George W Bush: was he really that bad?

[asianobserve]

Many attribute the war to the thirst for oil. But the US now imports far less from Iraq than before the war.

George W. Bush: I'm 'Comfortable' With My Legacy On Iraq WarGeorge W. Bush: I'm 'Comfortable' With My Legacy On Iraq War

I really think the invasion was sealed by the drive of Bush, Jr. to complete what his father failed to do in 1991, drive Saddam out of power and put Americans in Iraq. This could be essentially a result of a son trying to complete a family's unfinished business a secure its legacy... (Do you think this is too imaginative?)

 

[W.G.Ewald]

But having a base in Iraq, the US has cut down logistics and time to react in the Middle East, which is a hot spot and will continue to be a hot spot for some time to come.

@Ray

Sir, that is what we have aircraft carriers for. You should have a couple of them.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

There is a saying in Hindi- Bad se badnaam bura. If translated to English it would be- One who has lost public confidence is worse than a culprit.

In case of Bush it is completely true. He lost his image once, and now there is no way for him to redeem it, although Obama(superstar) has almost continued with all of his policies!! Same is true for NaMo in India.

 

[SajeevJino]

@SajeevJino Bush jr was not in cia iirc. It was his father who was in cia.

Believe Me ..Bush is ex CIA Pilot

And wrt to bomb blasts, terror/insurgencies inside india, it does not have to do with US in west asia. Radical islam with or without US would have done it.

Mostly The Terrorists are Trained in western borders of Afghan and Pakistan ..by the support of US and it's drones killing atleast 10 terrorist per a week ...Killing terrorists is not a single Country's gain it comes over all Countries who affected with Terrorists

 

[Ray]

Yes these are wise considerations but taken against the wider strategic implications of the toppling of Saddam: the collapse of the biggest Iranian counterbalance (call it the liberation of Iran), the huge hit to American image abroad (both to lying about non-existent Iraqi nukes and taking unilateral invasions of a sovereign country), and the huge financial cost to America of the operation and the ensuing attempt to stabilize Iraq, I think the issue is more nuanced than just a matter of securing military positions. After all the US already have military footholds in the ME. Personally I think it's still too early to form a definitive conclusion on the strategic implications of the Iraqi invasion, although as early as now I seriously doubt it was really worth it for the Americans.

In a stand-alone assessment, what you say is correct that a Frankenstein i.e. nuclear Iran has got unbottled because of Bush's foray into Iraq.

It is also true that US credibility has taken a beating for blatant fudging the WMD issue. But then the US was never very popular and only had grudging nodding acknowledgement from most of the Nations of the world. And while the Americans were not delighted at this since they gave aid to many nations, they actually could not care less.

However, if one observes the various indicators, one draws a different conclusion. Why Iraq was attacked has been explained. Yet, if one has read a US commentary as to why Afghanistan and Osama was seized as a manna from heaven, is because the analyst feels that it was to destabilise Pakistan, which was the haven for terrorists as also destabilising Pakistan was par for the course since Pakistan was cosying up to China and that was changing the geostrategic calculus of the region and which was not serving the US interest. It maybe noted that even Russia played ball with the US by not interfering with the Northern access to Afghanistan and have also helped with forays of its own into Afghanistan with US's tacit approval.

In addition, there is a lobby that is supporting the Balochistan Liberation Movement. In actuality, who knows that it has the US Administration's blessing? As you are aware, Western Iran has Balochis as the major population. Therefore, by fomenting a turmoil, the US is actually boxing in Iran from both sides.

This Balochi unrest is also affecting Pakistan's stability and commercial interest that she is cementing with Chinese assistant to include the Gwadar port (which will also be China's listening post for US activities in the Middle East). Thus, the US is killing two birds or three birds with one stone.

Also, the US is at its best to weaken Iran by putting spanners in the works for the Iran – Pakistan oil and gas pipeline.

US has succeeded in destabilising Pakistan as is borne out by the lament of Imran Khan, a political heavyweight of Pakistan, that terrorists have taken over Pakistan.

Posterity alone will be witness as to the success or failure of US strategy architecture which actually is the legacy of, not Bush, but Cheney.

@Ray

Sir, that is what we have aircraft carriers for. You should have a couple of them.

Aircraft carriers can be targeted and sunk. But it would be real difficult to neutralise a landmass.

Bushehr is an example of being indestructible being an underground facility.

But yes, aircraft carriers do provide 'floating bases'.

