My opinion of Bush just got a little better (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

2 things Bush did have increased his stock in my book.

1) First of all, Bush accepted responsibility for the lack of Federal response to Hurricane Katrina today. Many Bush supporters have been adamant not to give Bush any blame, and have pointed fingers at the Louisiana governor and New Orleans mayor. While they have some culpability, Bush must also accept some blame. He has done this and, at least in this instance, Bush has shown where the buck stops. He is still no Ronald Reagan, but this is a good start.

2) Bush's nomination of a Supreme Court justice is a good one. The Democrats, of course, are bringing up opinions he has written, but Roberts made those opinions working for others whose interests he was representing, and this is no indicator of how he would rule as a Supreme Court judge. I have been listening to the hearings, and I am confident that Roberts will interpret the Constitution, as he is supposed to do. While Liberals may complain that issues which interest them wont be served, they can also rest assured that Roberts will not allow the Neocon agenda either. He will interpret the Constituition and not attempt to write law, as is his function.

All in all, Bush has not done too bad recently. For the first time in a long time, I actually saw him act, well...... Presidential.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Now if we can get everyone else to look at it as logical as you have then this nation would be alot better.

 

[Brigand]

Bush has taken the blame for a number things, over the years, including the nonsense about Iraq's WMD and the African Uranium charge. It doesn't really mean anything. It just helps to stop some of the bleeding that his Administration is suffering.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Bush has taken the blame for a number things, over the years, including the nonsense about Iraq's WMD and the African Uranium charge.

Bush accepted responsibility for these? Really? Are you sure? I'd like to see the quotes where he accepted responsibility for these if you don't mind.

 

[Brigand]

Bush accepts blame for N-charge

WASHINGTON, July 30: US President George Bush took full responsibility on Wednesday for claims about Iraq’s nuclear weapons programmes that turned out to be based on now-discredited documents.

The controversy has raised questions about the Bush administration’s use of dubious intelligence reports to justify the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.dawn.com/2003/07/31/top2.htm

_____

Bush Accepts Blame For Iraq Claim

(CBS/AP) President Bush on Wednesday took personal responsibility for the first time for using discredited intelligence in his State of the Union address, but predicted he would be vindicated for going to war against Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/30/politics/main565825.shtml

____

Bush accepts blame for African uranium charge

WASHINGTON - After weeks of blaming others, US President George W Bush accepted responsibility yesterday for making a now-discredited charge that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4288.htm

(original story: reuters -broken link)
____

Again, none of it really means anything. He's simply trying to absorb a few blows by footing some responsibility.(or at least looking to be)

 

[JFrench]

Bush should take ultimate responsibility for hurricane Katrina. Like Harry Truman said "The buck stops here". Its taken Bush 5 years to learn that lesson.

And how can you say Roberts is a good nominee when the man hasn't made one ruling yet? What are you basing this on? What people say and what they actually do are often two different things.

 

[FinnMacCool]

I agree with you but I dunno about Roberts. I can live with him I guess but I would rather him get turned down. This doesn't really change my opinion of him very much though. Lets just hope he doesn't do anything to messed up before 2008

 

[danarhea]

Bush should take ultimate responsibility for hurricane Katrina. Like Harry Truman said "The buck stops here". Its taken Bush 5 years to learn that lesson.

And how can you say Roberts is a good nominee when the man hasn't made one ruling yet? What are you basing this on? What people say and what they actually do are often two different things.

Because I am listening to the hearings in my office. I have been listening to them for 3 days now. Roberts is very bright, with an excellent grasp of the Constitution. His answers have satisfied me. He will not be a judicial activist. He will only interpret the Constitution. What he has done in the past was part of representing clients, and in order to represent a client, he must take their side in a legal argument. That has no bearing on how he would rule in a particular case.

Because of what I have been listening to in the hearings, I am confident that Roberts will make an excellent Chief Justice.

 

[cnredd]

Because I am listening to the hearings in my office. I have been listening to them for 3 days now. Roberts is very bright, with an excellent grasp of the Constitution. His answers have satisfied me. He will not be a judicial activist. He will only interpret the Constitution. What he has done in the past was part of representing clients, and in order to represent a client, he must take their side in a legal argument. That has no bearing on how he would rule in a particular case.

Because of what I have been listening to in the hearings, I am confident that Roberts will make an excellent Chief Justice.

Perfect line...(paraphrasing from memory)...

"Judges call balls and strikes...not pitch or bat."

 

[BWG]

Perfect line...(paraphrasing from memory)...

"Judges call balls and strikes...not pitch or bat."

...and different umpires have different strike zones...:lol:

 

[Kelzie]

...and different umpires have different strike zones...:lol:

I am sooo lost on this analogy...

 

[danarhea]

I am sooo lost on this analogy...

So am I. What happens if he makes a bad call, not that I think he will, but lets imagine what would happen:

The opposing lawyer gets in Robert's face, shoves him, then tells Roberts that he needs glasses. Roberts gives him the thumb. The lawyer then proceeds to kick dirt onto Roberts, and throws dirt on his gavel. The lawyer is then fined. The next day, the lawyer appears on national television apologizing for the incident, and tells the audience that his tantrum was due to years of steroid abuse. Both Roberts and the lawyer get rich writing books about it.

Hmmm... might be a very interesting season at the Supreme Court.

 

[BWG]

I am sooo lost on this analogy...

OPPS!!! Sorry, I've been involved with baseball one way or another for most of my life, so I thought this was common knowledge.

Although the rule book (Constitution, laws, etc.) states what the strike zone is, different umpires (judges) interpret it differently. Or to put it another way , not everyone sees things the same way. :lol:

 

[Kelzie]

OPPS!!! Sorry, I've been involved with baseball one way or another for most of my life, so I thought this was common knowledge.

Although the rule book (Constitution, laws, etc.) states what the strike zone is, different umpires (judges) interpret it differently. Or to put it another way , not everyone sees things the same way. :lol:

Thanks for spelling it out for us baseball-challenged individuals.