury begins taking evasive actions
Thursday, February 20, 2003 Posted: 11:59 AM EST (1659 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Replaying a drama from last year, the government is once again bumping against the debt limit of $6.4 trillion and the Treasury Department has begun taking evasive actions to prevent an unprecedented default on the national debt.
Treasury Secretary John Snow informed leaders of Congress on Wednesday that the government would reach the borrowing limit on Thursday and he would begin pulling investments out of a $48 billion government pension fund to make room for normal public borrowing auctions. …


Take a look at our current national debt:
http://brillig.com/debt_clock/

BUT WAIT, BUSH ISN’T THROUGH SPENDING YET!http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/20/politics/main656797.shtml

Bush Signs Debt-Limit Hike

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19, 2004


CBS/AP) President Bush signed legislation on Friday raising the government's debt limit by $800 billion and clearing the way for Congress to send him an overdue $388 billion spending bill to finance most federal agencies.

The new federal borrowing cap is $8.18 trillion; that's 70 percent the size of the entire U.S. economy, and more than $2.4 trillion higher than the debt Mr. Bush inherited upon taking office in 2001.
 
Bush did a good job of pulling the country together after 9/11. It was an unprecedented event in our country, and I don't think he could have handled the situation any better in the days that followed.

In contrast, you have his response after Hurricane Katrina. If he would have followed the same script, more or less, that he did on 9/11 all would have been well, but he made a mess of an even bigger mess. "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie"
 
I'm a Republican who voted for Bush both times. I am very disappointed in no tort reform, no plan to stop illegal immigration, letting govt. spending get out of hand and no real energy policy for alternative energies.
 
Frankly Puffy, I have no intention of wading through your cut and paste diatribe of what you percieve to be "wrong". One thing, among many, that is very right is what has taken place over the last couple of days; IRAQIS are voting for their constitution. Interviews with the Iraqi people have repeatedly said that they are tired of terrorism and oppression. The voter turnout has been in the range of 62 to 65%, despite the mortal risks of doing so. That would have been unthinkable without President Bush. Reforms in Egypt and Saudi Arabia would have been unthinkable. Democracy outside of Israel in the region was unthinkable. With just this one issue, the possibility of transforming the middle east exists. For anyone to underestimate that accomplishment alone is truly blind.
 
Are we really not debating?

In that case, I can give a succinct answer to your answer.

Q. What's he done right?
A. Almost nothing

Q. What's he done wrong?
A. Pretty much everything.

I'll give him a few points for handling 9/11/01 well immediately following the terrorist attacks, but that was four years ago. His handling of terrorism since then (war in Iraq and Osama Bin Laden still on the loose, for example) has been abysmmal.

His second term in office is turning into a complete disaster. I can't think of one positive thing that has come out of him or his administration since he was re-elected.
 
Right: Tax breaks to help turn around the economy
Wrong: Harriet Miers's - I just don't get it, and I am not the only Republican
 
Puffy2 said:
This thread is inspired by a quote from another thread (see above).

Please, NO DEBATE.

I just would like to see a list of :
what you think the Bush Administration has done RIGHT.
And a list of what you think the Bush Adminstration has done WRONG.

Think and type carefully! If you are going to make claims, be prepared with a link or reference to documentation to back it up.

Please, no one argue the points - that will cluter the posts and make it difficult for people to read the lists. You CAN however, ask for documentation if documentation isn't listed.

Thanks and lets see how this goes.


This is typical of people like yourselves. Please NO debates. You print articles that spin things in the direction you want them spun and say that is correct. Yes we had a surplus with Clinton and was projected to continue having one although 9/11 (which was known to Clinton through Able Danger that Atta was a problem) occurred, Clinton left us in a recession which he did not tell us about etc etc. You should have just called this another of your bash Bush lists. Enough your party lost the election it is time to get on with it and work together to make the country better. We complain about the education bill but didn't Bush have Kennedy write it? isn't that working together? Think about?? :Pinkbounc
 
This is typical of people like yourselves. Please NO debates. You print articles that spin things in the direction you want them spun and say that is correct. Yes we had a surplus with Clinton and was projected to continue having one although 9/11 (which was known to Clinton through Able Danger that Atta was a problem) occurred, Clinton left us in a recession which he did not tell us about etc etc. You should have just called this another of your bash Bush lists. Enough your party lost the election it is time to get on with it and work together to make the country better. We complain about the education bill but didn't Bush have Kennedy write it? isn't that working together? Think about??

