The legacy of President George W. Bush

[Vincent Vega]

The CIA isn't partisan. Information they provided to Clinton, they also had to provide to Bush.

 

[BVS]

since i disagree with you on nixon, i have a bad track record. every time someone does not agree with you, you give them a negative view. great way to live life.

Try reading my post, I know you have a hard time doing that, but try.

I said since you are the "very small minority", I basing this on the opinion of the nation, of history. Nixon is not looked fondly upon, this nothing to do with, "since you disagree with me".

But you know what if that's all you have, continue to stick with blaming me pal.

 

[yolland]

good source, Richard Clarke. Let's decipher the critiques he makes of the Clinton administration in his fine book about the lack of organization they used towards combatting al-Qaeda.

Glad to see you incorporating some kind of structured analysis into your critiques, and using someone else's writings (in this case Byron York's) to do so is fine; but when you do that, you should cite your sources.

 

[phillyfan26]

how so? there have been no terrorist attacks here since he became president. 9/11 is directly related to clinton and his failures to do anything about it. i would call that a huge success. have you not read about the different plots that have been foiled? or are you to high to read anything positive about bush?

Yes, let's base the success of the presidency on whether we've had major attacks against our country. That's the only basis we need. [/sarcasm]

Give me a freakin' break.

It's not like I hated Bush. In fact, in the 2000 election, I supported him over Gore. Why? Because I was not a particularly big fan of Bill Clinton, and I saw Gore as coming from that vein of rule. But his handling of the presidency has been awful. He deserves this criticism. I see any defense of him as blind faith to the republican party, because I can't think of another reason to look upon his presidency, and say with a straight face, "He did a good job."

To say, "Oh, he didn't have any terrorist attacks on his watch, so he was great" is ridiculous. What about Iraq? Complete failure, bad idea from the start. The War on Terror? Not a bad idea, horrible execution. No Child Left Behind? Horrible system. I could go on and on and on. The bottom line is, he's done horribly. They're corrupt now too, with the cover-up of Cheney's CIA leak.

Oh, by the way, September 11th happened on his watch. His administration, as was pointed out, admitted they had the information. I can't believe you can reasonably state that he has no fault in handling of the info.

 

[Illumination70]

I feel the only legacy GW Bush will leave is the reputation of being the worst president the US has ever had.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I feel the only legacy GW Bush will leave is the reputation of being the worst president the US has ever had.

At the very least he'd have to be the least respected President. Certainly internationaly.

I actually think he hates the job, and has done for a long time, and it shows. There's a gazillion questions over his intelligence, and for the record I don't actually doubt that he's a bright guy, I just don't think he's that interested in 'stuff'. Can anyone here actually see the guy being engaged in debate and showing passion for ideas etc? I seriously can't. I think he fucking hates it. Loves to act Presidential when he can, would love all the ceremony and everything, but hates that he's supposed to be involved in shit. I think that's why he's always so quick to defer decisions to others, which is how he's ended up in this foreign policy mess - defer to the strongest opinion because you have none of your own - and it's why he's not just the worst US President I've seen behind a mic, but perhaps the worst communicator of any world leader I've seen from anywhere, ever.

The world just points and laughs at the guy.

 

[CTU2fan]

Wow I learn something new every day...so Bush wasn't President during 9/11. Who was then? Gore? Cheney? Clinton I guess...maybe they were still counting chads in Florida and I just missed that. Who knew.

Joking aside, 9/11 happened on GWB's watch. To suggest otherwise or to try to lay the blame at Clinton's doorstep is partisanship at its most despicable. People DIED...reducing that tragedy to nothing but fodder for anti-Clinton spin-doctoring is vile.

By that logic I guess Iraq is actually George H. Bush's fault; he invaded Iraq before, he knew about Saddam who was apparently the worst dictator in history. And 9/11? Blame Reagan for authorizing arming & training those Afghans...that worked out well didn't it?

 

[fly so high!]

At the very least he'd have to be the least respected President. Certainly internationaly.

