Was Bush Really That Bad?

[JayDub]

Bush's handling of 9/11 was nothing short of spectacular. Those days following those events, Bush really had his stuff together. However, when the focus of the war went to Iraq...it was all downhill from there.

Someone posted that he never stood up for himself...I agree with this. I think he could have been great if he didn't let certain people (Rove and Cheney, specifically) so blatantly make decisions for him.

[Rudy]

Regardless of how badly people want to talk about him (not necessarily on this board), I always remember meeting him as a 12yo boy. I have always been a fan of the man since then, and even if he didnt "stand up for himself" Id take a bullet for him.

[Green Jackal]

The main reason Bush was so unpopular is because he invested so much of his focus and our country's resources in fighting terrorism. He saw it as the biggest threat to America and aggressively attacked it. In the months following 9/11 Americans were in agreement with Bush's war on terror because 9/11 was still fresh in everyone's mind. Shortly after his re-election people stopped worrying about terrorism and started worrying about other things. Bush accomplished what he set out to do which was to move the fight against terrorism off our shores. The "problem" is no one is worried about terrorist attacks in our country any more. It wasn't even an issue during the elections.

[UNTLifer]

The "problem" is no one is worried about terrorist attacks in our country any more. It wasn't even an issue during the elections.

Yep, and that's why I think Biden made the comment about Obama being tested early in his presidency. With Bush out of office, and his hard line stance against terrorist and suspected terrorist, America will let it's guard down.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Check out this bit from Chris Matthews. He says it's "his job to make [barack Obama's] a successful presidency."

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214673

It seems that he, and numerous others in the media, viewed it as their job to make Bush's a disastrous presidency, or at least to make others think it was.

[CMJ]

Check out this bit from Chris Matthews. He says it's "his job to make [barack Obama's] a successful presidency."

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214673

It seems that he, and numerous others in the media, viewed it as their job to make Bush's a disastrous presidency, or at least to make others think it was.

Maybe post 2004. But Matthews admitted in the early 00's that he voted for Bush in 2000. I also remember after Baghdad fell he said(and I quote because I remember it vividly because I have watched his show for like 9 years) "We are all neocons today".

Maybe he felt letdown and wanted to stick it to Bush after Iraq turned south.

Edited November 6, 2008 by CMJ

[Mean Green 93-98]

Maybe post 2004. But Matthews admitted in the early 00's that he voted for Bush in 2000. I also remember after Baghdad fell he said(and I quote because I remember it vividly because I have watched his show for like 9 years) "We are all neocons today".

Maybe he felt letdown and wanted to stick it to Bush after Iraq turned south.

Well, why did he keep sticking it to him after Iraq turned north?

[Green Guy Bass]

Bush's handling of 9/11 was nothing short of spectacular. Those days following those events, Bush really had his stuff together. However, when the focus of the war went to Iraq...it was all downhill from there.

Someone posted that he never stood up for himself...I agree with this. I think he could have been great if he didn't let certain people (Rove and Cheney, specifically) so blatantly make decisions for him.

I agree with most of what Tasty has posted, but Bush did have some knowledge about plans of Al Queda planning a terrorist attack before 9/11. Just sayin...

And to answer the overall question of the thread....yes, he was that bad.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Green Guy Bass

[TheTastyGreek]

I agree with most of what Tasty has posted, but Bush did have some knowledge about plans of Al Queda planning a terrorist attack before 9/11. Just sayin...

And to answer the overall question of the thread....yes, he was that bad.

!?

I've made it a point NOT to post in this thread! What did I say that you agree with?

[Guest JohnDenver]

!?

I've made it a point NOT to post in this thread! What did I say that you agree with?

I had that same thought... Scrolled up looking for what you said.

I have made a point not to post in this thread too.

[FirefightnRick]

Well, why did he keep sticking it to him after Iraq turned north?

Exactly!

Rick

[Rudy]

The main reason Bush was so unpopular is because he invested so much of his focus and our country's resources in fighting terrorism. He saw it as the biggest threat to America and aggressively attacked it. In the months following 9/11 Americans were in agreement with Bush's war on terror because 9/11 was still fresh in everyone's mind. Shortly after his re-election people stopped worrying about terrorism and started worrying about other things. Bush accomplished what he set out to do which was to move the fight against terrorism off our shores. The "problem" is no one is worried about terrorist attacks in our country any more. It wasn't even an issue during the elections.

The reason we have not had any attacks since 9/11 and noone is currently worried is because they are busy attcking fighting our troops in the Middle East and their infastructure has been crippled. We know where Bin Laden is, but since he is in Pakistan, its a delicate situation to get him. Pakistan doesnt want our troops in their soil. They are an ally, but their people hate us. Their enemy, India, is also an ally, and their prople are at least more favorable with us. If we were to just go and get OBL, Pakistan may be forced to give in to their peoples demand that they cut ties with the US. Problem is that India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons.

[CMJ]

Well, why did he keep sticking it to him after Iraq turned north?

Because by that point we lost a few thousand men(and Iraq lost far citizens more) because the post invasion plan was so screwed up.

