History will say that we misunderestimated George W. Bush

[Angus]

History will say that we misunderestimated George W Bush

By Andrew Roberts
Last Updated: 11:01pm BST 21/06/2008

As he leaves the White House at the end of his second term, the President has a poll rating of only 23 per cent, and is widely disliked and even despised. His foreign policy has been judged a failure, especially in view of the long, painful, costly war that he declared, which is still not over.

He doesn't get on with his own party's presidential candidate, who is clearly distancing himself, and had lost many of his closest friends and staff to scandals and forced resignations. The New Republic, a hugely influential political magazine, writes that his historical reputation will be as bad as that of President Harding, the disastrous president of the Great Depression.

I am writing, of course, about Harry S Truman, generally regarded today as one of the greatest of all the 43 presidents, and the man who set the United States on the course that ended decades later in the defeat of Communism.

If the West wins the modern counterpart of that struggle, the War Against Terror, historians will look back in amazement at the present unpopularity of George W Bush, and marvel at it quite as much as we now marvel at the 67 per cent disapproval rates for Truman throughout 1952.

Presidents are seldom remembered for more than one or two things; the rest slip away into a haze of historical amnesia. With Kennedy it was the Bay of Pigs and his own assassination, with Johnson the Great Society and Vietnam, with Nixon it was opening up China and the Watergate scandal, and so on.

George W Bush will be remembered for his responses to 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq, but since neither of those conflicts has yet ended in victory or defeat, it is far too early categorically to assume - as left-wingers, anti-war campaigners and almost all media commentators already do - that his historical reputation will be permanently down in the doldrums next to poor old Warren Harding's.

I suspect that historians of the future will instead see Bush's decision to insist upon a "surge" of reinforcements being sent into Iraq, combined with a complete change of anti-insurgency tactics as configured by General Petraeus, as the moment when the conflict was turned around there, in the West's favour.

No one - least of all Bush himself - denies that mistakes were made in the early days after the (unexpectedly early) fall of Baghdad, and historians will quite rightly examine them. But once the decades have put the stirring events of those years into their proper historical context, four great facts will emerge that will place Bush in a far better light than he currently enjoys.

The overthrow and execution of a foul tyrant, Saddam Hussein; the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban; the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere and, finally, the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11, is a legacy of which to be proud.

While of course every individual death is a tragedy to the bereaved families, these great achievements have been won at a cost in human life a fraction the size of any past world-historical struggle of this magnitude.

The number of American troops killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan is equivalent to the losses they endured - for a nation only a little over half the size in the mid-Forties - capturing a single island from the Japanese in the Pacific War.

British losses of 103 killed over seven years in Afghanistan bears comparison to a quiet weekend on the Western Front in the Great War, or the numbers the Army loses in traffic accidents in peacetime. History can lend a wider overall perspective to what are nonetheless, of course, immeasurably sad events.

History will also shine an unforgiving light on those ludicrous conspiracy theories that claim that the Iraq War was fought for any other reason than to implement the 14 UN resolutions that Saddam that had been flouting for 13 years.

The CIA and MI6 believed, like almost every other intelligence agency in the world, that Saddam had WMD, and the "Harmony" documents seized and translated since the fall of his regime make it abundantly clear that he was also supporting almost every anti-Western terrorist organisation imaginable.

Historians will appreciate how any War Against Terror that allowed Saddam to remain in place would have been an absurd travesty.

When the rise of al-Qa'eda is considered by historians like Philip Bobbitt and William Shawcross, it will be President Clinton's repeated refusal to act effectively in the 1990s, rather than President Bush's tough response after 9/11, that will be held up as culpable.

Judging by the rise in the value of the Iraqi dinar, the huge drop in the number of Iraqi deaths in the insurgency, the number of provinces now cleansed of al-Qa'eda, and the level of arms confiscations by the Iraqi Army in Sadr City, the new American "clear and hold" tactics have succeeded far better than the cynics ever thought possible even 12 months ago.

Give Iraq five, ten or twenty years, and Bush's decision to undertake the surge - courageously taken in the face of all bien pensant and "expert" opinion on both sides of the Atlantic - will rank alongside some of Harry Truman's great decisions of 1945-53.

If that happens, the time will come when George W Bush will be able to say what Lord Salisbury called the four cruellest yet sweetest words in the English language: "I told you so."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml

[Mavs Man]

Okay, the link at the bottom answered the question I was about to raise.

I would have been ashamed if an American paper had blamed President Harding for the Great Depression. Bad president? Yes (though he was VERY popular while in office). But Warren G. Harding died midway through his term - in 1923.

I'm guessing the Telegraph meant to say President HOOVER in the 2nd paragraph.

[ninja]

Bush understands the world and gets the big picture. Unfortunately, a large portion of the US just doesn't get it. But, they are also the true morons who think Bill Clinton was a good president.

A free and democratic Iraq and Afghanistan will add to his legacy.

[DFWJC]

The followup commentary is comical. It is a divided world, my friends. I feel certain that extreme opinions on both sides are not correct....that is the only thing I'm certain of.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I misunderstood bush at one time....that is why I voted for him the first time.:D

[theebs]

Overestimated is a more accurate word.

JMO.

[dacarmelking210]

haha "if we win the war on terror."

What a joke. You cannot defeat an ideology with bombs and bullets; you defeat an ideology with words and reason. The "War on Terror" all boils down to Israel. If the US stopped unilaterally supporting Israel, and immediately withdrew from Iraq, then I GUARANTEE you the "terrorism" against the West would slow down considerably, or stop all together.

[masomenos]

Bush understands the world and gets the big picture. Unfortunately, a large portion of the US just doesn't get it. But, they are also the true morons who think Bill Clinton was a good president.

A free and democratic Iraq and Afghanistan will add to his legacy.

