• 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!

Do you believe Bush was a good president?

Do you believe George W Bush was a good president?


  • Total voters
    93
I know its an asinine question. It would like like asking if Ryan leaf is good qb or if lebron james is the worst player in NBA history. He failed at ever aspect of his presidency and to think otherwise would be to completely ignore the results of his presidency. I don't know how anyone can objectively conclude after looking at the results of his presidency that he is anything but a bad president. Despite his presidency being a unmitigated disaster he seems to have a loyal following here.

GW Bush admitted that he is a C student. UT declined to admit him due to mediocre grades. But he got into Harvard under "special circumstances" so the story goes. If he had been a A student perhaps the problems now in the ME would not have developed.
 
GW Bush admitted that he is a C student. UT declined to admit him due to mediocre grades. But he got into Harvard under "special circumstances" so the story goes. If he had been a A student perhaps the problems now in the ME would not have developed.

Pure speculation, I think.

First of all, if you are relying on a "story", your info is likely hogwash. Second of all, being an A student has nothing to do with preventing problems in the ME from developing. Heck, look at Obama and the problems HE'S let develop.

Of course, we don't really KNOW what kind of grades Obama got, do we? Maybe he was a C student, too.
 
Treated like liberators? WTF are you listening to? I suspect nothing but the right-wing propogandists because that isn't even close to being true. You need to turn off your radio and do a little research because if you believe what you wrote you are completely fooled.

Okay, just ignore the photo and video evidence and all the links provided to support my opinion about that. You are welcome to provide any rebuttal you can find, but you won't be able to find much during and immediately following our entry into Baghdad.
 
I don't care about Bush either way... the point is that just as we later found out that Bush made his Iraq decision based off of bad intelligence, at the time it seemed like the right decision. Time gives a more accurate perspective on these things. That said, historians are generally Liberal... that, coupled with the lack of transparency and the media sucking Obama's dick every day leads me to not care at all what the current presidential scholars conclude. If Obama turns out to be great or not according to them in 50 doesn't bother me although I think some of his major policies are crap.

No, he did not base his decision off bad intelligence, but rather was unable to find good intelligence to support his bad decision.

The desire to go into Iraq existed before 9/11, which provided the cover to actually do it. Iraq was not about WMD. That was simply a selling point that a fear-based American electorate could wrap their feeble minds around in the wake of 9/11.

No, Iraq was about a much grander scheme. It was a misguided NeoCon idea that it was ripe for democratization and could be a center-piece of a democratic tsunami in the middle east and a legacy for the Bush presidency...

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Policybrief20.pdf
Democracy and Demagoguery in the Middle East | Cato Institute

.... at least he was right about the legacy.
 
Last edited:
I don't care about Bush either way... the point is that just as we later found out that Bush made his Iraq decision based off of bad intelligence, at the time it seemed like the right decision. Time gives a more accurate perspective on these things. That said, historians are generally Liberal... that, coupled with the lack of transparency and the media sucking Obama's dick every day leads me to not care at all what the current presidential scholars conclude. If Obama turns out to be great or not according to them in 50 doesn't bother me although I think some of his major policies are crap.

You don't care about Bush either way, yet throughout this entire thread are ranting about why "Bush is better than Obama", and will be regarded that way in the future.

interesting.
 
You don't care about Bush either way, yet throughout this entire thread are ranting about why "Bush is better than Obama", and will be regarded that way in the future.

interesting.

Yes. People can be objective and not become emotionally vested one way or the other and simply analyze the facts.

Too bad for America that this seems to be a foreign concept to many..
 
Passing the Patriot Act, invading Iraq on false pretenses, winning 2000 illegitimately, trying to prevent gays from having the right to marry, ramping up debt, implementing NCLB and running public education into the ground, Medicare Part D, inadequately responding to the recession, the list goes on and on.

Probably one of our worst presidents ever.
 
Passing the Patriot Act, invading Iraq on false pretenses, winning 2000 illegitimately, trying to prevent gays from having the right to marry, ramping up debt, implementing NCLB and running public education into the ground, Medicare Part D, inadequately responding to the recession, the list goes on and on.

Probably one of our worst presidents ever.

Only to someone who doesn't want to consider facts.

For example, Bush signed the law...yes...but it was presented to him by Congress. The law passed the House 357-66 and it passed the Senate 98-1. Seems to me both Parties in Congress is the one you should be blaming instead of Bush.
 
Only to someone who doesn't want to consider facts.

For example, Bush signed the law...yes...but it was presented to him by Congress. The law passed the House 357-66 and it passed the Senate 98-1. Seems to me both Parties in Congress is the one you should be blaming instead of Bush.

Obviously I find fault with everyone who voted for the Patriot Act, but this is not a thread on my opinion of the two major parties. Secondly, Bush signed the bill into law; no matter how you twist it, he had the option to veto it and chose not to. He is responsible for any bills he signs into law, just like any other president.
 
