Topic for Discussion: Mistreatment of Current President

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.

**Frazzled**

I'll proffer, in my opinion, much of the tratment of Clinton, expecially sans 2006 was similar.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace
What must our enemies be thinking?By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIROArticle

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

APAccording to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.
This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."
Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.
The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.
It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.
Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.
Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America." To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

**dogma**

He handled 9/11 very well, I will give him that. But the rest of the problems inherent in the Presidency were of his own making. Iraq, and much of the economic issues which underpinned that decisions, could have been prevented.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I think Dogma has struck the nail square on the head.

He led the US into a pointless and extremely costly War, and presided over the virtual meltdown of their economy.

You expect him to get good treatment because?

**Frazzled**

Tradition. People never named sewage treatment plants after Kennedy, offal recycling operations after Johnson, or garbage scows after Carter. We've been led into worse wars by worse presidents.

**gorgon**

Boo-hoo.

We're there because we're months away from a WMD attack. No, wait...it's because Iraq and A-Q were like *that*. No, wait, that's not it either. Well regardless, it'll be an easy victory. Mission accomplished! No, wait, it's a long, hard slog. Let's blame it on Bill Clinton. Another blank check, please. Bin who? I'm more concerned about our own citizens...let's start spying on them. Now what's this hurricane thing I'm hearing about? Do you think we can blame it on Clinton? Oops...sorry we broke your city. But look at that housing market! Woo-hoo! Go dereg! Go dereg! Go dereg! Oh. Well, obviously that's Clinton's fault. And really, you guys are a nation of whiners. At least no more of our skyscrapers have been hit with hijacked planes. Pretty f---ing good, huh?!?

Partisans are something else.

**Kilkrazy**

It's somewhat disrespectful to do this and one should be wary that however dismal a holder of the office of Pres might be, the office itself is not sullied or lessened by his actions, and insulting the holder may reflect back on the office.

That said, we live in a less polite society and everyone in public life is now held to be 'in play' whether it's fair or not.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Add in his unilateral approaches 'With us or against us'
'agree with me or your a terrorist'

I think that riles people up some.

**Frazzled**

Can I be the first to nominate Obama for the next sewage treatment plant coming online then? I'm sure there wil be something to get riled up.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:Tradition. People never named sewage treatment plants after Kennedy, offal recycling operations after Johnson, or garbage scows after Carter. We've been led into worse wars by worse presidents.

It isn't the cost of the war which is problematic, it is the degree to which it was relevant to security which made it so. Kennedy didn't lead us into the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was a situation that was forced upon him. Johnson took us to Vietnam, but Vietnam had an actual purpose in the context of the Cold War. Carter's crisis in Iran was largely a result of Ford's mismanagement of the Shah.

There's also the issue of going to war while battling a domestic recession. If you want to set yourself up for a political fall, that's the way to do it.

**dietrich**

Can I nominate the sticky floor of the back room at the local dirty bookstore to be named for Clinton?

**CaptainCommunsism**

To be fair, Kennedy didn't necessarily know what he was getting himself into. GWB should have, for it was the exact same situation, just a few thousand kilometers away, and with a bit more sand. Plus, Kennedy died before he could do anything about it. GWB could have.

**Frazzled**

I see. Democratic Presidents get cut slack.

**Greebynog**

No, good presidents get cut slack. Presidents who don't do things like build prison camps off the coast of countries who don't share the same stringent laws pertaining to the right to fair trial, human rights and torture, in order that they can detain, humiliate and traumatise perfectly innocent people, who at the time of their alleged terrorist training were in fact working in electrical stores in the midlands of England.

Y'know, presidents like that.

**Valhallan42nd**

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans.

No, that's the price Bush pays for lying to the electorate and abusing the public trust. In the old days, he would have been tarred and feathered and/or run out on a rail.

**Frazzled**

No, good presidents get cut slack. Presidents who don't do things like build prison camps off the coast of countries who don't share the same stringent laws pertaining to the right to fair trial, human rights and torture, in order that they can detain, humiliate and traumatise perfectly innocent people, who at the time of their alleged terrorist training were in fact working in electrical stores in the midlands of England.

Y'know, presidents like that.

Helps to actually provide proof. You know we lack that over here, proof and all that.

But lets have some fun for kicks and follow the train of thought

Costly war for the wrong reasons on a pretext or we couldn’t get out of:
-Clinton: Serbia
-Johnson: Gulf of Tonkin, escalation into full scale Vietnam conflict.
-Truman: Korea
-Wilson: WWI
-McKinley: Spanish American War
-Polk: Mexican American War

Torture and/or imprisonment:
-Roosevelt: WWII, thousands of Americans
-Reagen: contras
-Carter: Nicaragua (pre-revolution)
-Lincoln: Civil War camps.
-Jackson and assorted presidents: Seminole Indians, Cherokee Indians, Sioux and Cheyenne nations

Intelligence incompetence:
Well, er all of them but some specific:
-Clinton: Al Qaeda, Somalia
-Reagan: Beirut
-Carter: Cluster that was Iran, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
-Johnson/Kennedy: Vietnam
-Truman: surprise Korean invasion
-Roosevelt: creating conditions leading up to Pearl Harbor and Pearl Harbor itself

Its all perspective. You say one thing, someone else can say the other.

