• 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!

Bush's Presidency

How do You rate George W. Bush's Presidency?

  • He's The Best President We've Ever Had

    Votes: 3 3.7%
  • He Was One Of The Best

    Votes: 6 7.3%
  • He Was Pretty Good

    Votes: 8 9.8%
  • He's Alright

    Votes: 6 7.3%
  • He Was Kind Of Bad

    Votes: 13 15.9%
  • He Was One Of The Worst

    Votes: 35 42.7%
  • He Was The Worst

    Votes: 11 13.4%

  • Total voters
    82
Until "W" did we ever attack a sovereign nation that had not attacked us first?

That makes him the worst and I am only saying one thing that he screwed the pooch on. I never thought it would be possible to make some of the others look good and he made them all look good.
 
Why on earth is the federal government to blame for a hurricane?
Nobody, absolutely nobody in Bush's place would have been able to stop this from happening.
Afghanistan: success (up until the last few years at least)
No Child Left Behind: depends on who you ask
Gitmo: non-issue
Bailouts: terrible mistake
Over-spending: terrible mistake

His handling of helping people after Katrina was disastrous. I know 75% of the blame goes to the FEMA Director, but Bush should have stepped in after 1 day or 2 at the max, and kicked out the Director, and made things work. He didn't, he just talked about it, and then after everything was said and done, and ruined, he went and visited the carnage.

He should have reacted to 9/11 differently. He shouldn't have invaded Iraq. He did do good on Afghanistan, but not enough follow-up.

NCLB...ugh...

Agree with the rest.
 
Until "W" did we ever attack a sovereign nation that had not attacked us first?

That makes him the worst and I am only saying one thing that he screwed the pooch on. I never thought it would be possible to make some of the others look good and he made them all look good.


yes you had.
 
Until "W" did we ever attack a sovereign nation that had not attacked us first?

That makes him the worst and I am only saying one thing that he screwed the pooch on. I never thought it would be possible to make some of the others look good and he made them all look good.

'Cept Hoover, who single handedly started the Great Depression. Admitedly, he did set the stage for a dramatic comeback into WWII...
 
yes you had.

First, where are you? Country-wise?

And the only ones are 1812, Mexican-American, and Vietnam.

1812 wasn't supremely justified, but after sacking of Washington...

Mexican-American was all about land.

Vietnam, we were supporting our French allies.
 
^Don't forget about the Persian Gulf. Nobody attacked us, but we helped Kuwait out anyways.

His handling of helping people after Katrina was disastrous. I know 75% of the blame goes to the FEMA Director, but Bush should have stepped in after 1 day or 2 at the max, and kicked out the Director, and made things work. He didn't, he just talked about it, and then after everything was said and done, and ruined, he went and visited the carnage.

You're assuming that this kind of thing is the Federal government's responsibility, which is a false assumption. The state and local governments, and the people themselves, are responsible for relief in this situation.

He should have reacted to 9/11 differently.

How so?

He shouldn't have invaded Iraq.

It was a good idea with the information we had. That said, we shouldn't have had that false information in the first place. Iraq is more the fault of an incompetent CIA than anything else.

He did do good on Afghanistan, but not enough follow-up.

True.

NCLB...ugh...

Like I said, it depends on who you ask. Apparently you're one of the people who respond negatively, when asked.
 
^Don't forget about the Persian Gulf. Nobody attacked us, but we helped Kuwait out anyways.
You're assuming that this kind of thing is the Federal government's responsibility, which is a false assumption. The state and local governments, and the people themselves, are responsible for relief in this situation.
How so?
It was a good idea with the information we had. That said, we shouldn't have had that false information in the first place. Iraq is more the fault of an incompetent CIA than anything else.

:doh another one I forgot...

Well, FEMA is something Bush has the authority to control ( to certain limits of course) and he should have done something, to force the use of available resources. Same for Obama, if he doesn't react to something like Katrina, screw him too.

The 9/11 thing tied into Iraq. All intelligence should be taken with big pinches of salt, and to completely believe a report enough to go into a war...come one. They screwed up, but that doesn't clear Bush of it either. If Obama went into...Iran because the CIA said there were nuke armed missiles, and there weren't it'd be the same thing.
 
Really? I think there are some really influential conservative speakers who have been waterboarded...Mancow Muller, was a swimmer, and got ready for the waterboarding, got totally prepared. When they started he lasted about 5 seconds before started gasping and calling for it to stop. Afterwards, he said, ".....absolutely torture." Here are some videos. The actual waterboarding starts about 2:30 or so in.

YouTube - Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded (VANITY FAIR)

Here's a link to Mancow. The waterboarding starts about 2:30 again.

Radio Talk Show Host Mancow Muller Waterboarded (Video) Right Pundits

That's an awesome video, thank you.

What's wrong with torturing terrorists, though?
 
That's an awesome video, thank you.

What's wrong with torturing terrorists, though?

