FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


President Bush





jsfdan
Was he a good president for 8 years?
liljp617
No...I'll give him a year, maybe two, where he wasn't hindering the country.
OpposableThumbs
Under Bush's watch:

1. The United States is more disliked internationally -- even by its allies -- than it was before Bush took office.

2. Despite the lessons of Viet Nam, the U.S. is once again mired in an unjust war in a place it has no business.

3. The U.S. is now in the worst financial shape it's been in since the Great Depression.

Case closed.
missdixy
Hell no. Obama now has a lot a huge mess to clean up.
Blaster
missdixy wrote:
Hell no. Obama now has a lot a huge mess to clean up.

agreed.

Bush did nothing for the country. All i give him is that he handeled 9/11 real well. Thats it.
liljp617
Blaster wrote:
missdixy wrote:
Hell no. Obama now has a lot a huge mess to clean up.

agreed.

Bush did nothing for the country. All i give him is that he handeled 9/11 real well. Thats it.


Do what?
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
Blaster wrote:
missdixy wrote:
Hell no. Obama now has a lot a huge mess to clean up.

agreed.

Bush did nothing for the country. All i give him is that he handeled 9/11 real well. Thats it.


Do what?


Yes, he actually did, unless you're the type that thinks he was behind it all in the first place.
Insanity
How exactly did he handle 9/11 well? By exploiting the fears of the public and passing bills to restrict our civil rights in the name of national security? Really?
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Blaster wrote:
missdixy wrote:
Hell no. Obama now has a lot a huge mess to clean up.

agreed.

Bush did nothing for the country. All i give him is that he handeled 9/11 real well. Thats it.


Do what?


Yes, he actually did, unless you're the type that thinks he was behind it all in the first place.


Umm he used deceit and fear mongering to gain public support to invade a random country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Al-Qaeda is still going strong, the Taliban are the strongest they've been since the attacks, Bin Laden is still running free (assuming he hasn't died yet). He used 9/11 (terrorism) combined with more fear mongering to dissolve some of the most basic rights in our Constitution (illegal wiretapping, torture/right to fair trial, etc.). Indirectly responsible for the deaths/injuries of over a million Iraqis. Directly responsible for our continuing loss of respect around the world.

All based on lies to the public, fear mongering, and greed.

What did he do well again in relation to 9/11?

And no, the conspiracy theorists are idiots.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
invade a random country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

If it wasn't to get back at the terrorists, why did he invade Afghanistan?
Because he was bored?
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
invade a random country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

If it wasn't to get back at the terrorists, why did he invade Afghanistan?
Because he was bored?


Um, I think he was referring to Iraq.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
invade a random country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

If it wasn't to get back at the terrorists, why did he invade Afghanistan?
Because he was bored?


It's pretty obvious I'm referring to Iraq.

Regardless, you go head and make your case for Afghanistan and I'll point out we've completely ignored them for the past five years of the war. I'll point out the Taliban are as strong as they ever have been in Afghanistan. Handled nicely....
pmehta51
Was Bush a good president for 8 years?
Definitely no, I will assure you, that no one will say yes for this. He is last president in good president ratings. He sucks. He messed up whole country. We could have changed him four years ago. I mean you can see how bed he was in first four years. Still people selected him. I don’t know what people were thinking. Actually in first election when he was running in 2000 we should have selected Al Gore instead of Bush. Al Gore is great guy. Even right now he is working for good cause.
Bust aught with Iraq for his personal revenge. Because his father fought he wanted to do same. He didn’t know what he was doing. Ya…..he was bore sitting in white house not knowing what to do for country. Well fighting…seems easy and everyone will think I am doing something so let’s do that.
liljp617
I disagree boredom was his motivation. More like corruption, greed, ignorance, lack of common sense, and being Cheney's puppet.
Moonspider
jsfdan wrote:
Was he a good president for 8 years?


