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.

Pretty interesting decision to pull the big guns out that early:

Get people behind him early, reinforce them through the campaign.

I also find the choice of Clinton kind of interesting on this subject matter, since people often criticize him for not doing enough to stop Osama earlier. But then maybe that is the point, to draw a contrast with Obama being more decisive.

Interesting video.

I don't think it will change any minds, but it's thought provoking.

One thing I remember when it happened was all my super-conservative friends going "Obama had nothing to do with it, it was our military that killed him. Obama should just shut up, he deserves none of the credit! blah blah blah" I get it, you don't like him. You wish that McCain would have won. But seriously, you cannot get yourself to ever say "Good job President Obama"?

Some people are just so partisan that it clouds their mind, and that is on both sides. I remember a lot of very liberal friends that still refuse to admit that Bush did a single good thing during his 8 years. That is just crazy.

d-usa wrote:One thing I remember when it happened was all my super-conservative friends going "Obama had nothing to do with it, it was our military that killed him. Obama should just shut up, he deserves none of the credit! blah blah blah" I get it, you don't like him. You wish that McCain would have won. But seriously, you cannot get yourself to ever say "Good job President Obama"?

Some people are just so partisan that it clouds their mind, and that is on both sides. I remember a lot of very liberal friends that still refuse to admit that Bush did a single good thing during his 8 years. That is just crazy.

I consider myself liberal (very), and I hated Bush. That said, I'm willing to ask this question, not as flamebait, but honestly: "What good thing did he do?" I'm willing to listen, but I have to be honest, I think his decisions in office were piss-poor. Enlighten me. I'm willing to listen, after all I hated Clinton for part of his term in office, then did some research on him and found him to be a stellar guy (when cigars weren't involved)-he's now one of my favorite ex-presidents (after Morgan Freeman ).

I prefer Morgan Freeman as God myself.

d-usa wrote:I also find the choice of Clinton kind of interesting on this subject matter, since people often criticize him for not doing enough to stop Osama earlier. But then maybe that is the point, to draw a contrast with Obama being more decisive.

Funny you should say this, but Time magazine this week had a kind of fascinating piece about the Presidents and how "Clintonian" is used as a slur in the Obama administration, despite the fact that much of the administration worked for Clinton when he was in office.

timetowaste85 wrote:"What good thing did he do?" I'm willing to listen

What has Obama done?

timetowaste85 wrote:I consider myself liberal (very), and I hated Bush. That said, I'm willing to ask this question, not as flamebait, but honestly: "What good thing did he do?"

Here's one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html

Ahtman wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:"What good thing did he do?" I'm willing to listen

What has Obama done?

What an excellent point you've discovered. He also directed the attack to kill Osama, targeting the RIGHT enemy this time, started the fixing of the issues with healthcare and made nice with the rest of the world who hated/disliked us because of Bush. You're right, nothing at all. And if you say "making nice" is nothing, well...I can't help you. And when his ideas keep getting voted down in office, it's difficult to move forward. A president doesn't wield ultimate power, he's still kept in check by others-unfortunately, being a part of democracy is like being in high school all over again.

And helping Africa is nice of Bush, I'll agree to that and I didn't know about it before-but he also did very little to help America, unless you count getting us into a war against the wrong nation to be helpful as it added more jobs and needs to the economy. Helping another nation is great-helping the nation that voted you into office is more important. I don't say this to be a Bush hater, or to snub Africa, I say this as a citizen who saw no improved changes, only declining ones for our country. Yes, it's bias, but we should look to our own before helping others-once we have ourselves in check, we should help the hell out of anyone else who needs it. If we can't help ourselves, who can we truly help? Again, honest questioning, not hating.

I consider myself liberal (very), and I hated Bush. That said, I'm willing to ask this question, not as flamebait, but honestly: "What good thing did he do?" I'm willing to listen, but I have to be honest, I think his decisions in office were piss-poor. Enlighten me. I'm willing to listen, after all I hated Clinton for part of his term in office, then did some research on him and found him to be a stellar guy (when cigars weren't involved)-he's now one of my favorite ex-presidents (after Morgan Freeman ).

