If one wants to find topics criticizing the current administration then one doesn’t have to look very hard on this board. On any given day there will probably be anywhere from 2-3 active threads concerning the latest fuckup from George W. Bush or those under him. And usually, I think it’s warranted.
But this forum has seen a mini-exodus of conservatives over the years due to its liberal leanings. So let’s turn the other direction and brainstorm: What has George W. Bush done over the past six years that hasn’t caused strife and gnashing of the teeth? I think we can extend this to his general administration in general.
We should set some ground rules. If there was popular support for something but Bush actively opposed it and then only signed the bill or agreed to a situation after buckling under immense pressure it shouldn’t count – an example of this would be the 9/11 commission. Also, maybe you agreed with Bush that an idea or strategy was sound, but if the following execution rendered the idea worthless or impossible to implement then I don’t think it should count. Examples abound, from the Iraqi war (to arguably the Afghani war) and to no Child Left Behind, etc…
I’ll start things off:
I think his leadership in the immediate wake of 9/11 was uncharacteristically good, in terms of how he presented himself and talked to the camera. A clip that will undoubtedly be shown in any historical documentary will include his shouting through the bullhorn with the firefighters in the rubble and twisted metal of the WTC. Total fluff, but necessary fluff at the time.
I’ll pre-empt some conservatives and go ahead and say that the nomination of judge Roberts was sound. At least at this point in time it seems that way – her certainly could’ve done worse.
I don’t know if I can agree with this, but I’m sure someone else would say it – the tax cuts are good. Sure, you could argue that it’s worthless due to the spendthrifts in Congress, or you could argue that Bush should wield his veto power like he actually cares about fiscal conservatism, but we’ll let him slide on this one…mainly because I can’t think of anything else at this time.
Anyone else want to take a stab at it?
Well, hold on, let me pre-empt the obvious joke answers…
He hasn’t caused a nuclear holocaust, yet.
He warned us of the dangers of man-animal hybrids (thanks, ‘luci)
He protected us from the surprise sneak attack from the gays (why they assaulted us in late 2004 is anyone’s guess).
If fucking up the country, making 80% of the rest of the planet hate us and killing thousands of innocent Iraqi and Americans for profit and Haliburton is considered right, then he’s the grandmaster
Well, as you might guess, I’m not exactly overflowing with suggestions here, but I do have a few examples of issues where I grudgingly said “well, at least the idiot did the right thing for once in his life”, and I suppose in common fairness I ought to contribute them. (Was that reluctant and sullen enough, do you think? ;))
Strategic partnership with India. Mind you, I think the nuke-deal aspect of the US-India rapprochement was pretty stupid, but a lot of the rest made sense.
Overall attitude towards immigration. Not that I think Bush’s essential motives are all that admirable—IMHO what he cares most about is ensuring the business community’s access to cheap labor—but his refusal to jump on the immigrant-bashing bandwagon, whatever his motives, was the right thing to do.
Post-9/11 attempts at inclusiveness and fairness towards Muslims (including the Dubai ports deal). Of course, he completely wiped out whatever good that might have done with his idiotic imperialistic military adventuring (as well as his coziness with the anti-Muslim religious right), but I think his basic attitude on coexistence with Muslims, as individuals and societies, is sound.
The democracy-promotion principle in foreign policy. He may not have altogether meant it, and he sure as fuck didn’t have any intelligent plan for implementing it, but he was right on the fundamental point that we have a stake in promoting genuinely open and representative governmental systems.
There. 'Scuse me while I go disinfect my keyboard.
Good job, Kimstu! You came up with quite a lot that wasn’t on my mind, but at the time of each of those events I was definitely in agreement. It’s definitely in our interest to be on India’s good side, and I remember the somewhat uncomfortable atmosphere with regards to Muslims - or anyone with brown skin, really - in the wake of 9/11, and he did a good job of getting rid of that.
See, doesn’t that make you feel fuzzy and warm all over?
This seems such a long time ago, especially because I was just becoming interested in politics (I’m a youngin’, you see…) but yes, that’s a good one, I definitely remember it now. I recall some hawks almost hoping this would mean war with China, what without the specter of the USSR invading Europe and everything being so dull and boring. Fat chance that, but it all turned out just fine anyway.
Er…not that Muslim = brown skin. I meant Arabs, of course – but if you were light skinned and a Muslim at the time you may have been a little shy about sharing that fact!
