Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No joke, I know a girl named Katrina who worked for FEMA taking relief applications for Katrina victims.

She tells me she just introduced heself as "Katie" on the phone.

George W. Bush will probably be remembered somewhat like Nixon in that he wasn't a bad person necessarily but he had some bad people around him, like Cheney and Rove. He wasn't as good or as savvy as Nixon, but I think they both had the same problem of having people around them that played on their fears and paranoia.

 Ahtman wrote:
George W. Bush will probably be remembered somewhat like Nixon in that he wasn't a bad person necessarily but he had some bad people around him, like Cheney and Rove. He wasn't as good or as savvy as Nixon, but I think they both had the same problem of having people around them that played on their fears and paranoia.

That is not at all how people remember "Tricky Dick".

 Psienesis wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
George W. Bush will probably be remembered somewhat like Nixon in that he wasn't a bad person necessarily but he had some bad people around him, like Cheney and Rove. He wasn't as good or as savvy as Nixon, but I think they both had the same problem of having people around them that played on their fears and paranoia.

That is not at all how people remember "Tricky Dick".

"Only Nixon could go to China"

 Psienesis wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
George W. Bush will probably be remembered somewhat like Nixon in that he wasn't a bad person necessarily but he had some bad people around him, like Cheney and Rove. He wasn't as good or as savvy as Nixon, but I think they both had the same problem of having people around them that played on their fears and paranoia.

That is not at all how people remember "Tricky Dick".

To be fair, I think many people saw him as a crook. However, I think that most people who want to peel even one layer off that onion recognize that Nixon was a very complicated figure. I had a rhetoric professor in college that pointed out how analyses of Nixon's time in office tend to delve into his personal psychology more than with any other POTUS.

I'm not sure that will be the case with Dubya. I joked about the rogue's gallery, but that will almost certainly be the focus of analyses of his presidency, don't you think?

Focus of analysis of the Bush Presidency will likely primarily be on war: 9/11, the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq, and overall the "War on Terror".

I thought it was the War on Error.

At least Bush never had to use nukular weapons.

I'm posting this light-heartedly, because I think its funny:





"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully."

I definitely can't fault Bush wholly for Katrina. Ultimately it's not really the job of the executive branch to organize a state-level response (or to organize evacuations). Yeah, FEMA was bumbling and he deserves a small piece of that, but ultimately it's just a piece.

So far as that "unknown unknowns" quote, I think it's great. Truthfully I use it all the time because I don't know a better phrase to describe that concept. Say what you will about Rumsfeld, he was master of a pithy phrase.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So Bush is responsible for all the failures of the state organizations too?

If you're gonna use logic like that then Bush is responsible for the failures, and successes, of everyone in the Federal, State, and local Governments all the way down to your local DMV office's horrible wait lines between 2000 and 2008.

So, in 5-10 years, We can blame Kim Davis on Obama.... nice

 Ouze wrote:
I definitely can't fault Bush wholly for Katrina. Ultimately it's not really the job of the executive branch to organize a state-level response (or to organize evacuations). Yeah, FEMA was bumbling and he deserves a small piece of that, but ultimately it's just a piece.

Dammit Ouze... stop making SENSE!

Someone hold me!

So far as that "unknown unknowns" quote, I think it's great. Truthfully I use it all the time because I don't know a better phrase to describe that concept. Say what you will about Rumsfeld, he was master of a pithy phrase.

I had to look it up again and yes, that was a masterful quote:
Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So Bush is responsible for all the failures of the state organizations too?

If you're gonna use logic like that then Bush is responsible for the failures, and successes, of everyone in the Federal, State, and local Governments all the way down to your local DMV office's horrible wait lines between 2000 and 2008.

So, in 5-10 years, We can blame Kim Davis on Obama.... nice

Oh man... there's gunna be a litany of "Thanks Obama" for years to come...

The true question here is that will Donald Trump go down as a great president or the greatest president?

grumpy_newenglander wrote:
The true question here is that will Donald Trump go down as a great president or the greatest president?