I actually think he hates the job, and has done for a long time, and it shows. There's a gazillion questions over his intelligence, and for the record I don't actually doubt that he's a bright guy, I just don't think he's that interested in 'stuff'. Can anyone here actually see the guy being engaged in debate and showing passion for ideas etc? I seriously can't. I think he fucking hates it. Loves to act Presidential when he can, would love all the ceremony and everything, but hates that he's supposed to be involved in shit. I think that's why he's always so quick to defer decisions to others, which is how he's ended up in this foreign policy mess - defer to the strongest opinion because you have none of your own - and it's why he's not just the worst US President I've seen behind a mic, but perhaps the worst communicator of any world leader I've seen from anywhere, ever.

The world just points and laughs at the guy.

 

[Irvine511]

Can anyone here actually see the guy being engaged in debate and showing passion for ideas etc? I seriously can't. I think he fucking hates it.

i came across this the other day, and i think it echos what you've just said (and i generally agree with you):

[q]For future reference, here's that I think about the man's mind. He's well above average in intelligence. You don't get a degree from Yale—not even with a C average—unless you're fairly smart. Psychologist Linda Gottfredson, working from W's published test scores, estimated his IQ at 125, which would put him around the 95th percentile (meaning that W is smarter than 19 out of 20 Americans). Charles Murray pegged him a tad lower, but still up in the 90-somethingth percentile.

On the other hand, my rather strong impression is that while the president CAN think, he DOESN'T, much. The Iraq blunderings, the poverty of his off-the-cuff oratory, the endless repetition of tired, empty cliches long discredited, the Harriet Miers fiasco, the stupid squandering of his small remaining political capital on that major-stupid immigration bill... not much thinking there that I can see.

This isn't so surprising—that a person CAN think but WON'T. You see it a lot, actually, though usually among people with undemanding jobs. A sort of mental sloth often sets in as you get older—the intellectual equivalent of middle-age spread.

I feel it myself rather strongly—a great reluctance to think. If I wasn't chained to a computer trying to support my family, I doubt I'd have a thought from one week's end to the next. For a chap like W, who has never in his life had to wonder whether he's going to be able to meet this month's car payment, mental sloth must be an even stronger temptation.

And of course, instinct will get you a long way. A seat-of-the-pants Chief Executive can out-perform a high-IQ one—we all know that. Trouble is, your instincts have to be RIGHT, and W's mostly aren't. [/q]

The world just points and laughs at the guy.

i despair.

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

It's scary to think how weak our country really must be with this guy in charge. History will not, and should not, treat his 'legacy' kindly.

 

[dazzlingamy]

At the very least he'd have to be the least respected President. Certainly internationaly.

I actually think he hates the job, and has done for a long time, and it shows. There's a gazillion questions over his intelligence, and for the record I don't actually doubt that he's a bright guy, I just don't think he's that interested in 'stuff'. Can anyone here actually see the guy being engaged in debate and showing passion for ideas etc? I seriously can't. I think he fucking hates it. Loves to act Presidential when he can, would love all the ceremony and everything, but hates that he's supposed to be involved in shit. I think that's why he's always so quick to defer decisions to others, which is how he's ended up in this foreign policy mess - defer to the strongest opinion because you have none of your own - and it's why he's not just the worst US President I've seen behind a mic, but perhaps the worst communicator of any world leader I've seen from anywhere, ever.

The world just points and laughs at the guy.

I've read a bit on this, And the article irvine quoted said it all. A person who can't but can't be bothered is fine for a salesman but for the president? uh uh.

Sometimes I actually feel sorry for him, he just seems so lost and confused. He never seems strong, or wise or knowing or anything you'd expect from someone in that position.

 

[struckpx]

Yes, let's base the success of the presidency on whether we've had major attacks against our country. That's the only basis we need. [/sarcasm]

Give me a freakin' break.

It's not like I hated Bush. In fact, in the 2000 election, I supported him over Gore. Why? Because I was not a particularly big fan of Bill Clinton, and I saw Gore as coming from that vein of rule. But his handling of the presidency has been awful. He deserves this criticism. I see any defense of him as blind faith to the republican party, because I can't think of another reason to look upon his presidency, and say with a straight face, "He did a good job."

