George W Bush: was he really that bad?

[W.G.Ewald]

Bush is a loser. Unfortunately, he almost brought down into the losers path the US. Good that Obama caught it before it fell to the abyss. Now go thank your President!

You should be ashamed of your blatant sycophancy. Name calling is not worthy of a debate, but that seems to be the best you can do, as usual.

 

[ericliang313]

Look, Bush was a very unbalanced individual, trapped by a black-and-white duality, whose choices have been disastrous. But I think he thought that most of his choices were altruistic. Still, does that excuse what he did? Perhaps not.

 

[Ray]

Wasn't Mubarak's Egypt a vitally staunch ally of the US? Now how is Muslim Brotherhood in contrast?

Iraq used to be a good regional counterbalance to Iran as they were at each other's throat. However, Post- Saddam Iraq has cozied up with Iran with the same Shiite dominance. Kerry Warns Iraq on Iran Flights to Syria | Military.com and Iran, Iraq to Ink Gas Deal| glObserver Global Economics

These all testify to " the final outcome was the exact opposite of all those lofty goals".

US has had many allies, but are they all allies today?

That is the crux of the policy to imbalance those who have the potential to upset the geostrategic matrix that the US has crafted for herself over the years.

Take Pakistan. I have explained this along with the link IIRC of the US Analyst's paper.

AQ and Muslim Brotherhood have the potential to upset the US geostrategic matrix. And given the Islamist groundswell to return to the basic of Islam, the allies of Islamic States in the Middle East and elsewhere have no hope in hell to contain this groundswell and keep the situation stable and friendly to the US.

Therefore, ideal is to destabilise the regions so that there are no clear victors and they fight amongst themselves to capture power. This internecine bloodbath and destruction will weaken the countries so destabilised and it will take years to recover. In the interim there will be shortages, tardy progress etc leading to great discontentment when compared to the 'good old days'. It will foment more discontentment and strife and keep the pot boiling.

It is an ideal way, from the US point of view, to ensure that in no way can the Islamic fundamentalists regroup to create a problem for the US from the geostrategic point of view.

It may also be noted that Arab and North African monarchies, who have the oil and money, will not help these destabilised nations in any substantial way to allow them to consolidated, because they fear the radicals and fundamentalists more than these elements worry the US.

Thus, US has a win win situation carved out for itself.

 

[Ray]

Xinjiang's terrorists had been quite rampant way before Bush Jr. came to power as posted separately under "1990 Revolt". Now Pakistan leans more towards China, ready to fill the Afghan void once NATO pulls out.

.

Xinjiang means "new frontier" in Mandarin.

Therefore, this area given that is accepted as 'new frontier' indicates that it was taken through imperialistic pursuit, and unfortunately for China, has still not reconciled to be made vassals.

Hence, you are right that Islamic unrest in Xinjiang is an ancient scourge for China.

Just a recap - roughly one-sixth of China's total land area, has today a population of only about 16.6 million. Of these, roughly seven million are native Muslim Uighurs, and Han Chinese comprise over six million. In 1950, roughly 15 per cent of Xinjiang's people were ethnic Chinese. Today their figure is 38 per cent, and the influx is expected to become a stampede when the planned east-west rail line to span the province is completed. While 40 years ago the population of Urumqi was only 20 per cent Han, now Han Chinese constitute 80 per cent of the capital's population.

Therefore, given the above, that there will be resentment amongst the Uighurs is but natural, more so when they are being made a minority in their own State.

However, while the resentment to the Chinese in Xinjiang maybe ancient, the recent activities can be recounted to see where the faultlines lie.

The beginnings of Xinjiang's Islamic militancy started in the mid-1980s when, possibly encouraged by China to offset Russia, a large Islamic militant force was sent for a jehad against the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan. A signed article in a Pakistani monthly, The Herald, informs that among more than 25,000 Muslim militants, many were Uighurs, who were trained by Afghan and Pakistani fundamentalists during the Afghan war in the Eighties.

