Seriously, George W Bush is an underrated president

[Anarchist420]

However you feel about Iraq, I do give him props for

1. the fact that after 9/11 there were zero successful terrorist attacks in the USA. Given the high publicity and profile of the 9/11 attacks, it could easily have snowballed.

2. The fact that civil liberties have not been noticeably infringed IMO. Artists are as free as they've ever been to make the art that they want and say what they want.

3. Decisive action in halting the 2008 financial collapse, including bailing out Detroit automakers. Yes, a lot of the run-up occurred under his watch, but in all honesty blindness to it was bipartisan and likely would have occurred under a Democratic president as well.

4. Making an attempt at serious school reform with No Child Left Behind. And to all the angry liberals, Ted Kennedy was behind the legislation, which is often overlooked.

5. Medicare Pt. D was an expansion of the social safety net that included thought-out ways to move towards a more market-driven health care system

6. Making genuine attempts of outreach towards American Muslims and Latinos. Bush saying that islam is a religion of peace in the aftermath of 9/11 was invaluable.

Considering the fact that he wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen, I don't think that he deserves credit for not giving us more of something he wanted to.

There is nothing underrated about that Rockefeller Republican.

 

[MiniDoom]

I really do think that it is easy to pick up on negative things such as abstinence only in Africa (dumb) or banning stem cell research funding (again, dumb and religiously motivated), or water boarding or guantanomo bay, but you also have to realize that there has not been a successful terrorist attack on the American homeland AND civil liberties have not been significantly impacted.

did he ban stem cell research or ban government funding (not private research) for stem cell research? this is much like many peoples views on abortion, I have no problem if a mother chooses to do so, but some people feel they should not be forced to subsidize the procedure through taxes. It's more of the government overstepping the scope of services they should provide...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I really do think that it is easy to pick up on negative things such as abstinence only in Africa (dumb) or banning stem cell research funding (again, dumb and religiously motivated), or water boarding or guantanomo bay, but you also have to realize that there has not been a successful terrorist attack on the American homeland AND civil liberties have not been significantly impacted.

I am wary of giving him too much credit for either of these things.

There is no way of knowing whether we would have been targeted again within the 8 years after 9/11, and thousands of American troops did in fact lose their lives, predominantly as the result of insurgent/terrorist activity.

I certainly don't give him credit for not taking more measures that restricted our civil rights. We have a very forward-thinking, freedom-oriented Constitution, and there are intrinsic limits on the President's power to restrain them. I will also observe that Arab Muslims probably wouldn't agree with you that our civil liberties haven't been significantly impacted, since their communities have been spied on, and they as individuals have been subjected to much greater scrutiny when, for example, flying. I do not take the view that these intrusions into their civil liberties are unjustified, but it's undeniably the case that they have occurred.

This is not meant as some kind of anti-Bush rant - I am just responding to your points.

 

[dawp]

Islam is not a religion of peace.

neither is Christianity.

 

[Nebor]

Considering the fact that he wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen, I don't think that he deserves credit for not giving us more of something he wanted to.

There is nothing underrated about that Rockefeller Republican.

So you wish he would have hit us with more 9/11 style attacks?

 

[DaveSimmons]

I praised Bush in this forum for the initial invasion of Afghanistan. At that point in time he was looking like a better president than Gore would have been.

After that, he decided to play at empire building in Iraq, and killed more Americans than 9/11 while wasting trillions and throwing away the initial success in Afghanistan. Thousands dead and tens of thousands maimed, none of it necessary.

We also need to thank him for the TSA, making us safe from deadly shoes and exploding shampoo while giving us cancer from body scanners.

He had a chance to be good or even great, and threw it away.

 

[micrometers]

I am wary of giving him too much credit for either of these things.

There is no way of knowing whether we would have been targeted again within the 8 years after 9/11, and thousands of American troops did in fact lose their lives, predominantly as the result of insurgent/terrorist activity.