**dietrich**

Democrats do get cut slack by liberals.

If GWB received oral sex from a 20-something intern, would NOW (National Organization of Women) have tried, convicted, and executed him in the media? Where were they when the whole Lewinski thing hit the media? They ignored it and hid.

We'll have to see how Obama's land-deal with the slum lord (Tony Resnik, I think is his name) turns out. It could reflect pretty badly on Obama.

But, the right wing makes up for it by excusing Republican presidents. It's just that all the right wings are on Fox News, so it's easier to avoid - the liberals are spread throughout the rest of the news media, so they're harder to avoid.

FDR is now, for the most part, thought of as a good president. My grandfather, who died in 1960, disagreed. He saved all the FDR dimes he got as change, and once a year, took them to the Cleveland orphanage so that, in his words, "FDR could achieve some good in the world."

I wonder how GWB will be perceived in 20 years. And a lot of that may be due to how Clinton and Obama are perceived. If they are seen as good presidents, GWB will look that much worse. If they're seen as bad presidents, GWB will be seen in a better light.

For the record, I think Clinton was pretty bad. I think Obama could be a really good president - and I think he could be less than mediocre.

One of my lasting memories of Clinton is that he came out and spoke out against children smoking. Wow, what a controversial subject! Are there people out there campaigning for 10 year olds to smoke (well, maybe a few in North Carolina)? But, he was seen as this great leader and it was sooooo noble that he was going to try to treat a serious problem like childhood smoking. I don't know, maybe that's their parents job to do, and the President should deal with something important - like what color thongs the interns are wearing - I mean, genocide in Africa.

Truman wasn't seen as that great in his time. He ended the war, but then supported the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, which was very expensive and controversial, and got us embroiled in Korea. Now, most view him as a fairly good president.

Ike wasn't seen as all that either. He built the interstate system, which was a huge expense, and often took down low-income housing in urban areas (because it was cheaper land to buy) - which at the time was accepted by some and fought by others.

Yes, I think that GWB is being treated more harshly than he deserves. During LBJ's tenure, Vietnam was seen, by some, as a horrible mess. Now, some view it as stopping the growing tide of communist regimes. Iraq is a horrible mess, but I also haven't seen any airliners flying into skyscrapers for over 7 years. If there's three terrorist attacks in 2009, GWB will be seen as the great defender of our shores. And remember kiddies, Joe Biden has predicted an international crisis within six months as the world tests Obama.

**DarthDiggler**

Kennedy leading us into Vietnam to relieve the French has about the same relavance to the Cold War as Bush leading us into Iraq to prevent Terrorism.

In the end the man's legacy is Iraq and 9/11, in that order. And I can think of no one, left or right, who would have thought on September 12th 2001 that we would not have a single terrorist attack on American soil 8 years later. That, in and of itself, is one of the greatest accomplishments a President has made in modern times.

BTW Lincoln was despised by both parties and hated by a majority of the population. He was widely considered to be defeated by McClelan (sp?) in 1864 and only the fall of Atlanta saved him. He kept a nation at war long after it wanted out and produced more American casualties than all other Presidents combined. Who's on the penny? Who's on the five dollar bill? It's all about perspective.

**dogma**

dietrich wrote:
Yes, I think that GWB is being treated more harshly than he deserves. During LBJ's tenure, Vietnam was seen, by some, as a horrible mess. Now, some view it as stopping the growing tide of communist regimes. Iraq is a horrible mess, but I also haven't seen any airliners flying into skyscrapers for over 7 years.

Yes, because prior to GWB that was a common occurrence. :S

The quality of a Presidency can be judged by the relevance of its ideological assumptions to the time at hand. There will always be certain gaps that will always be ignored, that is the nature of policy. You fight the battles you can win, and live with the ones you can't. But, when your assumptions exacerbate blatantly evident systemic flaws it is hard to say something so polemic as "other people screwed up too, so no big deal."

dietrich wrote:
If there's three terrorist attacks in 2009, GWB will be seen as the great defender of our shores. And remember kiddies, Joe Biden has predicted an international crisis within six months as the world tests Obama.

Or the great instigator of national tragedy. Terrorism is the result of Imperial dominance, not soft foreign policy.