However, China closed its road links with Pakistan for several months, after an abortive Islamist uprising in the town of Baren in Xinjiang in 1992, in which 22 people were killed.


If you remember I had written, that China's Islamic fundamentalist problem is not within and instead without. Here is proof to that statement.

Ibrahim Rouzi, Director of Xinjiang's Religious Affairs Bureau, November 1992, ordered a government probe into the mushrooming of unauthorised mosques and Quranic schools in the region, which he said were "often opened with funds received from abroad."

A book critical to Islam published by the Chinese, cause the Xinjiang riots of 1994,

The above mentioned article of December 1995, states that one of the Uighur youths, undergoing training in one of the madrassas (religious schools) in Pakistan, had vowed that after he returned to Khotan, his hometown in eastern Xinjiang, he would cleanse it of Communism. Interestingly, the person said, "My city is not Islamic. It is full of Communists who do not allow Muslims to study or pray. There is no school for Shariah," he said vehemently. "We want to make a new Islamic state for Uighurs and leave China," he added.

What is dangerous for China is that Islamic fundamentalists have made the big cities like Taksu, Kuqa, Khotan, Urumqi and others on the Karakoram Highway their strongholds.

It is said that The Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan, is one of several fundamentalist parties are helping financially the Islamists from Xinjiang. In December 1995, some 100 Uighurs, most of them under Jamaat sponsorship, were trained at the Islamic University in Islamabad, the Syed Maudoodi International Institute at the Jamaat headquarters in Lahore and other madrassas across Pakistan.

Pakistani Govt may lean towards China since it has no other country to lean toward and cannot get rid of its habit of leaning on other countries to find Dutch courage, but they are quite helpless against the fundamentalist who sprout like weeds in a lawn. And sadly, for China and others it is these weeds or radical fundamentalists who are the cause of all the woes.

It is not the Pakistan authorities who will attempt to fill the void in Afghanistan when ISAF withdraws. It is the Taliban who will rush in.

It will in no way help China and instead lay the foundation of a Greater Muslim Brotherhood encompassing Xinjiang and even rendering it separate from China.

Muslims were never known to be pacifists or lacking zeal for their religion unlike the Buddhists of Tibet.

 

[asianobserve]

You should be ashamed of your blatant sycophancy. Name calling is not worthy of a debate, but that seems to be the best you can do, as usual.

And what do you call your compulsive Obama bashing?

 

[tramp]

You should be ashamed of your blatant sycophancy. Name calling is not worthy of a debate, but that seems to be the best you can do, as usual.

I am sure of one thing, under Bush and Cheney, Osama would still be alive and well in Abbottabad, just as Mullah Omar is in Quetta.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

And what do you call your compulsive Obama bashing?

Any questioning of Obama is bashing and racism to the left, so debate is impossible.

For your consideration:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013...wed_the_obama_empty_suit_has_sewn_others.html

The most glaring fact about our president is that he is an empty suit. The people around him are also empty suits. They believe in nothing, really, but unearned luxury, unmerited adulation, and unaccountable power. Those whom we have come to call "leftists" are in fact nothing but nihilists, and we flatter them when we presume that they value anything beyond their vanities, their avarice, and their selfishness.

http://townhall.com/columnists/rach...hut-down-political-debate-n1574026/page/full/

Has society really become quite thin-skinned, or is acting "offended" a new tactic that is being used to shut down legitimate political debate? Progressives are increasingly claiming to be offended whenever those on the right disagree with their left-wing positions. It doesn't matter what the issue is; the left will divert a legitimate political debate into an accusation that the right disagrees with them because they are full of hate towards them. This puts the right on the defensive, and removes the real debate from discussion. It then becomes difficult for the right to ever prevail with their position, because to do so would mean "hate" had won.

 

[Energon]

Any questioning of Obama is bashing and racism to the left, so debate is impossible.

