SocialDemocrat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 922
- Reaction score
- 309
- Location
- The beautiful Pacific Northwest
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Was George W Bush a good president?
Iraq was a relatively peaceful country until March 19,2003 when all HELL broke out. The dumber ****ers thought they would wavethe white flag because of this. Dumb ****ers, Dumb ****ers Dumb ****ers, Dumb ****ers
Shock And Awe
I like the guy, but "like" doesn't equal good president.
- Trying to nationbuild was ambitious and high minded, but pointless. 8 years is simply not enough, and he should know his fellow politicians well enough to know that later presidents would have their own agendas and dump the project.
Maybe it's because he is Christian he found the alternatives impossible, but occasionally you just have to let hings go. You cannot take responsibility for all of mankind. Sometimes you have to settle for just defending yourself, rather than trying to reform your opponent.
- Guantanamo Bay. A bunch of legalese gobbledegook. He should have known better. Codifying the use of light torture to obtain information is unacceptable. Executing a bunh of worthless terrorists for being out of uniform would have been more acceptabe and more effective too. Certainly in the long run, and possibly in the short term too.
- The economy. Not exactly something a single individual can control, but he knew the housing market was out of control, and maybe he would have had more political capital to do something about it, if he hadn't been busy nationbuilding.
So I would not regard him as a good president.
But still better than Clinton and Obama. They are "Do Nothing Presidents".
A DNP is someone who sweeps every substantial problem under the rug for their successors to deal with. Stuff like like pulling out of Somalia and ignoring the Rwandan genocide because actions taken to correct the problem might get your hands dirty.
Their only objective is getting reelected, which is usually accomplished by creating a major prestige project that touches the hearts and minds of the less informed voters and cannot fail if you throw enough cash at it. At least not until someone else has to puick up the bill, after the DNP is out of office. If all leaders were like that, their countries would collapse inside a generation. They would not under a succession of Bush type presidents.
Hitchens was a brilliant man. One of my idols (see sig quote). And he's right about what he says. He was just wrong about the war.
What happened to your allegation Bush (43) wanted revenge?
Consider the knowledge and briefings all three of them had and were in before Bush was president. All three of them already had vast defense experience for the federal government, and bush (43) had only state level experience. He relied on them.
I'm not sure just when I alleged that Bush wanted revenge. Perhaps you should link back to my post asserting such a thing.
As for the second paragraph, yes that's right. He did rely on them, and they steered him and the country into an unholy mess, this despite their great experience.
Perhaps so. I knew the war wasn't over when we started following the troop withdrawal agreement made back in '07, or was it '08? Maybe the new administration knew it wasn't over, and maybe not. McCain was right when he said we might have to keep troops in Iraq for the next hundred years. The problem is, the electorate was not willing to pay the price in blood and dollars to stay there that long. The architects of the war should have known that we wouldn't be willing to fight for that long, but they were determined to invade Iraq anyway.It really wasn't an "Unholy mess" at one time, when the people proudly voted, and at great risk. It became that way only because America wanted to democratize Iraq but then didn't follow through, giving up far too early.
It would have been better to have just left after Saddam was executed rather than following a program which had no long term commitment. Now it's a disaster, with Barrack Obama perhaps still believing still that "The war in Iraq is over".
Perhaps so. I knew the war wasn't over when we started following the troop withdrawal agreement made back in '07, or was it '08? Maybe the new administration knew it wasn't over, and maybe not. McCain was right when he said we might have to keep troops in Iraq for the next hundred years. The problem is, the electorate was not willing to pay the price in blood and dollars to stay there that long. The architects of the war should have known that we wouldn't be willing to fight for that long, but they were determined to invade Iraq anyway.
Perhaps so. I knew the war wasn't over when we started following the troop withdrawal agreement made back in '07, or was it '08? Maybe the new administration knew it wasn't over, and maybe not. McCain was right when he said we might have to keep troops in Iraq for the next hundred years. The problem is, the electorate was not willing to pay the price in blood and dollars to stay there that long. The architects of the war should have known that we wouldn't be willing to fight for that long, but they were determined to invade Iraq anyway.
That is the most stupid part of this whole "war." We don't have a defined enemy. "Terrorism" isn't a particular people or place. It's a war that will NEVER end. What we need to do is to protect our borders meticulously.
Right, the electorate thought they knew best when it is the job of leaders to lead, make these tough decisions, and explain their reasons why.
except, of course, when there is a government of, by, and for the people.
I wouldn't want it any other way, but voters should also take some time to inform themselves of the issues and be a little more pessimistic about the statements politicians make.
Absolutely.
And the politicians should never go to war unless the country is behind it and understands the implications. That's one reason for the Constitution having given the Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. Unfortunately, they abrogated their responsibility in Vietnam, and again in Iraq.
Absolutely.
And the politicians should never go to war unless the country is behind it and understands the implications. That's one reason for the Constitution having given the Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. Unfortunately, they abrogated their responsibility in Vietnam, and again in Iraq.
The Democratic led Senate voted 77-23 to allow Bush to attack Iraq and the Republican led House passed a similar resolution 296-133.
Bush wins Congress backing over war on Iraq | Mail Online
A majority of the American people supported the war as well. Public opinion on the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh, well, if the Democrat controlled Senate and Republican controlled house approved it, then it must have been OK, right?The Democratic led Senate voted 77-23 to allow Bush to attack Iraq and the Republican led House passed a similar resolution 296-133.
Bush wins Congress backing over war on Iraq | Mail Online
A majority of the American people supported the war as well. Public opinion on the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Right. As you said, they represent the American people.Oh, well, if the Democrat controlled Senate and Republican controlled house approved it, then it must have been OK, right?
Yes, as we have seen the American people supported the war in Iraq. I don't really see any debate here.and, sure, the American people supported the idea of a war that was supposed to have lasted less than six weeks and get rid of Saddam's WMD, or at least the ones who have forgotten about Vietnam supported it as long as there was no chance they could be drafted, as long as no taxes were raised to pay for it, and as long as there wasn't anything that they had to actually do to support it.
George W Bush said:Our coalition has learned from our experience in Iraq. We've adjusted our military tactics and changed our approach to reconstruction. Along the way, we have benefitted from responsible criticism and counsel offered by members of Congress of both parties. In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice. Yet, there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. (Applause.) Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy. (Applause.)
Right. As you said, they represent the American people.
Yes, as we have seen the American people supported the war in Iraq. I don't really see any debate here.
Sure they did. Just look at all of the yellow ribbons on the backs of their SUVs. As long as they weren't being asked to actually do anything to support that six week or less war, they were for it.
How many were for a decade of warfare? What about bringing back the draft, how was that idea accepted? Or, even more fun, a surtax to pay for the war? How many were ready to shell out a trillion or a trillion and a half, or however much you believe the war actually cost? A trillion divided among a hundred million taxpayers is ten thousand. I know, let's pass a bill adding ten thousand dollars to each taxpayer's tab, then see if they really support the war effort.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?