No... the Classiest Present™.

Trump is Batman. You know it's true because he told little kids he is.

 KingCracker wrote:
Yeah he seemed simple because he typically just spoke rather then having speeches prepared and all that. I'm not saying he didn't have speeches because he did but he p preferred to just speak off the cuff. My oldest brother met him twice and said as a person he was awesome. He hung out with the other Marines at the embassy my brother was stationed at, like actually just hung out shot the breeze and even had a beer with them.

Bush gave up alcohol in 1986. But then he broke that just to have a beer with some soldiers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
What can you say to that kind of logic?

There is truly no way to speak reason and facts to a person who just doesn't give a gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
After reading Frazz's post, I now realise you thought I was talking about Bush and not Johnson.

When did this get so sleazy? I thought we were talking about politics?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Okay... so you'll use that same logic for the failures in Libya and Benghazi on Obama and Clinton.

And here is, I think, the most stark example of the insanity of the defence of Bush in contrast to the Obama hyper-criticism.

Obama is attacked constantly for Benghazi. In which four US citizens died. At the same time during the Bush administration there were 13 attacks on embassies, and more than 60 deaths. The attacks during the Bush admin are barely even known, but Benghazi was national news for months, and on dakka for about two years.

People are still criticizing Obama for Libya, for an endless list of ever changing complaints. But they'll simply not mention, or even defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq. I mean jesus, how can people even talk about Libya when Iraq is in the conversation, do people have no idea of scale, less idea of the difference between a reaction to a crisis and a proactive decision... or do they just not care?

It's fething ridiculous.

 sebster wrote:

It's fething ridiculous.

Not to mention, Clinton (male type) gets an apparent bye for his non-action over the Rwanda genocides? Which I've recently learned through an interview or video (I honeslty don't remember what exactly it was, but it was him who said it), that his non-action is the one regret that he will take to the grave with him.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Not to mention, Clinton (male type) gets an apparent bye for his non-action over the Rwanda genocides? Which I've recently learned through an interview or video (I honeslty don't remember what exactly it was, but it was him who said it), that his non-action is the one regret that he will take to the grave with him.

I actually can't remember a single defense of Clinton's inaction over Rwanda.

I wasn't all that active on-line at the time, so maybe that's it, and hey, maybe we'll someone come in here and try to defend Clinton over it. But at the time all I heard was scathing criticism from all sides.

That was a different time, though. We thought it was pretty partisan, but it had nothing on what was to come.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Not to mention, Clinton (male type) gets an apparent bye for his non-action over the Rwanda genocides? Which I've recently learned through an interview or video (I honeslty don't remember what exactly it was, but it was him who said it), that his non-action is the one regret that he will take to the grave with him.

I actually can't remember a single defense of Clinton's inaction over Rwanda.

I wasn't all that active on-line at the time, so maybe that's it, and hey, maybe we'll someone come in here and try to defend Clinton over it. But at the time all I heard was scathing criticism from all sides.

That was a different time, though. We thought it was pretty partisan, but it had nothing on what was to come.

I think it's just that, I've seen a number of posts around the internet, usually from one side or another extolling the virtues of Clinton and how good he was for the country blah blah blah... Usually these people do this in the same breath they say "bush sucks"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think it's just that, I've seen a number of posts around the internet, usually from one side or another extolling the virtues of Clinton and how good he was for the country blah blah blah... Usually these people do this in the same breath they say "bush sucks"

Sure, I mean, people are going to cheer for the blue team or the red team, and ignore whatever things that don't suit their team, and outright invent whole new 'facts' where they think they can get away with it. That's as common among team donkey as team elephant.

