George W Bush: was he really that bad?

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
Don't even know where to start with Energon's rant (i.e., Bush Derangement Syndrome).

But:

.

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

Obama cronies: Biden, Kerry, Clinton, Napolitano...
LOL, again please tell me you're joking. Bush derangement syndrome? For realz? How much evidence does a rational person need to acknowledge the living breathing disaster that was George Bush? Heck I don't think anyone with half a brain should even be able to get past the fact that this man exploited the post 9/11 sentiments to take us into an unwarranted war under false pretense that led to the deaths of millions of innocents. Lucky for our new found skills of cognitive dissonance and introspection resistance therapy we have successfully forgotten this little boo boo. But for those who actually do think about such things and have taken the time out to study this disaster in detail and follow the trail of breadcrumbs ... turns out the source was actually George Bush's merry band of idiots.

As far as Hurricane Sandy is concerned... again, are you kidding me? The mere attempt to insinuate some sort of commonality of shortcomings between Sandy and Katrina is a joke. The overall handling of Sandy has been infinitely more competent; I mean it was so good that it got Chris Christie expelled from the CPAC. Also it's funny you should bring this up because I actually have a first hand perspective of these issues. When Katrina hit I was a student still in training; and a group of us signed up to provide our services for Katrina victims and so we flew out to NOLA to do our thing. Then as irony would have it I happened to live in the area that was crippled by Sandy (had to evacuate the whole nine) and this time around the institution I now work for treated the bulk of patients affected by the hurricane. And so yeah *spoiler alert*.... a world of difference.

Also if you're trying to equate Michael Brown to the likes of Biden, Kerry and Clinton then I must ask you to step away from the crack pipe, because that crack has gone bad.

Look, I don't care two craps about Obama either, and I could write volumes about all the mistakes he has made/ is making. Although I must say there's a chance I may have actually liked him if he had governed with the same gusto as he campaigned but sadly that was not to be.

But seriously, I don't know how anyone can even pretend to absolve the Bush Administration of their colossal cluster**ks with a straight face. This has nothing to do with the utterly useless fad of partisan hackery, I'm not even a Democrat. This has everything to do with a working cerebral cortex, functional long term memory, basic reasoning skills and a healthy relationship with reality. George Bush sucked a big one and in spite of what the cerebral giants on Fox news claim, we will be paying for his mistakes for a very, very long time to come.
 
Last edited:

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
LOL, again please tell me you're joking. Bush derangement syndrome? For realz? How much evidence does a rational person need to acknowledge the living breathing disaster that was George Bush? Heck I don't think anyone with half a brain should even be able to get past the fact that this man exploited the post 9/11 sentiments to take us into an unwarranted war under false pretense that led to the deaths of millions of innocents. Lucky for our new found skills of cognitive dissonance and introspection resistance therapy we have successfully forgotten this little boo boo. But for those who actually do think about such things and have taken the time out to study this disaster in detail and follow the trail of breadcrumbs ... turns out the source was actually George Bush's merry band of idiots.

As far as Hurricane Sandy is concerned... again, are you kidding me? The mere attempt to insinuate some sort of commonality of shortcomings between Sandy and Katrina is a joke. The overall handling of Sandy has been infinitely more competent; I mean it was so good that it got Chris Christie expelled from the CPAC. Also it's funny you should bring this up because I actually have a first hand perspective of these issues. When Katrina hit I was a student still in training; and a group of us signed up to provide our services for Katrina victims and so we flew out to NOLA to do our thing. Then as irony would have it I happened to live in the area that was crippled by Sandy (had to evacuate the whole nine) and this time around the institution I now work for treated the bulk of patients affected by the hurricane. And so yeah *spoiler alert*.... a world of difference.

Also if you're trying to equate Michael Brown to the likes of Biden, Kerry and Clinton then I must ask you to step away from the crack pipe, because that crack has gone bad.

Look, I don't care two craps about Obama either, and I could write volumes about all the mistakes he has made/ is making. Although I must say there's a chance I may have actually liked him if he had governed with the same gusto as he campaigned but sadly that was not to be.

