The "Bush was a bad President" argument and supporting it rhetorically in bars & pubs

Great Debates
1

This evening I, and a group of friends, after some bar hopping ended up the evening at a local pub, and over nachos and after several beers one of them started quizzing people at the table on who they voted for. I demurred, as these conversations usually end poorly, but the questioner would not take no for an answer and persisted in trying to enlist others in his quest for my vote. After repeated passes at this and continued spouting that Obama was a socialist etc. etc . I had finally had a enough of this and like a foolish panfish rose to the bait and stated that whatever you thought of Obama it was generally considered that GWB was one of the worst Presidents ever.

They took umbrage at this at this assertion and that point it was on. Voices got louder, and while alcohol may be a social lubricant it is not an aid to effective rhetoric. In the course of the dialog I discovered that he (and his argument buddy who was a solider in Iraq (now a general contractor) believed that George W Bush keep us safe from terrorism, and that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in aiding terrorism which is why we had to invade. I took issue with this and referenced the Congressional hearings and the conclusions of the Congressional investigation panel that this was not the case.

To my shame the rest of the conversational scrum devolved into my shouting that Bush was an idiot for getting us involved in Iraq, and overall crappy decision making and that 5000 wasted American lives were testament to this, which of course endeared me to his argument buddy the former solider who began shouting that I thought his efforts in Iraq were useless, and that he would show me his “wound”. The initial questioner keep needling me regarding what specific operational examples did I have of Bush’s actions or decisions that made him a “bad President”, and in retrospect all I fell back on were references to “Iraq” and my claims that he was an arrogant retard who led us into a pointless war. Rhetorically I did not cover myself with glory.

Having said all this it sounds like we were each others throats, and I suppose rhetorically we were at that time, but in non-political discussions we’re buying each others beers, doing business together, loaning cars, trucks, chainsaws and assisting each other where we can. In the main this group are college educated and generally successful business people. I’m not assuming my friends are stupid or ignorant, they’re not. I’m the one who (IMO) was lobbed a rhetorical softball (Bush is bad President) and bobbled it when challenged on the specifics.

If this topic arises again I need an outline of strongly supportable talking points that will frame my argument. I discovered that “Bush was an arrogant idiot” while satisfyingly resonant inside my own head, is a lazy big picture position that is open to challenge. By “strongly supportable” I mean a point of argument that has some specific buttressing beyond assumptions and will get past the haze of 3-5 beers as an undeniable fact. Any help appreciated.

2

Axis of Evil speech.

Iran was the first country on 9/11 to give us air rights to fly over Afghanistan. Their moderate President, Khatami came up with a plan for invading Iraq, and help overthrow Saddam Hussein. Much of this plan was put into action as our actual strategy. So, what happens? Bush labels them the Axis of Evil. The result? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad becomes the new President.

There are also the examples of high ranking Generals being fired or resigning because their advice wasn’t listened to by the eggheads who were sure that their charts and graphs about Iraq were more relevant than the views of actual Generals. The start of the war was a war by systems analysis by a bunch of people who wanted to relive the glory days of Rand during the Cold War.

He didn’t get Osama bin Laden.

People were tortured.

He took a balanced budget and doubled the debt.

The Mortgage crisis happened entirely on his watch.

People were telling his administration that Osama bin Laden was going to attack, and they ignored it. So yes, 9/11 was his fault through negligence.

The troops went to war without enough body armor or proper armor on their Humvees. Rumsfeld said we don’t go to war with the army we want but the army we have. Of course this ignores the fact that we invaded Iraq on our own timeline and had time to prepare.

Bush is incredibly close with the Saudis, and the Saudi form of Sunni Islam Wahabbism is the real serious terrorist threat. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Egyptian or Saudi, two of our biggest allies.