Passing the Patriot Act, invading Iraq on false pretenses, winning 2000 illegitimately, trying to prevent gays from having the right to marry, ramping up debt, implementing NCLB and running public education into the ground, Medicare Part D, inadequately responding to the recession, the list goes on and on.

Probably one of our worst presidents ever.

Honestly, are you just saying all those things or do you REALLY believe them?

I mean, have you ever researched any of the criticisms at all to find out both sides of those issues?

If you did why wouldn't you strengthen your case by alluding to the other side of the coin and telling why those arguments are mistaken?

Because as it stands now, I can dispel almost every one of the things you posted.

And that would embarrass you pretty badly.

But that's not my game. I just want the facts to be presented.

So, do you want to post the opposing arguments or shall I?
 
Obviously I find fault with everyone who voted for the Patriot Act, but this is not a thread on my opinion of the two major parties. Secondly, Bush signed the bill into law; no matter how you twist it, he had the option to veto it and chose not to. He is responsible for any bills he signs into law, just like any other president.

I can make a case for the Patriot Act which you likely have never considered and which I believe you'd find compelling.

Here goes.

The Patriot Act, in addition to all of the claims made for it, did an important thing for America in the days after 9/11.

It assured all of the Bubba's in this country that they would not have to take justice into their own hands in order to keep us safe from Jihadists.

The Patriot Act was strong medicine. Like Chemo.

It is no joke, and it did the job of making us feel that the Government was serious about detecting the Jihadis and protecting us from a subsequent attack. It was a measure which we all could feel infringed on each of us a little even though we are patriots and innocent with nothing to hide or fear on that score.

So, with that strong medicine America's Bubbas did not go out shooting every Muslim they saw.

And how many Muslims ever thanked W for that?

They ALL should have.

It was the only thing which allowed them to live with as little fear of reprisals as they did.

Though that isn't to say there weren't some reprisal or back-lash attacks.

Just that there would have been more and they could have been more serious without the Patriot Act calming some American jitters.
 
Last edited:
I can make a case for the Patriot Act which you likely have never considered and which I believe you'd find compelling.

Here goes.

The Patriot Act, in addition to all of the claims made for it, did an important thing for America in the days after 9/11.

It assured all of the Bubba's in this country that they would not have to take justice into their own hands in order to keep us safe from Jihadists.

The Patriot Act was strong medicine. Like Chemo.

It is no joke, and it did the job of making us feel that the Government was serious about detecting the Jihadis and protecting us from a subsequent attack. It was a measure which we all could feel infringed on each of us a little even though we are patriots and innocent with nothing to hide or fear on that score.

So, with that strong medicine America's Bubbas did not go out shooting every Muslim they saw.

And how many Muslims ever thanked W for that?

They ALL should have.

It was the only thing which allowed them to live with as little fear of reprisals as they did.

We all saw what happened after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

The funny thing is the amount of truth probably in the argument.

I wouldn't say that this prevented all recriminations nor that the fact that the lack of such measures in Europe has been followed by a strong increase in dislike and even hate of Muslims as indicative of the total correctness of the link. But it is definitely worth remarking on.
 
Obviously I find fault with everyone who voted for the Patriot Act, but this is not a thread on my opinion of the two major parties. Secondly, Bush signed the bill into law; no matter how you twist it, he had the option to veto it and chose not to. He is responsible for any bills he signs into law, just like any other president.

And you think it was a bad instrument among the alternatives that were?
Admittedly I did not like treating terrorism as war instead of international crime. But even there, I well understand the reasoning for a more robust stand. I would have much preferred using 9.11 as a leverage to build a supranational system of r2p and dependable general enforcement. But I am not at all sure that would have worked at the time and did not believe so at the time, whereas the war approach did convince the UN to introduce the r2p norm breaking with its focus on legality based on the absolute sovereignty of the ruler in the member state, which was unheard of but important. It also has convinced the European elite of the necessity of being involved in making international peace and carrying more of the substantial hard and soft costs. Germany's present engagements and internal discussion is a point in fact.

Bush actually did this initiative enormous good as the Bad Cop. Where we fell over was when the Good Cop lost our way.
 
I know its an asinine question. It would like like asking if Ryan leaf is good qb or if lebron james is the worst player in NBA history. He failed at ever aspect of his presidency and to think otherwise would be to completely ignore the results of his presidency. I don't know how anyone can objectively conclude after looking at the results of his presidency that he is anything but a bad president. Despite his presidency being a unmitigated disaster he seems to have a loyal following here.

While I do not think Bush was by any means a great President, I do believe he was a better one than his predecessor who fitted away a singular window of opportunity for the United States and world order in general and instead let a massive bubble build that undermined the country's superior standing after 1989.

Bush handled the following crash competently, considering how severe the disorder had become. And it was during his administration that the US was able to convince the UN members of the advantage of enforceable r2p. This was a real great achievement. Arguably it came at a cost that was too high. Arguably not.
 