I don't think that question can be properly answered for another 5 to 10 decades. Maybe 2.5 at the earliest. Wink

Respectfully,
M
handfleisch
Quote:
I don't think that question can be properly answered for another 5 to 10 decades. Maybe 2.5 at the earliest. Wink

Respectfully,
M


Worst president in history.


Saw a good article -- a recent convention of historians agreed that he is pretty much the worse president in history. Article was interesting in that back in 2005 they were reserving judgment, but as of 2008 they couldn't escape the conclusion.

Will dig up article in anyone interested, time is short now.
sketteksalfa
I seconded. he is the worst in History, i watched CNN yesterday, and he got the highest diapproval ratings. Sad.
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
Quote:
I don't think that question can be properly answered for another 5 to 10 decades. Maybe 2.5 at the earliest. Wink

Respectfully,
M


Worst president in history.


Saw a good article -- a recent convention of historians agreed that he is pretty much the worse president in history. Article was interesting in that back in 2005 they were reserving judgment, but as of 2008 they couldn't escape the conclusion.

Will dig up article in anyone interested, time is short now.


Yes, I am interested because I can't imagine a single historian worth his salt that would place President Bush below Buchanan! Surely only an historian who has lost any semblance of objectivity could do so with a straight face.

Like I said, 50 to 100 years. Historians and political scientists who are contemporaries of presidents are rarely objective, and even those that say they are are usually lying to us and/or to themselves. (Usually the latter.)

sketteksalfa wrote:
I seconded. he is the worst in History, i watched CNN yesterday, and he got the highest diapproval ratings. Sad.


Higher than Lincoln's!? I doubt it. Wink I assume that CNN meant the highest disapproval ratings in the history of such surveys.

But congress' approval rating is and has been consistently lower. So I love congressional leaders pointing fingers at the President's approval ratings (which are in the 20s) while their approval ratings are in the teens. Smile

Besides, what do approval ratings have to do with judging a president's performance? Lincoln is my favorite presidetnt (and consistently ranked as one of the two best presidents in U.S. history) and he was decidedly unpopular!

Respectfully,
M
liljp617
Moonspider wrote:
jsfdan wrote:
Was he a good president for 8 years?


I don't think that question can be properly answered for another 5 to 10 decades. Maybe 2.5 at the earliest. Wink

Respectfully,
M


I understand your point. But let's completely ignore the wars and 9/11. Where's the argument he was a good, or even mediocre, President? In respect to his Middle East adventures, I don't think he can be assessed for a while, but I think it's fair to make an assessment of his Presidency based on just about everything else he headed or was a large part of.

He's by no means the worst, that's for damn sure. Only someone who has extremely limited knowledge of US history would make a claim like that...and those people shouldn't be taken seriously.
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:

Yes, I am interested because I can't imagine a single historian worth his salt that would place President Bush below Buchanan! Surely only an historian who has lost any semblance of objectivity could do so with a straight face.


Here it is, read it and let us know what you think http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
Moonspider wrote:

Yes, I am interested because I can't imagine a single historian worth his salt that would place President Bush below Buchanan! Surely only an historian who has lost any semblance of objectivity could do so with a straight face.


Here it is, read it and let us know what you think http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804


Here is a link to an article from HNN, the source of the poll: http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

In summary, the poll was in no way scientific. The respondents self-selected.

Perhaps in 25 – 50 years President Bush will be ranked fairly low by historians, perhaps even as low as Buchanan (barring his actions being directly linked to the destruction of the United States in a few years, I seriously doubt the objectivity of any historian who ranks Bush below Buchanan, even if he has a Pulitzer). Everyone in the United States today still feels the sting of Buchanan’s failure. Will every U.S. citizen in 2156 still feel pain caused by President Bush policies?

But let’s not forget that Truman too was considered an abject failure when he left office but is now considered fairly successful. (I believe his popularity was less than 30% when he left office.)

