Diogenes, alert the media, because I think we agree. Bill Mahar was correct that the plane hijackers were not cowards. They knew where they were going and were willing to do it. But [Godwin impending], you know who else wasn’t a coward??? Hmm?? Hitler. You can stand up for your convictions, but if you’re drastically wrong in your convictions, you’re anywhere from an ass to a homicidal dictatorial maniac.
If your conservative friends get the chance to vote fr McCain in the coming months, heaven help us all. If I had to choose the one person who could possibly be worse than Bush, barring Cheney, it would be McCain, whom I believe to be certifiably mentally ill if not outright insane.
Many people do say “Bush sux” but just as many say “(insert random democrat candidate) sux.” Your quoted post does absolutely nothing to even attempt to answer the questions I asked; in fact, I solicited Republican responses and have received damn few.
So, I implore you, give me your opinion as to why George W. Bush should even be defended, must less considered great. In fact, forget the greatness aspect and just tell me why you think he deserves being supported and / or defended; you’re a smart guy; you should have some sort of answer.
Walk like a Republican. Look hard and flinty on TV. Give up some public appearance time to good ole boy cronies who looked like they weren’t above a little nut-cuttin’.
If Bush was president in 1979 he would have gone into Iran with guns blazing and we’d be 28 years into war. Carter got them all out alive safely. Sometimes diplomacy works, perhaps Bush should look into it.
I’m also somewhat curious how good a Christian GWB is on a purely logistical level. Does he go to church every Sunday? Has he read the bible? Does he have a favorite bible verse, etc? Does he understand Christian theology and ethics and charity on more than just a mom-and-apple-pie-good-gays-bad level?
I’m not a huge fan of organized religion, but I much prefer someone who actually IS deeply religious and tries to live their life based on a moral code to someone who purely opportunistically CLAIMS to be.
While we’re on the topic, one other thing that bugs me is the fact that Bush was (it is generally agreed) a wild irresponsible partying dude in his youth, driving drunk, doing cocaine, etc. Since then, he has turned it around and gone on to go places in his life. This, along with his presumed Christianity, should give him GREAT compassion for people who are caught up in youthful indiscretion, and you’d think this would come through somehow in speeches, policies, pardons, or SOMETHING. But instead, he (as far as I can tell) never mentions it at all. One of the few things I could find myself genuinely admiring about him, and he buries it.
In other words, he talks the talk but he doesn’t do the walk.
He doesn’t go to church at all, at least not in Washington. We had a thread about it a while back. They claim time and security issues keep him away, but it never stopped the Clintons or the Carters.
The problem, IMO, is that as soon as he joins a Washington-area church, he has to answer for that church’s doctrines. Some Methodist churches are fairly liberal, and if he attends one his evangelical supporters will want to know if he agrees with the ordination of women or with their somewhat more tolerant attitude toward homosexuality or whatever. The reverse could be true if he found an ultraconservative branch–he may be seen as endorsing views he doesn’t necessarily hold.
This didn’t apply to the Clintons because religious people never believed he was on their side anyway.
Colbert said it best–he believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happens on Tuesday.
I haven’t read every post , so apologies if I’m repeating.
I could easily see GWB going down in history as one of the great presidents. Religion has nothing to do with it.
There are two main reasons (and a few lesser reasons). First, he has made a major change in US foreign policy by focusing on democracy rather than just power. For years the criticism of the US was that we supported brutal dictators just because they supported us. It was true. GWB doesn’t all the credit for the change, it was in place years before he took office. But he has furthered it more than anyone else. My guess is that after 1/2009 he’ll become president of some pro-democracy organization.
BTW, for those who doubt the positive effects of democracy I recommend R. J. Rummel’s work: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/
And along these lines I believe he has supported Israel as much as he has because of the democracy issue.
Second reason has to do with his handling of the beginning of the Irag War. Ralph Peters wrote about this quite eloquently - can’t find the link right now. Here’s my quick summary of his points. In the history of warfare the leaders of the countries had little to fear. It was the foot soldiers who would get killed. But GWB started the war by targeting Hussein and his family, changing the rules in a heartbeat. And putting himself and his family in more jeopardy. Now leaders have to think about what they are getting into before starting a war. A great move for pacifism.
Some lesser reasons. Leadership afer 9/11. I was a Libertarian at 8 AM EST on 9/11/2001. By 9/14 I was a member of the libertarian wing of the Republican party, mostly because of GWB.
The economy. As Yogi Berra said, you could look it up. Especially when you consider that he took office right after a stock market crash and then had the 9/11 disaster.
Supreme Court picks. Excellent IMHO.
Tried to privatize social security.
What I don’t like: Should have vetoed a lot more of the Democratic (and Republican) spending. Could have been more fiscally conservative. Failed to privatize SS.
foul
deduct 10 points !
One clear reason that Bush is a terrible President is that his allies think of him as an embarrassment.
Remember after 9/11 when Prime Minister Blair rightly made a speech of full sympathy for the US?
All that support has been destroyed by Bush invading Iraq.
What on earth has Bush done about restoring democracy in Tibet, Burma or Zimbabwe?
Why does he support dictatorships in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc?
How on earth does Guantanamo Bay show his democratic principles?
I must express admiration for your effort to equate Mr. Bush’s war in Iraq as “a great move for pacifism.” I’m not quite clear on how this war put the Bush twins in more jeopardy, however. Were they leading the charge into Fallujah when I wasn’t looking?
Meanwhile, so sorry to perpetuate the Carter hijack, but I thought the hostages were released in the first hour of Reagan’s presidency because Reagan had agreed to sell arms to the Iranians. Carter doesn’t get credit for that…those who love Reagan would rather he didn’t get credit for that (if we do choose to venture into discussing Reagan, don’t we need to consider his support/funding of the very terrorists we now are fighting?)
Posted by Plan B
I would bet that not even George W. Bush thought for a single second that he was putting himself and / or his family in danger. Or are you claiming that we are continuing to fight in Iraq just to protect President Bush? If our objective was to target and remove Saddam Hussein, then our objective has been met: What the hell are we doing over there now? If this is your idea of defending Bush or of pointing out greatness that I’ve overlooked, I must tell you that I am not convinced.
Posted by Plan B
I’m glad a new rule has been promulgated; it is certainly obvious that the ongoing fiasco in Iraq was started and is continuing without any thought whatsoever about what they were getting into.
Re: Last three posts:
This is IMHO, not GD or the Pit. Sorry no debate from me today. I was responding to the OP. What I said was MHO, that’s all. I didn’t come here for a debate. If you don’t understand what I’m saying, or are looking for a fight, sorry, I can’t help you.
I’m not looking for a fight, either; you are welcome to your opinion. I only want to make it abundantly clear that I am in total disagreement with it.
If he had sealed our borders and run out the illegals, I might go along with the idea of his being one of the top 5. But he has absolutely screwed the pooch on that and lost any chance.
Sorry if I was unclear. I don’t mean they compared Bush to Reagan in saying they were similar. Their comparison is more like, “Just because Bush has screwed up doesn’t mean conservatives are wrong. Reagan and Gingrich and Bush Senior are all examples of great conservatives who were right.”
Thank you for the polite response. And as you pointed out, this is not the thread for debate.