But seriously, I don't know how anyone can even pretend to absolve the Bush Administration of their colossal cluster**ks with a straight face. This has nothing to do with the utterly useless fad of partisan hackery, I'm not even a Democrat. This has everything to do with a working cerebral cortex, functional long term memory, basic reasoning skills and a healthy relationship with reality. George Bush sucked a big one and in spite of what the cerebral giants on Fox news claim, we will be paying for his mistakes for a very, very long time to come.
You and this thread and yes, Bush Derangement Syndrome is a complete waste of bandwidth. Absolute no excuse for this political swill on DFI (@pmaitra, turn in your Moderator's badge, and I'm not kidding). I'll be in New Jersey this weekend, dipshit, and I'll come back with some photos to show what a great job FEMA has been doing so you can see for yourself. As for your testimony above, I say you're a liar; if not, prove it. Anybody can spin these "I was there" tales. And you're not a Democrat? More bullshit You spout the DNC party line chapter and verse.

DFI has to get the politics off the forum or it will just continue be trashed by the likes of faceless, anonymous nobodies like energon, asianobserve and average_american: feathermerchants and fanboys all.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Thread closed.

Might be re-opened, but definitely not immediately.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
¬¬Yes, I am serious.

Bush was no paragon of virtues or a person of intellect. However, his translation of Cheney's doctrine that the latter formulated to include the security of energy needs of US is indeed laudable from the US strategic point of view, even though it was detestable to the rest of the world.

Afghanistan was well thought out, but that was not the priority. It was merely the catspaw to kickstart the Grand Strategy. Eliminating Osama was a very credible and emotive reason with the Americans. If one has read Cheney's 'Defence Policy Guidelines' that he formulated as the Secretary of Defence, he has enunciated that the US policy would be to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This, Cheney wrote was the dominant consideration underlying the new regional defence strategy and that the US required that endeavour to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

The doctrine also clarified the strategic value of the Middle East and Southwest Asia. It stated that in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

As all are aware that China was becoming a power that was on the road to dominating South and SE Asia and was on the way to becoming a global power. China was getting entrenched in Pakistan and Kampuchea. Therefore, China was proving to be a challenge to the US in the same way USSR was and this was unacceptable to the US desire to be the predominant outside power in the region. It was no brainer that Pakistan was influencing the Taliban in Afghanistan and was one of the two countries that recognised the Taliban regime.

Therefore, to remain predominant outside power in the region, it became essential to attack the Taliban (Osama) and create internal turmoil in Pakistan so that China could not consolidate there. Over the years this policy has added on other factors to the same end, like the Balochistan issue.

I would agree that Obama has given a 'human' face back to the US after Bush.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
I have one advice for all.

All threads evoke emotions and emotional responses.

Each believes most ardently in what he posts .

There obviously will be pros and cons and even disagreements.

That is all fine and acceptable.

I am sure things will not spiral into a flame out (to use an air force term) if we kept personal attacks out.
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
@Ray Sir, the thread is closed. Let me open it.

<<click>>

Done!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
@Ray Sir, the thread is closed. Let me open it.

<<click>>

Done!
I was aware of it.

I only wanted to bring some calm to the heat being generated.

We must debate on the issues with facts even if the other person holds a diametrically opposite view.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

desicanuk

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
527
Likes
686
Despite everything Bush Jr was the most pro-India president.The folks at South block ever in deep slumber never noticed!!!
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
You and this thread and yes, Bush Derangement Syndrome is a complete waste of bandwidth. Absolute no excuse for this political swill on DFI (@pmaitra, turn in your Moderator's badge, and I'm not kidding). I'll be in New Jersey this weekend, dipshit, and I'll come back with some photos to show what a great job FEMA has been doing so you can see for yourself. As for your testimony above, I say you're a liar; if not, prove it. Anybody can spin these "I was there" tales. And you're not a Democrat? More bullshit You spout the DNC party line chapter and verse.

DFI has to get the politics off the forum or it will just continue be trashed by the likes of faceless, anonymous nobodies like energon, asianobserve and average_american: feathermerchants and fanboys all.
Good lord, I must ask you again, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The only person I see spouting asinine political party lines is you. I have never bothered to represent any political party (that would be an utter waste of time); it just so happens that any rational person who does not buy into the ludicrous circus antics of the Republican party looks like a raving liberal to the folks who lap that crap up. But here again, it's not me it's you. I don't know if it's a problem with reading comprehension, partisanship or just the inability to evaluate reality. Each one of Bush's failures I have so far mentioned is out there for anyone to see. As is the blatant disparity in the response and management of the two natural disasters in question. I can't believe we're even having this "argument".

Also this is an anonymous internet message board so obviously that's not my attempt to provide "testimony" in order to shift the argument in my favor. That I leave to documented history and common sense. That personal anecdote does however make me not take you seriously.
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
¬¬Yes, I am serious.