If Iraq self-destructs in the future, if Afghanistan once again becomes a haven for terrorists, if an attack on the U.S. equal to or surpassing 9/11 occurs before the end of his term (or perhaps even in the first six months of Obama’s term), undoubtedly Bush will be near the bottom. But if his policies meet with some success ten years hence…he might be regarded well. And what happens in 50 – 100 years when documents start becoming declassified: intelligence, covert actions, White House conversations, etc.? They may make him look worse or may turn him into a hero.

Who knows? (And that’s my point.)

Respectfully,
M
myleshi
Quote:
Under Bush's watch:

1. The United States is more disliked internationally -- even by its allies -- than it was before Bush took office.

2. Despite the lessons of Viet Nam, the U.S. is once again mired in an unjust war in a place it has no business.

3. The U.S. is now in the worst financial shape it's been in since the Great Depression.

Case closed.


Wow, really scary stuff here.

1. The United States is more disliked internationally -- even by its allies -- than it was before Bush took office.

People hate us anyway. They hate we have running water, drive cars, and enjoy relative freedom.


2. Despite the lessons of Viet Nam, the U.S. is once again mired in an unjust war in a place it has no business.

That's your opinion. However we have had no attacks on US soil since Bush went after those animals. Sadam, who WAS a weapon of mass destrution, is gone forever.


3. The U.S. is now in the worst financial shape it's been in since the Great Depression.

Ha, blame Clinton for a large portion of this mess. He beefed up the requirements (mandates) that federal lenders must lend to low income minorities, ie. people who could not pay back loans. Think McCain gave a talk about this several YEARS ago.

My god, lets just see how the annointed one can save us all now.
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Moonspider wrote:

Yes, I am interested because I can't imagine a single historian worth his salt that would place President Bush below Buchanan! Surely only an historian who has lost any semblance of objectivity could do so with a straight face.


Here it is, read it and let us know what you think http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804


Here is a link to an article from HNN, the source of the poll: http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

In summary, the poll was in no way scientific. The respondents self-selected.

Perhaps in 25 – 50 years President Bush will be ranked fairly low by historians, perhaps even as low as Buchanan (barring his actions being directly linked to the destruction of the United States in a few years, I seriously doubt the objectivity of any historian who ranks Bush below Buchanan, even if he has a Pulitzer). Everyone in the United States today still feels the sting of Buchanan’s failure. Will every U.S. citizen in 2156 still feel pain caused by President Bush policies?

But let’s not forget that Truman too was considered an abject failure when he left office but is now considered fairly successful. (I believe his popularity was less than 30% when he left office.)

If Iraq self-destructs in the future, if Afghanistan once again becomes a haven for terrorists, if an attack on the U.S. equal to or surpassing 9/11 occurs before the end of his term (or perhaps even in the first six months of Obama’s term), undoubtedly Bush will be near the bottom. But if his policies meet with some success ten years hence…he might be regarded well. And what happens in 50 – 100 years when documents start becoming declassified: intelligence, covert actions, White House conversations, etc.? They may make him look worse or may turn him into a hero.

Who knows? (And that’s my point.)

Respectfully,
M


Yes, who knows, I agree, and it wasn't the poll numbers that interested me so much (as dubious as any self-selecting poll) but the fact that so many respected historians would weigh in on this subject as saying, relatively conclusively that at this point it looks like GWB was WPE (Worst President Ever).
isranet
very simpley -

yes
handfleisch
The WPE with the new boss

[/img]
drinkzandspiritz
are you kidding?? Bush a good president, he killed a struggling economy and left Obama with a mess impossible to solve. Any other country would have long since been taken over by the IMF until the economy was back on track!! This is an unsustainable situation and the consequences will become apparent soon.
myleshi
Quote:
are you kidding?? Bush a good president, he killed a struggling economy and left Obama with a mess impossible to solve. Any other country would have long since been taken over by the IMF until the economy was back on track!! This is an unsustainable situation and the consequences will become apparent soon.


Geesh, so when Barry tanks, it's going to be Bush's fault? I don't think so, at least not by rational people. Just like Bush, BHO will be held accountable for the economy, even though the executive branch has little control over it. Wanna really blame someone? Blame the Democrat congress - they are the ones who make the laws.