To say, "Oh, he didn't have any terrorist attacks on his watch, so he was great" is ridiculous. What about Iraq? Complete failure, bad idea from the start. The War on Terror? Not a bad idea, horrible execution. No Child Left Behind? Horrible system. I could go on and on and on. The bottom line is, he's done horribly. They're corrupt now too, with the cover-up of Cheney's CIA leak.

Oh, by the way, September 11th happened on his watch. His administration, as was pointed out, admitted they had the information. I can't believe you can reasonably state that he has no fault in handling of the info.

How can we not base it on that? Before President Bush, all of the big three were extremely distant from each other. They hardly functioned with each other. Now, they do joint operations and share information, which you did not see during Clinton's age. Is that part of the reason why we have seen so many terror ploits foiled? Maybe.

 

[ramblin rose]

how so? there have been no terrorist attacks here since he became president. 9/11 is directly related to clinton and his failures to do anything about it. i would call that a huge success. have you not read about the different plots that have been foiled? or are you to high to read anything positive about bush?

Are you that delusional? I understand you're young but come on. How in the world can you blame 9/11 on Clinton?

The only thing I'm still left wondering about is what would have happened on 9/11 if the Clinton administration would have still been in power and had been given the same informtion that the Bush administration seemed to have before the attack.

Maybe the attack would have still been successful, maybe not. I'm still not sure.

As far as I'm concerned, Bush is one of the worst (if not the worst) President this country has ever had.

As just so that we're clear, I've voted both Democrat and Republican in past presidential elections.

The only thing that gives me hope is that most of the staunch Bush supporters and lifelong Republicans that I know and that supported Bush in the last two elections are now backing various Democratic candidates in 2008.

 

[struckpx]

Are you that delusional? I understand you're young but come on. How in the world can you blame 9/11 on Clinton?

The only thing I'm still left wondering about is what would have happened on 9/11 if the Clinton administration would have still been in power and had been given the same informtion that the Bush administration seemed to have before the attack.

Maybe the attack would have still been successful, maybe not. I'm still not sure.

As far as I'm concerned, Bush is one of the worst (if not the worst) President this country has ever had.

As just so that we're clear, I've voted both Democrat and Republican in past presidential elections.

The only thing that gives me hope is that most of the staunch Bush supporters and lifelong Republicans that I know and that supported Bush in the last two elections are now backing various Democratic candidates in 2008.

how can you not? Clinton's administration did nothing to stop the advance of al-Qaeda, when it could have ended it.

 

[BVS]

Wow. Just wow...

 

[Irvine511]

how can you not? Clinton's administration did nothing to stop the advance of al-Qaeda, when it could have ended it.

nothing like tossing a few missles into the Sudan.

does the rise of Al-Qaeda have to do with Clinton adminstration failures? absolutely. should Clinton have taken the 1993 WTC bombing more seriously than he did? probably. did the Bush administration walk into the WH in January of 2001 and not want to hear about terrorism and instead pick fights with China (remember that spy plane thing?) absolutely. did the Bush administration -- along with the CIA -- utterly fail the American people on 9-11? absolutely.

what is 9-11 if not the failure of government to keep Americans safe.

 

[struckpx]

Wow. Just wow...

i know. i am amazed at clinton's administration as well. pathetic regarding our national security.

 

[Irvine511]

i know. i am amazed at clinton's administration as well. pathetic regarding our national security.

maybe you could expand your reading and plagiarize from other sources?

 

[BVS]

i know. i am amazed at clinton's administration as well. pathetic regarding our national security.

No, I'm just amazed that you think it just popped up out of nowhere during Clinton's admin. You seem to have forgotten that we armed them at one time during the 80's, and that W didn't take any threat seriously either until after 9/11.

But yeah, let's blame it all on Clinton. Short sightedness is one step away from blindness.

 

[struckpx]

No, I'm just amazed that you think it just popped up out of nowhere during Clinton's admin. You seem to have forgotten that we armed them at one time during the 80's, and that W didn't take any threat seriously either until after 9/11.

But yeah, let's blame it all on Clinton. Short sightedness is one step away from blindness.

Why then should we blame Bush for the 8 months that he was in office. All of us know that it takes months to get new policies in place from old ones. Almost everyone here is blaming Bush, yet he had only been on the job 8 months. Very little can be done in that amount of time. Clinton had 8 years.