Well, I’m no fan of Bush, but he did create one of the largest national park land grants in our history (somewhere in Hawaii IIRC). Thats a plus I suppose. I thought his handling of the 9/11 crisis (initially) was pretty good as well. No smarmy politician double speak there. I also felt that the US did the right thing (initially) in how we handled Afghanistan. If ever there was a meat grinder we avoided, that was it IMHO.
Can’t say there is too much else that jumps out at me as stuff he’s done right. At least not really big things. There are a few small things he’s done that haven’t been complete fuckups…but they are so far outweighed by the big stuff he HAS fucked up on that its hard to think of any off the top of my head.
I will also. Considering how the Russians got mired in Afghanistan, the overthrow
of the Taliban was extremely well handled.
Actually, his position on immigration reform, at least originally, is quite reasonable, certainly far better than the Republican mainstream. If it had gotten passed it would have been a big improvement.
Iraq - more of a terrorist threat than ever.
Iran - the only winner of GW2.
NK - now has nukes made from the plutonium that was formerly under international seal.
Afganistan - cut and run leaving a mess for others to try and clean up until the inevitable decline into yet another civil war as the Taleban continue to grow in strength.
OBL - apparently alive and well.
US reputation - down the toilet.
Islamic extremism - blooming like a thousand flowers.
But on the bright side - at least the USA can now kidnap, imprison without trial and torture anyone the hell it likes without having to hide it. That’s pretty forceful. And there’s hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi’s who would otherwise be marching en masse across the Pacific.
And hey - a whole bunch of Lebanese have had their alive/dead status forcefully reconsidered.
I guess the one thing I can give him is the acknowledgement of the need for immigration reform, and supporting some ideas that are at least worth trying, like the guest worker program. Funny that’s the one issue the bulk of the Republican party was willing to deny him on. I think that makes the current Republican leadership, as a whole, pretty much completely counterproductive for their entire tenure.
In all honesty, I remain frankly surprised at how honestly little this person has done right as a President of the United States for six years.
Even the good things people mentioned have been exceptionally fleeting. Shouldn’t something done right be, you know, done? His initial response to 9/11 (which I remember as a shaky and unsettling brief video clip done from wherever his plane first landed) seems now as a prelude to the chronic use of 9/11 as a cudgel to divide America. Imagine the power and prestige America would be basking in if Bush hadn’t fucked up the good will the world had for us on that day. Le Monde, I’m quite sure, does not feel that they are all Americans today.
To Republicans: Imagine where your party would stand today with even a barely competent effort to manage what had to be the greatest moment of American unity since 1941.
Afghanistan? How could we say that was done right? We went in to get bin Laden. The Taliban were secondary, and only became our concern when they didn’t kick up bin Laden. Not only did we expressly allow bin Laden to escape, and remain fairly well in hiding, but the Taliban is not even remotely “done.”
I’m sorry, I just find this whole effort to be akin to a wife beater begging his wife to remember the flowers he bought her on their first date.
On Afghanistan I’d say his attitude was correct. “We’ve been hit by this guy in your country. We’re pissed off. We’re coming to get him. You can let us in or we’ll kick the door down.” Regardless of how you might feel about the rest of it that’s exactly the right attitude for the US to have at that time.
I flip back and forth on the tax cuts. In general I favor them but not with increases in spending in parallel.
Immigration looks good but he’s poisoned by others in his party.
And Roberts is one hell of a well-positioned pick for the Supreme Court. When he was the choice he was already confirmed.
Tax cuts are a great idea, though of course the corresponding spending hikes negate almost all the benefits.
Roberts was a great appointment.
I’d agree Bush has taken about as good a stance on immigration as it would be possible to take. He hasn’t solved the problem, but I am not sure it’s solvable; he HAS strongly resisted efforts to turn it into an immigrant-bashing administration, however, which is very admirable, and he’s proposed some reasonable, balanced approaches.
Last night Lou Dobbs had a “town hall” meeting show in which the subject was how immigrants are hurting the middle class. This fact was taken as a given, of course, from which all discussion flowed. Dobbs despises foreigners; if there was a Lou Dobbs TV network, the only two shows would be “When Immigrants Attack” and “Outsourcing is Evil.” It would be very easy for Bush to adopt a “Close the border and shoot the wetbacks” posture, because he’d sure as hell get a lot of support. He’s refused to do that, and credit must be given where it is due.
