Reply With Quote
how does "Paying them not to kill us"= successful surge?
Successes: no terrorist attacks on the United States since 9/11; trusted Petraeus and made the courageous decision to start the surge; his commitment to fighting AIDS in Africa
Failures: did not make tax cuts permanent; overall budget mismanagement, failed to control spending, rarely used his veto; failed to reform social security and immigration
TBD: the decision to go to war in Iraq; to a lesser extent, the decision to go to war in Afghanistan; the Katrina fiasco; his role in addressing the financial crisis
This is my basic assessment of his presidency:
1. He trusted his instincts without agonizing over any doubts or alternative courses of action;
2. He was loyal to a fault, and he probably verged on cronyism;
3. He was well-meaning and sincere;
4. He was not an intellectual, but he was highly intelligent;
5. He deferred too much to Cheney, and thus looked weak at times;
6. He failed to control the rivalry between Powell's State Department and Rumsfeld's Pentagon, which is a big deal during a time of war; and
7. He was a consequential president, much like Truman, and his major foreign policy and national security decisions will be debated by historians for decades.
In other words, Bush had his successes and his failures. But the defining issue of his presidency--terrorism and Iraq--is the key to his legacy. Because of the importance of hsi defining issue, he may be remembered as a great president, or a horrible president. There really is no middle ground.
Last edited by doobs; 01-16-2009 at 11:22 AM.
how does "Paying them not to kill us"= successful surge?
Amerithrax ring a bell?Successes: no terrorist attacks on the United States since 9/11
Another thing: you think the judgment about Katrina is TBD? Seems like the ship has already sailed on this one. A great American city drowned while he was noodling on a guitar.
Overblown. Look at the respective budgets. This is the rivalry of the hammer and the nail. State got hammered.He failed to control the rivalry between Powell's State Department and Rumsfeld's Pentagon, which is a big deal during a time of war
Well, Bush was responsible, ultimately, for the federal response to Katrina. In the beginning, his hands were tied by posse comitatus and the insurrection act, and by Governor Blanco's stubborn refusal to order an evacuation and properly use the national guard to restore order---though I do think FEMA's after-the-fact handling of the disaster was pretty damn awful. Regardless, I believe the ultimate responsibility for planning for and responding to something like Katrina lies with state and local officials. (Individuals, too.) Texas does it pretty well. Why can't Louisiana?
I blame Governon Blanco and Mayor Nagin, first and foremost. Bush gets a share of the blame, too. I guess I put it in the TBD category because the extent to which he should be blamed for Katrina is up for debate. It's not at all clear, to me, that the Katrina fiasco should be remembered as a major failure of his presidency. (But it definitely wasn't a success.)
Is that really a terrorist attack?
I guess I was referring to large-scale acts of violence from international terrorist organizations, involving guns, or bombs, or missiles, or planes, or whatever. The anthrax attacks were more of a strictly law enforcement issue, in my opinion.
No, I think his failure to control Powell and Rumsfeld was a big deal. If the reporting on the issue is to be trusted, he made the nation's top diplomat feel isolated and useless. That's a really bad thing in a time of war.
Of course there's a disparity in their budgets. But that's beside the point. What's the NSC's budget? Probably a lot less than either State or Defense, but the national security adviser exercises a great deal of influence over foreign policy.
I recently read an interesting book by Douglas Feith about the State-Defense rivalry under Bush. He seems to believe that Powell's influence was hurt a great deal by his lack of professionalism. Powell's State Department was extremely disorganized, and his people never really wrote memos or prepared anything for the president to look at---Feith thinks this is why the Pentagon routinely got their way. He was tooting his own horn, for sure, but it's an interesting take.
Here, Here! Much ado about nothing if you ask me.