Theres no problem with torturing terrorists, but not everyone we hold in Gitmo is a terrorist. And when we waterboard them, they'll say anything to stop it, and so they admit to things they didn't commit. And once we do all this to them, it creates resentment inside those who aren't even terrorists, so we can't release them, because they would turn into what we're trying to prevent. It screws those innocent people into becoming terrorists in the first place.
 
Which actually raised tax revenues, btw.

Real questionable. And it's highly probable that Heritage is confusing (or intentionally ignoring) causation and correlation. The economy picked back up. Does that mean the tax cuts raised revenue? Or that the economy raised revenue independent of the tax cuts? Furthermore, bonus depreciation, especially the kind Bush enacted has a way of pushing next year's purchases into current year. It's kind of like legal channel stuffing without the underlying intent to return. Purchases of depreciable property that would have been bought in year two are bought in year one making tax revenues from those sales look larger than normal. It's hard to say.

Furthermore, the Heritage site admits that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. If tax cuts raised revenue, then they WOULD pay for themselves. The more you cut, the more you receive. The Laffer curve is likely correct on the higher rates, but the Laffer curve as an absolute at all places is laughable.

The only real strong, irrefutable evidence would be a reduction in taxes with no other legislation to cloud the picture.
 
What's wrong with torturing terrorists, though?

If you have to ask, then the answer will not be understandable to you anyway. (Beside, they were SUSPECTED terrorists....found guilty of nothing at all in any court or tribunal)
 
Another "Vietnam"?


:lol: I thought you lefties dropped thay hyperbole when you realized we weren't gonna lose. :lol:

Or like Vietnam they scream and yell untill we prematurely withdrawl. Then when the communist forces walk in and slay over a million people they just *shrug* like its no concern of theirs.
 
I could not rank Bush Jr. as the worst president but, one of the worst, yes. Of course, Bush Jr. had a high bar to clear when you follow the path of minimal government and maximum individual liberty. I will type a small list of why he should join the league of bad presidents; Iraq War, anti-liberty Acts, and secrecy beyond secrecy, etc.
 
Below average, far from the worst, not near the best.

Good picks on judges, the tax cuts were good, Patriot Act largely good, reinvesting in human intelligence good.

TSA/DHS was a bad move, as was perscription drug, as was a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the handling of Iraq poor.

Katrina in between as it wasn't all his, Afghanistan and Iraq both had good and bad points, creating another "War on ....." whatever was not the right way to go about it imho.

Something like a D+, maybe C-
 
This thread is all about Bush Jr.'s presidency. This regards his competence ( or lack of) his policies failure ( or success) and global view on him in general.

Between Bush's tax cuts, the Iraq War, Katrina, 9/11, and everything else that happened during his admin. he has done on average, somewhat poorly, in a political perspective. He has essentially turned America into a declining "empire" with another Vietnam, and a world which hates him.

I don't believe that Mr. Obama will be better. All arabian world lough about his speech in Cairo.

color-obama-cairo-web.jpg

source:Dave Granlund - Editorial Cartoons & Illustrations
 
Bush Baa-aa-aa-aadd. Four legs gooood, two legs baa-aa-aadd.

Bush's failures:

Continued promotion of the invasion of the United States by Mexico.
Continued refusal to expand domestic oil exploration and exploitation.
New entitlement plans.
Failure to eliminate any government spending.
Going into Iraq, then bumbling it. (Democrats helped that enormously)
AIG bailout.
His general overall liberalness makes him a bad president, as all liberal presidents were bad to a large degree.

He's not Wilson, who still reigns as Worst Ever.
 
Theres no problem with torturing terrorists, but not everyone we hold in Gitmo is a terrorist. And when we waterboard them, they'll say anything to stop it, and so they admit to things they didn't commit. And once we do all this to them, it creates resentment inside those who aren't even terrorists, so we can't release them, because they would turn into what we're trying to prevent. It screws those innocent people into becoming terrorists in the first place.

Hmm well torturing non-terrorists is certainly a problem, I agree.
 
Hmm well torturing non-terrorists is certainly a problem, I agree.

Exactly, if we could make sure everyone we torture is a terrorist, no problem, and we might as well ramp up the crap we do to them. But they aren't all bad...
 
You know, just saying I'm wrong, and not proving how I'm wrong is less then useful in a debate. Kind of like having FEMA and not using it right after Katrina ;)

And yet you offered not a shred of 'proof' about anything in your OP. Unless you consider listing a string of events such as Katrina and 9/11 'proof' that Bush was a miserable president.

We could just as easily 'prove' that Clinton was a miserable president by offering up a similar list... Bin Laden, the 1993 WTC bombing, Monica Lewinsky, perjury, impeachment, Oklahoma City, the Waco Massacre, Elian Gonzalez, the Rwanda massacre, Monica Lewinsky, "I did not have sex with that woman!", Mogadishu, the O.J. verdict, the blue dress...

:doh
 
Back
Top Bottom