Bush understand the world from his own ideological position. There's nothing to "get", there's no stance to take that's right or wrong.

He's a long way from having Iraq or Afghanistan be stable enough to add to his legacy though.

[zrinkill]

The "War on Terror" all boils down to Israel. If the US stopped unilaterally supporting Israel, and immediately withdrew from Iraq, then I GUARANTEE you the "terrorism" against the West would slow down considerably, or stop all together.


And here we go ...... Its all Israel's and the mean old USA's fault.

I noticed you put the word terrorism in quotations ..... does that mean that you do not believe its really terrorism?

[hank2k]

The 16% of people who think this country is headed in the right direction approve of this message.

[zrinkill]

The 16% of people polled on college campuses approve this message.

Fixed it for ya.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Fixed it for ya.

I did not know all the polls were on college campuses.

Maybe, just maybe, there are a bunch of people out there tired of W and think he is doing a crappy job. Maybe, just maybe we don't need to blame colleges, or the media, or bill clinton, or the liberal machine...maybe we ought to just look right at the problem...W.

[zrinkill]

Maybe, just maybe, there are a bunch of people out there tired of W and think he is doing a crappy job. Maybe, just maybe we don't need to blame colleges, or the media, or bill clinton, or the liberal machine...maybe we ought to just look right at the problem...W.

Or maybe, just maybe, we should come to the conclusion that no matter what he does or says, the people who have already made up their minds about him will continue to hate him.

Maybe just maybe?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Or maybe, just maybe, we should come to the conclusion that no matter what he does or says, the people who have already made up their minds about him will continue to hate him.

Maybe just maybe?

And that seems to be the majority of the country.

Thanks.:cool:

[zrinkill]

And that seems to be the majority of the country.

Thanks.:cool:

Thanks?

You mean the majority of the country who elected him President twice?

:laugh2:

But please ..... keep trying to convince me that those polls really represent the average American person.

Gore and Kerry put their faith in them ...... :cool:

[The30YardSlant]

I did not know all the polls were on college campuses.

Maybe, just maybe, there are a bunch of people out there tired of W and think he is doing a crappy job. Maybe, just maybe we don't need to blame colleges, or the media, or bill clinton, or the liberal machine...maybe we ought to just look right at the problem...W.

The government is more than a single man

That democratic congress deserves a good deal of blame for keeping us in political gridlock

[zrinkill]

The government is more than a single man

That democratic congress deserves a good deal of blame for keeping us in political gridlock

Be careful ...... you will be accused of being a racist to shut you up again.

[Vintage]

Thanks?

You mean the majority of the country who elected him President twice?

:laugh2:

But please ..... keep trying to convince me that those polls really represent the average American person.

Gore and Kerry put their faith in them ...... :cool:

A majority of the country didn't elect him President twice.

[zrinkill]

A majority of the country didn't elect him President twice.

OK

here we go.


I will have to continue this later .... I am closing down my shop and going to eat at Red Lobster.

[Vintage]

Its easy to see why Brain doesn't like Bush.

He hates large gov't spending. He prefers small gov't.

[Vintage]

OK

here we go.

Good call.

I'd quit this argument before it gets started too (well, if I was on your side)

[zrinkill]

Good call.

I'd quit this argument before it gets started too (well, if I was on your side)

How did he not get elected by the people? I will read your conspiracy theory answer when I get home tonight.

Trust me ...... I wont "quit" the argument. (ask anyone)

[ZeroClub]

The author of this article doesn't make a good case, IMO.

Sure, there have been some Presidents who were unpopular but later were given more respect by historians.

... but it isn't like all unpopular presidents end up being highly regarded by historians. It also isn't like all popular presidents are later poor regarded by historians.

[hank2k]

OK

here we go.


I will have to continue this later .... I am closing down my shop and going to eat at Red Lobster.


Cheddar biscuits rock....

[Vintage]

How did he not get elected by the people? I will read your conspiracy theory answer when I get home tonight.

Trust me ...... I wont "quit" the argument. (ask anyone)


You mean the majority of the country who elected him President twice?


Both Bush and Gore had sub 50% of the popular vote. Neither had a majority. Go ahead and debunk my conspiracy theory.

I suggest blaming the liberal media. Its probably my favorite tactic (I'm such a sucker for it).

[BrAinPaiNt]

The government is more than a single man

That democratic congress deserves a good deal of blame for keeping us in political gridlock

He was spending like a drunken sailor and circumventing the constitution long before the dems got control of the congress, but they are equally guilty of letting him continue his ways once they did get power.

[masomenos]

How did he not get elected by the people? I will read your conspiracy theory answer when I get home tonight.

Trust me ...... I wont "quit" the argument. (ask anyone)

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

More people voted for Gore. There's no conspiracy.

[dacarmelking210]

And here we go ...... Its all Israel's and the mean old USA's fault.

I noticed you put the word terrorism in quotations ..... does that mean that you do not believe its really terrorism?

I'm Jewish and lived in Israel at one point in my life; I've seen terrorism with my own eyes and have experienced it in many different ways. However, I try to see things from all angles. I've been to Israel, the West Bank, Iran, Dubai...I've spoken to a lot of different people with a lot of different attitudes and beliefs. From my experiences with tehse people, I can TELL you that all the 'anger' that is geared towards teh US and the west would subside if the US were to stop UNILATERALLY supporting Israel (i'm not saying STOP supporting all together, just stop blindly supporting all the crap that the Israeli government does) and pull out of Iraq. I have asked these people: "would your attitude towards America change if these things were to happen?"...and they (95% of the time) say "YES."

Everything, more or less, revolves around our EXTREME relationship with Israel. Many of you many not like or agree with what I'm saying because you've only seen one side of the whole mess inthe Middle East (American media is fairly biased) and have not been exposed to the real truths behind the conflicts...


