Was George W Bush That Bad?

[adhay]

@gonzomax

Apparently in Curtisland, Iraq is a rousing success. …How much farther from longterm American values can you get ,

Get real. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property, FOREVER.

[BrainGlutton]

@asterion

Well Turkey, at least, would hate the idea of an independent Kurdistan.

Did Bush Sr. even consider that, when he urged the Kurds to rebel against Hussein in 1991?

[China_Guy]

@Curtis LeMay

Hillary Clinton and a whole lot of other Democrats voted for the Iraq War in the beginning.

BS. This is recent history and you should look it up. US President Bush asked for a received the authorization to wage war if necessary in order to have credible bargaining power.

Bush never ever pitched this to congress or the US people as anything along the lines of “Iraq poses a direct and imminent threat to the US, and I need congressional authorization to start a war in 48 hours.” Nosiree bob, it was all about I need to be able to wave a big stick.

There is a huge difference between voting to wage war, and voting for the option to wage war.

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

Did Bush Sr. even consider that, when he urged the Kurds to rebel against Hussein in 1991?

I don’t believe he was encouraging them to form their own, independent nation, but instead to over throw Saddam and the Ba’athist regime.

-XT

[XT]

@China Guy

There is a huge difference between voting to wage war, and voting for the option to wage war.

I think the distinction is mostly retroactive hindsight. Put it this way…in the run up to the invasion and immediately after, was there a large hue and cry from the Democrats that they had been tricked into granting Bush a hunting license in Iraq? I don’t recall one…not until several years later, when things started going pair shaped.

-XT

[asterion]

@BrainGlutton

Did Bush Sr. even consider that, when he urged the Kurds to rebel against Hussein in 1991?

I think I was 8, so I couldn’t tell you from experience. If xtisme is right, though, that’s one thing. However, I’d give Bush Sr. the benefit of the doubt on that one (something I wouldn’t give W.)

[adhay]

@BrainGlutton

Did Bush Sr. even consider that, when he urged the Kurds to rebel against Hussein in 1991?

Short story: Hang dem Kurds out to dry … dey sittin’ on our oil.

WMD? We get to that soon enough.

[Voyager]

@xtisme

I think the distinction is mostly retroactive hindsight. Put it this way…in the run up to the invasion and immediately after, was there a large hue and cry from the Democrats that they had been tricked into granting Bush a hunting license in Iraq? I don’t recall one…not until several years later, when things started going pair shaped.

-XT

The threat of war was effective in getting UN inspectors back in with pretty much the ability to go anywhere. Just before the invasion, a small minority opposed invading without UN permission. After the invasion of course most everyone pulled together except for the few peaceniks who said no good was going to come of it. In that political environment, and in order to not be accused of not supporting the troops, obviously the Dems kept quiet, until the environment changed.

It’s not like we ever claimed that the Dems of that era had any balls.

[John_Mace]

This thread went to 6 pages?

OK, once and for all: Yes, he was that bad.

You can all thank me later for settling it.

[Squink]

@Voyager

It’s not like we ever claimed that the Dems of that era had any balls.

Well, except for Russ Feingold, but he’s a southern Wisconsin boy, so it’s kind of to be expected.

[XT]

@John Mace

This thread went to 6 pages?

Amazing, isn’t it? Especially considering that nearly everyone in the thread said ‘yes’.

-XT

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@xtisme

Amazing, isn’t it? Especially considering that nearly everyone in the thread said ‘yes’.

-XT

In fairness, there was a heckuva lot of bad to talk about when it comes to Bush.

[XT]

@Squink

Well, except for Russ Feingold, but he’s a southern Wisconsin boy, so it’s kind of to be expected.

Interesting. Did you read this part here?

Mr. President, I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don’t agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community – whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.

I also believe and agree as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our country. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including, of course, self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself – and I am skeptical that that is exactly what we’re dealing with here – then we can, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.

It’s interesting to me both that he DID actually see (at the time) Iraq as a threat (something that is now nearly always categorically denied), and that he did feel that removing Saddam was worthwhile. I actually agree (in retrospect) with much of what he was saying at the time, especially about distracting ourselves from the true fight against AQ…though I wonder how he feels about our involvement in Afghanistan these days.

Anyway, thanks for the link…it was certainly informative.

-XT

[adhay]

@John_Mace

This thread went to 6 pages?

OK, once and for all: Yes, he was that bad.

You can all thank me later for settling it.

Too late for that.

[XT]

@Hentor the Barbarian

In fairness, there was a heckuva lot of bad to talk about when it comes to Bush.

I’ve actually moved GW down another notch…LBJ has bumped up one and Bush has now reached near the bottom of the list. There is still Jimmy Carter and a couple of complete loser presidents (such as the ever popular Buchanan), but the century is still young and it’s quite possible that Bush could make it to the bottom still!

-XT

[adhay]

@xtisme

I’ve actually moved GW down another notch…LBJ has bumped up one and Bush has now reached near the bottom of the list. There is still Jimmy Carter and a couple of complete loser presidents (such as the ever popular Buchanan), but the century is still young and it’s quite possible that Bush could make it to the bottom still!