For your consideration:

Articles: The Tailor Who Sewed the Obama Empty Suit Has Sewn Others

The Power of Being "Offended" in Order to Shut Down Political Debate - Rachel Alexander - [page]

Wow, these are the "references" you came up with? Have you actually read them, along with other material from those authors? These are idiotic musings of intellectual midgets who have made a name for themselves in the circles of the retarded right and the esteemed tea baggers. There are developmentally disabled children in inner city schools who can probably write far more sensible position essays. I'm not even sure if the people who write this drivel believe in it themselves, just as all the clowns on Fox news. But lucky for them comical commentary composed of stupid slogans, ludicrous conspiracies and moronic sophistry has become a big business because there are millions of people who lap up this crap.

Again, attempting to defend the disastrous Bush presidency through mental gymnastics and asinine arguments (the best one by far being the Katrina/Sandy one) is nothing short of laughable. I don't know why you would even bother to do this when the Republicans have done everything in their power to distance themselves from Bush. Unfortunately the remainder of the republicans are still littered by a wide array of idiots and a barrage of dumb ideas which still doesn't help their cause. Either way you're latching on to a sinking ship which even the rats have already abandoned.

The fact of the matter remains that Obama has in fact been more sensible and effective than Bush (in spite of the abhorrent behavior of the congress) and it is highly unlikely he will go down in history as a failed president; certainly not nearly as bad as Bush.

Also nobody mentioned anything about racism in regards to questioning Obama. That again was you following the Republican recipe book of imaginary victimhood and outrage. The reason debate is impossible is because you have become a spokesperson of the legendary right wing nut job consortium and spout their talking points verbatim.

As long as you keep this up I'm afraid you only leave yourself open to ridicule.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Wow, these are the "references" you came up with? Have you actually read them, along with other material from those authors? These are idiotic musings of intellectual midgets who have made a name for themselves in the circles of the retarded right and the esteemed tea baggers. There are developmentally disabled children in inner city schools who can probably write far more sensible position essays. I'm not even sure if the people who write this drivel believe in it themselves, just as all the clowns on Fox news. But lucky for them comical commentary composed of stupid slogans, ludicrous conspiracies and moronic sophistry has become a big business because there are millions of people who lap up this crap.

Again, attempting to defend the disastrous Bush presidency through mental gymnastics and asinine arguments (the best one by far being the Katrina/Sandy one) is nothing short of laughable. I don't know why you would even bother to do this when the Republicans have done everything in their power to distance themselves from Bush. Unfortunately the remainder of the republicans are still littered by a wide array of idiots and a barrage of dumb ideas which still doesn't help their cause. Either way you're latching on to a sinking ship which even the rats have already abandoned.

The fact of the matter remains that Obama has in fact been more sensible and effective than Bush (in spite of the abhorrent behavior of the congress) and it is highly unlikely he will go down in history as a failed president; certainly not nearly as bad as Bush.

Also nobody mentioned anything about racism in regards to questioning Obama. That again was you following the Republican recipe book of imaginary victimhood and outrage. The reason debate is impossible is because you have become a spokesperson of the legendary right wing nut job consortium and spout their talking points verbatim.

As long as you keep this up I'm afraid you only leave yourself open to ridicule.

Ok, we get it. You love Obama, and all Obama's failures can be ascribed to Bush, forever and ever, amen.

What you accomplish here is demonstrating the existence of an Obama cult, and nothing more.

That you viscerally hate a man who doesn't know you exist (and wouldn't even you used more than a screen name) is really pathetic.

And your hate has nothing to do with Indian military matters, or can you make a connection?

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Obama and Bush, distinct men with policy overlaps

Despite vast differences with President George W. Bush on ideology, style and temperament, President Barack Obama has stuck with Bush policies or aspirations on a number of fronts, from counterterrorism to immigration, from war strategy to the global fight against AIDS.

Even on tax policy, where Bush advocated lower tax rates for all and Obama pushed for higher rates on the rich, Bush's tax cuts for the middle class not only have survived under Obama, they have become permanent.