Bush actually passed several laws that helped our WildLife reserves immensly. I think he also created a few.

timetowaste85 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:"What good thing did he do?" I'm willing to listen

What has Obama done?

What an excellent point you've discovered. He also directed the attack to kill Osama, targeting the RIGHT enemy this time, started the fixing of the issues with healthcare and made nice with the rest of the world who hated/disliked us because of Bush. You're right, nothing at all. And if you say "making nice" is nothing, well...I can't help you. And when his ideas keep getting voted down in office, it's difficult to move forward. A president doesn't wield ultimate power, he's still kept in check by others-unfortunately, being a part of democracy is like being in high school all over again.

Actually, Obama has been making several moves without consulting Congress. It was a bunch of mumbo jumbo, but I'll try to find the link again.

The response to a good thing that GW did being posted from the poster who requested it makes me question whether they are actually as objective as they claim to be.

Monster Rain wrote:The response to a good thing that GW did being posted from the poster who requested it makes me question whether they are actually as objective as they claim to be.

Did you even read what I wrote? And I never claimed to be objective-I actually claimed to be very liberal, but willing to listen. Nor did I ever say what Bush did for Africa was a bad thing or give a negative response-I gave a realistic response from someone who cares about seeing his own country fixed before others. I don't see that as being out of line or inappropriate in any way.

Slarg wrote:
Bush actually passed several laws that helped our WildLife reserves immensly. I think he also created a few.

See, this is the kinda thing I was looking for-Bush doing something to help his own country, as a president should. I'm not going to look it up now (have to be up at 6am for work and it's 11 now), but if he is/was working on protecting our wildlife, I see that as a positive for our country. He gets KUDOs for that.

Here is my list of things I think that Bush did okay on:

1) He was a good President post 9/11. As far as a symbolic leader that hepled us cope after being attacked, he did a good job. Talking about Bush the person here as a symbolic leader who gave strenght to a nation. Not talking about his legislative response here.
2) I think going after the Taliban in Afganistan was a good choice, and I supported that. Planning was piss poor though, and we had no exit strategy.
3) President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief
4) PROTECT Act of 2003 was a good step in regards to child abuse and exploitation.
5) Medicare Part D was a good start, but needs improvement.
6) Do Not Call Registry
7) CAN-SPAM Act of 2003
8) Energy Policy Act of 2005
9) Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
10) Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

Of course everybody is going to have their own opinion on these. But I think it is a good list of stuff that I (as a moderate liberal) feel were good decisions by Bush.

Not a bad list.

I'll contest 1, though. That was a real "ask not what you can do for your country" moment. He could have asked us all to donate blood, or accept a moderate tax to pay for the war, or do any number of things to contribute and support the country and the war. Instead he said to keep shopping and cut taxes, starting us down eight years of economic suicide.

It just think it is weird that people can go around and honestly say "there is not a single good thing that guy did". I am fairly on the left of things, but even I can come up with a list of at least 10 things I think he did okay.

Did everyone miss the quote from Romney about how he didn't think Obama was worth the bother?

Bush said something similar.

As a New Yorker I kind of wish OBL had been dragged back here and ceremonially impailed on the Empire State Building but I can live with him being shot in the head and dumped in the sea.

He is a terrible man. A war president. He eats kittens.

The thing about Bush isn't that he didn't do some good things, it's that he did some huge bad things, and there were good things he should have done which he didn’t do.

Kilkrazy wrote:The thing about Bush isn't that he didn't do some good things, it's that he did some huge bad things, and there were good things he should have done which he didn’t do.

Like the old saying "No matter how many 'ataboys' you get, it's the 'oh gaks' that get you".

Osama Bin Laden was just a figurehead by the time he was killed. Being so well known had made it almost impossible for him to actually operate in the world, hence why he was just hiding in a house for years. Killing him didn't really accomplish any strategic goal other than being a PR stunt.