 

[Ray]

Obama told us all US troops are out of Iraq some time ago. They went to Kuwait, IIRC.

The United States is set to bolster its military presence in the Persian Gulf by posting combat forces in Kuwait to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.

According to new CENTCOM figures given to Al Jazeera on April 30, there are about 125,000 US troops in close proximity to Iran: 90,000 soldiers in/around Afghanistan on Operation Enduring Freedom; some 20,000 soldiers deployed ashore elsewhere in the Near East region; and a variable 15-20,000 afloat on naval vessels.

US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has said the US would have 40,000 troops in the Gulf following the withdrawal from Iraq. But the exact number, location and mission of these forces beyond Afghanistan is virtually impossible to determine.....

in the Gulf, especially an increase in the size of the standby combat force in Kuwait, the extent of troop movements is obscured by official secrecy surrounding the "globe-spanning American archipelago of bases".

The Pentagon has said it is now prioritising smaller, more nimble deployments to work in partnership with local troops, rather than emphasising the sheer number of "boots on the ground". And officials say an enhanced presence in the Gulf is meant to serve as a "quick-reaction and contingency force", not simply a prelude to war.

Map: US bases encircle Iran - Interactive - Al Jazeera English

Check the map also please.

 

[Ray]

The USA does not have bases in Iraq, try again.

The facilities exist and can be taken over as and when necessary.

Though Malik has denied that he wanted some US troops to remain in Iraq, who knows what is the exact arrangement.

Everything does not always meets the eye!

For instance, Pakistan has repeatedly said that it was furious about US Drone attacks. But now, Musharraf stands in the dock that indeed Pakistan welcomed the US Drone attacks with the caveat that they leave the Pakistani camps training the terrorists for infiltration into Kashmir.

The recent revelation in the New York Times that the US struck a secret deal with Pakistan in 2004 under which the Pakistanis agreed to look the other way when US drones strafed tribal areas bordering Afghanistan in return for a tacit understanding that the drones would not attack nuclear installations and terrorist training camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir which were directed against India is shocking indeed.
Need to be wary of US deception - The New Indian Express

 

[pmaitra]

@Ray

Sir, that is what we have aircraft carriers for. You should have a couple of them.

Aircraft carriers can be targeted and sunk. But it would be real difficult to neutralise a landmass.

Bushehr is an example of being indestructible being an underground facility.

But yes, aircraft carriers do provide 'floating bases'.

My 2 cents:

Aircraft Carriers are white elephants. They provide a floating base, but are extremely vulnerable. They are a great strategic asset, especially like the Nimitz Class, with a good battle-group, like the US Navy, but India cannot afford that. What India has, are relatively smaller, and he Baku/Gorshkov is best described as its official designation - Aviation Cruisers. Even after modification for conversion into the Vikramaditya, it will never be able to do what the US Navy can. I agree we should get a couple of them, but only when we can afford them.

 

[nrupatunga]

@SajeevJino Bush jr was a pilot. But there were lot of controversies about his tenure as a pilot.

George W. Bush military service controversy

 

[SajeevJino]

@SajeevJino Bush jr was a pilot. But there were lot of controversies about his tenure as a pilot.

George W. Bush military service controversy

Yes...

This is how CIA agents Identity avail on Internet

 

[Ray]

My 2 cents:

Aircraft Carriers are white elephants. They provide a floating base, but are extremely vulnerable. They are a great strategic asset, especially like the Nimitz Class, with a good battle-group, like the US Navy, but India cannot afford that. What India has, are relatively smaller, and he Baku/Gorshkov is best described as its official designation - Aviation Cruisers. Even after modification for conversion into the Vikramaditya, it will never be able to do what the US Navy can. I agree we should get a couple of them, but only when we can afford them.

Aircraft carriers are white elephants if not given adequate protection and security.

The US Navy operates them as a part of the Carrier Strike Group.

The carrier strike group is a flexible naval force that can operate in confined waters or in the open ocean, during day and night, in all weather conditions. The principal role of the carrier and its air wing within the carrier strike group is to provide the primary offensive firepower, while the other ships provide defense and support.

U.S. Navy instituted a concept which mandated greater task group integration of naval air and surface warfare assets into a more permanent carrier battle group structure.

Each of the Navy's 12 existing carrier battle groups consisted of an aircraft carrier; an embarked carrier air wing; cruisers, destroyer, and frigate units; and two nuclear-powered attack submarines.