Obama inherited from his predecessor two military conflicts, a war on terror and a financial crisis. He also inherited, and in time embraced, the means with which to confront them.

On Thursday, Obama will attend the dedication of Bush's presidential library in Texas, a tableau that will draw attention to two distinct men — a Republican and a Democrat from different ends of the political spectrum, political foils with polarized constituencies.

Indeed, Obama ran for president in 2008 as the anti-Bush, critical of the war against Iraq and of the economic policies of the preceding eight years.

But in his more than four years of governing, Obama has also adopted or let stand a series of Bush initiatives, illustrating how the policies of one administration can take hold and how the realities of governing often limit solutions.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Henninger: Boston and the Un-Bush - WSJ.com

With the terror of last week's Boston Marathon bombing still seeping into the American psyche, how ironic it is that President Obama traveled this week to Dallas for the opening of the George W. Bush Library. Mr. Obama has built the politics of his presidency—its foreign policy and its economic policy—around the assertion that he is the Un-Bush.

Now, in the grimmest way possible, he is Bush, another American president who must come to grips with the aftermath of a mortal act of Islamic terror on U.S. soil, televised to the whole world. Whether the Boston killers were put in motion by Islamist handlers or sprung from Tamerlan Tsarnaev's fundamentalist reveries, jihad has come home to the Obama presidency.

Mr. Obama is the luckier of the two presidents. His bombing happened at the start of his second term, after he'd already passed the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank. Not so Mr. Bush. The Sept. 11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center towers, the driving of a passenger airliner into the Pentagon, and the crashing of another airliner in Pennsylvania changed the course of Mr. Bush's young presidency.

Mr. Obama's tour through this era of Islamic terror has been lucky in one other way: George Bush immediately used his political capital—and paid a heavy price—to pass the Patriot Act. What happened next in Washington wasn't entirely expected.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/u...-library-dedication.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Addressing a crowd of Bush supporters and administration veterans, the 44th president will no doubt extol the virtues of the 43rd and praise his years of service to the country.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Congressman: 'Five Jihadists Have Reached Their Targets in the United States Under Barack Obama' | The Weekly Standard


Congressman Tom Cotton took to the House floor "to express grave doubts about the Obama Administration's counterterrorism policies and programs":

"I rise today to express grave doubts about the Obama Administration's counterterrorism policies and programs," said the freshman congressman from Arkansas. "Counterterrorism is often shrouded in secrecy, as it should be, so let us judge by the results. In barely four years in office, five jihadists have reached their targets in the United States under Barack Obama: the Boston Marathon bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and in my own state—the Little Rock recruiting office shooter. In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero! We need to ask, 'Why is the Obama Administration failing in its mission to stop terrorism before it reaches its targets in the United States?'"

 

[W.G.Ewald]

George W. Bush: ‘Painting Has Changed My Life’ - ABC News

Of all the images to have emerged from the post-presidential George W. Bush, few have been as startling – or as revealing – as his paintings. It's an unlikely hobby that has developed into a passion for the former president.

Bush told ABC News' Diane Sawyer that he now paints daily, and works with what he called a "patient" instructor once a week at his Dallas home. "I love to paint. It is — painting has changed my life in an unbelievably positive way," the former president said.

 

[pmaitra]

Americans warming to George W. Bush?

 

[W.G.Ewald]

If you now who Donna Brazile is, this is significant.

Brazile: Bush came through on Katrina - CNN.com

Despite the many differences I had with former President George W. Bush on a range of public policy issues, or as he called them, "decision points," I found common ground with him in one area, simply because we decided to put aside partisanship and do something good.

Hurricane Katrina's devastation and the bungled rescue efforts are seared in the national memory. Bush's "heckuva job" remark turned into a byword for government incompetence and public distrust. The shallowness of it coming at such a terrible and low point left deep wounds that are still healing. That was what it was.