3

You are never going to win that argument. I have been in similar situations several times and the only good way to handle them is to sidestep the whole issue. I just express my disagreement so that my silence cannot be interpreted as agreement but I end there. Whether it is racism, Bush, religion, whatever, when others are talking and agreeing I will just say something like “some of us see things differently” and “I think I’ll go get another drink” and get up and leave. I will not sit idly while people spout stupidities but I see no need to heroically defend any point of view. I think one has to choose his battles and that one is not worth fighting. You are not going to “win”. I think showing thoughtful restraint and speaking intelligently only when that is the general tone of the conversation is the best way to “preach by example”. When people become agitated and irrational is the best time to show restraint by just getting out of the dispute. IMHO.

4

Hmmm, I would suggest that anytime anyone does win an argument by parrotting talking points solicited from a messageboard that the “win” would have to be the result of pure luck- and really stupid opponents.

To make the assertion “Bush was a bad President” then need to do research to back up the claim after having made it- you’re basically just saying “Bush was bad because I just know in my heart that he was bad.”

“I just know in my heart that he was a bad President.”

countering

“I just know in my heart that he was a good President.”

will only lead to a mess of jibber jabber unworthy of being classified as legitimate discourse.

5

Well, you might refer those who support Bush as being a good president to this story:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29211562/
I wish I knew how to do this link thing the way it should be done; it seems to me that something has changed about the SDMB method in regards to links. Anyway, once you get to the story, follow the link to the list of presidential rankings; G. W. Bush is 36 of out 42. That says something; I have to admit I would have expected him to be ranked lower.

I carry the list with me when visiting my rabidly republican sister and her rabidly republican friends.

6

How many conservative posters on this board who thinks Bush was a good president? If he was such a good and loved President, why wasn’t he invited to the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis? You did fine, but you can’t convince an idiot. And when you argue with an idiot people watching can’t tell the difference. So you say: “if I argue with you on that, people watching won’t be able to tell the difference.”

7

Then it’s official.

OP: Your post indicates that you realize your antagonists are not “idiots,” the way you think GWB is, but if you try going a little further to figure out where your opponents are coming from, and to find points that will appeal to them (and maybe even you), you might get further.

So I’m guessing some of these guys are let’s just call it kind of “righty” or might identify as some form of “conservative.” You know, GWB did a lot of things that were fundamentally un-conservative (or, un-Libertarian, if that’s who you’re talking to).

Here’s a thought: when arguing with someone on the conservative side of the spectrum, try this:

*Doesn’t it disgust you as a fiscal conservative how much he expanded spending? And surely you’re not going to fall for the notion that all the spending was in the “War on Terror” – he couldn’t throw money fast enough at the “No Child Left Behind” idiocy – Reagan, who vowed to eliminate the DOE, must be spinning in his grave, no?
*Afghanistan had terror training camps. Iraq didn’t. Let’s face it – we’re all for attacking places that export jihad, and I’m as eager to smoke Islamist militants as anyone. But there weren’t any in Iraq, and by chasing that red herring, Bush kept us from clamping down on the real Muslim threat in Afghanistan where the Taliban caught their breath and regrouped.
*I love the military, and I’m all for using it with extreme prejudice <when we need to.> We didn’t need to in Iraq – GWB pretty much validated the decades old liberal caricature of Republicans/conservatives as pro-war, doesn’t matter which war.
*Don’t even get me started on his crazy plans to amnesty in 13 million illegals.
*And’s what’s conservative about pushing to bail out the banks? His position on that was indistinguishably socialistic from Obama’s. Who the hell is bailing out your debts?

That is, try populist/conservative attacks on Bush, of which many exist. Even if you don’t agree with all of these critiques, it is always fair game in debate to say “by the terms of your own credo, doesn’t it follow that . . .” even when you don’t necessarily share that credo.

Now, I don’t guarantee success, but these might be arguments these guys have not heard before from anti-Bush people, conditioned as they are to hearing “Bush is an idiot [and by inference so are you]” – keep the idiot word out of it, because there are plenty of sound criticisms of Bush’s policies (and that’s all that matters) to be made that depend in no way on whether his IQ is or is not high or whether he is or is not “evil.”

