One thing is after leaving office is I think they should 1. give advice and help the next president make a smooth transition and then 2. go away quietly and not meddle with national affairs anymore.
One good example of this was Nixon who left office and eventually dismissed his secret service detail and hired his own security so he wasnt a burden on taxpayers anymore.
The poll says “Living”, so it can’t be Hillary.
Regards,
Shodan
“Ford, I think you should pardon me. Yeah, that’s all the advice I can think of.”
Which he might have prevented if he hadn’t told the CIA courier who gave him the report that bin Laden was going to strike and the threat involved planes “you’ve covered your ass. Now leave.”
You mean rashly and without thinking.
And the president of Afghanistan is still effectively the mayor of Kabul. The country is ungovernable and always will be.
Not really. The threat is still there and some progress has been made but terrorism has not been eliminated and never will be, while civil liberties have been adversely impacted.
And replaced him with anarchy, which is even worse. The power vacuum in Iraq has led to the rapid growth of ISIS.
If this is victory, what would defeat look like? The Iraq war wasted trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and has made the world a more dangerous place.
There really wasn’t much that Bush WAS aware of, was there?
Consequential, yes. Good, no way.
While I happen to agree with you, BobLibDem, **Czarcasm **asked. Asking someone’s opinion and then telling them they’re wrong doesn’t do much to help in data collection.
My rationale for Carter was questioned, quite fairly, and I don’t see why puddleglum would object to questioning his rationale for Bush2.
I didn’t see any questions in your post.
Cite please.
This is hard. They’re all bad, aren’t they?
Carter wasn’t so terrible, but he appointed a Fed chair that rammed most of the country into a depression that in a weird way we’ve never left.
GHW Bush was an anti-regulation, EPA-sabotaging jerk, and dragged us into a war with Iraq, but other than that he was not as offensive as he could’ve been
Clinton: Destroyed welfare, bragged about it. Sent mercenaries to Bosnia, who were outside the rule of any law and raped, murdered, and enslaved people. Could not get any health care insurance reform passed. Did sign budgets that gutted funding for physician training, creating worse shortages of both physicians and GP’s. Maybe I’m just more familiar with his mistakes, but if he’s somehow the best then the others must be horrific.
GW Bush: Should never, ever have been nominated. Should have been denied re-nomination by his own party. Possibly earned his round-numbered-year “Kill this President” curse, and somehow avoided dying. Still less offensive than the racist nitwits his party put in Congress, somehow.
Obama: I’m tempted to say he’s the best, because he passed health insurance reform, of a kind. That’s more than the rest of these ornaments ever did. On the other hand, we’re back to assassinating people? Didn’t that go out with Jack Kennedy’s brains?
Yeah, I think Carter, damning with faint praise, mostly because I was too young to notice whatever atrocities he inflicted on the world so I don’t remember them.
…Yeah, I tried to vote and I guess it didn’t go through. I’ve read the thread and I just don’t know. I’m wishing for a negative vote for Shrub now.
He might, if he’d respond to my letters that present the AWESOMEST idea for a project EVAR.
Habitrail for Humanity.
Never happened
I said what I meant.
Afghanistan is not be used as a base for terror attacks against the US. That is the most important thing, a stable government would be nice but that is up to the Afghans.
The odds of dying in a terrorist attack are about 1 in 20 million, that is almost indistinguishable from zero. It takes a little longer to get on a plane, that is well worth the practical elimination of the terrorist threat.
Replaced him with a democratically elected government. A million people died in wars started by Saddam, economic sanctions were killing hundreds of thousands of children. Things are bad after Saddam but they were worse before. ISIS started because of the civil war in Syria, which happened during the watch of Obama and much of its growth into Iraq could have been prevented had Obama signed a better status of forces agreement.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded two nations, starting two wars which cost a million lives. He had one of the largest armies in the world. He used chemical weapons and was trying to acquire others. ISIS is nowhere near the threat to the world that Saddam Hussein was.
Much better than Carter, whose wishy washyness about the Iranian revolution and the Afghanistan invasion led to a much more dangerous world than the one he inherited.
Don’t have time to clear up all of your inaccuracies, but here’s two:
Actually, that infamous PDB was the last of a sequence of six or seven increasingly hair-on-fire PDB warnings about the increasing possibility of an al-Qaeda attack in the U.S.
Whether or not GWB used that exact wording to respond to the August 6, 2001 PDB really doesn’t matter. The fact is, he didn’t do a damn thing about the warnings.
Sure it did.
Bush warned about hijacking of planes.
From Ron Suskind’s book:
You seem to be simultaneously claiming that the risk of being killed by terrorists is minimal but the Afghan war was justified in order to prevent the use of that nation by terrorist groups.
I’d be quite interested to see a poll of Iraqis that felt ridding them of Saddam was worth the terrible toll taken on their nation.
Bush the elder is the least worst of the bunch.
Since I haven;t seen anything actually questioning the limits of the last SOFA that was signed, I’m guessing puddleglum was referencing the inability of the Obama administration to get a new one to replace it. He just got the actual issue quite wrong. Getting a SOFA to keep some advisers embedded and maybe some fixed wing air in support of the IA could have stiffened things if they were still on ground 2 1/2 years later when ISIS started to spin up. The odds of getting a new SOFA were low due to Iraqi internal politics. We didn’t make trying to get one much of a priority. Unsurprisingly we didn’t get one.
That’s a different issue than puddleglum states but also different than simply pointing at the last SOFA that was signed…
Bush got briefings on the general threat of Al Queda but rules put in place by Carter and Clinton made it impossible for the CIA, FBI, and Army intelligence to work together to put together the whole picture. These rules were changed by the Patriot Act. There was nothing actually actionable in what Bush heard. The quote from Suskind’s book is typical CIA spin. I don’t believe it for a second.
I believe that the risk of being killed by terrorists is small and the Afghan war justified to prevent terrorism. Just like I believe that the risk of dying from measles is small but I get my kids vaccinated anyway. The reason the risk of terrorism is so small is not because terrorist no longer want to kill us but because the government is actively preventing them from doing so.
The inability of the Obama administration to sign a new SOFA was what I was referring to. The reason that Iraqi politics doomed the new SOFA was that the previous one was unpopular because of the issue of what to do with American soldiers who had broken Iraqi laws. The Iraqi administration wanted a new SOFA at a troop level higher than what the Obama administration wanted and were willing to keep the unpopular rules about American soldiers in place . The Iraqis thought the low level of American troops the Obama administration offered would provide no benefit while still being politically unpopular. The Obama administration thought the level of force the Iraqis wanted would be politically unpopular so they didn’t agree to more. Thus there was no agreement and ISIS in Iraq ended up happening.
cite?
I voted Clinton as the top pick. With the GOP turn to stupid Obama probably had a harder time of it so I give him a second place ranking and award GHW Bush third.