• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was George W Bush a good president?[W:439:621]

Was George W Bush a good president?


  • Total voters
    124
  • Poll closed .
I get the mindless Bush blame from the left.

Its all they have really.

But the cause of the 2008 Financial crisis has been discussed on this forum thoroughly, and it wasn't Bush that caused it.

LOL...and Herbert Hoover was also an economic genius that shared no responsibility for the great depression, right?
 
I get the mindless Bush blame from the left.

Its all they have really.

But the cause of the 2008 Financial crisis has been discussed on this forum thoroughly, and it wasn't Bush that caused it.
But the theory that "Bush did it" is easier for them to digest. Otherwise it just gets too complicated. It would also require some research, an idea which repels them.
 
But the theory that "Bush did it" is easier for them to digest. Otherwise it just gets too complicated. It would also require some research, an idea which repels them.

And the right, in contrast, never bashes a Democratic president when a bit of research would reveal that the issue for which he is being bashed has nothing to do with him at all.

Right, right?
 
George W. Bush was a good, not great president.

Despite quibbles regarding the actual prosecution on the Global War on Terror, Bush took necessary steps to safeguard the nation, preventing another terrorist attack on American soil. While some of the security measures may be heavy-handed in relation to their infringement on civil liberties, that is a price this American is willing to pay to prevent another 9/11. Such policies can (and have) been reviewed and can (and have) received bipartisan support. Laws can be changed. Policies can be ended. Lives lost cannot be restored.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq were legitimate wars in prosecuting the GWoT. The public backlash - fueled in no small part by the liberal media - over each handcuffed the president from doing more to eliminate the threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Had Bush's support at home not evaporated in his second term, he likely would have okayed or participated in some limited military engagement to disrupt Iran's nuclear ambitions (as he should have regardless of the political winds). Thanks to Bush, Afghanistan went from being a safe haven and training ground for al-Qaeda, run by the thugocracy of the Taliban and entirely hostile to the interests of the United States to being a non-threatening ally (albeit a hesitant, corrupt, imperfect one). Iraq went from the greatest military threat in the Middle East governed by an avowed foe of the United States who gave aid and comfort to terrorists over the years, attempted to assasinate a United States president, and had used Weapons of Mass Destruction (i.e. chemical agents) while seeking to build a nuclear weapon, flagrantly violating international sanctions and law, to becoming a potential stablizing force and a fledgling non-sectarian democracy which could be used to advance American interests rather than actively seeking to thwart them.

Both wars were won. The American people, inflamed by the press, did not have the stomach for an extended occupation, nor did they care for the nuances of geopolitics and the very good national security reasons to see the job through. President Bush failed to take his case to the American people and persuade them to stay the course. As a war president, this was his greatest failure. I can't help but believe that more accurately identifying and discrediting the enemy (Islam) in a massive propaganda campaign (much as previous administrations marshalled resources against communism in order to fight the Soviet Union) would have substantially helped Bush make even greater progress towards securing the nation and protecting our interests at home and abroad.

Even after 9 years in Iraq and 14 years in Afghanistan, combat deaths for American forces have only reached approximately one-eighth those in Vietnam and one-fiftieth of those in World War II. More than twice as many combat deaths occurred during the Mexican-American War. In fact, of the nation's 10 wars, the combined deaths in the War on Terror represent the second-lowest (exceeded only by the guerrilla war in the Philippines). As for the expense of the wars, Bush's debt-to-GDP ratio of 2.7% was nearly half that of either his father's or Ronald Reagan's administrations. (Until the Republican-forced sequester began lowering it, Obama's debt-to-GDP ratio stood at a whopping 8.9% through FY2012.) Federal outlays under Bush averaged just a little less than under the Clinton administration when compared to GDP. In other words, while the administration may have spent a lot of money, the growing economy made it affordable. The biggest driver of federal spending under the Bush administration was the increase in entitlement spending, mandatory under federal law.

Which leads me to Bush's domestic policies. If his greatest failure was in calling a spade a spade and treating the War on Terror as Truman, Ike and subsequent administrations treated the Cold War, then his greatest domestic failure was to utilize his political capital to pass meaningful entitlement reform, particularly on Social Security. (Followed closely by Bush's push for amnesty which, in a misguided attempt to win Hispanic voters to the GOP, wound up costing his party control of Congress in the 2006 mid-term elections.) But Part II of the lesson will have to wait until this old man's had his dinner.