I'm just throwin in my 2 cents and telling you how it REALLY is. It pains me when I hear AIPAC and other such organizations "lie" about the real causes for Middle Eastern conflict and terrorism because I am Jewish myself and have lofty expectations for people like myself on how they should act. They have an agenda and pretty much say whatever/do whatever to make sure their goals come to fruition.

[The30YardSlant]

He was spending like a drunken sailor and circumventing the constitution long before the dems got control of the congress, but they are equally guilty of letting him continue his ways once they did get power.

Wars cost money, especially wars in which your enemy is not clearly defined. I'd rather be spending hordes of tax dollars fighting world terrorism than on frivalous healthcare plans that bottom out and wealfare plans that allow the lazy drunkards of society to sit on their arses and get paid for it, which is what both Carter and Clinton did.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like much of what Bush has done, but only the truely politically ignorant think he is the root cause of most of what they are complaining about.

[junk]

I certainly enjoyed the title of the article.

[zrinkill]

Both Bush and Gore had sub 50% of the popular vote. Neither had a majority. Go ahead and debunk my conspiracy theory.

I suggest blaming the liberal media. Its probably my favorite tactic (I'm such a sucker for it).

Over 50% is not the issue .....

If you have 20 people

9 voted for Bush
8 voted for Gore
and 3 voted for that other joke

then the people voted Bush in.

Its really simple.

[ChldsPlay]

The 16% of people who think this country is headed in the right direction approve of this message.

You know what's funny about those polls asking if people think the country is headed in the right direction? They don't mention why people don't think it's headed in the right direction. I'm sure there are plenty of people, myself included, who would agree it's headed in the wrong direction, but do not blame Bush or the Republicans (outside of not having enough backbone sometimes), but instead blame the insane, illogical, and just plain stupid liberal left and their weak minded, weak willed, treetarded policies.

[Heisenberg]

Cheddar biscuits rock....

Man, you ain't kiddin there. Those biscuits own me.

http://www.redlobster.com/images/press_content/media_kit/low_res/Cheddar-Bay-Biscuits.jpg

[BrAinPaiNt]

You know what's funny about those polls asking if people think the country is headed in the right direction? They don't mention why people don't think it's headed in the right direction. I'm sure there are plenty of people, myself included, who would agree it's headed in the wrong direction, but do not blame Bush or the Republicans (outside of not having enough backbone sometimes), but instead blame the insane, illogical, and just plain stupid liberal left and their weak minded, weak willed, treetarded policies.

His rating were low before the dems got control of the house so I guess you can also blame those republicans and W himself. He did not issue one veto while they had complete control after all.

The reason he has such a poor approval rating is because he sucks as a president and if it were not for Carter would probably be considered the worst president of my lifetime.

[ChldsPlay]

His rating were low before the dems got control of the house so I guess you can also blame those republicans and W himself. He did not issue one veto while they had complete control after all.

The reason he has such a poor approval rating is because he sucks as a president and if it were not for Carter would probably be considered the worst president of my lifetime.

I wasn't referring to polls on the President's approval rating. It's polls on whether or not people think the country is headed in the right direction. The media portrays the outcome of those polls as meaning the President/Republicans are taking the country in the wrong direction, and doesn't leave room for the option that people think the liberals are taking the country in the wrong way, and making positive progress impossible.

And approval ratings don't mean anything. The fact that he has a horrible rating probably means he's doing a better job than anyone knows since most Americans, honestly speaking, are stupid, or at the very least extremely ignorant.

Bush certainly isn't perfect, with his main problems coming in areas where he's been way too liberal, but he is far and away better than the guy before him, and will most likely be better than the guy that comes after him (shouldn't be hard).

[sbark]

He was spending like a drunken sailor and circumventing the constitution long before the dems got control of the congress, but they are equally guilty of letting him continue his ways once they did get power.

GW did his share, but he stepped into a IED set up by Demcrats starting back in the 60's.........ie mandated untouchable spending in the form of mainly SS, Medicare, Medicaid and a myriad of other social programs....

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S8-Mandatory-Spending-Has-Increased.html

GW will be remembered well in history, much better than a congress with what, 10% approval..........but GW is failing to see our biggest threat, sure everyone realized the threat of radical terrorism........but our biggest threat is internal........radical Enviromentalism.......

[Heisenberg]

GW did his share, but he stepped into a IED set up by Demcrats starting back in the 60's.........ie mandated untouchable spending in the form of mainly SS, Medicare, Medicaid and a myriad of other social programs....

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S8-Mandatory-Spending-Has-Increased.html

GW will be remembered well in history, much better than a congress with what, 10% approval..........but GW is failing to see our biggest threat, sure everyone realized the threat of radical terrorism........but our biggest threat is internal........radical Enviromentalism.......


No kidding man. Watch out for suicidal Prius drivers. :eek:

[sbark]

No kidding man. Watch out for suicidal Prius drivers. :eek:

......did the Uni-bomber drive a vintage version of a Prius?:eek:

[Heisenberg]

......did the Uni-bomber drive a vintage version of a Prius?:eek:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg245/gardensk8/unibomber.jpg

+

http://fuelzilla.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/toyota-prius-2009-0307.jpg

:ohno:

[BrAinPaiNt]

GW did his share, but he stepped into a IED set up by Demcrats starting back in the 60's.........ie mandated untouchable spending in the form of mainly SS, Medicare, Medicaid and a myriad of other social programs....

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S8-Mandatory-Spending-Has-Increased.html

GW will be remembered well in history, much better than a congress with what, 10% approval..........but GW is failing to see our biggest threat, sure everyone realized the threat of radical terrorism........but our biggest threat is internal........radical Enviromentalism.......

I think maybe the government gave you a little too much lsd back in the day when they were testing it on people.:D

[SuspectCorner]

And approval ratings don't mean anything. The fact that he has a horrible rating probably means he's doing a better job than anyone knows since most Americans, honestly speaking, are stupid, or at the very least extremely ignorant.