**DarthDiggler**

**dogma**

DarthDiggler wrote:Kennedy leading us into Vietnam to relieve the French has about the same relavance to the Cold War as Bush leading us into Iraq to prevent Terrorism.

That isn't true at all. Vietnam effectively convinced the Russians that the Chinese were inept, and not to be trusted. This lead directly to a more hands on approach to foreign policy which greatly strained the relationship between the two states. Vietnam may not have stopped the spread of Communism, but that wasn't the point in the first place. Rather, its purpose was to reduce the overall influence of USSR within its own hemisphere.

DarthDiggler wrote:
In the end the man's legacy is Iraq and 9/11, in that order. And I can think of no one, left or right, who would have thought on September 12th 2001 that we would not have a single terrorist attack on American soil 8 years later. That, in and of itself, is one of the greatest accomplishments a President has made in modern times.

Well, actually, a great many people did. Including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. If you think that Iraq and Afghanistan were wars of military security then you need to do a little research. Terrorism is expensive business when you don't easily blend into the population. Security has not been anything approaching a concern for the last 8 years.

DarthDiggler wrote:
BTW Lincoln was despised by both parties and hated by a majority of the population. He was widely considered to be defeated by McClelan (sp?) in 1864 and only the fall of Atlanta saved him. He kept a nation at war long after it wanted out and produced more American casualties than all other Presidents combined. Who's on the penny? Who's on the five dollar bill? It's all about perspective.

Perhaps, but the Civil War and the end of slavery fundamentally define the America we know today. Are you trying to say that Iraq will have a similar effect?

**dogma**

DarthDiggler wrote:
That has got to be the biggest load I have heard this side of moveon.org. It is the fundamental difference between republicans and liberals (not even all democrats believe it. Here is Mr. Dogma showing his true American hating colors. Terrorists only kill people because it is our fault. Nevermind the current crop has stated they want the world remade into an islamic state, they can't really mean it. It's really America's fault. I'm sure the Taliban, while running Afganistan, only slaughtered women and innocents because it was America's fault.

You have lost my respect with this statement.

No, it isn't only our fault, but we hold all the cards and therefore the burden of action falls on us. Choosing to blindly project military power only exacerbates the issues of inequality on which terrorists feed. It makes people feel dominated, and when they feel dominated there will always be reprisal.

**Kilkrazy**

The Taliban wouldn't have been in power if the USA hadn't sponsored them against the Soviets.

Terrorism is a tactic used by weak groups against strong groups that they disagree with very strongly, who will not negotiate with them. Look at the history of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

Do you think Islamic terrorism is a result of the USA not making it illegal for women to drive? Could it perhaps be to do with resentment at the USA's massive support for Israel?

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Its all perspective. You say one thing, someone else can say the other.

Indeed, that is true, but some perspectives are balanced and others not so much. I think that if Bush had only been a 1 term President history would remember him fondly. But his second term will inevitably pin all the mistakes of his first squarely to his chest.

**dietrich**

dogma wrote:
dietrich wrote:
Yes, I think that GWB is being treated more harshly than he deserves. During LBJ's tenure, Vietnam was seen, by some, as a horrible mess. Now, some view it as stopping the growing tide of communist regimes. Iraq is a horrible mess, but I also haven't seen any airliners flying into skyscrapers for over 7 years.

Yes, because prior to GWB that was a common occurrence. :S

I've been playing my flute for years. It keeps the Elephants away. As long as I've played the flute, there have been no Elephant attacks anywhere near me.

What's your point?

Yes, it is all perspective. And right now, there isn't enough time to get a good one on GWB. I think he will be remembered as a poor president. I don't think he'll be remembered as the worst.

I've said this before. My issue with invading Iraq was that the only times we've conquered a rebuilt a nation is after WWII, when we occupied Germany and Japan for about 30-some years and rebuilt their infrastructure. I didn't think the American public would support that in Iraq, so I figured it was going to be trouble to invade. That has nothing to do with whether Saddam had WMDs.

Terrorists are bullies. That's the bottom line. They want to intimidate someone into accepting their view by violence. If you decry the use of force against Iraq (or the threat against Iran or anyone else), then you need to decry the use of violence by terrorist organizations. Why aren't they at the bargaining table trying to work out a deal for whatever they want? Because they know that people won't accept it. But, a few car bombs, and people might let you get away with what you want - as long as they're not car bombs in their neighborhood.

The US Senate voted overwhelming to support the use of force against Iraq. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of it! So, it's not just that Bush and a few Hawks purused that agenda, they either 1) convinced a bunch of supposedly smart and educated people to go along with something dumb or 2) everyone else thought it was the best course of action - at that time.

And I agree with the sentiment that going 7 years without a second attack on the US is pretty amazing. Don't forget that Clinton had his opportunities to go after Bin Laden and didn't. According to one report, he was too busy golfing to take the time to authorize a strike at a terrorist camp in Afghanistan.