A U.S. Navy carrier strike group typically includes:

A supercarrier, which is the centerpiece of the strike group and also serves as the flagship for the CSG Commander and his/her staff. The carrier is commanded by aviation community captain.

A carrier air wing (CVW) typically consisting of up to nine squadrons. Carrier air wings are commanded by an aviation community captain (or occasionally a Marine colonel).
One to two Aegis guided missile cruisers (CG), of the Ticonderoga class—a multi-mission surface combatant, equipped with BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles for long-range strike capability, each commanded by a surface community captain.

A destroyer squadron (DESRON) commanded by a surface community captain (O-6) who commands the escort destroyers, with two to three guided missile destroyers (DDG), of the Arleigh Burke class—a multi-mission surface combatant, used primarily for anti-aircraft (AAW) and anti-submarine (ASW) warfare, but which also carries Tomahawk missiles for long-range strike capability. A destroyer is commanded by a surface community commander.
Up to two attack submarines, usually of the Los Angeles-class used to screen the strike group against hostile surface ships and submarines, but which also carry Tomahawk missiles for long-range strike capability.

A combined ammunition, oiler and supply ship (AOE/AOR), usually Supply-class (T-AOE); provides logistic support.

In battle, the CCSG is also known as the Composite Warfare Commander (CWC) who acts as the central command authority for the entire strike group. The CWC designates subordinate warfare commanders for various missions:

Strike Warfare (STWC). The Strike Warfare Commander is usually the air wing commander. He sets the general strike philosophy and employs air wing aircraft as well as strike group Tomahawk missiles.

Air Warfare (AWC). The commanding officer of one of the strike group cruisers is usually assigned as Air Warfare Commander. He is the only warfare commander not on the carrier, as the Combat Information Center (CIC) of AEGIS cruisers is specially designed for inner air battle functions.

Command & Control, Space and Electronic Warfare (C2W). The space and electronic warfare commander acts as principal advisor to CWC for use and counter-use of the electromagnetic spectrum by friendly and enemy forces. He promulgates force Emissions Control (EMCON) restrictions, monitors organic and non-organic intelligence and surveillance sensors and develops operational deception and counter-targeting plans as appropriate.

Surface Warfare (SUWC). The SUWC is responsible for surface surveillance coordination and war-at-sea.

Undersea Warfare (USWC).

SUWC and USWC responsibilities are often combined into Sea Combat Commander (SCC), usually delegated to the DESRON commander. He performs these duties from aboard the carrier due to its superior Command-Control-Communications-Computers and Intelligence (C4I) capabilities. Supporting the CWC and his warfare commanders are coordinators who manage force sensors and assets within the strike group

Wiki

It operates on a Network Centric Warfare platform.

Given today's adversaries of the US, I think that they are relatively safe.

 

[asianobserve]

Strategically located land bases, if one can have them, are always better than aircraft carriers. No issue there.

 

[Ray]

Bush avoided Vietnam and was a pilot for the Texas Air National Guard.

George W. Bush joined the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group of the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, during the Vietnam War. He committed to serve until May 26, 1974, with two years on active duty while training to fly and four years on part-time duty. In his 1968 Statement of Intent (undated), he wrote, "I have applied for pilot training with the goal of making flying a lifetime pursuit and I believe I can best accomplish this to my own satisfaction by serving as a member of the Air National Guard as long as possible."

Following his six weeks of basic training, Bush began 53 weeks of flight training at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. In December 1969, Bush began 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training on the F-102 in Houston at the 147th's Combat Crew Training School, soloing in March 1970 and graduating in June 1970. When he graduated, he had fulfilled his two-year active-duty commitment.

In November 1970, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, commander of the 111th Fighter Squadron, recommended that Bush be promoted to First Lieutenant, calling him "a dynamic outstanding young officer" who stood out as "a top notch fighter interceptor pilot." He said that "Lt. Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries," and that "he is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing." Bush was promoted.

Air National Guard members could volunteer for active duty service with the Air Force in a program called Palace Alert, which deployed F-102 pilots to Europe and Southeast Asia, including Vietnam and Thailand. According to three pilots from Bush's squadron, Bush inquired about this program but was advised by the base commander that he did not have the necessary flying experience (500 hours) at the time and that the F-102 would soon be retired.

