[poll] Do you Think Former President Bush was a Bad President?

The way I see it is that he probably had similar issues to his predecessors.

The only difference was he wasn't at good at keeping his blunders out of the public eye.

PiEman wrote:Do you guys only base presidents on what they do to win wars, or help others with their wars?

Clinton did wonders for the economy, despite some early mistakes and failures in Somalia.

(will continue later, my bus is coming in four minutes or less)

*continued from before*
Bush seemed to have been doing fine in the beginning, and then 9/11 struck.
The country was in panic, and in 2003 we invaded Iraq, on the assumption that the Iraqis still had WMDs including chemical weapons.

However, Bush had overlooked the fact that most of Iraq's chemical arsenal had been bagged and tagged in the 90s by the U.N.
Bush found Sadaam, and persisted in saying that they weapons were stll out there.
It has been six years, and barely any(if any at all) weapons have been found and sure as hell haven't been used against us.

alQueda had nothing in Iraq before we took out Sadaam. Now not only do they have a angry populace from which to recruit, they have American Troops patrolling the streets that they can perform live-fire practice on.

Actually, an article I recently read talks about how the Iraqi's really would like the Americans and their Black Hawks, and Bombers, and well trained troops, and heavy weapons to stay, so that they don't get mortared by cowards too scared to actually stand up and fight. So no, the population is not pissed off at the US Marines there. But you don't hear of this from American Media sources. So, try reading articles from the BBC. Their articles aren't quite so biased.

Oh, and I believe American marines actually found blue prints for WMD's, PiE,... though I might be wrong... so... yeah...

Maginot Line wrote:Actually, an article I recently read talks about how the Iraqi's really would like the Americans and their Black Hawks, and Bombers, and well trained troops, and heavy weapons to stay, so that they don't get mortared by cowards too scared to actually stand up and fight. So no, the population is not pissed off at the US Marines there. But you don't hear of this from American Media sources. So, try reading articles from the BBC. Their articles aren't quite so biased.

Oh, and I believe American marines actually found blue prints for WMD's, PiE,... though I might be wrong... so... yeah...

The British Media is heavy monitored by the state, and they're not exactly "free press".
They report primarily on the positive sides of the war, and just about everything else the government tells them to portray positively.
The article you read was probably British.

I've heard statistics that say that something like 2/3rds of Iraqis want our troops dead. Not just gone, dead.
Many of them do want the protection, including their new government, but a majority wants us out so they can get right to killing eachother.

About the only thing we could do now, if you want to do something while the troops pull out, is divide the country into religiously divided provinces.

PiEman wrote:

Maginot Line wrote:Actually, an article I recently read talks about how the Iraqi's really would like the Americans and their Black Hawks, and Bombers, and well trained troops, and heavy weapons to stay, so that they don't get mortared by cowards too scared to actually stand up and fight. So no, the population is not pissed off at the US Marines there. But you don't hear of this from American Media sources. So, try reading articles from the BBC. Their articles aren't quite so biased.

Oh, and I believe American marines actually found blue prints for WMD's, PiE,... though I might be wrong... so... yeah...

The British Media is heavy monitored by the state, and they're not exactly "free press".
They report primarily on the positive sides of the war, and just about everything else the government tells them to portray positively.
The article you read was probably British.

I've heard statistics that say that something like 2/3rds of Iraqis want our troops dead. Not just gone, dead.
Many of them do want the protection, including their new government, but a majority wants us out so they can get right to killing eachother.

About the only thing we could do now, if you want to do something while the troops pull out, is divide the country into religiously divided provinces.

every source is reliable however most sources (on this topic) will have a bias (i think )

Divide into religiously divided provinces?



Do you have ANY idea how horrible of an idea that is?

Um, let me rephrase that.

Divide the religious groups into their own provinces.
Yes, I know there will be problems with that, but it's better than having them together and suicide bombing marketplaces.

ReconToaster wrote:I won't say he was a good president...

But he was definitely unfairly portrayed by the media. I think the way that we have treated him is extremely disrespectful.

Bingo!

Does anybody remember how he took charge after 9/11? He didn't usurp power like so many claim; he rose to the occasion. Remember how he was asking Congress to increase oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac?