Obama may be inheriting Bush's problems, but Bush inherited Clinton's. And Clinton inherited Bush's. And Reagan got Carter's, etc.

**gorgon**

DarthDiggler wrote:In the end the man's legacy is Iraq and 9/11, in that order. And I can think of no one, left or right, who would have thought on September 12th 2001 that we would not have a single terrorist attack on American soil 8 years later. That, in and of itself, is one of the greatest accomplishments a President has made in modern times.

Gimme a break. They were pretty uncommon to begin with. How many years between WTC attacks #1 and #2? And ANY president would have taken out the Taliban to disrupt AQ after 9/11. That was the obvious move, not some kind of bold strategy borne of great insight. If you're handing out the word "greatest" for slam dunks...well, your partisanship is showing.

I'm not going to say Bush is the worst ever. We've had bad ones before. But trying to claim Bush is somehow neglected or misunderstood is nothing other than more right-wing rationalization for why a junior senator just became POTUS and the Dems are firmly in control of Congress. The GOP has had a BAD run under the leadership of Bush. They WILL eventually straighten things out. But don't pass off an election result as definitive as this one as the American electorate being stupid.

It's like AA...you first have to admit you have a problem before you can find the solution.

**lord_sutekh**

dietrich wrote:Don't forget that Clinton had his opportunities to go after Bin Laden and didn't.

Incorrect. Clinton was critiqued by Republican members of Congress for his "obsession" with Bin Laden, who was virtually unknown at the time. So, he was against terrorism before it was fashionable.

**DarthDiggler**

Gorgon-

Between WTC 1 and 2 you also had the African embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack. That's 4 attacks in 8 years before the current dry spell.

**dogma**

DarthDiggler wrote:Gorgon-

Between WTC 1 and 2 you also had the African embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack. That's 4 attacks in 8 years before the current dry spell.

Well, if you want to drag terrorist attacks in other nations into the equation there have been how many in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel over the last 7 years?

**dogma**

dietrich wrote:
Terrorists are bullies. That's the bottom line. They want to intimidate someone into accepting their view by violence. If you decry the use of force against Iraq (or the threat against Iran or anyone else), then you need to decry the use of violence by terrorist organizations. Why aren't they at the bargaining table trying to work out a deal for whatever they want? Because they know that people won't accept it. But, a few car bombs, and people might let you get away with what you want - as long as they're not car bombs in their neighborhood.

No, because they know the US won't accept it. In his early career Bin Laden was simply trying to oust the US from Saudi Arabia as he felt they had an undue influence of the seat of the Islamic world. Later this message expanded from a religious one to a more regionalized kind of identity politic. They see the US military presence (we maintain at least 47 bases throughout the ME), and the existence of Israel, as evidence that Imperialism is still going strong. And, to a point, they aren't wrong. Our constantly increasing demand for petroleum has repeatedly driven the West to get its hand dirty in the region. Of course, Bush took this to an entirely new level by simply dropping troops into a state which we already held defacto control over. Never forget that we are every bit the bully that Bin Laden is.

The world isn't blind to our energy needs. They understand that the only way to make their voices heard is to drive up oil prices in order to bring the US to the table for negotiation.

dietrich wrote:
The US Senate voted overwhelming to support the use of force against Iraq. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of it! So, it's not just that Bush and a few Hawks purused that agenda, they either 1) convinced a bunch of supposedly smart and educated people to go along with something dumb or 2) everyone else thought it was the best course of action - at that time.

Or option 3. They played into the fear of the other which was so deeply planted into the American psyche by the Cold War; making it political suicide to vote against the mission.

dietrich wrote:
And I agree with the sentiment that going 7 years without a second attack on the US is pretty amazing. Don't forget that Clinton had his opportunities to go after Bin Laden and didn't. According to one report, he was too busy golfing to take the time to authorize a strike at a terrorist camp in Afghanistan.

You don't prevent terrorist strikes by dropping bombs. Obvious displays of power are the life-blood of extremism.

dietrich wrote:
Obama may be inheriting Bush's problems, but Bush inherited Clinton's. And Clinton inherited Bush's. And Reagan got Carter's, etc.

What, Reagan didn't leave any problems for Bush to inherit? Everyone inherits political issues from the previous administration, but sometimes you leave fewer for the President elect than the previous office left for you. Bush did not do this. Indeed, he played the classic Cold War game of the 'great enemy' in the same flawed way his father did, and he paid the same (though much greater) price.

**BloodofOrks**

DarthDiggler wrote:Gorgon-

Between WTC 1 and 2 you also had the African embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack. That's 4 attacks in 8 years before the current dry spell.

If we're counting foreign terrorist attacks what about the Madrid train bombing? Or the London subway bombing?