It would have been a lot more useful to bring him back alive and get information on the leaders of the cells he had been in contact with. He would have talked as for all his talk of sacrifice he was not willing to do it himself, preferring to send others in his place.

Having him betray his own group would do more to demoralise the remaining cells than his death, which they will interpret as martyrdom and use as an example to draw more to their cause. Keeping him alive denies them their martyr and having him betray them creates distrust within the leadership remaining.

So kudos for getting him USA but it could have been a bit better.

Interrogating bin Laden would have been peanuts compared to all the computers, CDs and flash drives we got from his mansion. None of this "enhanced interrogation" nonsense, just throw cryptologists at 'em.

Teln wrote:Interrogating bin Laden would have been peanuts compared to all the computers, CDs and flash drives we got from his mansion. None of this "enhanced interrogation" nonsense, just throw cryptologists at 'em.

Maybe not but the psychological effects would still exist. The other cells in contact with him would not know what was on his computers but they would know that he knew who they were and might be able to physically describe them, which gives more information than knowing that Bin Laden was in contact with someone calling themselves Lulzatron the Prophet over the internet.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Maybe not but the psychological effects would still exist. The other cells in contact with him would not know what was on his computers but they would know that he knew who they were and might be able to physically describe them, which gives more information than knowing that Bin Laden was in contact with someone calling themselves Lulzatron the Prophet over the internet.

I'm not affiliated with the CIA or the intelligence community in any way, but I think I can make a good guess as to what was on those computers: Detailed plans of upcoming attacks. Real names. Phone numbers. Funding sources and financial statements. Bank account numbers. Insights into Al-Qaeda's internal politics. In short, everything the CEO of a multinational enterprise needs in order to effectively run things and stay one step ahead of the law.

In the long run, it's quite possible that the intelligence haul from the Abbottabad raid could be more damaging to Al-Qaeda than anything the US ever did. Killing bin Laden might just have been the icing on the cake.

EDIT:Whoops, that should have said "...than anything else the US ever did." Going to sleep now.

Teln wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Maybe not but the psychological effects would still exist. The other cells in contact with him would not know what was on his computers but they would know that he knew who they were and might be able to physically describe them, which gives more information than knowing that Bin Laden was in contact with someone calling themselves Lulzatron the Prophet over the internet.

I'm not affiliated with the CIA or the intelligence community in any way, but I think I can make a good guess as to what was on those computers: Detailed plans of upcoming attacks. Real names. Phone numbers. Funding sources and financial statements. Bank account numbers. Insights into Al-Qaeda's internal politics. In short, everything the CEO of a multinational enterprise needs in order to effectively run things and stay one step ahead of the law.

In the long run, it's quite possible that the intelligence haul from the Abbottabad raid could be more damaging to Al-Qaeda than anything the US ever did. Killing bin Laden might just have been the icing on the cake.

Preventing international terrorist attacks that could have killed thousands of people results in exactly nothing happening. So from a PR standpoint it is pretty boring. A dead terrorist leader is much better PR, even if he is just dead weight and doesn't really contribute to anything.

Look, even though I was pretty embarrased that bush was president(seriously, during any of his speeches I couldn't look at him, the way he looks during a speech is too painful) I still liked the guy, NOT his administration but I never thought "This guys not my president!" or "He's destroying America!" Like I hear people say about obama. I look at him this way, he was elected in 2000, economy was good, world was peaceful, not much going on in the world, so America elected a president for those times(think cruise control).

The bush tax cuts were VERY popular and the biggest new story was "summer of the shark" when 3 people got bitten I think. Then the world changed, you know how, and the bush administration wasn't that good at handeling it, but no one saw what would happen so the people who COULD have handeled it would never have been in office. I do think the "mobilize ameica" moment was wasted, but the war is open-ended, so telling people to go back to normal was probably a good move, but atleast shouldve said to donate blood once a year, now THAT would've helped out.