What does Bush need to do to amp up his administration?

13397188.jpg
 
I was gonna say fire everybody, himself included...but Duffman would work I think
 
New blood, new policy, basically a new administration.
 
Bush is currently out of touch with reality. He is like George Lucas. He surrounds himself with yes-men, produces ****, but then his yes-men tell him it is good. He gets rid of the ones who don't (His former treasurey secretary, Collin Powell, John Clarke).

He refuses to acknowledge any problems in Iraq, he refuses to acknowledge any problems domestically (Today he was talking about how tax time simply proves we need lower taxes, despite his refusal to cut spending), I mean, for godsakes, we have a failing economy and he promotes his economic advisor to Chief of Staff.

He needs to accept problems and deal with them. To do that he needs a new staff who will tell him what is wrong and how to fix it...not what he wants to hear.

Rummy needs to be fired, Gonzalez needs to resign, Chertoff definitely has to go, and Cheney as well. Condi Rice is the only one doing somewhat good at her job.
 
Matt said:
Bush is currently out of touch with reality. He is like George Lucas. He surrounds himself with yes-men, produces ****, but then his yes-men tell him it is good. He gets rid of the ones who don't (His former treasurey secretary, Collin Powell, John Clarke).

He refuses to acknowledge any problems in Iraq, he refuses to acknowledge any problems domestically (Today he was talking about how tax time simply proves we need lower taxes, despite his refusal to cut spending), I mean, for godsakes, we have a failing economy and he promotes his economic advisor to Chief of Staff.

He needs to accept problems and deal with them. To do that he needs a new staff who will tell him what is wrong and how to fix it...not what he wants to hear.

Rummy needs to be fired, Gonzalez needs to resign, Chertoff definitely has to go, and Cheney as well. Condi Rice is the only one doing somewhat good at her job.


hi, my name is sinewave and i approve this message. :up:
 
up clinton by doing a chick instead of getting a BJ
 
Matt said:
He refuses to acknowledge any problems in Iraq, he refuses to acknowledge any problems domestically (Today he was talking about how tax time simply proves we need lower taxes, despite his refusal to cut spending), I mean, for godsakes, we have a failing economy and he promotes his economic advisor to Chief of Staff.

Refuses to acknowledge problems? That statement might have been correct 6 months ago, but hes made it a point to say theyve made mistakes.
 
Admiral_N8 said:
Refuses to acknowledge problems? That statement might have been correct 6 months ago, but hes made it a point to say theyve made mistakes.
Saying and acknowledging are two different things.
 
Ahhh, the Duff Doctrine.

Hot Babes, Cold Beer, Good Times. Ohh Yeah!
 
ShadowBoxing said:
Saying and acknowledging are two different things.

Saying they have made mistakes is different to acknowledging they have made mistakes?


uhhhhhhhhh
 
Admiral_N8 said:
Refuses to acknowledge problems? That statement might have been correct 6 months ago, but hes made it a point to say theyve made mistakes.

has he actually come out and fessed up to any specific mistakes? no, all he's done is paid some cheap lip service so his supporters can say, "see, he admitted it! he's not such a bad president!" :rolleyes:
 
Admiral_N8 said:
Saying they have made mistakes is different to acknowledging they have made mistakes?


uhhhhhhhhh
Anyone can say they made mistakes, thats easy. Acknowledging a mistake means taking steps to correct it, in this case that may mean firing the people under you who were responsible, something this administration continues not to do. Also I don't see a dramatic shift in any of their foreign policy dealing with that region. Obviously plan A did not work and they never bothered to make a plan B just in case. Which is very consistent with Bush's attitude "to stay the course". However as several boating accidents teach us, staying the course can be dangerous if not stupid in certain situations...this being one of them. Furthermore the rumblings of an Iran invasion seems like they have learned little if anything from the current invasions.
 
sinewave said:
has he actually come out and fessed up to any specific mistakes? no, all he's done is paid some cheap lip service so his supporters can say, "see, he admitted it! he's not such a bad president!" :rolleyes:

Yes, apparently I am the only one who READS or listens to what Bush actually says....

he has specifically mentioned the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib as a mistake. Also specifically mentions its a mistake to focus on the larger picture, and they are now focusing on more localized rebuilding efforts. Also specifically mentions the military campaign was too fast as it melted away fighters that make up the insurgency.