I certainly don't give him credit for not taking more measures that restricted our civil rights. We have a very forward-thinking, freedom-oriented Constitution, and there are intrinsic limits on the President's power to restrain them. I will also observe that Arab Muslims probably wouldn't agree with you that our civil liberties haven't been significantly impacted, since their communities have been spied on, and they as individuals have been subjected to much greater scrutiny when, for example, flying. I do not take the view that these intrusions into their civil liberties are unjustified, but it's undeniably the case that they have occurred.

This is not meant as some kind of anti-Bush rant - I am just responding to your points.

It is true that we do not know about terrorist plots that were foiled, or if any of the precautions were even necessary.

However, it is worth noting IMO that 9/11 could easily have inspired a wave of copy-cats, and a second attack on the homeland would have been catastrophic. 9/11 was bigger than the USS Cole and it was bigger than the 93 bombing. It was bigger than the Timothy McVeigh bombing. It very well could have lead to a wave of copy-cat attacks, if not for the security precautions put in place. But yes, we do not know for certain.

There is no doubt that US Muslims have been impacted, but compared to the past treatment of German and Japanese citizens, it is mild IMO. Compared to scrutiny that countries that face security threats place on Muslim citizens, such as Israel, or India, the US has overall handled it well I think.

 

[micrometers]

I praised Bush in this forum for the initial invasion of Afghanistan. At that point in time he was looking like a better president than Gore would have been.

After that, he decided to play at empire building in Iraq, and killed more Americans than 9/11 while wasting trillions and throwing away the initial success in Afghanistan. Thousands dead and tens of thousands maimed, none of it necessary.

We also need to thank him for the TSA, making us safe from deadly shoes and exploding shampoo while giving us cancer from body scanners.

He had a chance to be good or even great, and threw it away.

I think Iraq was in the mold of Afghanistan, actually. The rationale was changing the fundamental calculus in the region. Saddam could be likened to a cancer, and he would not be losing power anytime soon. His sons were as bad as he.

 

[Thump553]

Assuming the OP didn't do a parody post, he left off the only actions GWB took that I respected him for: (1) after the economy and Wall Street collapsed he stood up to his party and did the right thing-getting the bailout through and (2) he subsequently included GM and Chrysler in the bailout.

He was well on the way to being the worst US President in modern history, but at least he didn't pull a Hebert Hoover on us and cause Great Depression II.

Ironically the only things he did right regalvanished neo-cons under the new and improved tea party label.

 

[micrometers]

Assuming the OP didn't do a parody post, he left off the only actions GWB took that I respected him for: (1) after the economy and Wall Street collapsed he stood up to his party and did the right thing-getting the bailout through and (2) he subsequently included GM and Chrysler in the bailout.

He was well on the way to being the worst US President in modern history, but at least he didn't pull a Hebert Hoover on us and cause Great Depression II.

Ironically the only things he did right regalvanished neo-cons under the new and improved tea party label.

No, I included them.

I also want to say that after witnessing the awfulness of the Tea Party these past few years, Bush looks like a saint.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Just because you approve of the program as a whole however doesn't mean that you can't say that parts of it are done badly.

Is this what you mean when you tell me that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?
And therein lies the rub.

Thank you for helping me make my point.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I think Iraq was in the mold of Afghanistan, actually. The rationale was changing the fundamental calculus in the region. Saddam could be likened to a cancer, and he would not be losing power anytime soon. His sons were as bad as he.

There are despots all over the world that we ignore or even prop up.

The war was sold with lies such as conflating Saddam with 9/11 over and over again until too many citizens believed it was true, then having Colin Powell lie to the UN about the strength of our WMD intelligence.

After this successful marketing campaign congress had no choice but to give the president the option to go to war, which he then exercised.

 

[fskimospy]

Is this what you mean when you tell me that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?
And therein lies the rub.

Thank you for helping me make my point.

Nope, that's not what I meant at all. You haven't figured that out by now? I meant that you come to every thread with the idea that you're going to root out some hypocrisy. Even when there isn't some you find it anyway, because that's the only tool you know how to use.

