The legacy of President George W. Bush - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-10-2007, 08:29 PM   #21
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
Bush will be remembered as being terrible, there's no doubt about that.
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?
__________________

struckpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:35 PM   #22
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
 
LMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 37,609
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx
or are you to high to read anything positive about bush?
That sentence kills me.

Bush Jr. will go down in history as one of the worst presidents of all time. Not just because of his policies, but his mishandling of said policies and corrupt, bureaucratic administration.

I'd put him on the list right now with Richard Nixon, Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, and Herbert Hoover.

At this point, it would not surprise me if Bush was the last president before the apocalypse.
__________________

LMP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:36 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,698
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


the nixon thread has nothing to do w/ this thread.
"Based on the fact that you are in the very small minority about Nixon, I feel safe that Bush's legacy will paint him as one of the worse presidents in history."

My, is it so hard? Your opinion about Nixon is the same, isn't it?
Taking this, BVS concluded that you set different standards for a President to perform well under your eyes.
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:40 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,698
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


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?
Wrong. It was an attack on the "Western World", which is neither related to Bush sr. Clinton, or Bush jr.
They didn't care who was President and what he did.
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:41 PM   #25
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


Wrong. It was an attack on the "Western World", which is neither related to Bush sr. Clinton, or Bush jr.
They didn't care who was President and what he did.
Clinton's administration has gone on the record saying they had prior intelligence relating to 9/11 type attacks.
struckpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:42 PM   #26
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
 
LMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 37,609
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


Clinton's administration has gone on the record saying they had prior intelligence relating to 9/11 type attacks.
when?
LMP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:43 PM   #27
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,622
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


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.
Funny, I seem to remember Bush getting an urgent memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack United States" and doing nothing about it, and Ms. Rice even publicly admitting as much. Richard Clarke also spoke of trying to pass on information about terrorist activity once the Bush administration took over, and essentially being brushed aside. Those seem like pretty large failures there.

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that 9/11 is directly related to Clinton and his failures to do anything about it? Because that's not the kind of claim you can make without presenting some sort of evidence.
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:58 PM   #28
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


Funny, I seem to remember Bush getting an urgent memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack United States" and doing nothing about it, and Ms. Rice even publicly admitting as much. Richard Clarke also spoke of trying to pass on information about terrorist activity once the Bush administration took over, and essentially being brushed aside. Those seem like pretty large failures there.

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that 9/11 is directly related to Clinton and his failures to do anything about it? Because that's not the kind of claim you can make without presenting some sort of evidence.
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.

examples from his book for reference:

pg. 223 - it says that in late 2000, of the National Security Council convened — among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike.

Of course today we know Al Qaeda was behind it, for they have even admitted it publicly.

pg. 204 - Clarke vents his frustration at the CIA’s slow-walking on the question of killing bin Laden. Why could we not find a group of Afghans, Americans, third-country citizens, etc. to kill him?

pg. 210 - on the CIA's refusal to budget the money towards al-qaeda: “The formal, official CIA response was that there were [no funds],” Clarke writes. “Another way to say that was that everything they were doing was more important than fighting al Qaeda.”

pg. 217 - describes a colleague, Roger Cressey, who was frustrated after meeting with an FBI representative on the subject of terrorism. “That fucker is going to get some Americans killed,” Clarke reports Cressey saying. “He just sits there like a bump on a log.”

Clinton had the best opportunity to kill Bin Laden, take care of the movement that we see today, but he did nothing. The commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act.

So, Mr. President Clinton, the next time you are on Fox dissing Bush, remember your history of leading our country during a time of terror. All of these relate directly to 9/11
struckpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 09:01 PM   #29
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,622
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Hmmm, all of those seem to be more of a problem with the CIA and not Clinton directly.

And none of that explains the fact that for the first 8 months of Bush's presidency he did nothing to combat terrorism either.
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 09:12 PM   #30
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 485
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
Hmmm, all of those seem to be more of a problem with the CIA and not Clinton directly.

And none of that explains the fact that for the first 8 months of Bush's presidency he did nothing to combat terrorism either.
source/evidence?
struckpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 09:14 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,698
Local Time: 05:50 AM
The CIA isn't partisan. Information they provided to Clinton, they also had to provide to Bush.
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 09:20 PM   #32
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


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.
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 09:23 PM   #33
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx
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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 10:42 PM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by struckpx


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.
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 11:42 PM   #35
The Fly
 
Illumination70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Eastern, WA.
Posts: 271
Local Time: 04:50 AM
I feel the only legacy GW Bush will leave is the reputation of being the worst president the US has ever had.
Illumination70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 12:26 AM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,609
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Illumination70
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.
Earnie Shavers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 09:44 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 12:50 AM
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?
CTU2fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 09:47 AM   #38
Refugee
 
fly so high!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Andrews NSW Australia
Posts: 1,835
Local Time: 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers


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.
fly so high! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 09:55 AM   #39
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,066
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers

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]





Quote:
The world just points and laughs at the guy.

i despair.
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 10:18 AM   #40
War Child
 
AnnRKeyintheUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not coming down
Posts: 603
Local Time: 10:50 PM
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.
__________________

AnnRKeyintheUSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×