Whew - good thing you're around to 'splain things. Now tell us all about your "flat Earth theory"....

[The30YardSlant]

Whew - good thing you're around to 'splain things. Now tell us all about your "flat Earth theory"....

The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of Americans are either not educated enough or simply don't pay enough attention to politics to truly understand who is to blame.

Sure, Bush spent like a madman at times, but most people don't know that Clinton actually set whoever came after him up for economic failure after he destroyed the improved policies of the Reagen (and, to a lesser extent, daddy Bush) administrations. Luckily for Clinton, the economy was on the upswing when he arrived and in the age of technology managed to stay very healthy despite his foul economic policies. Then, as soon as the internet revolution mellowed out, it began to decline, and after 9/11 it went to Hell. But most people are ignorant, and just say "Bad economy = Bad president" when in fact it was a culmination of unforseen circumstances and bad moves by his predecessor that aided in the economic pothole as much as his own spending did.

[SuspectCorner]

The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of Americans are either not educated enough or simply don't pay enough attention to politics to truly understand who is to blame.

Sure, Bush spent like a madman at times, but most people don't know that Clinton actually set whoever came after him up for economic failure after he destroyed the improved policies of the Reagen (and, to a lesser extent, daddy Bush) administrations. Luckily for Clinton, the economy was on the upswing when he arrived and in the age of technology managed to stay very healthy despite his foul economic policies. Then, as soon as the internet revolution mellowed out, it began to decline, and after 9/11 it went to Hell. But most people are ignorant, and just say "Bad economy = Bad president" when in fact it was a culmination of unforseen circumstances and bad moves by his predecessor that aided in the economic pothole as much as his own spending did.

Clinton sure made some economic policy mistakes (other kinds, too) but when he left office - the bottom line read "budget surplus".

Even if we cut GWB a break and attribute ALL the economic woes the country is currently experiencing to "bad timing" - that STILL leaves a whole lotta other issues to account for.

[The30YardSlant]

Clinton sure made some economic policy mistakes (other kinds, too) but when he left office - the bottom line read "budget surplus".

Even if we cut GWB a break and attribute ALL the economic woes the country is currently experiencing to "bad timing" - that STILL leaves a whole lotta other issues to account for.

I agree, to an extent. As a conservative, I abhore both no child left behind and his incredibly high spending (as far as republicans go). I also don't agree with how we went about this war. I had no problem going in and removing Saddam Hussein from power, it needed to be done. He was a power hungry madman who was slaughtering thousands of his own civilians every year. However, we should have gone in with much more force. Instead, we went in with the bare minimum and are now stuck fighting in house to house combat with religious nutjobs who think we are just thin enough over there to be overcome.

On the other hand, rumors of Bush's epic failures are GREATLY exaggerated. His biggest problem in my mind is he got too soft and tried to appeal to everyone and in doing so alienated many of his former supporters. I still can't think of a better man outside of Reagen to have handled this country after 9/11. Bush was immediate and forceful with his response. That entire first year after 9/11 was one of the best years in presidential history as far as job performance goes. After that, though, it went downhill in a hurry.

Point is, he is by no means the greatest president ever, but he is HARDLY the worst. Carter was easily the worst we've ever had.

[Big Dakota]

I understand that Bush is nothing more than a war criminal.

[The30YardSlant]

I understand that Bush is nothing more than a war criminal.

Thanks for proving my point :rolleyes:

[SuspectCorner]

I agree, to an extent. As a conservative, I abhore both no child left behind and his incredibly high spending (as far as republicans go). I also don't agree with how we went about this war. I had no problem going in and removing Saddam Hussein from power, it needed to be done. He was a power hungry madman who was slaughtering thousands of his own civilians every year. However, we should have gone in with much more force. Instead, we went in with the bare minimum and are now stuck fighting in house to house combat with religious nutjobs who think we are just thin enough over there to be overcome.

On the other hand, rumors of Bush's epic failures are GREATLY exaggerated. His biggest problem in my mind is he got too soft and tried to appeal to everyone and in doing so alienated many of his former supporters. I still can't think of a better man outside of Reagen to have handled this country after 9/11. Bush was immediate and forceful with his response. That entire first year after 9/11 was one of the best years in presidential history as far as job performance goes. After that, though, it went downhill in a hurry.

Point is, he is by no means the greatest president ever, but he is HARDLY the worst. Carter was easily the worst we've ever had.

Dictators have been murdering their opposition since the dawn of societies. But it's not the responsibility of, nor is it wise or practical for, this country to play the role of "world cop". Fund and arm the opposition. And we can do that without sending our young people over to die in foreign lands. If the opposition does not exist - then maybe the country in question hasn't reached an adequate level of desperation, yet.

Regime change needs to be an internal mechanism. And after that's been accomplished - THEN win "hearts and minds" by providing aid to establish democratic infrastructure. We can't affect regime changes by invading other countries by military force. Because shortly after the yoke has been pitched the natives look around and see us as "the new boss" - and immediately resent us.

We need to allow foreign countries the right to self-determination and then pitch in whenever and wherever possible. But we can't do it all. "They" have to accept the majority of the responsibility for their plight - and until they do... we're just ****ing in the wind.

Because, in the case of foreign military actions, if we DON'T have the backing of a prepoderance of the international community - we are probably acting out of self-interest. JMO.

[Vintage]

Over 50% is not the issue .....

If you have 20 people

9 voted for Bush
8 voted for Gore
and 3 voted for that other joke

then the people voted Bush in.

Its really simple.

First, you failed because you said majority....

See:


You mean the majority of the country who elected him President twice?


Majority = 50% +1.

In the case where both candidates had sub 50% of the vote, the 'winner' has a plurality of the votes.

But you also fail BECAUSE BUSH DIDN'T EVEN WIN A PLURALITY.

