President Bush

Sometimes average men make it big in extraordinary situations. He didn't.

I like the rating for this as saying: 'did some bad things, but there are two sides to the story.' Like the Clinton administration, I didn't much care for the Bush presidency but I honestly learned some things. Democrats bashed this guy into the ground for things like the war and the economy but it was ultimately the Democrats who were just as responsible in voting for the wars/bailouts as the Republicans. From the Bush presidency, I truly learned the Democrats suck just as much as the Republicans. I think one thing that goes overlooked with Bush, is that he set a standard for foreign aid, asides from that, didn't much care for it.

He's a politician, so by definition I have no sympathy for him. That being said, I don't really see him as a villain. He just didn't make a good president. People seem to hate him now, but I get the feeling history won't be quite so harsh on him. He'll go down as a mediocre president, but I doubt that a hundred years from now that people will be calling him the worst ever.

One of the worst Presidents in US history. I get tired of hearing about what a "good Christian man" he is. No sympathy from me- I only hope the wake of his Presidency will spell the death of the neocon movement, once and for all.Update: With all due respect to abichara and his review, in many ways, the exact opposite is the problem when it comes to President Bush. Read "Imposter" by Bruce Bartlett. This guy worked for Reagan, Bush 41, and even for about a year with Bill Clinton. In the book he praises all 3 Presidents for being open to ideas, then points out the fact that our current President is not. Bush surrounds himself with "yes men". That is why Powell is no longer there.

You have got to be kidding? Whoever would let this guy have a say over their lives is already brain dead, and I'm serious. Bush was just posturing as most people, even Republicans have realized. For all his words, Tom DeLay has been found to be a hypocrite also on this subject because of his opposition to legislature that would come down on Saipan's brothels and sweatshops. This rabid conservative was wined and dined to the point of saying that he admired Saipan and it's human rights record. Baloney!!!! Bush and he are two-faced hypocrites who want to make their rules.

UPDATE 2: Ok, still let me point out that our discussion is off topic in this thread. I concede that there is no ethical way to refute your argument unless one attacked the fact that her life may well be over; But, for now, I am willing to assume you are right. However, I will post on that subject under the Michael Schaivo selection of this list. I am simply saying that the public statements the President has made about this subject have not been aimed at WHO should decide and have had nothing to do with this Err on the side of life argument. He did say that in cases such as this that our laws should favor life, but why? Why don't they already? There must be good reasons. If he would make a case like yours it would be hard to disagree. However, I can't just blindly agree with whatever he says with no reasoning behind it; Specificity is not one of his strengths. UPDATE:helmut, you might want to read the title of the weblist you wrote that post under. I gave the president one sta... Read more

this dumb-ass thinks very little

UPDATE: You seem to have missed my point. It does not matter what is obvious. It only matters that we allow something that might be obvious to some people and less obvious to others, but REQUIRE PROOF in situations where we will be executing a prisoner. It is the difference between the standards by which we decide both cases that, in effect, give her less protection from the law than a criminal. It is indirect discrimination, yes. But it is discrimination of the most severe kind. It's not a bout personal liberty, it's about LIFE. **ORIGINAL COMMENT: mR.DEATH, either you are a complete cool-aid drinker, or are totally ignorant of the subject. The issue is not whether Michael Schiavo, President Bush, Jeb, or anyone else thinks that she should be put out of her misery. That is simply not the issue. Legally, she should be dehydrated. With the laws in place right now, this is what is legal. But, make no mistake, I think it is a DAMN SHAME. Terri Schiavo can no longer speak for... Read more

Now if Terri's husband would be so kind to DROP DEAD, we could give Terri back to her mother before she dies, which is murder,I hope Jeb Bush rescues her real soon,. The parents don't even get her body when it happens.

Does this mean that every time their is a debate about some one's fate we need to call the President. How stupid is that, you can appeal to a the courts for an order but bring in the legislative a executive branches is, I would think, unconstitutional at best.