....oh, nurse?
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Lousy president that left the country worse than when he took office. Iraq was a thunder**** of a decision. NCLB was pure idiocy. Obama is making it even worse...
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

One way in which to look at presidents is by making the most direct comparisons possible.

Bush was a better president than either Al Gore (his 2000 opponent) or John Kerry (his 2004 opponent) would have been. The past six years under Obama have gone a long way towards making Bush look better than he did upon leaving office. Any objective analysis of President Clinton will almost certainly leave W ahead there too.

A president who was better than his predecessor, better than either of his opponents, and better than his successor is awfully hard to label as a "bad" president.
 
Was George W Bush a good president?

Let's see:

NCLB---> Failed
Misleading the country on WMDs ---> Failed
Iraq War ---> Failed
Plan to privatize SS---> Failed
Preparing for inevitable recession ---> Failed
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Veterans don't fault Bush for Iraq

If you don't fault Bush then who do you fault? :lamo

Well, judging from that phrasing, at least the Right is finally starting to admit the Iraq War was a mistake.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

If you don't fault Bush then who do you fault? :lamo

Well, judging from that phrasing, at least the Right is finally starting to admit the Iraq War was a mistake.

You can judge al that by the phrasing? You are special!

You miss poor old Saddam, huh?
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

You can judge al that by the phrasing? You are special!

Don't be an a**. By his phrasing "don't fault Bush for the war" he is implying the war was a mistake. How else are you to interpret that?


You miss poor old Saddam, huh?

I miss stability.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Don't be an a**. By his phrasing "don't fault Bush for the war" he is implying the war was a mistake. How else are you to interpret that?

And from that you took it to mean all right wingers. It seems clear enough that the problems began when Obama fled Iraq.

I miss stability.
And you feel Iraq was stable under Saddam Hussein, si?
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

And from that you took it to mean all right wingers.

I never said "all right wingers." But in general, you cannot deny many on the Right are starting to view the war as a mistake.


It seems clear enough that the problems began when Obama fled Iraq.

The problems began when we went in there in the first place. We broke up an established government and churned up instability. Things were not sunshines and rainbows with Bush in office, either (btw, don't bother playing the Obama card. Never voted for the guy).

And you feel Iraq was stable under Saddam Hussein, si?

It was far from perfect but it was stable. Yes. Far more so than how it ended up.
 
That article is nonsense. Never, ever, take the NYT seriously.

So you deny Bush's role? What exactly did that article get wrong? Be specific!
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

If you don't fault Bush then who do you fault? :lamo

Well, judging from that phrasing, at least the Right is finally starting to admit the Iraq War was a mistake.

Your doing the typical liberal talking with a forked tongue, making **** up that I never said.

Don't respond to a three week old post of mine and then take it out of context.

Here is what I posted. It's from a Washington Post article about a poll of veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It seems they don't blame Bush. And they wish Bush was their CnC not an incompetent community organizer.

I blame the liberals who politicized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and even politicized the war against Al Qaeda. Now Al Qaeda has a real army. Who should we blame ?

<"War vets miss commander in chief George W. Bush
>" Iraq and Afghanistan veterans prefer George W. Bush to Barack Obama as commander in chief, according to a Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll.

Sixty-five percent of post-9/11 veterans say that Bush was a good commander in chief while just 42 percent say the same of Obama. That lopsided preference comes despite veterans' lukewarm assessments of the wars begun under Bush's watch.

Dig into the poll data and you see several clues for why Bush's image is stronger than Obama's..."<

Veterans don't fault Bush for Iraq

Veterans' groups that support Obama are in the minority Note: Poll taken before revelations of Obama's VA death panels.

War vets miss commander in chief George W. Bush"<
War vets miss commander in chief George W. Bush - The Washington Post
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

I never said "all right wingers." But in general, you cannot deny many on the Right are starting to view the war as a mistake.
Not maintaining troops there was a mistake and all the generals said so. The peace was a mistake. Even Joe Biden said after George Bush left office that Iraq was stable with a good future.
The problems began when we went in there in the first place. We broke up an established government and churned up instability. Things were not sunshines and rainbows with Bush in office, either (btw, don't bother playing the Obama card. Never voted for the guy).
Saddam had tried to develop nuclear weapons, used gas on his own people, had body dumps all over Iraq and had wars with his neighbors, had bombed Israel, tried to get the Big Gun to bomb Israel, had 'rape rooms', bribed UN members, shot on America planes, and so on. How was this stable?
It was far from perfect but it was stable. Yes. Far more so than how it ended up.
It ended up that way because Barrack Obama withdrew the troops. That's the only reason.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

I never said "all right wingers." But in general, you cannot deny many on the Right are starting to view the war as a mistake.

