[BRussell]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
Every time I see this list posted on a board I become insane with anger. I hate Democrats and Republicans equally, but jesum croat the bullshit that is itemized on that list is just outrageous.


Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history.

That's just ridiculous. It's his job to sign bills into law; it's not like he has the Constitution folded up neatly in his desk and every time he wants to change something in the United States he takes out a pen and scratches something out.

They certainly worded it in a dumbed-down fashion, but I'd guess they're referring to the USA-PATRIOT ( ) Act, and perhaps issues surrounding the anti-terrorism detentions and related civil liberties issues. In any case, I'm not sure why this would make your blood boil. There's a great deal of legitimate debate about these things. Clearly, this issue is fair game.

Failed to fulfill pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months there are no leads and zero suspects.

I'm sorry, where in Article 2 does it say the President has to be the world's detective? Is he supposed to drop everything he's doing (like, say, running the world) and hop on a flight to Afghanistan and personally look in the caves for OBL? And when he's finished with that, he's supposed to come back to the States and go on another manhunt for the anthrax guy. Right?

Your defense of this one is worse than the criticism in the "Facts" sheet. Yes, it is absolutely his responsibility to find these people. It's his administration. If the agencies aren't doing their job, he needs to fire people and get someone in there who can do the job. Are you suggesting that someone else is responsible for the executive branch? Who? Cheney? Gore? Again, this is perfectly legitimate criticism. It's pretty easy to argue that maybe a Gore administration wouldn't have done any better, but that's a very different argument than the "buck stops somewhere else" argument that you're making.

Cabinet members are the richest of any administration in US history (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice had a Chevron oil tanker named after her).

That's just common sense. When you become President of the United States, I'll wait patiently while you appoint people to cabinet positions that will be against your agenda. Human nature dictates that the President will pack the high offices with his friends.

Yeah, this one is symbolic of other issues (e.g., his tax cuts), and probably doesn't make much of a difference in itself. But I don't understand your defense of this one. Does he only have rich friends?

With a policy of 'dis-engagement,' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

And then there are items like this. The entire world shits its pants when the U.S. intervenes in something, but when we DON'T make the whole planet perfect we take the blame.

Again, this is completely legitimate criticism that has been made by serious folks for years about Bush's early mideast policy. It even seems clear that there was internal debate in the administration about how much to get involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the critics of the early "hands-off" policy won the debate.

Sure, all of these are worded in as exaggerated a manner as possible, but they all (or at least the ones you've listed) seem to represent legitimate criticisms of the Bush administration.

[Ozmodiar]

BRussell,

My main criticism of the Bush litany is that it is one of the most rehashed rants on the internet. I'm not saying the original poster is a fool, but most of the people who post it are. That is what gets me angry.

In defense of the ones I picked out: The first complaint is presented in a manner such that it appears Bush is changing the rules on his own. People don't need to be told how laws are created and enforced, but they do need to realize that we have countermeasures to retard the effects of poor planning by an administration. Is it out of the question that the Supreme Court will find fault in the Patriot Act or the expanded powers of the Justice Dept? I don't believe it is.

I disagree that it is Bush's job to find OBL or the anthrax guy. OBL is a threat to the world, so the bureaucracy should be working with other states to find and stop him. I would hold George Tenet accountable for the missing terrorist before I would Bush. Next would be the Congressional Intelligence committees. Anthrax guy? That's the FBI's job.

My grievance with the complaint about Bush's cabinet is simply an issue of common sense. Who cares if they have money? I don't. And Condie Rice is a Domer, so I felt I needed to defend her.

I agree that the criticism of Bush's actions with the Israeli-Palestine conflict is legitimate. My question, though, is why does stability in the Middle East rest squarely on the President's shoulders? Yes, Bush could (should) be handling it better, but why do we have to solve the problem? The conflicts in the region go back 5,000 years - the United States turned 227 years old two weeks ago. Are we to go in, establish a Constitution and enforce separation of church and state? We have enough to worry about without having to change their diaper (like, as pointed out in The Sheet, gaping national security holes).

Am I rabid Bush supporter? No. Will I vote for him next November? Probably not. I only ask that people realize what a horrible burden it must be to be the leader of the free world. If you ask me if I think Bush considered what holding the office would entail, I would answer that I don't think he thought it through at all.

I don't, nor did I ever, think he is the right man for the job, but I still have a lot of respect for anyone who wants the most thankless job in the world.