8

Shouldn’t be many. He was not a conservative.

What part of the conservative argument in the OP said he was “loved?” The OP’s interlocutors said he was “good,” but never AFAICT made any claims about popularity. He could have been very good, but not loved, and that not-love part would have been sufficient for a bunch of politicians to not bring him to a political rally where they hoped to gain a political edge. GWB was a toxic brand by the end of his Presidency and you’d have been a fool as a campaign manager to hitch your wagon to his star. He could have been toxic because everyone rightly judged him a bad president. He could have been toxic for a variety of other reasons. Post hoc, etc.

People like you (no offense, I don’t mean that as harshly as it sounds) are what poisons the well in debates like this. You haven’t administered an IQ test to GWB or to the tens of millions of people who share the views of the OP’s interlocutors. I am genuinely puzzled and perplexed as to why a good number of people I respect, many of whom have, quite possibly, attained levels of educational, professional, academic success and prestige higher than me, you, or a lot of other Bush bashers, still buy the GWB line. I’ve posited that part of the reason may just be reflexive contrariness at the “GWB and all his supporters are idiots” line that has prevailed since the earliest days of his entry on the public scene. There may be more to it than that, I don’t know. Calling the OP’s friends idiots (when even he does not think that’s the case, and when many millions of people whose IQ is not below average share some or all of their beliefs) advances the debate little if at all.

9

Whenever I hear this one, I point out that more Americans were killed by terrorists when Bush was President than every other President combined. Or that four years after Pearl Harbor was attacked, Hitler and Tojo were dead and seven years after 9/11, bin Laden is still a free man.

10

Nor a Scotsman.

What might those have been, pray tell?

The act of determining if one’s views are based on, or in defiance of, the world of fact is indeed one such test.

Then try a little harder, if you please. What else do you think there could be to it than that? Yes, an unwillingness to face the possibility of having been fooled (when others were not), having or having been susceptible to and obeyed the worst human instincts instead of the best, those things can induce defensiveness. But it isn’t “Bush-bashing” to point out the simple facts, is it?

11

I’ve been accused of being a Republican by several posters here. I’m not. I left the party in 2003 or so, voted for Kerry in 2004, and the only campaign contributions I’ve ever made went to Dems in the last election cycle. I am more conservative than most posters here, but I self-identify as a right-leaning centrist.

That said, I think Bush the Younger is pretty clearly the worst President in my lifetime, and a contender for the all time worst President.

The country is in worse shape now than we were in 2000.

Our international reputation is in the shitter.

We are less free today that we were in 2000, and that is due to the misguided policies of the last administration.

Warrantless wiretapping. Ridiculous rules about what you can carry on an airplane. “No fly” lists you can’t even find out if you’re on until you try to fly somewhere, with no clear process to challenge. People encouraged to rat out their neighbors for any “suspicious activity”. Questioning the patriotism of anyone who dared to oppose the GoP party line. The uncomfortably Orwellian sounding “Patriot Act” and “Department of Homeland Security”. The FBI abusing “National Security Letters”. Etc.

The whole “War on Terror” was blown way out of proportion. I think 9/11 scared the hell out of Bush, and I’m not sure why. Yes, a group of terrorists got lucky, and pulled off a terrible crime. As bad as it was, it was never really a threat to the continued existence of our country…yet Bush seemed to believe it was. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, did not have WMDs, did not have the capability of doing much of anything to the U.S., was under constant surveillance, and had 2/3 of it’s airspace patrolled by U.S. fighters that could and did blow up any air defense systems Iraq powered on. Iraq wasn’t going anywhere. And yet we still invaded, without provocation, for no clearly stated and supportable reason.

We invade Iraq because they allegedly had WMDs. North Korea tests a nuclear weapon, and we do very little about it. “It doesn’t help us if you’re inconsistent” (from Jesus Christ Superstar)

Bush spent money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. He ignored the Constitution and federal law anytime he found it convenient to do so.

