The legacy of President George W. Bush

[BVS]

Originally posted by struckpx


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.

How much legal basis did he have at the time though? I don't clear Clinton, by any means, but I also can't fault him.

[Judah]

Originally posted by struckpx


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.

Hmm, apparently the freezing isn't confined to Clinton:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/wa...=y&oref=slogin

U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05

"Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

"The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda."
----------

And, i should add this link (there are plenty others), that give a nice overview of how much Clinton did try to kill Bin Laden. Interesting bit in there about Clinton's talk with Bush while handing over the presidency:

"In December 2000, when George W. Bush was finally declared the winner of the U.S. presidential election, he sat down for a private meeting with Bill Clinton at the White House. In that meeting, Clinton says he told Bush that al-Qaeda was the biggest threat to the United States and that not catching or killing bin Laden was one of the greatest regrets of his presidency.

"Director Terence McKenna asked counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke if Clinton wanted bin Laden dead, "Absolutely, absolutely, Bill Clinton had an enormous frustration. Bill Clinton had ordered the al-Qaeda leaders not just bin Laden to be arrested. That didn't work. Then he changed the order and said well, since it's evident that you can't arrest him, you are authorized to kill him and nothing happened. And he really didn't understand why the CIA was so ineffective and couldn't do that."

[Lila64]

I recall reading Richard Clarke's book several years ago, Against All Enemies. Quite interesting

Clarke details how, in light of mounting intelligence of the danger Al-Qaeda presented, his urgent requests to move terrorism up the list of priorities in the early days of the administration were met with apathy and procrastination and how, after the attacks took place, Bush and key figures such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney turned their attention almost immediately to Iraq, a nation not involved in the attacks. Against All Enemies takes the reader inside the Beltway beginning with the Reagan administration, who failed to retaliate against the 1982 Beirut bombings, fueling the perception around the world that the United States was vulnerable to such attacks. Terrorism becomes a growing but largely ignored threat under the first President Bush, whom Clarke cites for his failure to eliminate Saddam Hussein, thereby necessitating a continued American presence in Saudi Arabia that further inflamed anti-American sentiment. Clinton, according to Clarke, understood the gravity of the situation and became increasingly obsessed with stopping Al-Qaeda. He had developed workable plans but was hamstrung by political infighting and the sex scandal that led to his impeachment. But Bush and his advisers, Clarke says, didn't get it before 9/11 and they didn't get it after, taking a unilateral approach that seemed destined to lead to more attacks on Americans and American interests around the world.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by struckpx


oh really? how is that?

Question: How can you blame 9/11 on Clinton and not the CIA and FBI, but then say it's not Bush's fault because of the CIA and FBI?

Question: What about the warnings Bush received and did nothing about?

Question: How can you only base his presidency on terrorist attacks alone? Aren't there MANY MANY other issues out there, which I pointed out?

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by struckpx


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.

Did you even read what I said? I doubt it. If so, tell me what the point of my post was.

[deep]

Originally posted by phillyfan26




Did you even read what I said? I doubt it. If so, tell me what the point of my post was.

He didn't conform

so he had to go.

[BVS]

Originally posted by deep


He didn't conform

so he had to go.

I hope you aren't serious...

[verte76]

He's screwed everything up.

[Varitek]

So here's a question for this thread:

Which will be viewed by history as better/worse (depending on your perspective) -

Bush's supreme court

or

Bush's war on terror/Iraq war

[Vincent Vega]

The war will be remembered. Supreme court decisions, or like here, appointments, and such get forgotten quite fast. Except by those studying it or having some interest in learning about those times.

[Varitek]

Sorry Vincent, I think the full effect of that question can only be felt by Americans, particularly liberals - while it is obvious that Bush's international legacy will be most remembered as screwing up Iraq and meddling with the excuse of a war on terror, for us, the restrictions on civil liberties, the backwards steps on abortion, the openings created between religion and the state are possibly as excruciatingly painful as the war on terror is. And arguably as long-lasting. Some of the decisions made recently will not be forgotten fast but will have a lasting impact on American institutions and quite possibly society and values. By extension of the supreme court you could also talk about his legacy of consolidating presidential power, which has come up for decisions and sadly been validated.

So, I know this is an international forum, but I guess that question was aimed at the other American liberals on here (u2dem, unico, Mrs. Springsteen, BVS, Irvine...all the people I always agree with...sorry if I missed anyone...) because I can't decide where I fall on the question - it sort of depends on what current events are enraging me at any given moment.

[unico]

i think worse would be the bush administration itself. i think this war is just one example of the corrupt practices of this administration. it is sickening really.

i'm regretting of being asked about this by young people in the future.

'how did you let this happen?' i guess upon retrospect, things are going to seem a lot clearer to many than they do now. but i'm almost embarrased by it all, really.

[Varitek]

But I'm assuming you, like me, didn't just "let this happen" but voted against him, maybe worked for one of the other guys, protested the war, called your senators and congressman, etc.

