Bush or Obama - The Better President

[Onomatopoeia]

@Little_Nemo

@Curtis LeMay

However Bush solved his problem in Iraq (although Biden was either blind or dishonest enough to have the Democrats take credit for it) while Buchanan did not solve his problem.

What problem was it that Bush solved in Iraq? If it was Iraq’s WMD program, then the solution was finding out the problem hadn’t existed in the first place. If it was the problem of Iraq being a fucked up country, that’s still an ongoing problem. If the problem was that a lot of Americans were getting killed in Iraq, then Bush didn’t solve that problem - in fact it was a problem he created and it was still a problem when he left office. And finally, if the problem was that Bush had a poor public image for his other screw-ups, then invading Iraq was a short-term solution - but it ended rebounding back on him and making him look worse than before.

I think Curtis may be referring to the Surge, as many Republicans do when they need to trot out something positive about the Iraq war.

Bush et al literally, and I do mean literally, destroyed a country and killed countless thousands of people for no good reason. The neocons under Bush created the perfect environment for the recruitment and massive influx of terrorists into Iraq where none existed before. Heck, college kids, shopkeepers, and doctors became terrorists because of what the US did. Yet Republicans still attempt to spin it all by citing the Surge. It seems to escape them that the Surge wouldn’t have been necessary if we hadn’t committed war on Iraq in the first place. I say committed instead of declared because what we did was nothing short of criminal. As far as I’m concerned, the US can never make amends for what it’s done there.

[GiantRat]

@Evil_Captor

Bush inherited a relatively stable and sound America, he turned it into a burning building. Obama inherited a burning building, he put out the fire and has started refurbishing.

[quote truncated]

Dude, seriously? I worked on cleaning up the “burning buildings” that defined Bush’s Presidency. That just seems like a really obnoxious turn of phrase, and a lot of people are much more sensitive about this than I am (don’t get me started on FDNY jokes).

More to the OP, however, I’d say that yes - the country was superficially in good shape when W took office. But the cracks in our economic foundation were already present, animosity from Islamic fundamentalists was already seething (remember the Cole?), and the divisions in political perspective among the American public were already laid mostly bare.

Even more to the OP. Bush was/is a decent human being. He was mislead, perhaps not smart enough (debatable), and certainly not terribly popular. Obama, on the other hand is relatively unpopular (after riding in on a wave of public enthusiasm - the fickle American public changes opinions more often than they do their underwear), is clearly intelligent in an academic regard (common sense is debatable), and (just like Bush) I suspect is a decent guy.

[Little_Nemo]

@Balthisar

No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that Simplicio is asking a different question than the OP. The OP questions, “So Who Is/Was The Better President? Bush or Obana? [sic]” and the question that Simplicio poses is more along the lines of, “Who is/was better at implementing their (or their party’s) agenda?” To the latter question, then of course Obama is the clear winner.

Upon rereading your posts, I see that your intent was clear and the misunderstanding was mine.

[Little_Nemo]

@Onomatopoeia

I think Curtis may be referring to the Surge, as many Republicans do when they need to trot out something positive about the Iraq war.

If that’s the case then I guess I can take my suggestion that the problem was “Americans are being killed in Iraq” off the table. If that was the problem, the solution clearly was not “send more Americans to Iraq”.

Hey, maybe government spending was the problem. And Bush solved it by shrinking the size of armed forces.