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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
(and few would believe this could be in Iraq, and in practical terms, it's not)

Yeah. If someone asked me to guess where that is, I'd have never even thought of Iraq. Damn it looks just like the mall down the street from my apartment (no movie theater though... that's a nonstarter ).

 Bromsy wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Well, as quoted you did say "where he did manage to get his policies in place, the results were either mediocrity or failure" and mayhaps I was simply curious which you would consider say the three completely separate programs listed in the article.

Because a president is in charge of more than a dozen departments, with about a dozen agencies each. So there's maybe 150 or more agencies in the US government. In each of those there will be potentially hundreds of programs.

So fairly obviously when talking about a president in broad strokes, it'd be pretty stupid ensure our language sufficiently describes the operation of all his programs. Instead we stick to the major programs and reform initiatives.

So, to reiterate, you said you could not think of a single thing that improved under the auspices of George W. Bush, despite the fact that you are now claiming to be aware that things did in fact improve under him as mentioned in the thread. You made specific claims which were hyperbole, mistakes, or lies. That is all I am saying. I quoted you... it's right there. You said "One simple way to look at it is to ask what he set about working on pro-actively, that actually got better. I can't think of anything." except that at the time of that statement it had already been brought up in the thread that there are like 1.9 million African folks who are on Aids antivirals that possibly would not be except for his policies. So, are you insinuating that the president at the time was unaware that this was happening? Jesus, just say 'I was being hyperbolic' and we can move on.

Yeah, but what have the Romans ever done for us?

 Ouze wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
I think he's pretty alright. I'd rather grab a beer with him than either Clinton or Obama.

To my dying day, I will never understand this particular political test.

"Yeah, he's not the best neurosurgeon, but I want him to operate on me because I feel like we could sit down and play Mario Kart".

Thats almost completely totally unlike anything he just said. He just said he thought Bush was more personable.

You want to go to an Icehouse: Bush / Johnson
You want to hang out on the golf course: Bush Sr.
You want to go to a frat party: Clinton / Kennedy
You want to revisit sitting in a college lecture hall: Obama.
You want to parachute into Eastern Europe screaming Die Commie! Die! America Hurr! : Reagan.
You want to plot the overthrow of continents and send your enemies parachuting into Eastern Europe: Nixon
You want to eat some awesome food at an afternoon picnic and watch football: Carter
You want to trip up walking to your car: Ford



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bush achievements:
*Leading the 2003/2004 recovery from recession (people forget about that one).
*No child Left Behind
*Aid to Africa
*Attempts to fix medicare and the donut hole, including prescription improvements.
*prior to 9/11 a hands off policy in the ME
*pounded hell out of Al Qaeda.


What he did bad
*Continued the plan of negotiation with NK.
*Iraq
*Didn't stop the open borders for drugs and human trafficking.

Had 9/11 not happened he would probably have been remembered as a decent "management" President in line with Clinton. With the decline of the Imperial Presidency greatness/villain levels fall off.

Post 911:
Had he not entered Iraq he would have been viewed as above as the man who rallied the nation and beat hell out of Al Qaeda. But we didn't realize that there are whole regions are unfit for enlightened democracy at this time.

Still better than Obama. That's not saying much, though.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Still better than Obama. That's not saying much, though.

Yeah pretty much. He was deeply mediocre, but you can't go by "public opinion" ie; what the network water carriers tell you "you" think. I did a lot better under "Bush's Depression" than Obama's endless "green shoots recovery". Though for what it's worth, Obama is still better than Carter.

I think I need more coffee, I haven't used this many sarcastic quotes since I quoted Tom Kirby.

Over here in the UK, he's basically remembered as a war-mongering idiot who was best buddies with another war-mongering scumbag. Neither G.W. Bush or T. Blair will have a great legacy in Britain, almost entirely because of the aforementioned war-mongering.

 -Shrike- wrote:
Over here in the UK, he's basically remembered as a war-mongering idiot who was best buddies with another war-mongering scumbag. Neither G.W. Bush or T. Blair will have a great legacy in Britain, almost entirely because of the aforementioned war-mongering.