Barney Frank for President in 2012!
liljp617
myleshi wrote:
Quote:
are you kidding?? Bush a good president, he killed a struggling economy and left Obama with a mess impossible to solve. Any other country would have long since been taken over by the IMF until the economy was back on track!! This is an unsustainable situation and the consequences will become apparent soon.


Geesh, so when Barry tanks, it's going to be Bush's fault? I don't think so, at least not by rational people. Just like Bush, BHO will be held accountable for the economy, even though the executive branch has little control over it. Wanna really blame someone? Blame the Democrat congress - they are the ones who make the laws.

Barney Frank for President in 2012!


There is no single person or branch to blame. The past 20+ years of government are responsible and the blame is certainly distributable (Bush isn't exempt, nor is the Democratic Congress). Anybody who believes Obama is going to come in and be able to successfully take on every aspect of the roughest Presidential agenda since the New Deal is delusional and should be treated as such. Most people (yes, even his supporters) recognize eight years is even too short of a time to fix the situation we're in.
nigam
yeah...he wasn't a good president at all... im pretty sure obama will clean up his mess and the country runs smoothly...
deanhills
I am absolutely perplexed that someone so much hated by the American people could have lasted eight years? How is that possible?

No doubt Bush has created a lot of damage in foreign relations, specifically with the Middle East. Some of his statements have come across very arrogant, also sometimes misinformed creating plenty of diplomatic goofs.

Certainly people will point fingers for a long time regarding the overspending and huge debts that have been created during his 8 years.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
I am absolutely perplexed that someone so much hated by the American people could have lasted eight years? How is that possible?

No doubt Bush has created a lot of damage in foreign relations, specifically with the Middle East. Some of his statements have come across very arrogant, also sometimes misinformed creating plenty of diplomatic goofs.

Certainly people will point fingers for a long time regarding the overspending and huge debts that have been created during his 8 years.


Because it wasn't THAT bad after his first 4 years and he was going up against a terrible candidate in John Kerry. Once a President is elected, it's pretty difficult to get rid of them.
tuptup13
Insanity wrote:
How exactly did he handle 9/11 well? By exploiting the fears of the public and passing bills to restrict our civil rights in the name of national security? Really?


Yes, it seemed to work well too, but the fact is people were going to get mad if Bush left 9/11 all alone. So he chose to go down the violent root and go to war.
liljp617
tuptup13 wrote:
Insanity wrote:
How exactly did he handle 9/11 well? By exploiting the fears of the public and passing bills to restrict our civil rights in the name of national security? Really?


Yes, it seemed to work well too, but the fact is people were going to get mad if Bush left 9/11 all alone. So he chose to go down the violent root and go to war.


Nobody wanted him to leave it alone and people aren't angry that he took the path of war....

People are angry he took the path of war to the wrong country for the wrong reasons and it's gotten us no where. People are angry we haven't caught Bin Laden and the others directly responsible for 9/11 because it wasn't the #1 goal on the list. People are angry they were lied to straight to their faces.

The fact that Bush reacted to 9/11 (rightfully so) is a moot point. It's how he reacted. It's how the entire government reacted.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Once a President is elected, it's pretty difficult to get rid of them.
Crying or Very sad

Agreed, it is quite a sad situation, and am I wrong, but are they trying to extend the President's term of office with two years - six years in total? Wow!
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Once a President is elected, it's pretty difficult to get rid of them.
Crying or Very sad

Agreed, it is quite a sad situation, and am I wrong, but are they trying to extend the President's term of office with two years - six years in total? Wow!


Haven't heard that =/ I doubt it
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Once a President is elected, it's pretty difficult to get rid of them.
Crying or Very sad

Agreed, it is quite a sad situation, and am I wrong, but are they trying to extend the President's term of office with two years - six years in total? Wow!