Bush was no paragon of virtues or a person of intellect. However, his translation of Cheney's doctrine that the latter formulated to include the security of energy needs of US is indeed laudable from the US strategic point of view, even though it was detestable to the rest of the world.
How can anything possibly be laudable when we have to artificially create a war, kill millions and then provide the rest of the world a fool proof reason to turn on us? Mind you this is not some pot infused hippie liberal talking point; its just a simple matter of national interest. These people were so deluded that they thought they could actually get away with something like this in the internet age where everyone around the world can see and find out everything in real time. All in all how much have we lost, not just in financial resources but also geopolitical leverage due to this blunder. I mean just think of how ridiculous a policy has to be that it actually gives a bat$hit case like Iran a legitimate reason to pursue nuclear deterrence. And obviously the oil angle completely blew up in our face. This was categorically one of the worst screwups in our nation's history.

And yes, I have read Cheny's doctrine along with policy papers from neocon "think tanks" like Project for a new American Century. And no all of these ideas were nothing more than delusions of grandeur and it is precisely why we are in the position we are in today. Furthermore don't you think it's ironic that the final outcome was the exact opposite of all those lofty goals. At the end of the day the reality speaks for itself. I want to write volumes about this but I just don't have the time.

I would agree that Obama has given a 'human' face back to the US after Bush.
In all honesty I think the damage is already done and it will take a very long time to repair it and even a full time celebrity, part time president like Obama can't pull it off. There is no quick solution and only if we are really smart about how we play our cards will we able to get out of the terribly sticky situation we now find ourselves in. In all fairness though a large part of the change has to take place within our society as a whole and not just the political machinery.
 
Last edited:

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
How can anything possibly be laudable when we have to artificially create a war, kill millions and then provide the rest of the world a fool proof reason to turn on us? Mind you this is not some pot infused hippie liberal talking point; its just a simple matter of national interest. How much have we lost, not just in financial resources but also geopolitical leverage due to this blunder. I mean just think of how ridiculous a policy has to be that it actually gives a bat$hit case like Iran a legitimate reason to pursue nuclear deterrence. And obviously the oil angle completely blew up in our face. This was categorically one of the worst screwups in our nation's history.

And yes, I have read Cheny's doctrine along with policy papers from neocon "thinktanks" like Project for a new American Century. And no all of these ideas were nothing more than delusions of grandeur and it is precisely why we are in the position we are in today. Furthermore haven't you noticed that the final outcome was the exact opposite of all those lofty goals. At the end of the day the reality speaks for itself.

In all honesty I think the damage is already done and it will take a very long time to repair it and even a full time celebrity, part time president like Obama can't pull it off. There is no quick solution and only if we are really smart about how we play our cards will we able to get out of the terribly sticky situation we now find ourselves in. In all fairness though a large part of the change has to take place within our society as a whole and not just the political machinery.
I kind of figured out some one did not like us on 911. maybe bush did too.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
War itself is evil. Maintaining armies, navies and air forces is all unproductive to progress as national wealth is not being used for progress. And yet......

The rationale for all wars is national competitiveness and preserving national interests even at the expense of mankind.

A reality that moral arguments cannot obviate.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Furthermore haven't you noticed that the final outcome was the exact opposite of all those lofty goals. At the end of the day the reality speaks for itself.
The effect is that the Middle East is destabilised and strong regimes which are anti West are tottering under the so called onslaught of the likes of the so called 'Arab Spring'.

The squabbling Arabs are made more disunified than before and the Oil Cartel, the OPEC, that manipulated the world oil prices have been silenced, if not dismantled.

Pakistan which was cosying up to China has been made chaotic and Islamic terrorists are finding ways into Chinese Xinjiang to create greater problems for China than before and the boxing in of Iran that has cocked the snook at US is taking shape.

Morally reprehensible, if you wish, but it is good for competitive nationalism to ensure that US rules the wave.

Yet, it is true that you win some and you lose some!
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
The effect is that the Middle East is destabilised and strong regimes which are anti West are tottering under the so called onslaught of the likes of the so called 'Arab Spring'.

The squabbling Arabs are made more disunified than before and the Oil Cartel, the OPEC, that manipulated the world oil prices have been silenced, if not dismantled.

Pakistan which was cosying up to China has been made chaotic and Islamic terrorists are finding ways into Chinese Xinjiang to create greater problems for China than before and the boxing in of Iran that has cocked the snook at US is taking shape.

Morally reprehensible, if you wish, but it is good for competitive nationalism to ensure that US rules the wave.

Yet, it is true that you win some and you lose some!
Wasn't Mubarak's Egypt a vitally staunch ally of the US? Now how is Muslim Brotherhood in contrast?