-XT

Nice try. Lincoln is and will forever remain our nadir. He “saved” the Union buy selling it to the northern bankers/industrialists at about10c in gold for the greenback dollar.

We’re still trying to pay it off. But, given the nature of compound interest …

[Little_Nemo]

Hillary Clinton and a whole lot of other Democrats voted for the Iraq War in the beginning.

I supported the war in 2003 and would have voted for it if I had been in Congress. Why? Because George W. Bush said that Saddam Hussein had active WMD programs and was on the verge of deploying WMD’s if he hadn’t done so already. That made Iraq a clear and present danger and justified an invasion.

At the same time, there were a lot of people that were saying Saddam didn’t have any WMD’s or active WMD programs. And some of these people had hard evidence to support what they were saying. But Bush said they were wrong. He said he had better intelligence than they had. He said he was right and they were wrong and Iraq did have WMD programs.

So we invaded and guess what? No WMD’s. No active WMD programs. No recent WMD programs. And it turns out that Bush’s solid evidence had been wishful thinking that he had wanted to believe was true.

Following this there was numerous attempts by Bush apologists to defend what had happened. There were arguments that he had never said there were WMD’s. There were arguments that the invasion had never been about WMD’s. There were arguments about al Qaeda and human rights. There were arguments that it was all the Democrats’ fault for believing Bush. There were arguments about whether Bush was a liar or an idiot and which was worse.

But here’s the bottom line. Bush said we had to invade Iraq because they had WMD’s. We invaded and they didn’t. And over four thousand American troops have been killed in Iraq so far.

[SteveG1]

I will join in and say, yes Bush was pretty bad. Was he the all time worst? That I don’t know.

[BrainGlutton]

@adhay

Nice try. Lincoln is and will forever remain our nadir. He “saved” the Union buy selling it to the northern bankers/industrialists at about10c in gold for the greenback dollar.

We’re still trying to pay it off. But, given the nature of compound interest …

I have never, ever, until now, encountered that criticism of Lincoln. Care to back it up?

Anyway, Lincoln did save the Union, and there’s no need for quote marks. If you want to find a criticism of the means he used, I should think the rivers of blood shed should rank far, far higher than the financial resorts.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Der_Trihs

I really doubt that. Women ARE half the population, you know.

And not all women are pro-abortion either. And for instance if the compromise was say abortion laws were to be determined by states most people on both sides of the aisle would tolerate that situation.

Iraq IS a total disaster, and was doomed from the start. The moment we attacked, disaster was the only possibility.

Thank you for rejecting reality.

@BrainGlutton

:dubious:

SO FUCKING WHAT?!!

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (more) would die and America would be crippled for some time. Expect no foreign interventions in Somalia or Darfur or anywhere.

@Voyager

He launched the surge? The generals told Rummy before the invasion that they needed more troops to be effective, and Rummy told them no. And Bush did? Diddly. Iraq was a disaster for 4 years, with even Republican columnists saying Rummy should be fired. And Bush did? Nothing. He only finally fired Rummy after the Dems took over Congress. Bush could have and should have done the surge years earlier, but he was captive to the Cheney/Rummy cabal. So, wrongo.

Most Democrats opposed the Surge all the way even after Gates was appointed Secretary of Defense-they even oppose it now.

He was on the right side here, for sure. But he couldn’t even get enough of his own party to support him to get this true, even with Democratic support. Just shows he was incompetent.

No-it’s the fault of those Republican congressmen.

Ha, ha, ha. Well, I suppose you haven’t had econ yet. The best I could say about him is that he shut up and let the people who knew what they were talking about handle things. Leadership? No way - remember how hard it was for the bailout to get through. Input? Nope. He did make one or two uninspiring speeches. Hell, the picture of Washington in the cabinet room probably had as much input as he did.

A lot of people in his own party wanted Bush to let the banks fail-that would have been a total disaster-a Second Great Depression.

2. Nobody gets credit for trying to do things, and the failed Bush immigration reforms were based on prior reforms enacted by Democrats anyway.

Great Society didn’t succeed 100% either.

@Little_Nemo

The last thing conservatives want is to have Roe v Wade overturned. Right now they’re in the perfect position - they can promise anything they want about abortions because they know their promises are meaningless. So they can tell the pro-life people what they want to hear without risking being held to it. Roe v Wade protects them from having to actually do anything.

But what if Roe v Wade were overturned and it was genuinely possible to prohibit abortions? The pro-life people would no longer settle for talk - they’d want results.

And what would happen if the conservatives tried to give them results? Here’s a hint - Nancy Reagan has said she’s pro-choice. So if the conservatives try to actually ban abortions they’ll lose every female voter to the left of Nancy Reagan. One election later and the Democrats hold a 300 seat majority in Congress.

That would only matter if abortion was the only political issue around.

@Quartz

Ah, I phrase it quite tightly so that only those who were currently okay with repaying their mortgages were affected; if you were in arrears anyway, it wouldn’t have helped.

On what do you base that? What if we’d pulled out almost immediately? And would the disintegration of Iraq have been a bad thing? The north would have split off into an independent Kurdistan, for instance. Read up on your history of Iraq, and compare it with Yugoslavia.

And there was ethnic cleansing and genocide in Yugoslavia.