people hate Bush, no one even gives him a chance Options

[jo3]

Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters. For them, Bush is the double-bind president.

If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius.

If he hasn't been able to capture Osama bin Laden, he is endangering U.S. security. If he catches bin Laden, it is only a ploy to influence the elections.

If he ignores U.N. resolutions, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he takes U.N. resolutions on Iraq seriously, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he doesn't get France to agree to his Iraq policy, he is ignoring important international actors. If he supports multiparty talks on North Korea, he is not doing enough to ignore important international actors.

If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running.

If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.

If he adopts a doctrine of preemption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have preempted it. If he signs a far-reaching antiterror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law.

[jo3]

Or maybe because Congress is in cohoots with him? He has absolute power precisely because neo-cons control the Congress as well. Which makes Congress just as guilty ... I have yet to hear a single congressman, other than Ron Paul (a Texas Republican, by the way, yet totally different from Bush), consistently defend the Constitution when he argues points. Some of the stuff FDR did was clearly unconstitutional (such as packing the Supreme Court), but he wasn't impeached. Why? Because he had the Congress in cohoots with him.

Bush has taken more heat from 'fellow' conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul than from the democrats... why? Because the democrats, or at least the smart ones, know that Bush is doing exactly what they wanted to do all along -- expand the scope of the government until the Constitution and all of our individual rights are dead. Bush has raised overall spending more than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY, and if you don't count defense, Bush has still raised social spending more than any other President excluding FDR.

In many ways, Bush is acting simply as a new version of Lyndon B Johnson for the Democrats -- which is why the Democrats in Congress (especially the fascist democrats, such as Hilary Clinton and John Kerry -- both of whom have voted with Bush over 3/4 of the time) almost always cooperate with him, in a way that didn't happen with Ronald Reagan, who was nothing like Bush Jr, by the way.

It's ludicrous to say that Bush hasn't been given a chance.

ok...you can't blame Congress and the President, because:

1) the people vote for members of Congress
2) the people vote for the President

which means that it was the people's decision to put them all into office...which would make the people just as guilty (based on ur argument)


Bush isn't that dumb...he would never try to expand the power of the government to kill the Constitution and individual rights, especially in his first term, because he would lose voters. and i highly doubt Bush is even trying to get rid of our individual rights. why would he want to? and getting rid of the Constitution? its hard enough to make 1 amendment...how can he get rid of the entire thing??

and by the way, Lyndon B. Johnson was a pretty good president