But rather than rehash all that went wrong, I want to share what I believe to have been President Bush's determination to follow up on commitments, and the intense, personal, dedicated efforts he made to revive and restore people's futures. I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Energon]

Ok, we get it. You love Obama, and all Obama's failures can be ascribed to Bush, forever and ever, amen.

What you accomplish here is demonstrating the existence of an Obama cult, and nothing more.

That you viscerally hate a man who doesn't know you exist (and wouldn't even you used more than a screen name) is really pathetic.

And your hate has nothing to do with Indian military matters, or can you make a connection?

Um no. I don't "love" Obama I am however pointing out that he hasn't been a disaster unlike Bush (granted the bar is set very, very low). At no point in time did I ascribe all of Obama's failures to Bush either; which is not to say Obama didn't inherit f**kups of grand scale for which not just him, but we as a society will be paying for a long time to come. Furthermore we haven't even discussed Obama's failures so I'm not sure how you even derived to that conclusion; granted most of your statements and conclusions here have no supportive evidence whatsoever.

Clearly you haven't read my posts, or not carefully enough. If you do (and I would urge you to do so) you'll see that I outline the particular details of his blunders in order to support my assertion that Bush sucked. Also, clearly you are confused about the topic of discussion at hand (as evinced by the title of this thread). So again, not sure how you brought in the whole Indian military angle.

What's ironic is that you keep accusing everyone of being in cahoots with the Obama cult when in fact it is you who represents the cult of the new right. You follow their stunted manifesto to the last letter by posing meaningless arguments, drawing false conclusions and fabricating outrage while entirely ignoring the substance of the arguments you are trying to counter in the first place.

Also people who apparently harbor "visceral hatred" for another man do not write things like...

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

 

[pmaitra]

I think we all are mature enough to make out points without using the F-word or derivatives thereof.

I am writing this after seeing several posts in this thread that violate the forum rules.

This applies to all.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Um no. I don't "love" Obama I am however pointing out that he hasn't been a disaster unlike Bush (granted the bar is set very, very low). At no point in time did I ascribe all of Obama's failures to Bush either; which is not to say Obama didn't inherit f**kups of grand scale for which not just him, but we as a society will be paying for a long time to come. Furthermore we haven't even discussed Obama's failures so I'm not sure how you even derived to that conclusion; granted most of your statements and conclusions here have no supportive evidence whatsoever.

Clearly you haven't read my posts, or not carefully enough. If you do (and I would urge you to do so) you'll see that I outline the particular details of his blunders in order to support my assertion that Bush sucked. Also, clearly you are confused about the topic of discussion at hand (as evinced by the title of this thread). So again, not sure how you brought in the whole Indian military angle.

What's ironic is that you keep accusing everyone of being in cahoots with the Obama cult when in fact it is you who represents the cult of the new right. You follow their stunted manifesto to the last letter by posing meaningless arguments, drawing false conclusions and fabricating outrage while entirely ignoring the substance of the arguments you are trying to counter in the first place.

Bush must be discredited in perpetuity by anonymous entities like energon because if people blame Bush for the inability of Obama to deliver on his promises, the latter's day of reckoning (when he is revealed to be any empty suit) can be delayed as long as possible.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

George W. Bush has saved more lives than any American president | Fox News

George W. Bush, not Barack Obama, is the real American hero in Africa.

Take it from me, a liberal Democrat who voted for Obama twice. I know a little about Africa: I have been to the continent 17 times over the last 32 years.

In particular, I have a great interest in South Sudan; I first traveled there in March 2008, and I have been back 13 since.

South Sudan is the mostly Christian nation that won its independence from Sudan after a half-century of civil war; in 2011, South Sudan was admitted into the United Nations as a full member state.

Sudan, of course, is the rogue Muslim nation that once harbored Usama Bin Laden and has been listed by the U.S. and Israel as a sponsor of terrorism for decades.

Needless to say, South Sudan is much better off as a free and independent nation; it is able, at last, to chart its own pro-American, pro-Western course.

Yet there is much more to South Sudan.

