Did Bush do anything right?

[Seekster]

Ah this thread seems to have descended into typical mindless Bush-bashing while I was sleeping. I still love that group that blamed Bush for World War I...and I wish I was making that up.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I'm sorry, I just facepalmed so hard I think my nose has fallen off.

Dear gads you ill-educated peasants, is it impossible for anyone to discuss this kind of topic in a reasonable fashion. Cuddly tomato is excluded, for I know him to be eminently reasonable in his liberal-ness.

Pray allow me to speak: Bush probably wasn't much of a president. Yes, the likelihood is that he made some very silly, bad choices, but permit me to argue this in a balanced fashion:

1. Many Americans are, have been and will always be idiots. Creationism proves this, in my opinion. (Not all Americans, however-or indeed all creationists- are morons however). Bush did not magically cause this to happen. He did personify it, but he was not the cause- merely a symptom of a wider effect.

2. Afghanistan ad Iraq: Well, since the former was a case of 'Grab the Terrorist', and the latter has removed a man who was in essence mini-Stalin, I'd say they weren't so bad an idea on the whole. A lot of Iraqis are genuinely happy that Saddam is gone- it's merely that the coalition has, sadly, been forced into no-win situations whereby they would either lose a lot of men, thus strengthening the insurgency, or else harm civilians, thus strengthening the insurgency.

Trust me on this, though: this is no Vietnam. It's a war, yes, a messy, bloody excercise in 'Sturm und Drang', but we have ALL the big guns, we have the best-trained troops, are maintaining something approaching a 7:1 casualty ratio (and please note- our casualties recover. There's don't.) and we can and will win it.

3.I find it hard to believe anyone knew of 9/11 and let it happen. If they had, there would have been lynch mobs on capitol hill and armed revolution across the Eastern seaboard.

4. Torture is an epic fail, I'll agree. As is rendition.

5. Meh, what else did he do?

 

[CosmicGrenade]

Removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan

Perhaps we shouldn't go this route...

Hay mate quote what I said not what someone else

 

[Scarecrow38]

I think he did alot of things right. He just had the rulebook change mid-term. Iraq was popular at one point, then suddenly unpopular. I think people just like do have a go at George Bush but the United States is still standing at the end of his 8 years and I'm sure he implemented many beneficial things.

I always get a little skeptical when something is universally despised or admired.

 

[ElephantGuts]

Snip

If we're the "World Police", we did a TERRIBLE job of it. While Bush was whipping the US into a fear-frenzy over Iraq's non-existent WMDs, North Korea got REAL ones, and Rwandans butchered each other. Sorry you didn't have any OIL, guys!

I know hindsight it 20/20, but...do you seriously think that even if Hussein had had nukes, nerve gas, and Mechagozilla, he would have DARED use them on anything the USA cared about? As Bush demonstrated, we could reduce his entire country to smouldering rubble anytime we felt like it, and one thing about dictators is that they usually want to live to KEEP dictating.

And Hussein's government was a largely secular one. Al-Qaeda hated him just as much as they hated America.

Snip

No, no, and no. See above for reasons why.

Also, I noticed that the Israelis didn't seem at ALL worried about Iraq. That was the first of many clues that Bush's fearmongering was bogus.

Snip

Sooooo.... you're in favor of our democratically elected leaders lying to us to further their own hidden agendas?

Truly, Americans like you make my heart swell with patriotism....

...no, that's indigestion. What you're saying is a disgrace to our country.

Snip

....And sometimes the government WANTS to do things like this because the egomaniacal thug in charge had unresolved Oedipal issues, a badly-thought-out Master Plan, and thought God was guiding him. And the American people and the Legislative branch were too dumb, too ignorant, too compliant, or too terrified to tell him "no".

Anyway, to answer the opening question: Bush did accomplish one thing that neither Al Gore nor John Kerry ever could have managed: Convinced me to vote the straight Democratic ticket for the next 10 years. I used to think there wasn't any appreciable difference between Democrats and Republicans, but Bush's legacy of shame, failure and idiocy has taught me better.

On the lighter side, thanks to him, Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over [http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BushNightmare.htm]. THANKS, George.

Snip

I would like to pint out that no nation should ever invade another nation on the grounds that, they might do something. if that was true there are several other countries that need to be invaded.

secondly were not the worlds police, never have, never will be. we like to act like it but that just makes people hate us.

third, Iraq might not have been the US's best friend but they certainly had bigger enemies, like, oh, Iran. one of the biggest complaints of the war is that now with Iraq being a sissy of a nation militarily it can no longer stand up to Iran meaning Iran's power goes unchecked.

Now, if they had attacked us it would have been different, however when we invaded they had nothing to do with 9/11 and weren't harboring any terrorists.

I don't want to appear ignorant here, I know full well the atrocities committed by Saddam, I have no illusions of those things, however if we went around deposing every leader who's ever done anything like that America would have fought a lot more wars.