That is, for the most part, EU-driven anti-US propaganda, though. Same in Germany, where media reported nothing about him except for ze evil war. It's political agenda...ism forced upon children by individual EU governments.

IMO, Bush (and Obama) are decidedly middle of the road/average in the grand scheme of things. I think history, influenced by popular media will remember Bush poorly, Obama will probably be remembered in more shades of grey depending on what happens over the next couple years. I think Bush though, did a much better job of demonstrating leadership and accountability than Obama has, and I think Bush also did a far and away superior job of holding together American society through a very turbulent time in our nations history than Obama has (in this respect, I think Obama has done a gak job and has actually worsened the divide in American society, not by virtue of what he *has* done, but rather by virtue of what he *hasn't*).

Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who thinks Nixon and Andrew Jackson were amongst the nations best, Reagan amongst the worst, and FDR and JFK terribly overrated but not necessarily 'bad'.

 -Shrike- wrote:
Over here in the UK, he's basically remembered as a war-mongering idiot who was best buddies with another war-mongering scumbag. Neither G.W. Bush or T. Blair will have a great legacy in Britain, almost entirely because of the aforementioned war-mongering.

That is largely how he is remembered in the US, as well.

 -Shrike- wrote:
Over here in the UK, he's basically remembered as a war-mongering idiot who was best buddies with another war-mongering scumbag. Neither G.W. Bush or T. Blair will have a great legacy in Britain, almost entirely because of the aforementioned war-mongering.

Of course he wasn't an evil warmonger until 3,000 people died in one day.

 Frazzled wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
Over here in the UK, he's basically remembered as a war-mongering idiot who was best buddies with another war-mongering scumbag. Neither G.W. Bush or T. Blair will have a great legacy in Britain, almost entirely because of the aforementioned war-mongering.

Of course he wasn't an evil warmonger until 3,000 people died in one day.

By the same token, most of the "war mongering" talk didn't really come about regarding US retaliatory operations in Afghanistan in the aftermath of 2001 (aside from the normal peaceniks that protest anything military related), but after he elected to go into Iraq on an unrelated errand in 2003.

That distinction is still fairly strong both within the US and without. One will notice whenever a TV show needs a character with military bona fides, it's always "he did time in Afghanistan", and never Iraq.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
(and few would believe this could be in Iraq, and in practical terms, it's not)

Yeah. If someone asked me to guess where that is, I'd have never even thought of Iraq. Damn it looks just like the mall down the street from my apartment (no movie theater though... that's a nonstarter ).

Yeah, it's amazing how relatively...intact the city of Irbil is next to the rest of Iraq, and the Kurds in general have carved out a nation for themselves, and yet it's never really openly talked about.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
Over here in the UK, he's basically remembered as a war-mongering idiot who was best buddies with another war-mongering scumbag. Neither G.W. Bush or T. Blair will have a great legacy in Britain, almost entirely because of the aforementioned war-mongering.

That is, for the most part, EU-driven anti-US propaganda, though. Same in Germany, where media reported nothing about him except for ze evil war. It's political agenda...ism forced upon children by individual EU governments.

Not really. Did you actually live in Britain when the decision to go to war was made? Do you realise how toxic that legacy is, and how it continues to affect the Labour party, and politics in general, even to this day?

Of course he wasn't an evil warmonger until 3,000 people died in one day.

Actually, I'm pretty sure a very large of the UK population considered him a warmonger before then.

So why would they do that when no indication of what was to come was known? Seems a bit silly to call someone a Warmonger when they had done nothing of the sort.

Of course he wasn't an evil warmonger until 3,000 people died in one day.

Actually, I'm pretty sure a very large of the UK population considered him a warmonger before then.

Dubya was pretty much stacked against the 8-ball right after the beginning of his 1st term.

Remember the Hanging Chad ordeal?

Folks really, really believed that his presidency was illegitimate... and he never recovered.

The immediate aftermath of 9/11 changed him and for a time, all the vitriol subsided a bit.