Gore got more votes than Bush. Bush just won the right states. So your statement that Bush got a majority of the votes fails even if you mean plurality because Gore received more votes than Bush.... meaning by your definition, Gore won a "majority" of the vote by the country; not Bush.

But debunk away my conspiracy theory.

Blame the liberal media first. Generally works better....

[sbark]

Clinton sure made some economic policy mistakes (other kinds, too) but when he left office - the bottom line read "budget surplus".

Even if we cut GWB a break and attribute ALL the economic woes the country is currently experiencing to "bad timing" - that STILL leaves a whole lotta other issues to account for.

The bottom line read "budget surplus" because Newt Gingrich forced Cigar Willie to submit 5 budget proposals before moving it thru the House......and even at that, Clinton did it on the back's of the military budgets....effects of which we are seeing today..........

[Vintage]

Clinton Surplus:
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

[sbark]

Clinton Surplus:
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

the only "myth' the left wants is the "myth of Obama".........

Give it time, they will revise the history books, instead of BC and AD.......it will become BO, and AO.........
.......and to think, just a few months ago Hillary was still the smartest women in the world...........:eek:

[zrinkill]

Blame the liberal media first. Generally works better....

Although I do not know where you are getting the "liberal media" thing from, I do concede that by definition the choice of words I used was wrong.

And although I do not trust the source you got those numbers from (I have seen many that says absentee ballots made Bush the popular vote winner) I will also concede your take on this.

I shall reword it then ..... you mean the guy who fairly won two elections and had the highest approval rating of all time.

[Vintage]

I'm assuming when you mean "highest public opinion rating" you are referring to right after 9-11....right?

If so, that's just the natural phenomena of "rallying around the flag." It means nothing. You could put Jimmy Carter in Bush's place at the same time and his approval ratings would have been similar. Or Clinton. Or any liberal or conservative President.

The low approval ratings don't mean much other than the general population does not approve of him. Doesn't necessarily mean he is a bad President, but it does mean there's a good chance history will look at him that way.

When it hits as low as it has; I begin to question my thoughts on him as a mediocre President....and begin wondering if I overrate him. The ol "where there's smoke, there's probably fire" doctrine. Of course, there's still a chance that an overwhelming majority of the country is wrong...but it begins to look less and less probable.

[Doomsday101]

I'm assuming when you mean "highest public opinion rating" you are referring to right after 9-11....right?

If so, that's just the natural phenomena of "rallying around the flag." It means nothing. You could put Jimmy Carter in Bush's place at the same time and his approval ratings would have been similar. Or Clinton. Or any liberal or conservative President.

The low approval ratings don't mean much other than the general population does not approve of him. Doesn't necessarily mean he is a bad President, but it does mean there's a good chance history will look at him that way.

When it hits as low as it has; I begin to question my thoughts on him as a mediocre President....and begin wondering if I overrate him. The ol "where there's smoke, there's probably fire" doctrine. Of course, there's still a chance that an overwhelming majority of the country is wrong...but it begins to look less and less probable.

I would disagree today’s opinion polls will not have affect on history. The end results of action in Iraq and other policy and how they affect the future will write the final history on Bush good or bad. Today’s views points are just that today not how people may view a President 50 or 60 years down the line.

[zrinkill]

I'm assuming when you mean "highest public opinion rating" you are referring to right after 9-11....right?

If so, that's just the natural phenomena of "rallying around the flag." It means nothing. You could put Jimmy Carter in Bush's place at the same time and his approval ratings would have been similar. Or Clinton. Or any liberal or conservative President.

Thank you for clarifying what I meant .... I am sure no one knew what I was talking about.

Now on to your reply.

So couldn't the same be said for his low approval rating? Any President in todays tv-dinner (thanks Ice) worlds rating would suffer from this prolonged fighting in the middle east.

I guarantee that if WW2 would have taken place in todays world ...... FDR's approval rating would be 1% by those who were polled (which of course would not reflect the real America)

Which was my point to begin with ..... we have as a Nation, become the land of extremes ...... I am not a Bush apologizer .... I think the War was run poorly ..... I just cannot stand biased stupidity directed at either side.

[heavyg]

If the US stopped unilaterally supporting Israel, and immediately withdrew from Iraq, then I GUARANTEE you the "terrorism" against the West would slow down considerably, or stop all together.

wow do you really believe that? :bang2:

[Angus]

wow do you really believe that? :bang2:

If he does, he apparently thinks Obama is going to win and open the gates for the introduction of sharia law and Taliban law enforcement. In that case, I’d agree.

[dacarmelking210]

wow do you really believe that? :bang2:

I'm Jewish and i do believe that.

Go to Israel or anywhere else in th emiddleeast and you'll realize that, as well.

[zrinkill]

I'm Jewish and i do believe that.

Go to Israel or anywhere else in th emiddleeast and you'll realize that, as well.

Sorry I disagree.

But after looking at your history I can see why you believe this.

[arglebargle]

I'm Jewish and i do believe that.

Go to Israel or anywhere else in th emiddleeast and you'll realize that, as well.

The Israeli/Palestinian situation is an ongoing infection that will continue to cause trouble until it is somehow cured....or at least lessened.

Holding milliions of people in what is essentially serfdom, for fifty years, is not a wise idea. They become desperate, and extremist.

I don't knowif there is a 'magic pill' for it, but until it gets dealt with, you are always going to have violent flare ups....

