Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Saying that Bush should be "fired" for naming Brown FEMA head is absurd." NO ONE, especially me, ever expressly said that.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Bottom line is, Brown was a horrible choice for FEMA. Unfortunately, this didn't come to light until it was too late. And do we fault the person or persons who gave him this chance to fail? You bet your a$$.
Originally Posted By itsme >>I just don't think he was as bad as some people would like to portray him. -------- You couldn't be more right on with this, He was worse.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 In that case Lincoln should have been impeached after the appointing Gen. McDowell to command the Army of Northeastern Virginia which subsequently lost the first battle of Bull Run, one of the most humiliating Union defeats in the Civil War. And let us not even get started on Gen. Hooker. Now I came out of left field with this to make a point. Throughout the history of the Union, just about every President has made a questionable appointment, some of them ending in horrific failure. Mr. Brown failed and proved himself incapable of doing the job, but all in all this failure does not mean that the appointer should be punished. Unless of course you would have voted for Lincoln's impeachment way back when.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer At least those generals had relevant experience before they were appointed, and Lincoln fired them publicly instead of letting them resign. And I doubt Lincoln patted McDowell on the back after Bull Run and said, "You're doing a great job, McDowie"
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes, plus as STPH pointed out, I don't think anybody here has called for Bush's impeachment due to this bad appointment. So saying "Unless of course you would have voted for Lincoln's impeachment way back when" is railing against an argument nobody made, at least not here.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I think there is a special poster here named Strawman that only some posters can see.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 I support Bush, but I think it is appropriate he receive some embarrassment for this appointment. What's with him appointing inexperienced friends anyway?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "What's with him appointing inexperienced friends anyway?" It's an unfortunately a prime example of his overall bad judgment on many major decisions.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 If you are talking about invading Iraq I would have to agree with you there. As a paleo-conservative (I love that word), I have pretty strong feelings about foreign wars and entanglements. But I am still determined to support Bush and make the best of the mess. Kerry did not in any way shape or form inspire confidence regarding solutions for the war or his decision making process. But I digress. Mr. Brown did himself and Bush a favor by retiring. Good thing Miers did herself and Bush a favor by never accepting the post.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Mr. Brown did himself and Bush a favor by retiring. Good thing Miers did herself and Bush a favor by never accepting the post." Oh, I'm fairy sure brown was told to "retire". As for Miers, putting aside the fact she should never have been nominated, once she was, she should have never accepted.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Yes, plus as STPH pointed out, I don't think anybody here has called for Bush's impeachment due to this bad appointment. >> No, the Bush haters are calling for his impeachment based on lies that only he told even though dozens of Democrats and foreign nations said the exact same " lie " even before Bush was president. Nice job libs.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I don't want Bush impeached. I want him right where he is for the 2008 campaign season.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Tom you are making the mistake of assuming that anti-Bush equals pro-democrat. Put another political hack without any true vision for America like Kerry up for President and you will get more of the same. I am not a big fan of McCain but I don't know if there is a Dem with his charisma except for Senator Obama that can beat him. Hillary runs and she will get trounced. 20 years from now she would have a shot, but there are too many people from previous generations that would normally vote Democrat who would vote for anyone but her. Right, wrong or indifferent.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Tom you are making the mistake of assuming that anti-Bush equals pro-democrat.<< You're making the mistake of putting words in my mouth. I want a moderate to succeed Bush. I don't care if he or she is from the GOP or from the Democratic party.