But yeah, I'll just note that you ignored being totally wrong on this one.

 

[matt0611]

Only thing good about GWB is that he is not Barack Obama.

Besides FDR, BHO, Wilson, and Lincoln, I can't think of a worse president than GWB.

 

[micrometers]

There are despots all over the world that we ignore or even prop up.

The war was sold with lies such as conflating Saddam with 9/11 over and over again until too many citizens believed it was true, then having Colin Powell lie to the UN about the strength of our WMD intelligence.

After this successful marketing campaign congress had no choice but to give the president the option to go to war, which he then exercised.

yeah, well Saddam was poisoning an important region in the world. To be frank: the middle east is more important than say, the Congo, because oil does power so much of the modern world. and yeah, you can accuse it of being about greed and so on, but it was better for all parties involved for saddam to be out.

as long as saddam was in place, US troops had to be in place in saudi arabia, and US troops in saudi arabia were a stated reason for Bin Laden's anger.

 

[werepossum]

There are despots all over the world that we ignore or even prop up.

The war was sold with lies such as conflating Saddam with 9/11 over and over again until too many citizens believed it was true, then having Colin Powell lie to the UN about the strength of our WMD intelligence.

After this successful marketing campaign congress had no choice but to give the president the option to go to war, which he then exercised.

Bullshit. Congress always has a choice - especially the left, which largely owns the media. If the left failed to exercise their true position, this is a failing of character and an unwillingness to take political hits for one's beliefs, not a master plan by a costumed super villain.

Only thing good about GWB is that he is not Barack Obama.

Besides FDR, BHO, Wilson, and Lincoln, I can't think of a worse president than GWB.

I don't think FDR and Lincoln belong on that list. They both did terrible things, but also great things. I think the great things much outweigh the terrible things, but at least we should all be able to agree that the great things they did at the least bring them them up to mediocre.

 

[matt0611]

I don't think FDR and Lincoln belong on that list. They both did terrible things, but also great things. I think the great things much outweigh the terrible things, but at least we should all be able to agree that the great things they did at the least bring them them up to mediocre.

The bad things they did severely outweigh the good, just MHO.

 

[piasabird]

Who cares what he did in Africa? He couldnt improve the USA Immigration problem. He started a War In Iraq that we did not need and couldnt afford to pay for. He is a big loser.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Nope, that's not what I meant at all. You haven't figured that out by now? I meant that you come to every thread with the idea that you're going to root out some hypocrisy. Even when there isn't some you find it anyway, because that's the only tool you know how to use.

But yeah, I'll just note that you ignored being totally wrong on this one.

Dr. Einstein...I know that's not what you meant...I thought it was obvious and am surprised that you haven't figured that out by now. Think about it long enough and you just might see my point.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Bullshit. Congress always has a choice - especially the left, which largely owns the media. If the left failed to exercise their true position, this is a failing of character and an unwillingness to take political hits for one's beliefs, not a master plan by a costumed super villain.

I'll agree that the D's in congress could have stopped GWB from starting the war at least temporarily if they'd been willing to give up their offices and let R's have them in the next election.

Sadly, if they had done that they'd probably be viewed as "appeasers" and un-American traitors since we'd never know have many thousands of American lives they would have saved.

In the accounts I've read GWB and his administration convinced themselves that we'd be welcomed as liberators and there was no real need to plan for the aftermath of initial combat beyond dividing up the oil rights. That view might have gone unchallenged if congress had stopped him from playing at nation building.

 

[piasabird]

George Bush must have been a naieve little college frat if you expect us to believe that he actually believed that Iraq or any country with a large Muslim population would welcome the armed forces of the USA as Liberators. You are living in a conservative utopia if you believe that pile bull puckey.

 

[xj0hnx]

The Patriot Act was IMO mostly necessary

How so? Anything in specific that you believe was necessary?