Haven't heard that =/ I doubt it


I'll prevent any such thing happening with one sentence:

Do you want the next president like Bush to be in office for 12 years instead of 8?
Moonspider
liljp617 wrote:
Once a President is elected, it's pretty difficult to get rid of them.


I disagree based on history. Only thirteen presidents have served two terms. That's only 30.2% of US presidents. Those 13 include FDR, who served three full terms, and Washington whose first term was less than four years. (It does not include Nixon, who resigned in his second, or Lincoln and McKinley, who were of course assassinated in their second.)

If you go by elected to two terms, then you still only have 16 (37.2%).

Four presidents were elected to one term after succeeding another president (Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Lyndon Johnson). (9.3%)

Twenty-two presidents (51.2%) served one term or less.
ocalhoun
^During wartime though? An interesting note that was mentioned during Bush's re-election campaign was that no wartime president running for reelection has ever lost.
liljp617
Moonspider wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Once a President is elected, it's pretty difficult to get rid of them.


I disagree based on history. Only thirteen presidents have served two terms. That's only 30.2% of US presidents. Those 13 include FDR, who served three full terms, and Washington whose first term was less than four years. (It does not include Nixon, who resigned in his second, or Lincoln and McKinley, who were of course assassinated in their second.)

If you go by elected to two terms, then you still only have 16 (37.2%).

Four presidents were elected to one term after succeeding another president (Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Lyndon Johnson). (9.3%)

Twenty-two presidents (51.2%) served one term or less.


I was speaking in terms of once they're in office, it's difficult to get rid of them. What is it....3-4 Presidents have been impeached and two(?) have been removed from office/basically forced to resign?
im1ofthem
He was for about a year.... then he lost his brain.
Moonspider
liljp617 wrote:
I was speaking in terms of once they're in office, it's difficult to get rid of them. What is it....3-4 Presidents have been impeached and two(?) have been removed from office/basically forced to resign?


I'm a little confused over what you believe the purpose of impeachment to be. It's not a simple vote of no confidence. You're opinion is that it is difficult to remove presidents before their term is completed, implying that you believe most presidents have been guilty of impeachable offenses. I'm not so cynical and assume that so few presidents have been impeached because for the most part U.S. presidents have been good men.

A U.S. president can only be impeached for "...treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Only two presidents have been impeached (both acquitted): President Andrew Johnson in 1868 and President Bill Clinton in 1998. Although not impeached, Nixon undoubtedly would have been so had he not resigned. And he would have most likely been the only president to be found guilty and removed from office.

Both Johnson and Clinton were political issues, although Clinton much less so than Johnson.

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
I tend to agree with liljp617. Once a President has been voted in, it is very difficult to get rid of him. But perhaps Moonspider hit it on the nail, the President has to be guilty of criminal acts, before the nation can impeach him. So yes, that makes it almost impossible. Wish it was the same as with us mere mortals in our jobs in that there should be a review of the President ever so often by the Electoral College, perhaps starting after the first six months, then on an annual basis.
lyndonray
No matter how anyone tries to spin it, Bush has been a dismal failure. Even he knows it. You know its bad when then only time people talk about you is when they talk about how you busy giving to pardons to turkeys while other serious people (i.e. OBAMA) are addressing the financial mess the country is in!! I honestly don't know what those americans who voted for Bush twice were thinking. But in the spirit or reconcilitation, which Obama is promoting, I FORGIVE YOU, you poor misguided souls!! But at least it almost over!!!
Related topics
bush and condi talking...
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
MLK Jr's 'Bash Bush' event omitted some vital information.
Oops! - Bush Unaware Mikes Were Still On
Articles of Impeachment for President Bush
President bush
President Bush...
Bush Praises Iraqi Gov't, Asks for Patience
Bush's Border Buffoonery
Bush Broke the Law?!?
Bush raves about the deficit, only $300 billion this year!!
Death of a president shows Bush assassination
Bush "Plays Dirty Trick" Declassifies More NIE
Bush: last chance to reward the oil companies.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.