[ConcordCowboy]

History will say no matter how many years go by that Bush was a DISASTER!




http://www.cagle.com/news/BushLegacy08/images/horsey.jpg

http://www.cagle.com/news/BushLegacy08/images/davies.gif

http://www.cagle.com/news/BushLegacy08/images/luckovich4.gif

http://www.cagle.com/news/BushLegacy08/images/sack.jpg

http://www.cagle.com/news/BushLegacy08/images/stahler.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/y/M/iraq_allies.jpg

http://www.cagle.com/news/Iraq5Years/images/zyglis.gif

http://members.aol.com/lupinaccim/UncleBush.jpg

http://www.cagle.com/news/Iraq5Years/images/crowe.jpg

http://www.cagle.com/news/ScooterLibbyCommuted/images/britt.gif

http://www.cagle.com/news/StemCells06/images/lane.gif

http://www.cagle.com/news/StemCells06/images/donwright.gif

http://politickles.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/bush_no_torture.jpg

http://liesofbush.com/images/cartoon_enron.jpg

http://www.theipinionsjournal.com/uploaded_images/binladenineleven-782160.jpg

http://earthhopenetwork.net/bush%20art/bush_two_faces_bin_laden.jpg

[SuspectCorner]

The bottom line read "budget surplus" because Newt Gingrich forced Cigar Willie to submit 5 budget proposals before moving it thru the House......and even at that, Clinton did it on the back's of the military budgets....effects of which we are seeing today..........

BS. The wall had just fallen and a scaled-down military was absolutely in order. We flippin' preeeee-vailed over the Soviets. Game over.

So 'splain to me how a leaner military had any bearing on 9/11. You can't - because it simply didn't. Not unless we had previously been stationing troops at civilian flight schools, in the aisle seats of commercial jetliners, and at the reception counters of seedy motels.

[Cajuncowboy]

History will say no matter how many years go by that Bush was a DISASTER!



When you've resorted to this kind of crap, you've lost and you know it.

[ConcordCowboy]

When you've resorted to this kind of crap, you've lost and you know it.

You want to think that's true...but you know in your bones it's not.

He's a Disaster.

Has been...is and always will be.

[Rackat]

BS. The wall had just fallen and a scaled-down military was absolutely in order. We flippin' preeeee-vailed over the Soviets. Game over.

So 'splain to me how a leaner military had any bearing on 9/11. You can't - because it simply didn't. Not unless we had previously been stationing troops at civilian flight schools, in the aisle seats of commercial jetliners, and at the reception counters of seedy motels.
There is an old axiom that says "If you would have peace, prepare for war."

Depleting the military is counterprodcutive to being prepared for war.
Depleting the military means less ability to respond to threats.
Depleting the military means we are unable to project power.
Depleting the military creates a vacuum into which other players will step, be it countries or terrorist groups.

1996-1994 was the time I spent in the military. I went in under Reagan's "Star Wars" program and 600 ship navy build up and got out under Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" draw down of forces. It didn't get as bad in the 90's as it was in the mid-70's, but bad enough that the terrorrists felt comfortable enough to attack our embassy's and people around the world without fear of repurcussion.

Perhaps having a stronger military would not have stopped 9/11, but more important, having a strong leader with a strong military "probably" would have. Clinton had already established he had no cajones in Somalia. He was a "paper" President leading a "paper Tiger" military. Comparatively, Dwight Eisenhower was a strong president and the Soviets didn't want to mess with him. His replacement was tested early and responded with strength. A naval quarrantine of Cuba with our warships standing off the Soviet missiles and the DEFCON clock sitting closer to midnight than it had ever been. What are the commonalities of the strong leaders and the commonalities of the weak leaders? The strength of forces and the willingness to use them.

Clinton and Carter were weak.
Eisenhower and Kennedy were strong.

I put Bush closer to Eisenhower and Kennedy than to Carter and Clinton.

[Cajuncowboy]

You want to think that's true...but you know in your bones it's not.

He's a Disaster.

Has been...is and always will be.

The problem is that if you really thought that in YOUR bones, then you wouldn't go to all the childish lengths to try to make a point.

I never said that he didn't make mistakes, but he has done an excellent job considering the plate that was handed to him.

[ConcordCowboy]

The problem is that if you really thought that in YOUR bones, then you wouldn't go to all the childish lengths to try to make a point.

I never said that he didn't make mistakes, but he has done an excellent job considering the plate that was handed to him.

Oh I know it in my bones and everything I posted just reinforces it.

Done an excellent job?

Good Lord.

http://icfsteel.com/images/koolaid1.JPG

[Cajuncowboy]

Oh I know it in my bones and everything I posted just reinforces it.

Done an excellent job?

Good Lord.

http://icfsteel.com/images/koolaid1.JPG

Here's the difference between you and me.

You know what you know from media reports and like thinking people.

I know what I know from the LAW and the people on the ground in NO. I had family there who were missing for several days. I also have a cousin who owns a limo service there. He has 3 limos and 3 large passenger vans and called the mayors office and volunteered to ferry people out of there who didn't have the opportunity to get out. The mayors office said they had everything under control.

Don't tell me that Bush is responsible because you don't have a freakin' clue what you are talking about.

[ConcordCowboy]

Here's the difference between you and me.

You know what you know from media reports and like thinking people.

I know what I know from the LAW and the people on the ground in NO. I had family there who were missing for several days. I also have a cousin who owns a limo service there. He has 3 limos and 3 large passenger vans and called the mayors office and volunteered to ferry people out of there who didn't have the opportunity to get out. The mayors office said they had everything under control.

Don't tell me that Bush is responsible because you don't have a freakin' clue what you are talking about.


Yeah Bush just takes responsibility for something he had no responsibility for...just because he's that kind of guy.

:laugh2:

Whatever.

He's to blame...maybe not all but he responsible too...and he knows it....and I know it.

Kool-Aid drinkers don't.

[Cajuncowboy]

Yeah Bush just takes responsibility for something he had no responsibility for...just because he's that kind of guy.

:laugh2:

Whatever.

He's to blame...maybe not all but he responsible too...and he knows it....and I know it.

Kool-Aid drinkers don't.

It's called being a leader. It's called trying to heal wounds caused by people like you.