[Rudy]

I dont know if the post invasion plan is screwed up as much as we are trying to hand over more and more authority to the Iraqis and it doesnt look like they are ready.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Because by that point we lost a few thousand men(and Iraq lost far citizens more) because the post invasion plan was so screwed up.

Things were figured out, changes were made, and failures were left behind--largely because of a surge that had almost no Democrat backing. Why completely ignore present success to dwell morbidly on past shortcomings?

[meangreendork]

I dont know if the post invasion plan is screwed up as much as we are trying to hand over more and more authority to the Iraqis and it doesnt look like they are ready.

Wrong, and on two levels:

1.) There wasn't really a plan to begin with. I remember sitting at my girlfriend's place that spring finding out the invasion would begin as I was thinking, "They barely have all the logistics in place to attack. Do they even know what to do after they inevitably roll over Iraq?" Bush didn't give the military enough time to prepare 100% to attack Iraq. Rumsfeld's, "You go to war with the army you have not the one you want" line was moot because Iraq's standing army was a shell and because the US forces probably only needed a few more months to be at 100%. Plus, the invasion moved so quickly that there wasn't time to cook up a postwar plan on the spot.

From the Washington Post:

"There was no Phase IV plan" for occupying Iraq after the combat phase, writes Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq. While a variety of government offices had considered the possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended.

"While there may have been 'plans' at the national level, and even within various agencies within the war zone, none of these 'plans' operationalized the problem beyond regime collapse" -- that is, laid out how U.S. forces would be moved and structured, Wilson writes in an essay that has been delivered at several academic conferences but not published. "There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations."

Hell, even the initial battleplan for the invasion was hastily assembled and implemented.

2.) The "lack of a plan" is what has the situation screwed up in the first place. That's why the situation is what it is now. Had there been a better postwar plan, the more humanitarian aid-based efforts would be better coordinated with the offensive efforts so that one doesn't undermine the other. Furthermore, when the US forces rolled in, they basically stripped out the entire Iraqi government, and they didn't even leave a shell, no standing military, no police, nothing. You can't really blame the leaders for not being immediately ready to take power if there's no administration to do it by. That stripping out of the government left HUGE power vacuums that the radical forces were more than eager to fill and use to divide up the people. So rather than just have to worry about gathering their own personal authority, they also have to worry about some nutball sticking an IED under a sack of grain to stir up some violence and start subjugating the locals. If that doesn't slow the process down, I don't know what will. So SHOCK/SURPRISE, they're not ready.

[Green Guy Bass]

!?

I've made it a point NOT to post in this thread! What did I say that you agree with?

Sorry I meant to type Jaydub in response to one of his replies. My apologies. But for what it is worth I tend to agree with 95% of what you do type or blog Tasty. Again, sorry.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Yep, and that's why I think Biden made the comment about Obama being tested early in his presidency. With Bush out of office, and his hard line stance against terrorist and suspected terrorist, America will let it's guard down.

Yes. Hamas was already launching missiles into Israel again the morning after Obama won. It's not just us, but our allies that will be in trouble if we let our gaurd down.

By the way, I had a cousin who served in Iraq for a 12-month tour. He was with an Apache helicopter unit. Some of what someone has posted here is true, about is knowing where Bin Laden is. That post talked about Pakistan. But, according to my cousin, the same was true in and around Baghdad. They knew where the insurgents were, but weren't allowed to go get them without cause - basically, coming under intense fire from them without any citizens around.

The problem, according to him, is that until the surge, we were tyring to fight the insurgents in a politically correct manner. His example was this:

After the roadside bombs went off, a team of engineers was always sent to patch the hole. Well, so they went out and patched them, but then had to stand and wait for the thing to dry sufficiently. Often times, during the waiting period, the crew would begin to take on small arms fire. However, they were not allowed to fire back if any civilians were around. So, they sat there like sitting ducks.

They had to sit there until a certain amount of force was being used against them. At that point, they could call in the Apaches, who would simply blow the crap out of wherever the aggression was coming from. Freaking crazy. You couldn't return small arms fire, or go into the neighborhood and smoke the perpetrators out. But, if it got too bad, you could call in the birds to blow it to bits. Go figure that one out.

It was the most bizarre thing to sit and listen to my cousin tell the story. I told him, "Screw that. If that's the way we're fighting it, why are we there?" A couple of months after his tour ended, Petraes ordered up the surge. And, not surprisingly, it worked.

Seriously, people who say Bush just wanted to kill people are not just idiots, but horribly ignorant. We were going out of our way not to kill people until the surge. Of course, that was part of Bush's problem, trying to please too many people here and abroad. It would have been better if he had been the "cowboy" he was accused of being. He never was. He was more like a ranch hand. And, a nice one. The kind that would let you borrow his horse for the day.

Good man.

I still love him, though. Anyone who protects the unborn is good in my book. And, well...I liked my tax breaks as well. Those were nice. It's much more fun to file a return knowing money is coming back than to have to dig through the tax code and find ways to hide it for a few years. Oh, well. If Obama does anything for me, it'll be that I brush up on tax law again.