Bush's four-year part-time obligation to serve required him to maintain his immediate readiness to be recalled to active duty in the event of a national emergency. Bush performed part-time Guard duty as an F-102 pilot through April 1972, logging a total of 336 flight hours.

After April 1972, Bush may have failed to meet the attendance requirements established for members of the Air National Guard. In mid-1972, he failed to meet the Air Force requirement for an annual physical examination for pilots, and lost his authorization to be a pilot.

On October 1, 1973, Bush was honorably discharged from the Texas Air National Guard and transferred to the inactive reserves in Denver, Colorado. He was discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974, ending his military service.

Wiki

The curious mystery of George W Bush's Vietnam war

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/12/uselections2004.usa2

 

[W.G.Ewald]

@SajeevJino Bush jr was a pilot. But there were lot of controversies about his tenure as a pilot.

George W. Bush military service controversy

Are you talking about Dan Rather's (CBS Broadcasting) "fake but accurate" evidence against Bush?

Killian documents controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Several months later, a CBS-appointed panel led by Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi criticized both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath.[15] CBS fired producer Mary Mapes, several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers. The panel did not specifically consider whether the documents were forgeries but concluded that the producers had failed to authenticate them and cited "substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents."

Don't be a dupe.

Dan Rather was forced to retire as well.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Bush avoided Vietnam and was a pilot for the Texas Air National Guard.

George W. Bush joined the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group of the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, during the Vietnam War. He committed to serve until May 26, 1974, with two years on active duty while training to fly and four years on part-time duty. In his 1968 Statement of Intent (undated), he wrote, "I have applied for pilot training with the goal of making flying a lifetime pursuit and I believe I can best accomplish this to my own satisfaction by serving as a member of the Air National Guard as long as possible."

Following his six weeks of basic training, Bush began 53 weeks of flight training at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. In December 1969, Bush began 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training on the F-102 in Houston at the 147th's Combat Crew Training School, soloing in March 1970 and graduating in June 1970. When he graduated, he had fulfilled his two-year active-duty commitment.

In November 1970, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, commander of the 111th Fighter Squadron, recommended that Bush be promoted to First Lieutenant, calling him "a dynamic outstanding young officer" who stood out as "a top notch fighter interceptor pilot." He said that "Lt. Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries," and that "he is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing." Bush was promoted.

Air National Guard members could volunteer for active duty service with the Air Force in a program called Palace Alert, which deployed F-102 pilots to Europe and Southeast Asia, including Vietnam and Thailand. According to three pilots from Bush's squadron, Bush inquired about this program but was advised by the base commander that he did not have the necessary flying experience (500 hours) at the time and that the F-102 would soon be retired.

Bush's four-year part-time obligation to serve required him to maintain his immediate readiness to be recalled to active duty in the event of a national emergency. Bush performed part-time Guard duty as an F-102 pilot through April 1972, logging a total of 336 flight hours.

After April 1972, Bush may have failed to meet the attendance requirements established for members of the Air National Guard. In mid-1972, he failed to meet the Air Force requirement for an annual physical examination for pilots, and lost his authorization to be a pilot.

On October 1, 1973, Bush was honorably discharged from the Texas Air National Guard and transferred to the inactive reserves in Denver, Colorado. He was discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974, ending his military service.

Wiki

The curious mystery of George W Bush's Vietnam war

The curious mystery of George W Bush's Vietnam war | World news | The Guardian

Guardian always has been completely off on the left wing.

Killian documents controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posting the original article was bound to draw all the Bush haters out of the woodwork.

Where do these words appear:

->

No political topics permitted

<-

 

[W.G.Ewald]

The American Spectator : Dubya's Reemergence

Public discontent with George W. Bush, before his administration closed up shop in January 2009, was high and rising. The housing market had collapsed; unemployment was growing fast, along with a deficit swollen by the ambitious new government programs of "compassionate conservatism," from a Medicare prescription drug benefit to No Child Left Behind. There was likewise the matter of a couple of foreign wars we had initiated without hard-and-fast plans for winding them up. Nothing seemed to be working at the time the 43rd president of the United States skipped town, as it were, resuming the good life he had led in Texas.

...

Maybe a larger number of folk than would please the staggeringly talkative Barack Obama. We'll have to see. The second coming of George W. Bush and a reassessment of his circle as brimming with policy masterminds hasn't occurred and in fact may never occur. My point is that the fresh-as-dew Bush Center and its policy institute have the chance to make an impression on minds starved for policy ideas that don't involve new taxes, don't sub-lease the job of governing to public employee unions, don't try to regulate everything that moves, and don't write off the possibility that among foreign critics of the United States are many who downright hate us and would be ecstatic to see American power laid flat in the dust.