 

[Anarchist420]

So you wish he would have hit us with more 9/11 style attacks?

No, where did I say that?

neither is Christianity.

Yes it is.

He was well on the way to being the worst US President in modern history, but at least he didn't pull a Hebert Hoover on us and cause Great Depression II

You need to learn the facts. Herbert Hoover caused the Great Depression and FDR lengthened it.

I praised Bush in this forum for the initial invasion of Afghanistan. At that point in time he was looking like a better president than Gore would have been.

Al Gore would've been every bit as hawkish as Bush if not more so.

 

[peonyu]

However you feel about Iraq, I do give him props for


6. Making genuine attempts of outreach towards American Muslims and Latinos. Bush saying that islam is a religion of peace in the aftermath of 9/11 was invaluable.

Your trolling big time right there haha. I remember watching his speech and he uttered Religion of Peace and Islam in the same sentence and I almost laughed, Bush himself seemed to struggle to even say it. The man was like Obama is, a puppet and just saying what his speech writers wanted him to say in order to keep social tension down and to please the Saudis. It was only good in that it kept most Americans from harassing Muslims here which could have happened easily, but Islam is still a ROPMA [religion of peace my ass].

 

[woolfe9999]

Exactly. I don't believe Islam is a religion of peace, and I don't want to hear my President say that, but I accept that it was necessary that he say that.

I don't accept that Bush's Presidency was a complete disaster, though. I think his will come to be viewed much the same as Obama's, assuming that Obama is either a one-termer or remains on the center-left moderate course he's charted - a largely ineffective Presidency with a couple brilliant moments and a couple dumb moments, but on balance neither particularly good nor particularly bad. Bush caused an amazing transformation of the Middle East, or at least contributed greatly to it, but arguably most of the good from the Iraq War - an Arab Islamic democratic republic serving to inspire other Arab and/or Islamic populaces to rise up for freedom, and showing other despotic leaders that aggression against America would effect THEM, not just their people - could have been done with the Afghanistan example. I think Bush's single largest failing though is his failure to restrain (or attempt to restrain) his own party to fiscal responsibility.

Really, isn't that all Presidents? I honor Reagan and think he accomplished great things, but I also recognize that some of the things he did turned out badly. Bush I was much the same as Bush II or Obama, a mixed bag. Clinton was overall pretty good, but also did the one thing that is most harming us now - transferring the West's hard earned technology to Communist China. I think of post-war Presidencies, only Nixon's, Johnson's, and Carter's have really been disasters, and only Truman's and Eisenhower's have really been very successful.

I think Bush's foreign policy was pretty much a disaster. We lost massive credibility worldwide because of Iraq. The WMD thing was an embarrassment. We now have no authority to deal with Iran. North Korea got nukes. Afghanistan should have been a huge military commitment of shock and awe on day 1, which would probably have succeeded in largely finishing off AQ and the Taliban. We then should have gotten out of there within months at most. Long term Afghan stability was not supposed to be our problem. The net outlay should have been about $100 billion for Afghanistan, 0 for Iraq.

Domestic policy was similarly terrible. Expensive tax cuts we couldn't afford that didn't have much stimulatory effect. A poorly implemented, if well intended, expansion of Medicare. Limited funding for stem cell research. A failed attempt at education reform. An expanding deficit leading into a huge recession at the end (which recession was nowhere near all his fault, granted.)

Personally, I'd take Nixon over him, even with the scandal. Nixon actually wasn't that bad save the big scandal.

Johnson I somewhat disagree with. He looked worse at the time than he does in hindsight. His foreign policy and management of the war were horrible. Domestically, he gave us Medicare, which IMO is actually more important than SS, among the best pieces of domestic policy of the century. Also the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. His presidency was a mixed bag.

Carter was pretty terrible, which interestingly proves the point that the most honest POTUSES aren't necessarily the best POTUSES. Look at Clinton, arguably one of the better POTUSUES in the latter half of the century, but ethics wise?

- wolf