First off let me say that I'm not saying that I think America should be the world police, just that we seem to have made ourselves out to be so and if we are then we can't pick and choose our battles. Like when we declared that if a genocide is ever occuring we will stop it (unless I've been lied to we did so), obviously there is a genocide going on in Rwanda and it's wrong that we aren't doing anything.

And yes, by my logic there are plenty of other countries we should invade. But that doesn't mean we can. Bush had to tell everyone that Iraq had WMDs and was harboring terrorists just to be able to invade Iraq, and even then he was still capitalizing on the country's hatred/fear for terrorists. We can't just go and invade North Korea or Iran because we should, it takes a lot more than that. Besides, how Ahmadinejad is ruling his country is nothing like what Saddam did to his people.

And when I said that Iraq would have been a problem obviously I wasn't saying that as a concrete fact, since I can't predict the future. I was saying that I think they would have been. I certainly believe that Saddam would have had the balls to do something against America, we already fought him once remember? And he did launch Scuds at Israel. And don't say I'm naive and paranoid that everyone who can attack us will; I'm not worried about Iran having nukes because I think Ahmadinejad is smarter than to have his country invaded by the US for launching a nuke at Israel.

And yes, I think that the government sometimes needs to deceive its people for the greater good. But don't say they're deceiving the people to "further their own hidden agendas" because that's not the case, as I said they were doing it to protect the country. Unless their "hidden agenda" is in fact to protect their country, in which case I agree with it. And I don't think this had anything to do with oil. Maybe a little, but it certainly wasn't the deciding factor, there were many more reasons to invade Iraq.

If Bush really thought that Iraq was going to end up being a threat to America, don't you think it was worth it to say they had WMDs or were harboring terrorists when they might not have if it meant protecting the country? You may call me a bad American but the politics of ruling a country are complicated and when we have the sort of government when the president can't just invade any country without a reason, he may have to make up a reason to invade the country if it's the right thing to do.

And by the way I consider myself a Democrat, I just like to thing that I'm open-minded enough to atleast consider the possibility that the other side may not be completely incompetent.

 

[CIA]

Aid for Africa. That was nice of him.

When has the US presidency not been actively involved in sending aid and relief to Africa?

Well, he did royally fuck up the country, and then fail miserably to man up to it by denying it.

Look at the title of the thread.

I agree with you, but I was trying to think of things he did right.

Then lets raise me some taxes!

Increased taxes infallibly lead to economic recession.

They also lead to not having gaping holes in your roads.

 

[ButtonedDownParadox]

Definition for 'principle' according to Merriam-Webster:

1 a: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1): a rule or code of conduct (2): habitual devotion to right

Also what you say of U.S. military training may have been true. Why do I say that? Because during World War II the Japanese would waterboard American P.O.W.s for intel. Would you like to know what was done to the people who would order that? They were tried and executed by America for war crimes according to the Geneva Convention.

I know, im not saying water boarding is right, im just saying that in this case I really dont mind it.

But you do understand that you're saying this in a thread in which someone is supposed to argue what Bush did right? It seems to imply that you actually DO think torture is right.

Never mind your argument that the man on the receiving end of the torture did wrong. I mean if you just want to overlook the concept of principle then whatever. How about the fact that torture is at best ineffective? Even the damn CIA were telling the people who signed off on all of this that torture is ineffective. And yet it still went through.

I don't generally support torture but against a guy like the one we were talking about I wouldn't have a problem with it. I agree its still wrong since it is technically torture but that doesn't change the way I feel about this particular instance. And besides sometimes you DO get valid info from harsh treatment of prisoners or even through torture (though like I said I don't usually advocate torture) and so that's a bonus.

Bush did a lot of things right but he also did a lot of things wrong, his handling of Gitmo was one thing I think he did wrong. I still say the prisoners there were probably treated better than they deserved to be but again we are the United States and we have to be the good guy (something I still dont understand sometimes) even when the rest of the world seems to hate us for whatever reason. (Why we go to such lengths just to please the rest of the world who probably wouldn't lift a finger to please us is something I dont understand sometime but ah well thats just me).

Now then its late and I should get some sleep before I start ranting.

People always talk about the torturing of the so called enemy combatants but people should also realize that in the regular US prison system inmates are subjected to punishments considered torture according to the Geneva Convention.
Several years ago a Haitian man was arrested for striking an officer during a fight at a concert and while in custody he was sodomized with a broom stick and nearly died of internal bleeding.
In California prison guards set up and recorded Gladiator like fights to sell online.
It's been well recorded that female prisoners often are raped by male prison officials.
By the way I don't consider it possible for a women to consent in that situation and be a guard's girlfriend, she can't say no and not face some retribution and all this is what has been reported, who knows what isn't.

So what's your argument? Neither myself or the court of law would condone those actions either.

 

[ButtonedDownParadox]

Removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan

Perhaps we shouldn't go this route...

Hay mate quote what I said not what someone else

Fixed. Sorry about that.