I just... when I saw him after the inauguration, he was happy. It was like the burden of the whole world had been lifted off his shoulders, and he was free.
Go look at how much he's aged. It's amazing and sad at the same moment.

ReconToaster wrote:
Clinton was a great president. Kennedy slept around with quite a great many people, and he was still a great president.

I can't agree with you here. Kennedy had his shining moment during the Cuban Missile Crises, but there was the Bay of Pigs invasion, the botched attempt to kill Castro (both of which were blamed on the CIA... which advised against those actions)

Even if he did live, I don't think he could have gotten Congress to work with him.
LBJ had that power, and look at what he did. The War on Poverty was a failure, and we got so entrenched in Vietnam that it took until Nixon's second term to get us out.

PiEman wrote:Do you guys only base presidents on what they do to win wars, or help others with their wars?

Clinton did wonders for the economy, despite some early mistakes and failures in Somalia.

Yeah, and then he got us in again. Remember the Urban Reinvestment Act? That's what caused the Housing Crises.

Oh, and go watch "Primary Colors."

PiEman wrote:
*continued from before*
Bush seemed to have been doing fine in the beginning, and then 9/11 struck.
The country was in panic, and in 2003 we invaded Iraq, on the assumption that the Iraqis still had WMDs including chemical weapons.

However, Bush had overlooked the fact that most of Iraq's chemical arsenal had been bagged and tagged in the 90s by the U.N.

No, he didn't overlook it.
There was no evidence that Saddam didn't start production back up again. Besides, Clinton had to bomb him during the Lewenski Scandal because he wasn't in compliance with disarmament terms.

PiEman wrote:The British Media is heavy monitored by the state, and they're not exactly "free press".
They report primarily on the positive sides of the war, and just about everything else the government tells them to portray positively.
The article you read was probably British.

Pieman, you really need to stop watching "V for Vendetta."
Yes, the BBC is supported by the government, but they ain't censored like that.

PiEman wrote:I've heard statistics that say that something like 2/3rds of Iraqis want our troops dead. Not just gone, dead.
Many of them do want the protection, including their new government, but a majority wants us out so they can get right to killing eachother.

A majority wants peace. It's the minority that's out killing each other.
Iraqis don't like America in the same way many Americans don't care for China. BUT go out and ask them if they want America gone.
"Yes, America needs to go. Not now, but not ten years from now."

PiEman wrote:About the only thing we could do now, if you want to do something while the troops pull out, is divide the country into religiously divided provinces.

Yeah, that worked really frikken' well when the Hindus and the Muslims separated into India and Pakistan, didn't it. [/sarcasm]
You'd get more bloodshed in five months of that than five years of occupation. There would be NO MORE IRAQ, as the three states would dissolved into nation states, and then Syria and Iran would move in.

Really pretty.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

I just... when I saw him after the inauguration, he was happy. It was like the burden of the whole world had been lifted off his shoulders, and he was free.
Go look at how much he's aged. It's amazing and sad at the same moment.

Yo see, I have the same problem arguing with you, that you do arguing with me.
You're clearly extremely biased towards Bush.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
The War on Poverty was a failure, and we got so entrenched in Vietnam that it took until Nixon's second term to get us out.

You're fine with getting out of Veitnam, but not Iraq?

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
Yeah, and then he got us in again. Remember the Urban Reinvestment Act? That's what caused the Housing Crises.

I wasn't exactly politically active during Clinton's presidency, (mostly due to the fact that I started Kindergarten in his second to last year in office) but I've heard negative things from Republicans, and positive things from Democrats and Independants.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
Oh, and go watch "Primary Colors."

That's like me asking you to go watch ".W".

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
No, he didn't overlook it.
There was no evidence that Saddam didn't start production back up again. Besides, Clinton had to bomb him during the Lewenski Scandal because he wasn't in compliance with disarmament terms.

There's also no evidence that he did because we didn't find any weapons.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
Pieman, you really need to stop watching "V for Vendetta."
Yes, the BBC is supported by the government, but they ain't censored like that.

What about when they stopped showing documentaries on Ireland, and didn't report on the NRA terrorist attacks on Northern Ireland?
They didn't even let in a Star Trek episode until 2006 because it had references to "The Troubles" in it.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
A majority wants peace. It's the minority that's out killing each other.
Iraqis don't like America in the same way many Americans don't care for China. BUT go out and ask them if they want America gone.
"Yes, America needs to go. Not now, but not ten years from now."

