Our ineffectual president

United States
March 11, 2007 8:35pm CST
Our president is completely ineffectual. He has managed to run us, as a nation, into debt that runs into the 8 trillion dollar range as of this moment. He has started a second Vietnam war, in that it is a war that is not only too complex and cultural for the US to be involved in, it is not a war we are going to win. Today, the lowest percentage of voters are those in the 18-24 age range. Is this laziness? or is it that we haven't had a lawmaker listen to us in the last six years which is the entire range of these ages? Is it that our voice and opinions dont matter the way they did in the 60's and 70's? Is it that this President's entire policy is based on an international war we aren't going to win while domestic issues are ignored at home? Well, since a marriage is a partnership and when Bill Clinton was President before, the partnership accomplished such victories as the FMLA act and balancing a 387 billion dollar deficit from the first Bush administration three years earlier than promised, I say bring on the Clinton partnership. And honestly, it makes me wish we could have our presidents for more than eight years because I would have voted Clinton in over and over again.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@emeraldisle (13145)
• United States
15 Mar 07
The 19-24 age range is the lowest precentage at any time with any voting period. This year is no exception. They are far too busy with their lives in general to care for the most part. Bill Clinton was the one who cut so much of Social Security and Medicare, he just made sure it didn't go into effect until the next president was in office. Let alone all the other things he did when he was in office that later came into affect. Then of course if they were such a great Partnership we wouldn't have had "White Water" and then we wouldn't have had the whole Lewinsky mess spread across the nation. They aren't that great of a partnership. We needed to go into the the war. I support Bush in that. What was going on over in Iraq needed to be stopped. Saddam needed to be stopped. Now we could pull out of there and then what? Two years from now have them come back and bite us again. No thank you. We've done that before. My thought is finish it and finish it right. Make sure that they won't be attacking us or causing us any more problems in the future. I've said this on many, many other discussions about this same issue. Bush did not create the new "Veitnam" scenerio. It's American citizens who are against it all that are creating it. They are the ones who are not supporting our troops and the government the same as back in the 60's and 70's. They are the ones dividing this nation not Bush.
@clownfish (3277)
• United States
15 Mar 07
Emerald, I just want to say that just because there are some of us who do not support the WAR, it doesn't mean we don't support the troups! Quite the opposite, if we didn't support the troups, we wouldn't want the whole thing stopped and our military brought home! It's propaganda to say that not supporting the war is the same thing as not supporting the troups - it's an unfair baldface lie spread against people who don't support the war, plain and simple. Also, what the Iraq situation has boiled down to is in essence a civil war. It's two factions of Islam fighting against each other. All we have done is taken Saddam out of the way, who was dealing with it is his way, and now it's our problem. It's the same situation as in Vietnam, a civil war we never should have gotten involved in. Iraq is the same, we never should have gotten involved. Also, did you know that Bush has racked up more debt by himself than ALL the previous presidents in history combined? All the money in all the stock exchanges in existence can't pay the debt that Social Security alone owes to American citizens. If someone doesn't start paying attention to the government's financial situation, and soon, our government will go under and our nation will be bankrupt. Under Clinton, the budget was balanced and there was a surplus of money. That has been squandered by a president who is following his own agenda and running our government into the ground. Still think he knows what he's doing?
• United States
17 Mar 07
Actually, 'whitewater' was big right wing conspiracy that cost taxpayers millions. The first independant counsel found nothing incriminating whatsoever about the clintons involvement so the republlican majority voted to get another one in. It also ended up, after years of fruitless investigations that went no where and cost us money, admitted the Clinton's did nothing wrong. Furthermore, clinton was not the first president to have an extramarital affair and three of the most outspoken republicans who criticized him for it had extramarital affairs break out into the media within the next three years of that. clinton did not cut medicare or social security, he actuallu signed into law many reforms that made it better and when they expired, the bush administration failed to sign them in again, not his fault but the gop's fault. Bush divided the nation by using terrorist rhetoric to justify misleading the american public about the war. he should havesaid, listen they are not democratic, they pose a threat, and may become a haven for al-quaeda. but instead he says, oh they have nuclear weapons which they werent even close to. we should be in afghanistan, in the numbers that we are in iraq, preventing the taliban from coming back into power and terrorizing their citizens. and you know what? the facts make this a repeat of vietnam. Its a civil war we were ill prepared for and wont win. period.
@kgwat70 (13396)
• United States
12 Mar 07
Bush is more than just an ineffective president as he is much worse than that but will keep my mouth shut on those thoughts. He is ruining our way of life basically and killing our own people by keep sending troops to the Middle East. He should be bringing our troops home as we need them to look after us and help our people. Bush has no clue how to run a country but unfortunately we were the ones that reelected him so we have to live with the fact that we voted for him.
• United States
19 Mar 07
sarah...Bush cannot be impeached over Iraq. It was approved by Congress, therefore there are no grounds for impeachment.
@clownfish (3277)
• United States
12 Mar 07
Hi! I completely agree! There is a "rumor" of sorts that Donald Trump should run for president. I think that's what we need, a president who knows how to manage money and keep us from going completely bankrupt as a nation. I think the Clintons can do this as well - get the US back on its feet!