What's TBD about his Iraq policy? It was a disaster. He believed a bunch of plainly false intel, picked an even bigger s bag than himself to be his first choice for puppet governor of Iraq, told the army to go themselves because Rumsfeld knew what was going on, threw Iraq into total chaos, did nothing to stop Al Sadr, etc. It was like Bush didn't plan anything out for 5 minutes after the invasion. I know, God told him to do it.TBD: the decision to go to war in Iraq;
Rivalry? He made Rumsfeld vs Powell into Spurs/Suns.6. He failed to control the rivalry between Powell's State Department and Rumsfeld's Pentagon, which is a big deal during a time of war; and
If preventing terrorist attacks after 9/11 is a success, then his willful ignorance of the terrorist threat before 9/11 is his biggest and most unforgivable failure and makes Bush and overall failure as president.
Didn't think about it like that, but it makes sense. Very true.
My two cents:
http://girldefined.com/thanks-mr-president/
I think the Iraq topic needs to be divided into 3 areas. The decision to go into Iraq and then pre 2006 elections policy and post 2006 elections policy.
Decision to go into Iraq - D
Pretty hard to argue that it wasn't a mistake. I think the only reasonable argument would be that it was an intelligence failure and thus Bush doesn't deserve full blame. I give him some slack because of that so I give him a D instead of an F.
Pre 2006 elections Policy - F
Lot's of reasons but I'd put disbanding the Iraqi army at the top of my list.
Post 2006 elections Policy - A
He stuck with it instead abandoning Iraq as Dems and a growing number of repubs wanted. Which IMO would have been disastrous.
Overall Iraq GPA - 1.67
Man - you guys are so hateful. And so wrong! You're all suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome and there's no cure. You'll still be screaming about all his "failures" years from now.
As for me - I'm going to love watching Obama and his cronies totally screw up the country and you guys aren't going to know how to react. Especially the black people - are they really gonna start blaming the "black" man?! Of course, everything that goes wrong will STILL be blamed on Bush because Obama is the chosen one and he can't fail. You guys are pathetic.
why do you want us to fail?
Willful ignorance? What are you talking about? Are you accusing Bush of purposely ignoring bin Laden and the 9/11 plot?
Anyway, Bush definitely deserves credit for responding to the terrorist threat. That's his job, and the results are hard to argue with. Could he have done more to prevent 9/11? Sure. Bill Clinton could have done a of a lot more, too. Bin Laden was not a man of significance until the 1990s, after all. Does Bill Clinton deserve blame for the embassy attacks, or the USS Cole? And I suppose FDR could have done a of a lot more to prevent Pearl Harbor.
9/11 put us all on notice, finally, about the threat posed by Muslim extremists. As far as knowledge of the threat and tools at his disposal to address the threat, Barack Obama on September 11, 2009 will be in a much different position than George Bush was on September 11, 2001.
Were you even old enough to vote for Bush's first term?I refused to vote at all the first time the then Govenor George W. Bush ran for office. I could not stomach the thought of helping to elect either him or his compe or.
Oooohhh Bali - you're sooooo clever! God - you're an absolute idiot! Everything about you is offensive.
How in the can Republicans spend the better part of the last 8 years accusing people of "hating" America, and then post like this with a straight ing face. Hypocrite much???
Hopefully, I'm offensive, to racist morons such as yourself
I mean seriously, I'd worry about offending like, a priest. Or I'd be worried about offending a hot girl. Or I'd be worried about offending my boss. But a dumbass, southern-fried ,piece of racist like yourself? Yeah, any offense a head like you would take, can only mean I'm doing something morally right.
Last edited by balli; 01-16-2009 at 04:15 PM.
I don't hate America - on the contrary I love it very much - that's why I "hate" Obama and all he stands for. But people were so blinded by his charisma that they didn't really care to investigate the man behind the pretty speeches.
A lot of people are going to be very disallusioned and disappointed that he wasn't the be-all and end-all and the saviour of the world. That's what I'm going to laugh about - and I'm going to take great delight in saying "I told you so"! In about 18 months I think I'll get a bumper sticker that says "Don't Blame Me - I Voted For Palin".
please enlighten the rest of us then. What the have you uncovered that makes Obama such a bad choice that you're denouncing his presidency before it even starts?? could it be you're a pathetic partisan hack?
why don't you become a martyr?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