And for ensuring energy security, China in Iraq: winning without a war - Alarabiya.net English | Front Page

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

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.

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

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Good lord, I must ask you again, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The only person I see spouting asinine political party lines is you. I have never bothered to represent any political party (that would be an utter waste of time); it just so happens that any rational person who does not buy into the ludicrous circus antics of the Republican party looks like a raving liberal to the folks who lap that crap up. But here again, it's not me it's you. I don't know if it's a problem with reading comprehension, partisanship or just the inability to evaluate reality. Each one of Bush's failures I have so far mentioned is out there for anyone to see. As is the blatant disparity in the response and management of the two natural disasters in question. I can't believe we're even having this "argument".

Also this is an anonymous internet message board so obviously that's not my attempt to provide "testimony" in order to shift the argument in my favor. That I leave to documented history and common sense. That personal anecdote does however make me not take you seriously.
I usually don't quote an entire article, but read this.

George W. Bush is victim of rush to judgment - The Washington Post
The George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum will be dedicated Thursday at Southern Methodist University, an event that will draw all of the nation's living presidents to Dallas. Despite the coming fanfare, many Americans consider Bush's presidency a failure. There is little evidence that scholars, including the influential historians who pronounce the success or failure of an administration, are having second thoughts about their assessment of Bush as a failed chief executive. Unfortunately, far too many scholars revealed partisan bias and abandoned any pretense of objectivity in their rush to condemn the Bush presidency.

Many academics branded Bush a failure long before his presidency ended — and not just fringe elements of the academy, such as Ward Churchill or Howard Zinn, but also scholars from the nation's most prestigious universities. In April 2006, Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz published an essay in Rolling Stone titled "The Worst President in History?" Wilentz argued that "George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace" in part because he had "demonized the Democrats," hurting the nation's ability to wage war. No other U.S. president "failed to embrace the opposing political party" in wartime, Wilentz claimed, despite numerous examples to the contrary, such as when Franklin D. Roosevelt compared his Republican opponents to fascists in 1944.



Not to be outdone, in December of that year Columbia history professor Eric Foner proclaimed Bush "the worst president in U.S. history" and argued that Bush sought to "strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta." According to Foner, Warren Harding of Teapot Dome fame was something of a paragon of virtue next to Bush, whose administration was characterized by "even worse cronyism, corruption, and pro-business bias."

In 2007, historian Robert Dallek was so appalled by the Bush presidency that he proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow for the "recall" of a sitting president: After securing passage of a 60 percent majority in both houses of Congress, the public would vote yes or no on removing the president and vice president from office. Historian Douglas Brinkley, author of a flattering election-year biography of 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry, declared in 2006 that "it's safe to bet that Bush will be forever handcuffed to the bottom rungs of the presidential ladder" and that Bush purposely tried to "brutalize his opponents."

Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who coined the term "imperial presidency" and had a tendency to apply it rather liberally to Republican presidents, at first considered Bush an "amiable mediocrity" but later saw him as a threat to not just the nation but also the planet. In 2005, Schlesinger wrote that the Bush administration was purposefully "driv[ing] toward domination of the world," placing the constitutional system of separation of powers "under unprecedented, and at times, unbearable strain," and was intent on "outlawing debate." A 2010 Siena College Research Institute survey of 238 presidential scholars ranked Bush 39th out of 43, in the esteemed company of Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce and Harding.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Katrina. The canon of lies that the Bush haters live by always includes the story of Hurricane Katrina.

Was it Bush's fault that money to be spent for repairing levees and pumping stations in New Orleans months earlier was diverted by corrupt Democratic politicians?

Ray Nagin, the corrupt and recently indicted mayor of New Orleans, knew for days about the approaching storm, and had a fleet of school buses available to evacuate residents. He failed to use them and people died or lived on their rooftops, or in squalor in poor shelters. Was Bush responsible?
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
As for enduring damage to the US, Carter was worse than Bush, and Obama will be worse than Carter.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
What some of us might agree on is the Saudi question, and it exists under both Bush and Obama. After 20010911, Bin Laden family members were allowed to flee the US. After the Boston bombing this week, a Saudi was arrested. A Saudi diplomat met with Obama and the subject was quickly "deported." Questions directed to Janet Napolitano of DHS were dismissed as not worth consideration. (Cf. Hillary: "what difference does it make?") I suggest a totally different thread on the Saudi question.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
As for enduring damage to the US, Carter was worse than Bush, and Obama will be worse than Carter.

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! :rolleyes:
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top