[TheTastyGreek]

Sorry I meant to type Jaydub in response to one of his replies. My apologies. But for what it is worth I tend to agree with 95% of what you do type or blog Tasty. Again, sorry.

No problem, and thanks for the kind words.

I actually gave you more credit for being right than I gave myself. Worried that I may have had some sort of Tyler Durden episode, I went back through every post twice just to make sure I didn't actually post or get an outside piece of writing quoted in anyone else's post. And then after I asked the question, I went through and checked a third time.

[UNTLifer]

Yes. Hamas was already launching missiles into Israel again the morning after Obama won. It's not just us, but our allies that will be in trouble if we let our gaurd down.

By the way, I had a cousin who served in Iraq for a 12-month tour. He was with an Apache helicopter unit. Some of what someone has posted here is true, about is knowing where Bin Laden is. That post talked about Pakistan. But, according to my cousin, the same was true in and around Baghdad. They knew where the insurgents were, but weren't allowed to go get them without cause - basically, coming under intense fire from them without any citizens around.

The problem, according to him, is that until the surge, we were tyring to fight the insurgents in a politically correct manner. His example was this:

After the roadside bombs went off, a team of engineers was always sent to patch the hole. Well, so they went out and patched them, but then had to stand and wait for the thing to dry sufficiently. Often times, during the waiting period, the crew would begin to take on small arms fire. However, they were not allowed to fire back if any civilians were around. So, they sat there like sitting ducks.

They had to sit there until a certain amount of force was being used against them. At that point, they could call in the Apaches, who would simply blow the crap out of wherever the aggression was coming from. Freaking crazy. You couldn't return small arms fire, or go into the neighborhood and smoke the perpetrators out. But, if it got too bad, you could call in the birds to blow it to bits. Go figure that one out.

It was the most bizarre thing to sit and listen to my cousin tell the story. I told him, "Screw that. If that's the way we're fighting it, why are we there?" A couple of months after his tour ended, Petraes ordered up the surge. And, not surprisingly, it worked.

Seriously, people who say Bush just wanted to kill people are not just idiots, but horribly ignorant. We were going out of our way not to kill people until the surge. Of course, that was part of Bush's problem, trying to please too many people here and abroad. It would have been better if he had been the "cowboy" he was accused of being. He never was. He was more like a ranch hand. And, a nice one. The kind that would let you borrow his horse for the day.

Good man.

I still love him, though. Anyone who protects the unborn is good in my book. And, well...I liked my tax breaks as well. Those were nice. It's much more fun to file a return knowing money is coming back than to have to dig through the tax code and find ways to hide it for a few years. Oh, well. If Obama does anything for me, it'll be that I brush up on tax law again.

Yes sir, Bush is a good man that tried to please too many and ended up handcuffing himself.

Prime example, we don't fire on Islamic mosques yet we take fire from insurgents holed up where? In mosques. Politics and war don't mix. Too bad General Patton isn't still around to run things.

[Green Guy Bass]

Yes sir, Bush is a good man that tried to please too many and ended up handcuffing himself.

Prime example, we don't fire on Islamic mosques yet we take fire from insurgents holed up where? In mosques. Politics and war don't mix. Too bad General Patton isn't still around to run things.

Just....wow....

[Rudy]

We are one of the very few countries who still follows the Geneva Convention. The rules are too binding for warfare. Im not saying we have total disrespect for everyone else, but we need to protect our own hides and kill the enemy. I'm all for saving Mosques, but the enemy should not be allowed to hide in them. Do not fire until fired upon is BS.

People want to bitch about civilians dying, but they dont give America and our allies the credit we deserve for trying to preserve innocent life. We spend a million dollars to take one dumb bomb, put some computer parts on it, and turn it into a smart bomb. We are developing weapons that can take out a small building with pinpoint accuracy. We develop missles that can destroy a target with little debris that can injure innocent people. The canadians have developed a device that uses water to detstroy an IED. Yes, I said water! We have snipers that have to call in a target, only to lose that target of opportunity and have said target firing on them later in the day. They will sit in their Humvees and take fire, waiting for a freakin Iraqi mayor to give permission to enter the mosque sheltering the insurgents.

Sorry, but it pisses me off. CNN has a damn counter in the corner of their screen counting up to the 1K, 2K, 4K US Servicemen deaths. That is not only irresponsible journalism, but totally disrespectful. Our military has to fight a war with one hand tied behind their backs and with us looking over their shoulder. Everyone thinks we have a right to know whats going on, but we dont. It pisses me off that we can not allow them to do their job without second guessing by people who have never been in that situation. We need to sit back, shut up, and let them do their jobs, and be proud of what they do.

Sorry, I know this probably has nothing to do with the thread, but I felt like ranting about the war.

[yyz28]

Bush will be seen through the Prism of History as a good president overall -

His only REAL mistake was Rumsfeld which led to the debacle in Iraq. If Iraq had been run by Gates and Petreus since day one, it wouldn't have even been an election issue.

The current economic situation is not his fault; the response to katrina was not his fault. Of the three Albatross' hung around his neck, he only really deserves one.