But this thread has been a very ridiculous example of that tendency. We have people saying Obama is bad because Libya, while coming up with all manner of excuses for Iraq. And Obama is bad because Benghazi, while completely ignoring in Bush's term there was another dozen attacks, with a deathtoll more than 10 times as high.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think it's just that, I've seen a number of posts around the internet, usually from one side or another extolling the virtues of Clinton and how good he was for the country blah blah blah... Usually these people do this in the same breath they say "bush sucks"

Sure, I mean, people are going to cheer for the blue team or the red team, and ignore whatever things that don't suit their team, and outright invent whole new 'facts' where they think they can get away with it. That's as common among team donkey as team elephant.

*whembly picks up a mirror*

*whembly turns it facing sebster*

*sebster takes a good look*

What else do you see besides a good looking chap?

But this thread has been a very ridiculous example of that tendency. We have people saying Obama is bad because Libya, while coming up with all manner of excuses for Iraq. And Obama is bad because Benghazi, while completely ignoring in Bush's term there was another dozen attacks, with a deathtoll more than 10 times as high.

At least Bush had a plan for Iraq... (gakky plan nonethanless). Can anyone truly say they knew what the feth was going on in Libya after Gahdaffi was removed?

As to the embassy attacks, did the Bush administration simply walked away from any embassy attacks and leave their staff to fend for themselves? Or, misappropriated blame for such attacks?

But this thread has been a very ridiculous example of that tendency. We have people saying Obama is bad because Libya, while coming up with all manner of excuses for Iraq. And Obama is bad because Benghazi, while completely ignoring in Bush's term there was another dozen attacks, with a deathtoll more than 10 times as high.

Some of us can do both:

Iraq-bad!
Libya/Syria/Russia bad!

See how easy it is? Almost as easy as saying " a pox on both your houses!"*


*mm Frazz needs to him some more of the Bard, and verily.

For libya, I wouldn't say it's obama's fault.
I think it's Europe's fault, as the european nations (mainly France...) send aircraft and destroyed Libya's army tanks to save the rebels.
I know the USA send Tomahawks and financial aid, but can we really blam obama this time ?

 godardc wrote:
For libya, I wouldn't say it's obama's fault.
I think it's Europe's fault, as the european nations (mainly France...) send aircraft and destroyed Libya's army tanks to save the rebels.
I know the USA send Tomahawks and financial aid, but can we really blam obama this time ?

Yes, because who else can we blame for a stupid policy decision except the guy in charge?

 whembly wrote:
*whembly picks up a mirror*

*whembly turns it facing sebster*

*sebster takes a good look*

What else do you see besides a good looking chap?

Are you honestly claiming I'm a Democrat cheerleader? For real?

I don't know what happens to my posts after I press send, and they work their way through the intertubes to end up on your screen, because what I write is so very different to what you seem to be reading.

At least Bush had a plan for Iraq... (gakky plan nonethanless). Can anyone truly say they knew what the feth was going on in Libya after Gahdaffi was removed?

What plan they had was loose and frequently improvised. Which is what you'd expect when people are reacting as gak unfolds in front of them.

Anyhow, the claim stands as self evident. Anyone who wants to defend Iraq but criticise Libya is being very obviously partisan.

As to the embassy attacks, did the Bush administration simply walked away from any embassy attacks and leave their staff to fend for themselves? Or, misappropriated blame for such attacks?

Leaving them to fend for themselves is the Republican narrative, and mostly relies on the idea that the government may have declined to launch air strikes on a populated area in someone else's city. Which, you know, of course they fething didn't.

Which leaves the misappropriated blame as the substance of the issue. Which boils down to a government official saying something that wasn't true, that they almost certainly knew wasn't true. Not a good thing, but a thing that happens all the time. But if the charge was 'you handled this badly in the media discourse' then no-one would give halve of one gak. It only achieves some vague kind of damnation because that actual screw up is deliberately tangled up with the attack and the deaths, as if a better press relation would have meant those men wouldn't have died.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Some of us can do both:

Some can, and that's cool. Many don't, and do it by and large to pretend GW Bush was an okay president, which is a load.

 whembly wrote:

At least Bush had a plan for Iraq... (gakky plan nonethanless). Can anyone truly say they knew what the feth was going on in Libya after Gahdaffi was removed?