If you have something to add - make the simple statement and then back it up with documented fact.

It's not that hard. And I stand by "no debate".
 
Bush Era Republicans talk high and mighty, but when push comes to shove, they change the rules to suit themselves:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=37&num=5720

House Republicans Change Rules to Protect DeLay
By Staff and Wire Reports
Nov 18, 2004, 06:12


House Republicans voted on Wednesday to change their own rules to allow their powerful Majority Leader Tom DeLay to keep his post even if he is indicted in connection with illegal fund-raising activities.
In a closed-door session, House Republicans approved the rule change in a voice vote to allow a leader or chairman to keep his post after an indictment. The leadership would then make recommendations, based on whether the indictment was deemed legitimate or politically-motivated.


Three of DeLay's associates were indicted by a Texas grand jury in September in connection with illegal fund-raising and the prosecutor has said the investigation is not yet finished.

The controversy surrounding DeLay, a Texas Republican, does not seem to have dented his considerable power.

He is credited with helping Republicans increase their majority in the House in this month's elections and many Republican lawmakers feel indebted to him for his fund-raising prowess.

DeLay, who has been admonished by the House Ethics Committee three times this year, told reporters he was "not at all" worried about an indictment.

He said the change in party rules was necessary to protect Republicans against the Democrats' "politics of personal destruction."

Rep. Henry Bonilla, a fellow Texas Republican who initiated the change, said it was essential because, "We are trying to protect members of our leadership from any crackpot district attorney in any state of the nation from taking on a political agenda."

Democrats complained that Republicans were lowering the ethical bar for leadership.

"Not only did the House Republicans vote to re-elect the most ethically challenged member of Congress in modern history to lead them ... now, in an act of unprecedented shamelessness, the Republicans have apparently changed their own rules to allow Mr. DeLay to be indicted for a felony and still keep his job as Majority Leader," said outgoing Rep. Chris Bell, a Democrat who lost his seat because of Texas redistricting pushed by DeLay.

"That is a truly pathetic standard of leadership," added Bell, who brought a House ethics complaint against DeLay.

The new rule does, however, require anyone convicted of a felony to immediately relinquish a leadership position.

Rep. Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican, said it was right to distinguish between an indictment and a conviction.

"Someone should not be punished on the basis of an indictment," Franks said.

The vote changes a decade-old rule passed when Republicans wanted to draw attention to the questionable ethics of such powerful Democrats as former Illinois Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to prison.

Connecticut Rep. Christopher Shays, one of the few Republicans to openly oppose the rule change, said it was a return to "business as usual."

"If you are a cop, a judge, a prosecutor, and you are indicted, you step down," he said, adding that Congress should follow similar standards.
 
And we can't forget the Patriot Act which initally let the government peek all willy-nillie into our library records - without ever letting us know that they did so. (more shades of a dictatorship...isn't there something about "illegal search and seizure"...oh, I don't know, somewhere, like in our CONSTITUTION?!).

THANKFULLY, this was repealed, but note that Bush wanted to VETO the repeal...


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-15-patriot-vote_x.htm
Posted 6/15/2005 6:06 PM Updated 6/15/2005 11:29 PM

House votes to limit Patriot Act rules on library records

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Wednesday to block the FBI and the Justice Department from using the anti-terror Patriot Act to search library and bookstore records, responding to complaints about potential invasion of privacy of innocent readers.

Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.

The vote reversed a narrow loss last year by lawmakers complaining about threats to privacy rights. They narrowed the proposal this year to permit the government to continue to seek out records of Internet use at libraries.....


and from:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86167,00.html

"The companion legislation, dubbed "Son of Patriot," reportedly has been drafted by Attorney General John Ashcroft's office, although no one will confirm that. The Center for Public Integrity obtained a draft of the proposal.

Among other things, the plan says the government would be allowed to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant."
 