 

[Irvine511]

Why then should we blame Bush for the 8 months that he was in office. All of us know that it takes months to get new policies in place from old ones. Almost everyone here is blaming Bush, yet he had only been on the job 8 months. Very little can be done in that amount of time. Clinton had 8 years.

and very little is what was done during those 8 months. i'm not going to let Clinton off the hook, not at all. but the record clearly shows that when the Bush team took over, they were disinterested in terrorism and wanted to focus on Russia and China. Condi Rice was one of the foremost experts on the Soviet Union.

and we still can't get around the August memo of "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the US."

do you have any criticisms of Bush? or just rationalizations disguised as Clinton criticisms?

 

[BVS]

and very little is what was done during those 8 months. i'm not going to let Clinton off the hook, not at all. but the record clearly shows that when the Bush team took over, they were disinterested in terrorism and wanted to focus on Russia and China. Condi Rice was one of the foremost experts on the Soviet Union.

and we still can't get around the August memo of "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the US."

do you have any criticisms of Bush? or just rationalizations disguised as Clinton criticisms?

Exactly...

 

[Bluer White]

The only thing that gives me hope is that most of the staunch Bush supporters and lifelong Republicans that I know and that supported Bush in the last two elections are now backing various Democratic candidates in 2008.

But Bush isn't running in '08, obviously.

Are your solid Republican friends supporting Hillary/Obama as a protest vote? Do they feel like Hillary will sort out the war mess much differently than Giuliani/Thompson/Romney? Maybe your GOP buddies are just waiting for Newt Gingrich to jump into the race

 

[Zoomerang96]

how so? there have been no terrorist attacks here since he became president. 9/11 is directly related to clinton and his failures to do anything about it. i would call that a huge success. have you not read about the different plots that have been foiled? or are you to high to read anything positive about bush?

this is the most genuinely stupid post i've read here since i first started posting more than seven years ago.

 

[ramblin rose]

But Bush isn't running in '08, obviously.

Are your solid Republican friends supporting Hillary/Obama as a protest vote? Do they feel like Hillary will sort out the war mess much differently than Giuliani/Thompson/Romney? Maybe your GOP buddies are just waiting for Newt Gingrich to jump into the race

To be honest, I am very shocked to hear some of them say they are supporting Hillary and Obama, especially when I haven't even decided who I'm backing.

I don't think it is a protest vote, I think they're honestly disillussioned with the Republican party as a whole.

Believe me, to hear them say things like "we judged Clinton too harshly" makes me lightheaded. We're talking staunch Cuban American Republicans. I don't think it's only about the war, I think it's everything, it's hearing all this preaching about morality only to find these preacher politicians involved in sex scandals. I think these last 8 years has just been too much for most people.

Well, except for people like Struck. Not sure what country he's been living in, then again he was 8 or so when Bush went into office.

 

[struckpx]

this is the most genuinely stupid post i've read here since i first started posting 7 more than seven years ago.

oh really? how is that?

 

[struckpx]

maybe you could expand your reading and plagiarize from other sources?

i didn't plagiarize. i quoted pages from another article.

 

[struckpx]

and very little is what was done during those 8 months. i'm not going to let Clinton off the hook, not at all. but the record clearly shows that when the Bush team took over, they were disinterested in terrorism and wanted to focus on Russia and China. Condi Rice was one of the foremost experts on the Soviet Union.

and we still can't get around the August memo of "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the US."

do you have any criticisms of Bush? or just rationalizations disguised as Clinton criticisms?

yes, but none of them have been addressed, other than the israel/palestine conflict. do you have any agreements with bush?

 

[struckpx]

No, I'm just amazed that you think it just popped up out of nowhere during Clinton's admin. You seem to have forgotten that we armed them at one time during the 80's, and that W didn't take any threat seriously either until after 9/11.

But yeah, let's blame it all on Clinton. Short sightedness is one step away from blindness.

i didn't forget that. however, clinton and the CIA new exactly where about bin Laden was, and had the opportunity to kill him, but Clinton froze.

 

[yolland]

this is the most genuinely stupid post i've read here since i first started posting more than seven years ago.

Over the line.