As witness to that, they're already reminding us of all the Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion. It won't be long before it's the fault of the left wing.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Don't respond to a three week old post of mine and then take it out of context.

The fact that it is three weeks old matters because... ?

And I took nothing out of context. I responded to exactly what you posted.

Here is what I posted. It's from a Washington Post article about a poll of veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It seems they don't blame Bush. And they wish Bush was their CnC not an incompetent community organizer.

That is not exactly resounding praise when you are picked over a community organizer. :lamo

I blame the liberals who politicized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and even politicized the war against Al Qaeda.

Empty rhetoric. War is politics.

Now Al Qaeda has a real army. Who should we blame ?

Neo-imperialism, the War on Terror and everyone who promotes it.



Sixty-five percent of post-9/11 veterans say that Bush was a good commander in chief while just 42 percent say the same of Obama. That lopsided preference comes despite veterans' lukewarm assessments of the wars begun under Bush's watch.

And there you go. Turns out your beloved veterans aren't so pro-Iraq War after all, or at the very least, did not like how Bush and his crew handled it. :lol:


Dig into the poll data and you see several clues for why Bush's image is stronger than Obama's..."<

This is not a debate over who is preferred/less s****y. This is about why Bush is considered a bad president (and yes, I would say Obama is a bad president, too.)
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Not maintaining troops there was a mistake and all the generals said so. The peace was a mistake. Even Joe Biden said after George Bush left office that Iraq was stable with a good future.

Biden is an idiot for saying that. Of course its unstable and the Bush Admin made it unstable. It will not be stable for many more years.


Saddam had tried to develop nuclear weapons, used gas on his own people, had body dumps all over Iraq and had wars with his neighbors, had bombed Israel, tried to get the Big Gun to bomb Israel, had 'rape rooms', bribed UN members, shot on America planes, and so on. How was this stable?

As I said, it was not perfect. He did horrible things to his people, but so do many political leaders who we happen to be allies with. Should we invade them, too? Btw, you do know he committed many of these atrocities while the US was allied with Iraq?


It ended up that way because Barrack Obama withdrew the troops. That's the only reason.

You're right. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before Obama went in. There was no Abu-Ghraib before Obama went in. There were no car bombs going off daily on market streets before Obama went in. There was no widespread sectarian violence before Obama went in. Gimme a break. :roll:
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

As witness to that, they're already reminding us of all the Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion. It won't be long before it's the fault of the left wing.

It is sad, really. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

I confess that I supported the invasion back in 2003 (when I was still a Republican). In 2005, I admitted to all my friends and family I was wrong.
 
So you deny Bush's role? What exactly did that article get wrong? Be specific!
The problem began in the Carter Administration, exasperated by the Clinton Administration and then:

Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

The NYT if you notice, are going by hearsay. They do that even when they are simply repeating what they were told happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyqYY72PeRM Watch what Clinton says.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Scandal in U.S. Housing - Google Books

This topic has been well hashed over the years but you'll maintain your beliefs, I'm sure.
 
The problem began in the Carter Administration, exasperated by the Clinton Administration

Neither I, nor NYT, claimed past presidents played no role in it. So please show me how Bush HAD NO ROLE IN THE CRISIS.
 
The poll results are interesting in themselves and help shed light on why Bush's poll numbers were so low throughout his second term.

Consider that (as of this writing) there are 61 self-identified lean-right respondents and 62 lean-lefts, essentially dividing the pool of American voters equally.

Whereas a majority of right-wingers rate Bush positively (albeit a bare majority of 52%), virtually all left-wingers (97%) view Bush negatively. This is more or less what I would expect the polling data throughout his presidency to reveal: that the opposition party universally disapproved of Bush from the very beginning, but his own party split in its support as time passed. This would easily be accounted for as Bush alienated conservatives on a number of fronts, most poignantly in pushing amnesty in 2005-2006. Independents, who rallied around Bush early also bled quickly as the media pounded war-weariness with the GWoT into the public's consciousness.

Interesting here, however, is that Bush's reputation among the right does not seem to have appreciably risen under the current administration.
 
Back
Top Bottom