The legacy of President George W. Bush

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It is my opinion that GWB is one of the most misunderstood presidents in U.S. history and only future generations will come to truly appreciate what a great man he was and the great things he did for the country.

:lmao:

That's just too funny.
 
A friend of Israel is a friend of AchtungBono.

Not necessarily Canadiens.....you don't have to be a friend of Israel to be my friend - but it does help if you take time to understand our point of view.

I realize that the hatred people have for GWB is more or less the same as the hatred for Israel. That's because people don't understand who we're fighting against and what kind of monsters we're dealing with.

In westerns, when the bad guys take over the town, kill a lot of people and basically terrorize the townsfolk, the people cry for law and order and then the shefiff comes in to get rid of the bad guys - sometimes by using extreme measures which the townspeople don't like but that are ultimately for their own good.

Israel has been fighting a war on terrorism since its establishment (and even before). The U.S.A has been "officially" fighting it since 2001. Up till then, Americans were used to living a certain way and having certain freedoms which the 911 terrorists took advantage of. GWB did the right thing in curbing some of those freedoms - which helped thwart numerous terrorist plots subsequent to 911 (shoe bomber, underwear bomber...etc.).

As I said, only future history and future events will ultimately decide the GWB legacy. Unfortunately, his name will forever be linked with 911 and terrorism and war just as, tragically, Sharon Tate's name will forever be linked with Charles Manson (not to compare the two).

Again, this is only my opinion.
 
which helped thwart numerous terrorist plots subsequent to 911 (shoe bomber, underwear bomber...etc.).

My, what poor examples you have. The only thing that thwarted either of those two was their own stupidity. They BOTH were able to board planes and initiate their failed attacks
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
history very well might be able to look back and defend a lot of things the bush administration did, and look upon them in a more favorable light.

history won't be able to change new orleans. there is no defense for that.

I live in New Orleans, and I can honestly say I don't blame Bush for anything that happened here.
 
Fair enough....I'm just voicing my opinion - you don't have to agree.

:hug:



absolutely.

i think people tend to overrespond to you at certain points. you have a valid point of view and an experience that the rest of us don't, and your points are always politely made.

i strongly disagree with a lot of them, but there have been very productive conversations that have come out of that.
 
The key letter in FEMA is the F. Just a hint as to why folks aren't happy with the Executive's response to the disaster.
 
In westerns, when the bad guys take over the town, kill a lot of people and basically terrorize the townsfolk, the people cry for law and order and then the shefiff comes in to get rid of the bad guys - sometimes by using extreme measures which the townspeople don't like but that are ultimately for their own good.

I'm not sure that an analogy involving taking over towns is really what you're looking for.
 
the response, the Federal government did everything correct,
next time, things should be handled the same way?

the city & state governments fucked up big time as well... but yea, the federal government's response to katrina was disgusting.

I'd say a much larger amount of blame should be placed on the state government, than on the federal government. Although I'll concede that my knowledge of everything that went on is somewhat limited.:shrug:
 
i think the issue is that when the state government fails or is overwhelmed, then it is the fed's responsibility to step in and take over, because the fed wields power and resources that no individual state can hope to match.

they clearly failed to do so.

also, the nakedly stupid "heckuva job Brownie" comments didn't help much.
 
My understanding (which honestly could be totally wrong, i wouldn't be surprised.) is that the state government has to declare a state of emergency before the federal government can completely step in?
 
Read Doug Brinkley's "The Great Deluge" if you get a chance. I had to write a paper on it a few months ago, and it was really interesting. It makes it clear that a majority of the incompetence and fraud was with Blanco and Nagin. The federal government's mistakes were mostly with Brown and Chertoff. While he's by no means free from criticism, I question how much blame Bush himself legitimately deserves, other than the simple fact that he's the guy at the top. :shrug:
 
Read Doug Brinkley's "The Great Deluge" if you get a chance. I had to write a paper on it a few months ago, and it was really interesting. It makes it clear that a majority of the incompetence and fraud was with Blanco and Nagin. The federal government's mistakes were mostly with Brown and Chertoff. While he's by no means free from criticism, I question how much blame Bush himself legitimately deserves, other than the simple fact that he's the guy at the top. :shrug:
Was Brown not appointed by Bush?
 
BVS said:
Well that's kinda how the presidency works... :shrug: It's called responsibility.

The president's not all powerful; he can't intervene whenever he so chooses. There's certain protocal that must be followed, that wasn't followed, I believe.
 
The president's not all powerful; he can't intervene whenever he so chooses. There's certain protocal that must be followed, that wasn't followed, I believe.

Well that's incorrect(a state doesn't have to declare emergency) and that's not what I was commenting on.
 
Was Brown not appointed by Bush?

As director, yes, but it was the previous FEMA director who enthusiastically pushed his rise through the agency. He also had a very misleading- if not patently false- resume. I would have thought all of that would have come out earlier or at least during the confirmation process, but I guess it didn't. Maybe that's on Bush, maybe not.
 
BVS said:
Well that's incorrect(a state doesn't have to declare emergency) and that's not what I was commenting on.

Well according to wikipedia:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security, initially created by Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978 and implemented by two Executive Orders. On 1 April 1979.[1][3] The primary purpose of FEMA is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has occurred in the United States and that overwhelms the resources of local and state authorities. The governor of the state in which the disaster occurs must declare a state of emergency and formally request from the president that FEMA and the federal government respond to the disaster.
 
But a president can declare a federal state of emergency, which is a vague enough definition that would have easily covered something like Katrina.

Trust me, the slow federal response was not due to him waiting on a formal request.
 
Trust me, the slow federal response was not due to him waiting on a formal request.

I disagree. Blanco's letter to Bush requesting federal aid was very badly written, lacked specifics and was sent too late to be of much help. According to Brinkley:

"If Blanco's message to Bush had been an emphatic letter or frantic telephone call, and not merely a legal form- if it had actually communicated what wasn't happening in Louisiana (i.e. evacution)- various US government agencies might have mobilized more quickly. Just as New Orleans wasn't properly communicating with Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge wasn't properly communicating with Washington DC. There was a chain of failures. 'The federal government does not have the authority to intervene in a state emergency without the request of a governor,' Bob Williams, a Washington State legislator from the district most devastated by the eruption of Mount St Helens in 1980, wrote in the WSJ, helping readers understand post-Katrina relief. 'President Bush declared an emergency prior to Katrina hitting New Orleans, so the only action needed for federal assistance was for Blanco to request the specific type of assistance she needed. She failed to send a timely request for federal aid. In addition, unlike the governors of New York, Oklahoma and California in past disasters, Blanco failed to take charge of the situation and ensure that the state emergency operation facility was in contact with FEMA.' Blanco did send a request on Saturday, two days too late. Besides late timing, it was not much of a letter and not much of a list."
 
Caleb8844 said:
What exactly do you think the slow response was due to, then?

Not really caring all that much, or not paying attention.

2861, the whole nation saw what was going on, saw they needed help it didn't take us a letter to figure it out.

As your post states the state of emergency had already been declared, a leader would have turned on the TV and made a phone call.
 
Back
Top Bottom