Being a leader is something your side knows nothing about.

[Doomsday101]

Here's the difference between you and me.

You know what you know from media reports and like thinking people.

I know what I know from the LAW and the people on the ground in NO. I had family there who were missing for several days. I also have a cousin who owns a limo service there. He has 3 limos and 3 large passenger vans and called the mayors office and volunteered to ferry people out of there who didn't have the opportunity to get out. The mayors office said they had everything under control.

Don't tell me that Bush is responsible because you don't have a freakin' clue what you are talking about.

Not to mention they had access to many city and school buses that ended up just sitting there and getting lost in the flood. With a cat 5 Hurricane sitting in the gulf making its way to your area there was no reason more people could not have been taken to safety. Of course you will always have some who refuse to leave no matter what and for those well they are on their own until help can arrive but it is hard to feel sorry for those who through their own stubbornness will choose to ride out these storms and that not just people in NO but every area that is subjected to hurricans for whatever reason they would rather stay than leave

[ConcordCowboy]

It's called being a leader. It's called trying to heal wounds caused by people like you.

Being a leader is something your side knows nothing about.

Oh so he's taking a bullet for the team?

:laugh2:

OK.

:rolleyes:

[Cajuncowboy]

Not to mention they had access to many city and school buses that ended up just sitting there and getting lost in the flood. With a cat 5 Hurricane sitting in the gulf making its way to your area there was no reason more people could not have been taken to safety. Of course you will always have some who refuse to leave no matter what and for those well they are on their own until help can arrive but it is hard to feel sorry for those who through their own stubbornness will choose to ride out these storms and that not just people in NO but every area that is subjected to hurricans for whatever reason they would rather stay than leave

Alot of people refused to leave, you are right. But when you look at the people at the staging areas and those in the Super Dome knowing they wanted out and the Mayor refused to take action it really puts thing in a different light.

I love how people who only know what they know from the news reports think they have all the answers. I could take up this entire forum with stories from family and friends who know first hand how poorly NO and LA was run under Blanco and Nagan.

[Cajuncowboy]

Oh so he's taking a bullet for the team?

:laugh2:

OK.

:rolleyes:

See that's my point. Making jokes and taking shots without acknowledging the facts. That is intellectually dishonest.

As I said earlier. you are either ignorant of the law and the facts or you are simply bashing Bush because you are a partisan hack who could care less about the country, only your own liberalism.

[Vintage]

It was a failure on both parties.

Nagin and company are idiots for refusing federal assistance. They deserve a great deal of blame for not bussing people out.

Bush deserves blame too. Seems to me if there was a time to override state's rights; this would be one such time.

If people don't want to leave, you can't ultimately force them, however. If they want to stay behind and risk it - it their choice. But the fed. gov't should have helped with the evacs for those who wanted out but couldn't.

There is plenty of blame to go around a great many people.

Bush accepted his part of it. Kudos to him. Others could and need to step forward and accept responsibility too. Its not all on one person.

But it was "nice" to see both Democrats and Republicans working hard - together - to ensure Katrina was a massive failure.

Our gov't at its finest....

[ConcordCowboy]

See that's my point. Making jokes and taking shots without acknowledging the facts. That is intellectually dishonest.

As I said earlier. you are either ignorant of the law and the facts or you are simply bashing Bush because you are a partisan hack who could care less about the country, only your own liberalism.

Are you telling me with a straight face that the Bush Administration made NO mistakes and had NO responsibility whatsoever with the problems in the after math of Katrina?

You'll notice I said that it wasn't ALL Bush's fault.

[Cajuncowboy]

Are you telling me with a straight face that the Bush Administration made NO mistakes and had NO responsibility whatsoever with the problems in the after math of Katrina?

You'll notice I said that it wasn't ALL Bush's fault.

Knowing the law and what went on in NO, you tell me what Bush did wrong? And how Bush could have prevented it?

Go ahead, this should be fun.

[The30YardSlant]

Are you telling me with a straight face that the Bush Administration made NO mistakes and had NO responsibility whatsoever with the problems in the after math of Katrina?

You'll notice I said that it wasn't ALL Bush's fault.

And yet you've never even tried to explain your position with facts

You just vomit back up the garbage that MSNBC and CNN feed you all day long

[hank2k]

And yet you've never even tried to explain your position with facts

You just vomit back up the garbage that MSNBC and CNN feed you all day long


Better to get ones information from anonymous emails created by race baiting demagogues, then spread the lies hoping something sticks.

[ConcordCowboy]

Knowing the law and what went on in NO, you tell me what Bush did wrong? And how Bush could have prevented it?

Go ahead, this should be fun.

Video shows Bush got explicit Katrina warning

President, Chertoff were clearly told of storm’s dangers numerous times



WASHINGTON - In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans’ Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.

Bush didn’t ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: “We are fully prepared.”

Bush declared four days after the storm, “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees” that gushed deadly floodwaters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility — and Bush was worried too.White House deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Brown discussed fears of a levee breach the day the storm hit.

“I talked to the president twice today, once in Crawford and then again on Air Force One,” Brown said. “He’s obviously watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the Dome, he’s asking questions about reports of breaches.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/page/2/

McCain, in Lower Ninth Ward, Blasts Bush Katrina Response

Touring the Lower Ninth Ward this morning, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) blasted the Bush administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina and vowed to respond differently if elected president.

"Never again, never again will a disaster of this nature be handled in the terrible and disgraceful way that it was handled," McCain told reporters after walking a few blocks through the still-devastated area.