 

[Energon]

He was doing a great job strategically from the US point of view, even though he did not think things through.

He also was responsible for the US economic chaos!

His bloopers notwithstanding I think he was a good president. I shudder to think what the response would have been if say Obama was the president when 9/11 happened.

Democrats at the time lamented that Gore was not in office to have the opportunity... I can't imagine what that imbecile would have done.

Al Gore, yeah that idiot. Didn't he claim he invented the Internet? Didn't he have some "plan" for addressing the climate situation ?

Al Gore would not have gone to war in Astan. At best sent a few Tomahawks into Astan. That's it. Iraq war would have not happened which would have been a good thing though.

Are you people serious? For one all of Bush's strategic machinations were colossal clusterf**ks. His mismanagement of Afghanistan and the putrid $hitfest of Iraq aside he rejected Khatami's offer of rapprochement which would have probably put the Iran matter to rest and he actually isolated us by ridiculing European nations who were smart enough to avoid Iraq and then unnecessarily flamed tensions with Russia through the idiotic missile defense shield program. His policies will undoubtedly go down as the ones which led to the downfall of our empire. He took the United States from being a disliked but tolerable hegemon (there's no such thing as a benign hegemon) to an arrogant, malignant and intolerable tyrannical regime which had to be defied and deposed at any cost in the eyes of many other nations around the world.

I'm truly baffled by the fact that many Americans still believe in this absurd narrative that Bush/Republicans = Terrorist killing baddasses vs Obama/Democrats = pu$$ies. The Obama administration has been far more lethal and effective in crushing terrorist organizations than the Bush administration ever was. If anything Obama needs to tone his $hit down. The Bush administration just put up grand displays of "shocks and awes" which achieved very little to nothing. These displays were nothing more than grand scale acts of masturbation... as in they felt really good, involved lots of explosions but in the end just ended up f**king ourselves. Bush's wars drove us to the brink of bankruptcy, made us look like fools and resulted in the death of millions of innocents without meeting any objectives whatsoever. Although in Bush's defense most of these idiotic delusions of grandeur were projected by his esteemed advisory group of armchair generals like Dick Cheney the great, Don Rumsfeld the brave Paul Wolfowitz the wise and Ahmad Chalabi the true. I was trying to think up a title for John Bolton but couldn't come up with anything meant for a man with a really bad toupee.

I don't know how anyone can conclude that Gore would have shied away from military action (out of weakness or what have you). Nothing like the 9/11 attacks had ever happened; and one thing's for sure, if any incoming president ever had aspirations of a second term he would have to lash out with the military. If anything in his case there might have been a chance that the war planning would have been conducted by people who actually knew about fighting wars.

Katrina again was undoubtedly a disaster, but here again the problem was the Bush administration's love for assigning important jobs to categorically unqualified cronies.

The economic collapse however is a bit complex. The bubble prone economic policies were instituted by Clinton, and he certainly deserves a large chunk of the blame. However Bush in keeping with the neocon imaginary version of capitalism gave even more liberty to the thieving maniacs on Wall Street and instituted counterproductive tax cuts. And of course the misplaced prescription plan and mismanaged bailout attempts just made matters worse.

Having said all that I don't think George W Bush was a bad human being; for all I know he may have been a really great guy (can't say the same for many of his cronies though). However this man simply lacked the level of intelligence and astuteness to be president; and this to me is ironic on two levels. One, its really disappointing that the son of a brilliant and perspicacious man like George H Bush was such a dud and second he proved that even in a relatively meritocratic society like ours that money, influence and power can buy you anything, including keys to the world's throne room.

 

[Yusuf]

Hmmm Obama is looking to cut deals, find good Taliban and get the hell out of there

 

[LurkerBaba]

From a purely Indian pov

Good:

- Nuclear deal

Bad:

- Iraq War
- Massive evangelization plans

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Don't even know where to start with Energon's rant (i.e., Bush Derangement Syndrome).

But:

Katrina again was undoubtedly a disaster, but here again the problem was the Bush administration's love for assigning important jobs to categorically unqualified cronies[

.

Examples? And what about Hurricane Sandy relief and FEMA, any idea?

Obama cronies: Biden, Kerry, Clinton, Napolitano...