Bush has more negatives than I can list, and damn few positives. I know he approved some environmental thing I liked…I forget the details, but it was something about a marine sanctuary near Hawaii. He was able to pass some tax cuts that could benefit me in the future if they remain on the books…particularly the death tax provision. The assault weapons ban was allowed to die. I can’t think of much else he accomplished.

12

Bush is a conservative. He called himself a conservative, he ran as a conservative, and he governed as a conservative. And conservatives endorsed him as one of their own. Right up to the point where he stop working for them at which point conservatives suddenly began asking “George who?”

13

I can call myself a pineapple, but that doesn’t make it so.

14

Conservatism has a history going back hundreds of years, and some generally agreed upon principles and tenets. It is an objective descriptor for certain policy preferences and assumptions about governments and markets.

Bush ran as a conservative (“no nation building”) on some points. “Conserving” military and fiscal and diplomatic resources is an identifiably conservative position, in a sense that Burke or Buckley would historically recognize. Profligate spending, reckeless foreign entanglements – those do not meet the classical formulation of conservatism.

If your bigger interest is in tarring Republicans, fine, I carry no water for them. But Bush calling himself a conservative doesn’t make it so.

15

I’m not so sure of the sense of starting off with an impression you’re convinced of and then asking for argument to back it up is a good thing to do. Surely it should be the other way around - you’re convinced of something because you’ve heard excellent reasons for believing it to be so?

16

How about we focus on recent history, like say the last eight years. If Bush wasn’t a conservative, what was he? A moderate? A liberal? Then why was it liberals and moderates who consistently opposed Bush and conservatives who consistently supported him? And if Bush wasn’t a conservative, tell me who his conservative opposition was?

Sorry, but this looks like another conservative attempt to rewrite history rather than learn from it.

Exactly. You can deny George Bush is a conservative, but that doesn’t make it so.

17

Ann Coulter just ran a column today on this same issue-in her mind Dubya finishing near the bottom was a vindication of sorts for him.

18

You’ve got to reach people at the level they’re at. Anyone who can look back at the last eight years and still think Bush was a great President is not somebody who is going to listen to things like facts. They need to be swayed by something short and simple.

19

This is something of a threadjack, but I think you’d be more persuasive if you argued that you think the word “conservative” has changed meaning to the extent that it no longer describes you, or something similar. It’s indisputable that the strong majority of people in the country who self-identify as conservative supported Bush into the waning days of his presidency. The folks who call themselves conservative these days are often more heavily into social conservatism, by which they mean opposing abortion and non-heterosexuality and certain other forms of sexuality in the public sphere, as well as opposing a bright line separation of church and state. They also favor US unilateralism and tax cuts (regardless of their views of public expenditure).

Fiscal conservatism is, AFAIAC, a much more honorable tradition. I disagree with it, but I can respect it. Unfortunately, you who equate fiscal conservatism with conservatism in general appear to be in the minority.

Bush identifies as a conservative. Self-identified conservatives overwhelmingly support him. Claiming he’s not a conservative enters no-true-Scotsman territory.

Daniel

20

Buchanan.

Bush was a statist neo-con. Neo-cons may have dominated the debate in the American Republican Party for the past eight years. This does not negate two hundred years of somewhat-coherent “conservative” doctrine, nor render Bush a “conservative.” Neo-cons were/are ex-socialist Dems who decided they liked the Cold War and might want to make some money. Okay, fine, that’s a moment in time. It is not the History Of All That Is Conservative.

I am not sure what all you people are arguing here, other than “bash anyone who calls himself a conservative, because conservative=always and forever GWB Republican party and vice versa .” That’s just not true, and since I’m not defending Republicans or GWB, and since GWB (whether an “idiot” or not) is such a flyspeck on the long doctrinal and intellectual history of “conservatism,” no, I’m not going to accept your reductionist argument that you can’t support GWB without being a conservative, or vice versa.