I'm not sure there was more of a plan in either case, however I'd argue that Libya was overall handled a lot better, as it was not a US centric-operation and there was no major ground operations or long term intensely costly occupation.

Amazingly well handled? No, but far better than Iraq in terms of effort and cost to the US, and that's a win in my book.

Now, Syria is the topic that really should get picked on...

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Not to mention, Clinton (male type) gets an apparent bye for his non-action over the Rwanda genocides? Which I've recently learned through an interview or video (I honeslty don't remember what exactly it was, but it was him who said it), that his non-action is the one regret that he will take to the grave with him.

I actually can't remember a single defense of Clinton's inaction over Rwanda.

I wasn't all that active on-line at the time, so maybe that's it, and hey, maybe we'll someone come in here and try to defend Clinton over it. But at the time all I heard was scathing criticism from all sides.

IIRC that was right on the back of Mogadishu, where the American government did intervene and received scathing criticism from home for endangering American troops. I'm not saying it's right, but it's understandable politically why they would shy away from repeating Mogadishu. That event probably shaped American foreign policy right up until 9/11.

 Smacks wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Not to mention, Clinton (male type) gets an apparent bye for his non-action over the Rwanda genocides? Which I've recently learned through an interview or video (I honeslty don't remember what exactly it was, but it was him who said it), that his non-action is the one regret that he will take to the grave with him.

I actually can't remember a single defense of Clinton's inaction over Rwanda.

I wasn't all that active on-line at the time, so maybe that's it, and hey, maybe we'll someone come in here and try to defend Clinton over it. But at the time all I heard was scathing criticism from all sides.

IIRC that was right on the back of Mogadishu, where the American government did intervene and received scathing criticism from home for endangering American troops. I'm not saying it's right, but it's understandable politically why they would shy away from repeating Mogadishu. That event probably shaped American foreign policy right up until 9/11.

Though, to be fair, there was a whole mess of poor decisions made before that event turned it into the disaster that it was, like having helicopters attack the local militia leaders as they're meeting to discuss possibly handing Aided over, throwing them firmly in his camp just as they were considering tossing him under the bus

Republicans also don't want you to remember that they voted down a bill that would have paid for more security forces at American embassies abroad shortly before Benghazi took place, and had been voting down such measures for a year prior.

And, yes, the American people did not want to send more troops to Africa after the Somalia debacle (which is *still* a fethed up situation all around). We had grown tired of involving ourselves in local affairs with warlords and tribes and the like, because it seemed like an awful quagmire to involve ourselves in, no clear lines of good guys and bad guys, and no clear goal as to what-the-feth we would even be doing.

It seems to me that the plan for Libya was to promote a win by the western-leaning rebels, oust Gaddaffi, without putting any boots on the ground, and especially to avoid any nation building as was done (ha ha) in Afghanistan and Iraq.

From this viewpoint the plan was carried out very well because we achieved all the objectives.

The situation all went to gak afterwards, thanks to rump Islamist extremists based, funded and supplied from other Arab nations. The Iraq War contributed to the growth of these kind of groups, as does the current civil war in Syria.

It's easy to say with hindsight that we should not have got involved in Libya at all, but it was not apparent at the time. The danger of rump factions did not seem to obvious as it does now that ISIL are on the scene.

IDK if the Libyan population are better off now or under Gaddaffi, but they welcomed western help to get rid of him.

 Ouze wrote:
I definitely can't fault Bush wholly for Katrina. Ultimately it's not really the job of the executive branch to organize a state-level response (or to organize evacuations). Yeah, FEMA was bumbling and he deserves a small piece of that, but ultimately it's just a piece.

So far as that "unknown unknowns" quote, I think it's great. Truthfully I use it all the time because I don't know a better phrase to describe that concept. Say what you will about Rumsfeld, he was master of a pithy phrase.

One man's pithy phrase is another man's bull****