For five years, now, I have entranced and, yes, haunted by the land and its people. The land is so beautiful, the people are so friendly. And yet they are plagued by many challenges. And some Americans have really stood up to help--most notably, the 43rd President, George W. Bush.

Hard to believe, maybe, but true.

Back in early 2008, when I started my work in South Sudan--I have been working closely with Christian Solidarity International--everyone was excited about the possibility of Barack Obama becoming president.

After all, he was the son of a Kenyan--and Kenya is a neighboring country. Surely, the first African-American president would do great things for the world, including Africa.

Indeed, after Obama won the U.S. election in November of 2008, many Africans, in South Sudan, and everywhere else, were proud to wear T-shirts with photos of President Obama on them

Yet now that Obama's first term has drawn to a close, the positive buzz about Obama has dramatically shifted; the Obama excitement, and the T-shirts, have most disappeared.

In fact, South Sudanese today are thinking more about another U.S. president: that would be Obama's predecessor, Bush 43. As a liberal Democrat and Obama supporter, I was particularly struck by this. Yes, Bush is a hero in Africa, and Americans, too, should know why.

No American president, before or since, has had Bush's vision and determination to save so many millions of lives.

For Africans, that vision traces back to the early years of his presidency. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush introduced the "President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief" (PEPFAR.)

And that proposal had real meat: $15 billion over five years, as well as a serious look at African health problems, beyond HIV/AIDS.

Bush proposed it, and his proposal wasn't just a few throw-away lines in a speech; even as the Iraq war raged, Bush spent precious political capital to get PEPFAR enacted.

The result was the largest upfront contribution ever made by any country to fight HIV. And the numbers are staggering.

Five million children, women and men have received antiretroviral treatment under PEPFAR. In 2010 alone, 600,000 pregnant mothers received treatment so their newborn children would not be infected.

Yes, millions of people live productive, healthy lives due to Bush 43.

This past winter, the National Academy of Science did an evaluation of President Bush's PEPFAR. It said:

"Overall, PEPFAR has reset the world's expectations for what can be accomplished with ambitious goals, ample funding, and humanitarian commitment to a public health crisis"¦.Working with a wide range of international and local partners, PEPFAR has expanded HIV testing and increased the number of people living with HIV who are receiving care and being treated with antiretroviral drugs.

The initiative has trained hundreds of thousands of service providers, strengthened partner countries' health systems, provided additional nonclinical support services for people living with HIV, and made an unprecedented investment in programs for orphans and vulnerable children living with or affected by HIV."

So those are the data, and they are compelling. But even more compelling is what one sees on the ground in Africa: I've seen children orphaned by parents who lost their fight against HIV in Africa.They live on the streets, stealing just to get food to eat, sleeping outside and sometimes selling themselves to survive. Without parents these children turn to violence and crime just to eat.

Orphans turning to theft or even worse can destabilize communities and countries.

George W. Bush saw this, too. He had a vision. He understood what saving lives would mean not only to the individuals and families saved, but also to the communities who have experienced so much death from HIV. As a result, a whole continent is much better off, including my beloved South Sudan.

Bush 43 is no longer president, of course, and yet his great work continues. Even as his presidential library is dedicated in Dallas on Thursday, April 25, he is still looking to mobilize resources to make real change in Africa.

In particular, working closely alongside his wife Laura, Bush 43 is now taking on a new fight: helping women fight cervical cancer.

When a woman is infected with HIV her chances of getting cervical cancer increase, but of course, cervical cancer strikes far beyond HIV: In the United States, there are some 12,000 new cases each year; in the world, more than 500,000 new cases.

Indeed, cervical cancer, on the rise around the world, should be a new focus for leaders across the board--politics, diplomacy, philanthropy, and science.

All are desperately needed.

Millions of lives hang in the balance.

In the meantimes, this liberal commentator thanks president and Mrs. Bush every single day for their amazing and tireless work for humanity. They are wonderful role models for future leaders around the world. I wish more leaders would follow the shining example of George W. and Laura Bush.