He also specificaly fesses up that how Iraqis Security forces were trained initially was a mistake. They were trained to fight external threats, rather then internal threats which was a mistake.

I could go on, but maybe you should just read the news?

Maybe a simple google search may help?:up:
 
ShadowBoxing said:
Anyone can say they made mistakes, thats easy. Acknowledging a mistake means taking steps to correct it, in this case that may mean firing the people under you who were responsible, something this administration continues not to do. Also I don't see a dramatic shift in any of their foreign policy dealing with that region. Obviously plan A did not work and they never bothered to make a plan B just in case. Which is very consistent with Bush's attitude "to stay the course". However as several boating accidents teach us, staying the course can be dangerous if not stupid in certain situations...this being one of them. Furthermore the rumblings of an Iran invasion seems like they have learned little if anything from the current invasions.

there are no "rumblings of an invasion of Iran" at all. We simply cant. What we CAN do is air strikes, thats it. That is what the rumblings are about, and a nuclear strike, NOT an invasion with boots on the ground. Get it straight.

Hes "acknowledged" mistakes, read my post after yours.
 
Admiral_N8 said:
Yes, apparently I am the only one who READS or listens to what Bush actually says....

he has specifically mentioned the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib as a mistake. Also specifically mentions its a mistake to focus on the larger picture, and they are now focusing on more localized rebuilding efforts. Also specifically mentions the military campaign was too fast as it melted away fighters that make up the insurgency.

He also specificaly fesses up that how Iraqis Security forces were trained initially was a mistake. They were trained to fight external threats, rather then internal threats which was a mistake.

I could go on, but maybe you should just read the news?

Maybe a simple google search may help?:up:


and has he, as shadowboxing suggested, made any attempts to replace any of his staff that initiated those mistakes? no, so how can we be sure they won't continue to make similar mistakes? they're obviously not very competent so the outlook appears to be very bleak.
 
Admiral_N8 said:
there are no "rumblings of an invasion of Iran" at all. We simply cant. What we CAN do is air strikes, thats it. That is what the rumblings are about, and a nuclear strike, NOT an invasion with boots on the ground. Get it straight.

Hes "acknowledged" mistakes, read my post after yours.
I see a lot of words...not a lot of action. No one got fired for prison abuse scandels, no architects of the war got fired either. So he hasn't acknowledged them in the slightest, he's just said "mistakes were made". He says "mistakes were made" when those mistakes cost 1000s of soldiers their lives, many hostages their dignity, the United States a significant amount of money, and a country their order and infrostructure. Last time I recall saying "mistakes were made" doesn't quell the insurgency, hold the inept officials responsible or return Iraq to stability...all it does is cover your a$$ for a few weeks so they can sit with your thumbs up your a$$ while the same designers who got us into this mess continue to manage the war. I fail to see how that acknowledges anything.
 
Matt said:
Bush is currently out of touch with reality. He is like George Lucas. He surrounds himself with yes-men, produces ****, but then his yes-men tell him it is good. He gets rid of the ones who don't (His former treasurey secretary, Collin Powell, John Clarke).

He refuses to acknowledge any problems in Iraq, he refuses to acknowledge any problems domestically (Today he was talking about how tax time simply proves we need lower taxes, despite his refusal to cut spending), I mean, for godsakes, we have a failing economy and he promotes his economic advisor to Chief of Staff.

He needs to accept problems and deal with them. To do that he needs a new staff who will tell him what is wrong and how to fix it...not what he wants to hear.

Rummy needs to be fired, Gonzalez needs to resign, Chertoff definitely has to go, and Cheney as well. Condi Rice is the only one doing somewhat good at her job.

Agreed, Bush has the potential to be a good President, but he ruined it by surrounding himself with such a crappy Cabinet and his stubborness.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"