47 percent of Iraqis want US-led forces to leave Iraq immediately and 34 percent want the troops to leave when the security situation improves.

Not the statistic I was looking for, but still.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
You'd get more bloodshed in five months of that than five years of occupation. There would be NO MORE IRAQ, as the three states would dissolved into nation states, and then Syria and Iran would move in.

Really pretty.

Either way, when we leave, whether it's another 10 years, or another 100 years, there wil be NO MORE IRAQ when we're gone.
We're better off getting out now to avoid more deaths.

rasq wrote:A majority wants peace. It's the minority that's out killing each other.
Iraqis don't like America in the same way many Americans don't care for China. BUT go out and ask them if they want America gone.
"Yes, America needs to go. Not now, but not ten years from now."

It's sad really. In the beginning, the whole of Baghdad loved us, and was excited that we were there to help them. Unfortunately, once we running out their leader... we went on to dissolute all of their health-care, education, and historic facilities, as well as to disband their entire army, which was in full support of our cause.

We left the place in chaos, allowing for looters and criminals to go free. We did nothing to enforce the new establishment early on, and so all respect for our troops was lost. We left the majority of Baghdad's people unemployed. Desperate for leadership, they joined extremist groups.

I've never been against our reasoning for going to Iraq. I do not blame bush for being wrong about WMDs. I do blame him, and his administration, for utterly terrible execution.

CivBase wrote:
And you're clearly extremely biased against him and for Obama. Why else would either of you be here?

Yes, and I said that I was.

CivBase wrote:
Even I know that Veitnam was 10x as gruesome as Iraq will ever be.

That's only because Veitnam lacked Kevlar vests, and dragged on for 18 years, something that would have been entirely possible had McCain (or really any of the Independants that supported the war) were elected.

CivBase wrote:
Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.

...
Wait, wut?

CivBase wrote:
If I recall, it was the British media that ranted on and on about the Zimmerman telegram and the Lusitania.

Exactly my point.
They desperately needed American troops by that point in the war, and those events were critical in attaining that support.

CivBase wrote:
That's because your statistic doesn't exist. And something like 75% of our country voted for Obama, but look where it's gotten us! Same with Bush (okay, his second term was 50%, but still...). People don't know what they want, PiE; that's something I've come to know. Besides, 47% isn't even a majority. That means that since 34% want us to stay until it's safe (same with most of us), 19% want us to stay indefinitely.

My statistic is very real, and as soon as I can find it I'll post it and the article it's in.
And what do you mean, "look where it's gotten us"?
Bush screwed up the economy before Obama got in office(which was only about, oh, say three weeks ago?).
How do you expect him to have done anything when his first bill hasn't even been passed yet?

Me,
being an actual Iraqi, never wanted F.P. (former president) George Bush to be president.

A majority wants American soliders to leave Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was fair because Saddam Hussien killed Shias and invaded Kuwait.

Britain did the right thing. They left Iraq it the moment that the war was considered over.

I hate F.P. Bush because he focused mainly on Iraq. And the Housing Crisis and the availability of gas is beginning to dwindle and he is in Iraq trying to find nukes and what ever is left.

All America should do now is slowly help reconstruct Iraq. Not with tanks and infantry patrolling every street known.

With small amounts of money and some construction people there. Iraq can come back. Get the government back to a good position and leave. With as little effects as possible.

Zaki90 wrote:Me,
being an actual Iraqi, never wanted F.P. (former president) George Bush to be president.

A majority wants American soliders to leave Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was fair because Saddam Hussien killed Shias and invaded Kuwait.

Britain did the right thing. They left Iraq it the moment that the war was considered over.

I hate F.P. Bush because he focused mainly on Iraq. And the Housing Crisis and the availability of gas is beginning to dwindle and he is in Iraq trying to find nukes and what ever is left.

All America should do now is slowly help reconstruct Iraq. Not with tanks and infantry patrolling every street known.

With small amounts of money and some construction people there. Iraq can come back. Get the government back to a good position and leave. With as little effects as possible.

See guys?