However how my generation, my parents generation, and my grandparents generation as a whole let this happen is a complete mystery. Karl Rove comes to mind, but some of the blame lies with the voters, and a lot of the blame lies with those who don't exercise their right to vote, and a lot of the blame lies on the system that deprives people of the will or ability to exercise their rights to vote. Which in some ways comes back to Karl Rove.

[unico]

well no, not me individually. i was protesting too. i meant the "you" as a collective "you." these people have gotten away with so much, and under our watch...with 13% STILL supporting the frontrunner. i think it just makes it look very bad. in history class, it is more of a discussion of politics than anything else. students of the future are going to be reading our chapter and asking "wtf was up with those people?"

[Varitek]

Do you think they'll have the same embarassed and apologetic guilt that young Germans/Austrians had? (NB: NOT comparing Bush to Hitler, just referencing a feeling...)

I mean, I kind of already do.

[mobvok]

There HAVE been terrorist attacks in the U.S since 9/11. Anthrax, anyone? 5 people dead, 17 infected, and we still have no idea who did it.

There's a hilarious parade of "thwarted attacks" that the Bush Administration has trotted out, true. For instance, there's the guy that was going to blowtorch the Brooklyn Bridge to pieces! Of course, he was caught by law enforcement, not the military like Bush attacked Kerry for suggesting in the '04 elections. Better to use the military to attack foreign countries and stop the terrorists there.

So that worked out well.

Let's ignore terrorism though. Are there any Bush Administration successes anyone can point to? I try and look, but I see an Anti-Midas Touch of Failure, that whatever they try and do they inevitably fail horribly. North Korea? Failure. Curbing Iranian influence? Failure. Fiscal responsibility? Failure. Immigration reform? Failure. Privatize Social Security? Failure. I can think of only Medicare and No Child Left Behind, and even those now look sketchy w/ an enormous donut hole in coverage and a terrible unfunded mandate.

[financeguy]

Not really saying anything new, but a reminder of how UK conservatives don't want anything to do with Bush.

The writer is probably one of the most right wing mainstream commentators in Britain, outside of tabloids.

US can't get rid of George W Bush fast enough - Telegraph

The Bush that comes out of Stone's film is a fair representation of the real thing: a rather foolish man, eventually (under the influence of God) motivated by the right considerations, but whose many weaknesses of character cause him to make some bad choices of colleagues, and then to allow them to dominate him and use his term of office as an experiment in a new world order.

There is no mention of all the domestic disasters over which the Bush Administration has presided, and which has left its economy the swamp of a disease that has since infected the rest of the world: but then there doesn't need to be. The charge sheet is long enough as it is.

In some ways, the Bush story is a conventional one, and Stone plays it reasonably straight.

The combination of a life of privilege, birth into a dynasty of politicians, an intimidatingly successful father, the ready availability of money, no apparent need to work for a living and a sense of entitlement about political power were the beginning of the corruption of George W. Bush.

He is depicted as having been unemployable save for his father's contacts and his father's money opening doors for him. He could stick at nothing and became a drunk before being born again into Christianity.

With little grasp of any political issue, he was smuggled into politics. With some pretty odd traits of character, he became President, almost by accident.

That defective character drove him to make key appointments from among men who served his father: but then his father was a war hero, an experienced politician, a man of authority. Men who had served him now conspired to make his son serve them.

Also, an interesting, and in my view perceptive comment re Powell:

The film depicts......Colin Powell as a deeply compromised moral coward.

[financeguy]

Only thing is, I saw through Bush from a long time back, pretty much from day one.

Why did other conservatives not?

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Only thing is, I saw through Bush from a long time back, pretty much from day one.

Why did other conservatives not?

Al Gore

John Kerry

[JOFO]

Originally Posted by struckpx

President Bush will be remembered as a triumphant president who led our country through the most turbulent times in the last 60 years. Who unexpectedly was not told by the previous administration of intelligence that there was going to be terrorist attacks, and guided our nation through our worst national disaster ever. I applaud him for doing his best to resolve and punish those involved, but also solidify relationships with countries who were not before that always get overmentioned.

He also added 8.2 million jobs during his 8 years to the economy. Not bad. Inflation rates dropped. Overall the economy is better than it has ever been and our nation is flourishing. Taxes are low, which is good for all of us. He has reformed many things, gone against his parties will at times, but also done what he believes is best for the American people.

I look at the legacies of Reagan, Carter, Ford. Presidents who were not popular when they were president. They are now cherished and very well respected for the policies they put in place. I think we will see the same for President Bush. We will look in 7 or 8 years after this next president and say, "Wow, he really was right. Thank you."

Wow.
That was a year and a half ago.
I didn't read this whole thread, but man, that is some amazing shit right there.
Solidified relationships with other countries? Are you nuts?
Guided the nation through Katrina? Wow. I think you are nuts.
The sweetest part is your assesment of the economy though. Yep, it really worked out well didn't it?

YourPost=Epic Fail.

Really, is this poster around anymore? Because he/she has got to answer for this kind of display of outright stupidity.