I dont believe , I am sure he is the stupidiest president of all times
 
While I do not think Bush was by any means a great President, I do believe he was a better one than his predecessor who fitted away a singular window of opportunity for the United States and world order in general and instead let a massive bubble build that undermined the country's superior standing after 1989.

Bush handled the following crash competently, considering how severe the disorder had become. And it was during his administration that the US was able to convince the UN members of the advantage of enforceable r2p. This was a real great achievement. Arguably it came at a cost that was too high. Arguably not.

Solid post.

But I am annoyed when posters use abreviations which are not known to all.

And every poster should know that using abbreviations which are unknown to the reader pisses that reader off just a little bit. And in a post where you are trying to persuade, it doesn't help to piss off your potential supporters.

The guide to using abbreviations is to spell it out completely the first time it is used and note the abbreviation in parenthesis.

For example, "As Soon As Possible (A.S.A.P.)" and then throughout that post one may refer to the abbreviation.

It keeps potential allies on your side.

Now.

WTF is r2p???
 
no personl attack please
 
Honestly, are you just saying all those things or do you REALLY believe them?

I mean, have you ever researched any of the criticisms at all to find out both sides of those issues?

If you did why wouldn't you strengthen your case by alluding to the other side of the coin and telling why those arguments are mistaken?

Because as it stands now, I can dispel almost every one of the things you posted.

And that would embarrass you pretty badly.

But that's not my game. I just want the facts to be presented.

So, do you want to post the opposing arguments or shall I?

There are obviously multiple opposing arguments to any position, and I'm not psychic, so I don't know what you're thinking. If you want to say something, you might as well post it.

I can make a case for the Patriot Act which you likely have never considered and which I believe you'd find compelling.

Here goes.

The Patriot Act, in addition to all of the claims made for it, did an important thing for America in the days after 9/11.

It assured all of the Bubba's in this country that they would not have to take justice into their own hands in order to keep us safe from Jihadists.

The Patriot Act was strong medicine. Like Chemo.

It is no joke, and it did the job of making us feel that the Government was serious about detecting the Jihadis and protecting us from a subsequent attack. It was a measure which we all could feel infringed on each of us a little even though we are patriots and innocent with nothing to hide or fear on that score.

So, with that strong medicine America's Bubbas did not go out shooting every Muslim they saw.

And how many Muslims ever thanked W for that?

They ALL should have.

It was the only thing which allowed them to live with as little fear of reprisals as they did.

Though that isn't to say there weren't some reprisal or back-lash attacks.

Just that there would have been more and they could have been more serious without the Patriot Act calming some American jitters.

The argument you're proposing for the Patriot Act could apply to any course of action at all that was taken post-9/11.

And you think it was a bad instrument among the alternatives that were? Admittedly I did not like treating terrorism as war instead of international crime. But even there, I well understand the reasoning for a more robust stand. I would have much preferred using 9.11 as a leverage to build a supranational system of r2p and dependable general enforcement. But I am not at all sure that would have worked at the time and did not believe so at the time, whereas the war approach did convince the UN to introduce the r2p norm breaking with its focus on legality based on the absolute sovereignty of the ruler in the member state, which was unheard of but important. It also has convinced the European elite of the necessity of being involved in making international peace and carrying more of the substantial hard and soft costs. Germany's present engagements and internal discussion is a point in fact.

Bush actually did this initiative enormous good as the Bad Cop. Where we fell over was when the Good Cop lost our way.

I fully supported intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 in order to kill Bin Laden. The Patriot Act wasn't an effective part of the post-9/11 response whatsoever, and was more an unwise action that was nonetheless taken because people felt like something had to be done.
 
Solid post.

But I am annoyed when posters use abreviations which are not known to all.

And every poster should know that using abbreviations which are unknown to the reader pisses that reader off just a little bit. And in a post where you are trying to persuade, it doesn't help to piss off your potential supporters.

The guide to using abbreviations is to spell it out completely the first time it is used and note the abbreviation in parenthesis.

For example, "As Soon As Possible (A.S.A.P.)" and then throughout that post one may refer to the abbreviation.

It keeps potential allies on your side.

Now.

WTF is r2p???

Responsibility to Protect
 
Solid post.

But I am annoyed when posters use abreviations which are not known to all.

And every poster should know that using abbreviations which are unknown to the reader pisses that reader off just a little bit. And in a post where you are trying to persuade, it doesn't help to piss off your potential supporters.

The guide to using abbreviations is to spell it out completely the first time it is used and note the abbreviation in parenthesis.

For example, "As Soon As Possible (A.S.A.P.)" and then throughout that post one may refer to the abbreviation.

It keeps potential allies on your side.

Now.

WTF is r2p???

R2P is a standing expression for Responsibility to Protect. It is a new norm the UN adopted in 2005. Office of The Special Adviser on The Prevention of Genocide
There is a debate on how widely it can or should be applied and, whether the Security Council must approve under all circumstances. It is well worth googleing.
 
Back
Top Bottom