It wasn't until the following that really got people to hate him:

Iraq War (which is a fair criticism).
"Enhanced Interrogation".
GITMO.
RatherGate (based on a lie).

That hatred (commonly referred to as "BDS") got so bad, that Bush was blamed for everything.

Like, the response to Katrina was his fault, which is anything but a President's fault.

I think when we're all old geezers reminencing the past, Dubya would be a "middle of the pack" President.

OT but I think it's a bit sad that service people who got sent to Iraq should be thought as being less worthy than people who went to Afghanistan.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So why would they do that when no indication of what was to come was known? Seems a bit silly to call someone a Warmonger when they had done nothing of the sort.

EDIT: Ah, I've just realised that Frazzled was referring to 9/11, rather than the war. Never mind.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So why would they do that when no indication of what was to come was known? Seems a bit silly to call someone a Warmonger when they had done nothing of the sort.

Exactly.

Bush is a warmonger!!! Considering the ratio of Republican presidents to Democratic presidents starting wars Bush was decidedly less likely to be a warmonger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So why would they do that when no indication of what was to come was known? Seems a bit silly to call someone a Warmonger when they had done nothing of the sort.

EDIT: Ah, I've just realised that Frazzled was referring to 9/11, rather than the war. Never mind.

Well what? Thats like saying Obama was a commie warmonger when he was first elected...because...reasons...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
OT but I think it's a bit sad that service people who got sent to Iraq should be thought as being less worthy than people who went to Afghanistan.

Who's advocating that?

People deliberate all the time about the decisions to go into Iraq (and certain extent Afghanistan)... but, once the boots hit the ground, the vast majority supported the service folks.

 Frazzled wrote:

Of course he wasn't an evil warmonger until 3,000 people died in one day.

Actually, I'm pretty sure a very large of the UK population considered him a warmonger before then.

Then the UK population is: asininely stupid; asininely misinformed; or they are just fine and you are the one with difficulties. {Personally I'm pretty sure its option C. }

Before 9/11 Bush policy was moderate withdrawal from the region. When the Israelis and PLO went at it the US backed off. I remember when the Israelis parked a tank on top of Arafat's bunker. Jedi may be masters of "aggressive negotiations" but you can't top someone putting a tank on top of your house...

Yeah, yeah, I've realised you were referring to 9/11 rather than the war. Whatever.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Of course he wasn't an evil warmonger until 3,000 people died in one day.

Actually, I'm pretty sure a very large of the UK population considered him a warmonger before then.

Then the UK population is: asininely stupid; asininely misinformed; or they are just fine and you are the one with difficulties. {Personally I'm pretty sure its option C. }

Before 9/11 Bush policy was moderate withdrawal from the region. When the Israelis and PLO went at it the US backed off. I remember when the Israelis parked a tank on top of Arafat's bunker. Jedi may be masters of "aggressive negotiations" but you can't top someone putting a tank on top of your house...

Yeah, yeah, I've realised you were referring to 9/11 rather than the war. Whatever.

So you freely admit to the utter superiority of Tex Mex vs. mere fish and chips? Acceptance is the first step to a cure!

Its interesting though, the what ifs in that Presidency.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
OT but I think it's a bit sad that service people who got sent to Iraq should be thought as being less worthy than people who went to Afghanistan.

Who's advocating that?

People deliberate all the time about the decisions to go into Iraq (and certain extent Afghanistan)... but, once the boots hit the ground, the vast majority supported the service folks.

I believe it was in regard to my earlier comment, about how the two conflicts are viewed and reflected differently in attitudes and various media and dramatic portrayals. The first example that comes to mind is the Stargate TV series. They mention the Gulf war. They mention Vietnam. They talk about people getting deployed to Afghanistan (and such is a key part of John Sheppard's backstory in Atlantis). However, they never mention the second Iraq conflict (at least as far as I can remember).

 Frazzled wrote:
So you freely admit to the utter superiority of Tex Mex vs. mere fish and chips? Acceptance is the first step to a cure!

Yeah, but that's because I'm not a big fan of fish.

Its interesting though, the what ifs in that Presidency.

