Spinoff from this thread, related but essentially different question for debate.
Given the cultural-demographic makeup of a messageboard-community ultimately rooted in an alternative-tabloid newspaper column (Blessings and Peace be upon the Master), I expect any debate of this kind will be rather one-sided – the sort of people who actually think/say that Obama is the Antichrist/Communist/Muslim/foreign-born never post here, IME – but, I’m sure there are more than a few DoperCons willing to make a case against him on more reality-based grounds. But, N.B.: Making a case against Obama is not the same as making a case that he’s worse than W, nor vice-versa – you need to argue both aspects of that question, attacking the one president and defending the other. Start your engines.
Speaking as someone who voted for Bush twice, and for McCain and Romney…Bush deserves more hatred. The only case I could make to defend Bush is that 9/11 occured early in his first term, and had that not happened, I think he’d have been an unremarkable, mediocre POTUS. Which is how I’d describe Obama to date. But, as 9/11 did occur, and Bush’s reactions to it were largely a series of awful blunders, he deserves more hatred than Obama. By an order of magnitude, at least.
Not mutually exclusive. No matter what his motive for invading Iraq was, for instance, the failings of the resulting occupation, counter-insurgency, and provisional government are blunders. If he lied us into a war and the war and occupation had actually gone to plan and resulted in a peaceful transfer of power, I’d be more forgiving. The outcomes of his policies damn him more than his intentions do.
As a progressive it’s a tough call. I feel betrayed by Obama, I never felt betrayed by Bush, I knew he was a stupid bastard full of hateful ideology the day he walked into office. But Obama, “Mr. Hope and Change,” turned out to be a reactionary as bad as Bush in many respects, in fact, some call Obama’s second term “Bush’s sixth term in office.” Obama bailed out the banks but not the people rooked by the banks and the real estate agents. He was unable, i.e., unwilling, to prosecute any of the people behind the massive fraud that led to the 2007 collapse. He lets the NSA continue its massive and illegal surveillance program. He authorized “double tap” drone strikes which is by all measures a war crime. Instead of rewarding men like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden as American patriots and whistleblowers, he attacks them with the savagery of a Third World despot.
But what Obama has NOT done that Bush DID was get us involved in a totally unnecessary, totally illegal war, i.e. Iraq. He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of American servicemen and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. He is a war criminal by any standard.
Now I would probably be just fine with seeing both Obama and Bush tried in the Hague for war crimes. But I’d have misgivings about seeing Obama swinging at the rope. Not Bush. I’d be very pleased to see him killed for what he did.
If GWB had chosen among competent good-spirited Republicans (perhaps even including his father) for his V.P. and key advisers, I think he’d be rated among the other mediocrities. Perhaps he’d even be categorized like Jimmy Carter (though the details would be opposite) as grossly misqualified, but still with good intentions. Instead he turned power over to two of the most evil and despicable choices available: Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. The aging Rumsfeld was well past his “use by” date, and other key figures were largely incompetent ideologues, but weren’t as despicable as Cheney and Rove. Jerry Bremer was a particularly poor choice to manage Iraq, but by that time Bush’s record was such that if there were a *worse *choice than Bremer, that worse choice would probably have gotten the appointment!
Bush’s Administration became a tragedy in very many ways:
[ul][li] Bad fiscal policies.[/li][li] Accelerating the already-bad deregulation policies of the 1980’s and 90’s.[/li][li] Reversing his campaign promise to reduce carbon emissions.[/li][li] Starting a stupid war and, worse, totally bungling its aftermath.[/li][/ul]
Lumping the Bush Administration into a single “event”, I’d consider it a strong candidate to be the most tragic event of my lifetime – obviously worse than 9/11 itself, and perhaps even the entire Vietnam War.
Depending on how one interprets “hate” (I’d describe my own feelings as “deeply regret” and “pity”), I guess my answer to the question posed in thread title is clear. To even ask the question is so silly, I’d ask the Mods to move this thread to a Comedy forum.
I think Evil Captor makes some good points. I, too, am quite disappointed with Obama. He spent ALL of his political capital in getting a retread of the 1993 Republican alternative to Hillarycare passed, then hasn’t so much as lifted a finger to defend it, explain it, or promote it. He thinks of himself as a post partisan president and only occasionally figures out that the other side has spent 100% of their time trying to destroy him from day one. That being said, McCain would have been a clusterfuck and Romney even worse. Saving us from those asswipes is an accomplishment in itself.
More importantly, he is not Bush. He didn’t start two unnecessary wars, did not turn a surplus into debt, did not appoint dickweeds to the Supreme Court, did not fuck up a disaster response. So unless you aren’t paying attention, Bush deserves scorn, ridicule, derision, whatver. Hate is optional but hate if you wish.
Bush deserves hatred that burns as hot as a thousand suns. Obama perhaps deserves hatred burning as hot as one or two suns.
Bush ordered the military and the CIA to torture people, including innocent people, to death in some cases, thereby overturning centuries of American tradition of defending human rights. Obama doesn’t torture (as far as we know) but he failed to prosecture anyone for doing so under the Bush administration. Bush started a War in Iraq under false premises that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and began campaigns of drone strikes. Obama ended the Iraq War but expanded the drone strikes, killing thousands more civilians. Bush lead a full-scale assault on civil liberties including free press, free speech, and right to trial by jury. Obama has continued the attack on civil liberties. Bush scaled up punishments for minor drug users. Obama has not reversed that decision. etc…
Funny, I don’t recall healthcare reform, repeal of DADT, equal pay for women, ending the war in Iraq, or fighting global warming as being very high on Bush’s agenda.
Ahem.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, i.e. “the bank bailout”, was, as its name implied, passed in 2008. Unless your hypothesis is that Obama has access to a time machine, then you’re blaming the wrong person.
Prosecute them on what charges?
Cite the statute making the NSA’s surveillance program illegal.
Cite the statute that makes “double tap drone strikes” a “war crime”.
So your beef with Obama is that he didn’t prosecute “bankers” who committed no specific felony, but that he is prosecuting people who stole classified files from their government by fraud and indiscriminately made them available to enemies of this country, thereby committing espionage and treason?
And I would not be fine with any American elected official being put on trial by a foreign power, in a foreign country, in violation of a foreign law to which he never swore an oath.
While I do not have a personal dislike for politicians in general (except for the ilk of James Traficant), Bush the Lesser is infinitely more worthy of criticism for his policies in particular the colossal strategic error of the War in Iraq, tremendously expanding government powers of surveillance, two massive and unnecessary tax cuts that ended the surplus of the Clinton years (although to be fair most of the current deficit is attributable to the Recession), and efforts to privatize Social Security.
Bush was not the best President we ever had, but I cannot fault him for doing overall what he thought would benefit America as a whole. I have never gotten that impression from Obama. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact: it seems that most of the stuff he does is done with an eye toward harming America.