And, of course, we can't forget that two Bush Administration officals Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, and Karl Rove, President Bush's (brain) political adviser are being investigated for (what I call treason...others, certainly, will disagree) leaking the name of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, in order to retalliate against her husband, Joe Wilson, who came out with information discrediting the idea of the existance of WMD which was used to start the Iraq war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/01/AR2005100101317.html

Role of Rove, Libby in CIA Leak Case Clearer
Bush and Cheney Aides' Testimony Contradicts Earlier White House Statement

By Jim VandeHei and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 2, 2005; Page A05

As the CIA leak investigation heads toward its expected conclusion this month, it has become increasingly clear that two of the most powerful men in the Bush administration were more involved in the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame than the White House originally indicated.

With New York Times reporter Judith Miller's release from jail Thursday and testimony Friday before a federal grand jury, the role of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, came into clearer focus. Libby, a central figure in the probe since its earliest days and the vice president's main counselor, discussed Plame with at least two reporters but testified that he never mentioned her name or her covert status at the CIA, according to lawyers in the case.

His story is similar to that of Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser. Rove, who was not an initial focus of the investigation, testified that he, too, talked with two reporters about Plame but never supplied her name or CIA role....
(for entire story see link)


Of course FLIP FLOP BUSH (or liar, which ever you prefer) insisted that he would "fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an outspoken critic of the president's Iraq policy."

and then when he found out it was Libby and Rove, he changes his tune....


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/18/politics/main709678.shtml

Bush Vows To Fire Leak Criminals
(Page 1 of 2)

WASHINGTON, July 18, 2005

CBS/AP) President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA leak case, that person will "no longer work in my administration."

At the same time, Mr. Bush yet again sidestepped a question on the role of his top political adviser, Karl Rove, in the matter.

"We have a serious ongoing investigation here and it's being played out in the press," Mr. Bush said at an East Room news conference with the visiting prime minister of India.

Mr. Bush's latest comments marked a change of language and emphasis from his past assertions that anyone involved in leaking the name of agent Valerie Plame would be fired.

Mr. Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an outspoken critic of the president's Iraq policy....
 
My job causes me to be painfully aware of how US fiscal policy affects all of us.

My major concern with the Bush administration is that taxes were cut without any discussion of what spending would be cut to offset the tax cuts. The result is that we have a record national debt, carried by the likes of China and Japan. Last month's CPI, up 1.2%, only reinforces my concern that late-70's style inflation will soon be on it's way. I keep saying that I've seen this movie before and I don't like the way it ends.

MY other concern, as someone who works in what's described as the 3rd most likely place for a terrorist attack to occur is that our response to September 11th has fueled more hatred, and willingness for disenfrancished young Islamist to give their lives to attack us. Remember that there was never a suicide attack in Iraq until we invaded!

I voted for Reagan twice but switched to voting for the democratic candidate for president after Bush I vetoed the Family and Medical Leave Act twice. (I lost my job after a life-threatening pregnancy with kid #2 because I was "smart and hardworking, the only problem was I kept having babies.") The stress over losing more than half our income was hard on my newborn son who didn't gain any weight between 2 and 4 months. While that issue became important to me, I've always seen positives and negatives with both parties.

I can say positive things about Richard Nixon (normalizing relations with China and civil rights), Reagan (raising taxes to offset tax cuts when he figured out that tax cuts don't increase federal revenue) and George HW Bush (defending Kuwait but knowing our limitations and not ousting Hussein without a plan to win the peace.)

Then came George W. Bush. I can't say a single thing that I believe George W. Bush has done well. I want to be able to, it's not my nature to not see the other side, but I can't help it. I think the current regime is a danger to my way of life and all I hold dear.
 
Puffy2 said:
If you have something to add - make the simple statement and then back it up with documented fact.

It's not that hard. And I stand by "no debate".

You have yet to back anything you have posted with "documented fact", only opinion disquised as "documented fact".
 
DawnCT1, CBS and the Washington Post are legitament sources...gasp, I've even thrown in Fox for you.

Again, if anyone has something to say - good or bad - about the Bush Adminstration...go right ahead , as long as you can back it up with a legitament source/ documentation. So far, this is a pretty sad showing for what the republicans have done well in the past 5 years.
 












Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE







New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top