I voted for Bush twice, but have never been enthusiastic about doing so. I believe he is a below average speaker, not charismatic at all, of average intelligence for pres.s, but strong willed, loyal and consistent. I don’t think he is nearly as bad as you describe him and I believe the left in general is unable to be rational concerning Bush. By and large, I think we will have to regard his presidency as a succesful one: no terrorist attacks on home soil after 9-11, Afghanistan, two supreme court judges, and a good (no techno bubble) economy. Iraq could go either way: make him a great president or stand out as a negative (we may not know for four or five years).
I’m sure you disagree, but I say that as no Bush enthusisast. Whats telling to me are the so-called ‘issues’ the opposition uses against him. Not the economy – he’s won that battle. Not Afghan – he won that. Iraq – yes, but they use not the overall war (except a few) or the the present conduct of the war, but the ‘paper trail’ as to how we got into the war as the major issue (Bush lied!). Think about it. Those may be life and death to you or the left, but for a president and the passing of history – noise level stuff.

Dugger

Dugger, no I do not believe that Bush knew about 9-11. Not in the specific.

The thing is, I don’t believe Bush knows much about anything, either before it happens, or afterwards. And once it happens, he doesn’t have the desire, or capacity to understand why it happened, and what to do about it. He’s just a guy who does what people who he thinks are smarter than him (pretty much half the population) tell him to do.

Hey…it wasn’t me who called him a “Frat Boy,” in 2000. That was George Will.

You guys elected him. We have right to ridicule you for doing that.

JK

Since everyone is all excited about semantics and all..

Innocent unless proven guilty. I know how much Bush supporters enjoy subverting the Constitution, but surely you remember that.

By the way, you’re still boring. I dare you to go a week without including the word “lefties” in one of your mouth-frothing rants.

These  governors were appointed. They are not  governors in the same sense we typically use the word.

This “president” was appointed. He is not a “president” in the same sense we typically use the word.

foiled again!!!

Joseph B. Poindexter was Hawai`i s eighth governor

These “governors” were appointed. They are not “governors” in the same sense we typically use the word.

Dugger

(remember the ration of sh*t Pedro got for saying Clinton committed perjury when he actually just lied?)

Or the amount of taffy distributed when somebody said George Bush was AWOL?

Joseph B. Poindexter was Hawai`i s eighth governor. A former federal judge, he served from 1934 to 1942. Poindexter spent the first four years in office dealing with the Depression. Also while Poindexter was in office, Congress passed the Jones-Costigan Sugar Control Act to limit the overproduction of sugar.

And would let you get by with what I would not allow pedro, because
he is a demogogue, not a serious thinker.

Hawaii was made a state in 1959. Go to school much?

Hope that attack isn’t too personal, leading to my comment being wiped down the lefties memory hole….

Don’t see how you can argue semantics with a straight face. The post lead-in said ” Warnings of 9/11, they ignored it. ” Not warnings of an ‘attack’, but ‘warnings of 9-11′. World of difference. That seems like fruitcakery of the highest order to me. But, perhaps he misspoke. Often happens when you write a lot of borderline stuff.

Dugger

Hawaii was made a state in 1959. Go to school much?

What’s your point, peedro? Do you think that Hawaii didn’t have governors before that? Think again.

Warnings of 9/11, they ignored it.

We speak in sound bytes, hence the problem of semantics.

It’s in the eye of the beholder

Is that what’s derailing you?

Semantics is key to communication. If “believe Bush had warning” means
Bush the Anti-Christ was fully informed of the methods and attacker’s
identities, but wanted 3000 people to die in a hellish inferno because he
is evil incarnate; I would say that is ridiculous.

If “believe Bush had warning” means there was intel available in daily
briefings to surmise the danger of imminent attack; I would say it is
possible.

Gonna make you more nervous. Just because you can’t think of something – doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Might mean the means by which you would hear of something, chose not want to make a big deal out of criticizing somebody they like – Bubba. But check out Jesse Jackson’s criticism of FEMA under Clinton (following Floyd floods) and keep in mind JJ and all the big media loved Clinton.

It is telling that no one hear has been able to cite anything other than media criticisms of Bush. What could/should he have done better given the realities of the timing and the realities of separation of power – bfore or after. BTW, Bush was in New Orleans before Bubba was in OK City.

But if you believe that Bush had warning of 9-11 and did nothing to prevent it, as the heading of this item suggests, then I suppose you will believe Katrina criticisms uncritically also.

Dugger

Please compare those responsibilities to those of the state and local governments.

Yeah. Because, as you’re no doubt aware, incompetence at lower levels of government is sufficient justification for incompetence at the highest levels.