Definitely. If Bush and Blair hadn't gone into Iraq...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
OT but I think it's a bit sad that service people who got sent to Iraq should be thought as being less worthy than people who went to Afghanistan.

Who's advocating that?

People deliberate all the time about the decisions to go into Iraq (and certain extent Afghanistan)... but, once the boots hit the ground, the vast majority supported the service folks.

I believe it was in regard to my earlier comment, about how the two conflicts are viewed and reflected differently in attitudes and various media and dramatic portrayals. The first example that comes to mind is the Stargate TV series. They mention the Gulf war. They mention Vietnam. They talk about people getting deployed to Afghanistan (and such is a key part of John Sheppard's backstory in Atlantis). However, they never mention the second Iraq conflict (at least as far as I can remember).

The first thing I thought of was Sherlock, in which Dr Watson served in Afghanistan. I'm actually struggling to think of any fictional Iraq veterans. Even Danny Pink on Doctor Who was an Afghan vet.

Isn't he the guy who "saw Putin's soul"? If so that at least was quite an accomplishment.

In my lifetime, I'd rank the Presidents as follows, top being best bottom being worst.

Reagan
Nixon
Clinton
Bush Sr.
Bush Jr
Ford
Obama
Johnson
Carter

Yes, in the last 50 years, the bottom three Presidents are all Democrats. Many people would claim bias on my part and it is true, but I expect history will vindicate me here. The three powerhouses are all the top. None are the greatest President in US history and I am ignoring any scandals in favor of their actual job performance. Bush Sr, and Ford were both Veeps who road a better man's coattails to power and they got punted for it at the end of their term. Still, they weren't bad - mostly they continued policies put in place before them - but they weren't really that great either.

Bush was an probably still is an idiot.

Yet his presidency passed as any other and he achieved about as much as his predecessor and successor.

I think this says more about who rally runs America than any individual president. It also highlights that the presidency is not one person but a team. A president has a lot of paper power and can achieve quite a bit, but some feats are always beyond them. Wall St is far more powerful than any president, as is the Pentagon and many of the major industries.

A presidents power to achieve results is always less than many of the unaccountable bodies in the US, and it is not surprising that predidents of widely different personal aptitude succeed and fail on a broad parity.

The greatest presidents in history probably are Lincoln and FDR.

 Orlanth wrote:
Bush was an probably still is an idiot.

Yet his presidency passed as any other and he achieved about as much as his predecessor and successor.

I think this says more about who rally runs America than any individual president. It also highlights that the presidency is not one person but a team. A president has a lot of paper power and can achieve quite a bit, but some feats are always beyond them. Wall St is far more powerful than any president, as is the Pentagon and many of the major industries.

A presidents power to achieve results is always less than many of the unaccountable bodies in the US, and it is not surprising that predidents of widely different personal aptitude succeed and fail on a broad parity.

This is what actually bugs me, Bush graduated from an Ivy League school, he flew fighter jets, the only thing people have against him is his lack of oratory skills. Where as we currently have President Obama, who is one of the best public speakers around, of course he is also the idiot who said that Muslims invented the Printing press.......

This thread just reminded me that there are idiots all over the world, including Europe

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Bush was an probably still is an idiot.

Yet his presidency passed as any other and he achieved about as much as his predecessor and successor.

I think this says more about who rally runs America than any individual president. It also highlights that the presidency is not one person but a team. A president has a lot of paper power and can achieve quite a bit, but some feats are always beyond them. Wall St is far more powerful than any president, as is the Pentagon and many of the major industries.

A presidents power to achieve results is always less than many of the unaccountable bodies in the US, and it is not surprising that predidents of widely different personal aptitude succeed and fail on a broad parity.

This is what actually bugs me, Bush graduated from an Ivy League school, he flew fighter jets, the only thing people have against him is his lack of oratory skills. Where as we currently have President Obama, who is one of the best public speakers around, of course he is also the idiot who said that Muslims invented the Printing press.......

Or that there's 57 states in the union.

To be fair... every Public Office officials flub things from time to time.