I am disappointed that President Bush didn't get involved sooner but right now, he's one of the last sources Terri has on her side who can actually do something vital...save her life. Ultimately, the courts do have the final say but this case has gone through the court system for how many years now?Something has to be done.

He's certainly entitled to his opinion but I agree with mag, he doesn't have a role in this deliberation. If the tube is pulled, and this woman dies by starvation, a new precedent will be set in the US, though. UPDATE: It's funny that Bush interjecting himself into this situation causes liberals to become outraged table-pounders, but the over-reach of the courts making law (e.g. Roe v. Wade) draws not so much as a sniff.

This has been a sad use of an issue for political gain.

As an elected official, I don't think it's wise that President Bush get involved in the interpretation of law - that role should fall to the courts. ** interesting quote from AndrewSullivan.com: So it is now the federal government's role to micro-manage baseball and to prevent a single Florida woman who is trapped in a living hell from dying with dignity. We're getting to the point when conservatism has become a political philosophy that believes that government - at the most distant level - has the right to intervene in almost anything to achieve the right solution. Today's conservatism is becoming yesterday's liberalism.

The last province of authority for the determination of her fate would lie in the executive. The president (or governor of Florida) should execute the laws on the books and unfortunately at this moment the laws allow for the feeding tude to be removed at the discretion of her legal guardian. A horrible act that needs to be changed. But that is presently the law.

No way in hell should this idiot be involved in deciding the fate of Terri. Besides, George has his hands full with the mess he created in Iraq. Stick to your oil expedition George and let the family and courts sort this out.

this never should have made it to the president. This should have remained a family matter only. I feel sorry for Terri but my goodness her case was number one in the news on NBC and the fact that a teenager that shot up a school and murdered nine people came in second on the Today show.This case is way out of hand.

No, President Bush should have absolutely nothing to do with making in this area...told you the US was becoming a dictatorship.

Interesting that the same man who cares so deeply about the sanctity of marriage has no problem taking away her husband's right to make decisions for his wife. What hypocrisy.

No! In fact, I feel this has gone too far the way it was prior to the most recent hoopla. This is a private, family matter and should have remained so. I see no reason to involve the president.

No. Not to sound cold, and not to sound like I love lawyers, but this is a situation with strong legal ramifications. It should be decided in court, bearing in mind that what is likely to emerge will be new law. Bush, like anyone else, is free to have their own opinion, but he would be smart to stay out of it. UPDATE: The emergency bill is a huge political error which has far-reaching consequences. It is always, I repeat always, a mistake to make single case specific legislation. This is going to come back to bite somebody hard. Hopefully it isn't everyone.

This man is unfit to even manage a 7-11.I don't think he should be deciding ANYTHING. If he uses this as another issue to grandstand and push his agenda I'm going to puke.

Anybody that talks like a short-school-bus-retard should never make a decision best left to a wife or a husband. I've got one hundred dollars that says that this ass will ignore the Constitution (again) and enforce his will in this case. A president shouldn't have this kind of influence over state courts. Enforce the law, Dubya, don't write if for yourself. I hope to God I lose the bet and the hundred. . .but this Yahoo has been rather consistent. Hey dubs, shock the sh#t out of me and impress me for once, please? Oh. . .don't forget the greatest of all flip-flops- the sanctity of marriage that just got thrown out the window. It gets funnier and funnier. ..

A horrible precedent to set. Basically a usurptation of the rights of states, individuals and the courts by the President and Congress. Alarming is too mild a word to describe this. Please, God, please, let us have more dems in office come 2006 and 2008. Republicans are just out of control with power.

this jerk couldn't care less. it's just one more faith based initiative for BUshy to back.

Nope...this isn't a decision for the executive branch.

This dimwitted moron goes on a rant about activist judges, but when 19 different judges correctly interpret state law, they are not activist enough for Baby Bush, so he has to sign unconstitutional legislation into law. The good thing is that this exposes the hypocrisy of the Republican party and the moral morons on the right.

Bush is involved on a philosophical level. The right to life is at issue here. I would, if I were him, keep it at this level. The less he has to do with this Schiavo case, the better.