Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Well now that depends. You can't be supporting a president AND wanting to see them brought up on charges of wrongdoing. Those who wanted to impeach Clinton were NOT supporting him. Those investigating Reagan during Iran Contra were NOT supporting him.
Blindly saying that you support someone simply because of the office they hold and not because of their actions in that office is setting a dangerous mindset for democracy. I support the president when he has EARNED that support. Sending troops to Iraq to die in droves for a lie does not earn that support. Appointing an incompetent to the head of the agency responsible for keeping his citizens safe in an emergency does not earn that support. Continuing to vacation while his citizens suffer in the aftermath of one of the worst storms ever to hit the country does not earn that support.
.....
I think I've sufficiently demonstrated that I am not one of those who thinks President X is always wrong while President Y can do no wrong. I also agree with AVoiceOfReason that justifying Bush's actions because "well gee Clinton screwed up too!" is bullshit. What Clinton did is history. It's irrelevant when considering the ramifications of what Bush did. Frankly, if your best defense is "clinton sucked, so there!" then you must know you are supporting a sinking president and that you have no real argument left with which to prop him up.
|
Before he holds the office he has support. Before he makes any presidential decisions he has support. That is what elections are, no? I can support the office, and seperatly I can support the man. He is held accountable after 4 years. He can also be held accountable by the other officials we elected into office to do that job for us. Now when it becomes obviouls the president is not doing the job we've elected him to do - it is time for our senate to hold him accountable. But that time is different for everyone. We are not all going to agree at the same time that the president is an "incompetent hack." for some, he just has to be elected to be labeled as such, for others it takes much more.
I'm not sure if your last paragraph is directed at me, but if it is, go back and read all my posts in this thread and tell me if you still think thats what I"m trying to say.
I still support bush, but I'm going to follow this latest supreme court nominee closely, because I do question this appointment and would like to know more.