In one of his clearest breaks with the current administration, McCain said he would handle natural disasters differently by putting qualified people in charge of the nation's emergency response team and enlisting the aid of private businesses. In an interview with reporters before his walking tour, McCain said he was confident voters would be able to able to distinguish between him and President Bush, saying, "People will judge me by my own actions, my own vision and my own record." When asked to describe, during his press conference, how the administration had failed to respond to Katrina, he replied, "I think everybody is aware of how it was a failure."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/24/mccain_tours_lower_ninth_ward.html

[iceberg]

Are you telling me with a straight face that the Bush Administration made NO mistakes and had NO responsibility whatsoever with the problems in the after math of Katrina?

You'll notice I said that it wasn't ALL Bush's fault.

so then 0-99% - how much was bush?
how much was the local government?
how much the state government?

the anti-bush crowd seems intent in insuring the whole free world and several 3rd world countries know bush screwed up but don't seem to care about the rest who screwed up.

why?

it's not the screwing up that seems to be what irks people, it's the piling on of bush that seems to be the game. if you were mad at the screw up in general, fine. there should be equal mad to go around.

i don't see it unless pushed. i usually the the usual suspects bashing bush again saying he's to blame but rarely do they bother to include the rest of the story. when done, it's quickly diverted back to bush.

so it's not the screwup that's the focus. it's tying it to bush that's the focus for the anti-kool-aid crowd.

if that's your game, have a day. just make sure you don't try to pass yourself off as objective.

so - how much is bushes fault and how much the local governments?

[Doomsday101]

It was a failure on both parties.

Nagin and company are idiots for refusing federal assistance. They deserve a great deal of blame for not bussing people out.

Bush deserves blame too. Seems to me if there was a time to override state's rights; this would be one such time.

If people don't want to leave, you can't ultimately force them, however. If they want to stay behind and risk it - it their choice. But the fed. gov't should have helped with the evacs for those who wanted out but couldn't.

There is plenty of blame to go around a great many people.

Bush accepted his part of it. Kudos to him. Others could and need to step forward and accept responsibility too. Its not all on one person.

But it was "nice" to see both Democrats and Republicans working hard - together - to ensure Katrina was a massive failure.

Our gov't at its finest....

Houston/Galveston Evacuated when Hurricane Rita was headed our way and did so without the FEDS and Houston/Galveston area is a much larger city than NO. It is all about the locals taking action 1st and foremost. For those of us who live in a region where Hurricanes can present major problems there is no excuses for inaction at the state and local level

[ConcordCowboy]

so then 0-99% - how much was bush?
how much was the local government?
how much the state government?

the anti-bush crowd seems intent in insuring the whole free world and several 3rd world countries know bush screwed up but don't seem to care about the rest who screwed up.

why?

it's not the screwing up that seems to be what irks people, it's the piling on of bush that seems to be the game. if you were mad at the screw up in general, fine. there should be equal mad to go around.

i don't see it unless pushed. i usually the the usual suspects bashing bush again saying he's to blame but rarely do they bother to include the rest of the story. when done, it's quickly diverted back to bush.

so it's not the screwup that's the focus. it's tying it to bush that's the focus for the anti-kool-aid crowd.

if that's your game, have a day. just make sure you don't try to pass yourself off as objective.

so - how much is bushes fault and how much the local governments?

I said it was not all Bush's fault.

I'm not even saying that the majority was his fault.

But he does have fault...that's all I'm saying when others are saying he didn't have any.

Just from that article I posted...he was briefed about the levees breaking and the loss of life and property that would result and he doesn't ask any questions and just says we're prepared...when they weren't.

Who knows how much property and loss of life resulted from that unpreparedness.

Then he lies 4 days later and say nobody anticipated the levees breaches when they did and TOLD HIM about it when he could have done something somewhere to get prepared for the aftermath...he didn't.

Then he's down there acting like Browns doing a good job and things are the way they should be and that was BS.

All I want is for these people to admit the SOME responsibility does rest with Bush and that's it for me.

There are MANY people to blame for Katrina, Bush is hardly the only one.

[iceberg]

I said it was not all Bush's fault.

I'm not even saying that the majority was his fault.

But he does have fault...that's all I'm saying when others are saying he didn't have any.

Just from that article I posted...he was briefed about the levees breaking and the loss of life and property that would result and he doesn't ask any questions and just says we're prepared...when they weren't.

Who knows how much property and loss of life resulted from that unpreparedness.

Then he lies 4 days later and say nobody anticipated the levees breaches when they did and TOLD HIM about it when he could have done something somewhere to get prepared for the aftermath...he didn't.

Then he's down there acting like Browns doing a good job and things are the way they should be and that was BS.

All I want is for these people to admit the SOME responsibility does rest with Bush and that's it for me.

There are MANY people to blame for Katrina, Bush is hardly the only one.

who has yet to say NO responsibility falls on bush?

right now if that's your goal, people to admit bush had *some* fault - great. i've yet to see anyone who says he doesn't bear some responsibility.

not sure who you're arguing with unless when they do say it's bush they also wash it with "but there are more". much like "yes the locals have blame, BUT BUSH DOES TOO!"

sounds like the same thing being said with the only difference being the focal part of the blame. bush or NO goverment. if we can all agree all share blame, why is this always a huge issue when it comes up?

[Doomsday101]

I said it was not all Bush's fault.

I'm not even saying that the majority was his fault.

But he does have fault...that's all I'm saying when others are saying he didn't have any.

Just from that article I posted...he was briefed about the levees breaking and the loss of life and property that would result and he doesn't ask any questions and just says we're prepared...when they weren't.

Who knows how much property and loss of life resulted from that unpreparedness.

Then he lies 4 days later and say nobody anticipated the levees breaches when they did and TOLD HIM about it when he could have done something somewhere to get prepared for the aftermath...he didn't.

Then he's down there acting like Browns doing a good job and things are the way they should be and that was BS.

All I want is for these people to admit the SOME responsibility does rest with Bush and that's it for me.

There are MANY people to blame for Katrina, Bush is hardly the only one.

Yet he was the only one the Dems and many in the media laid the blame on. Yes many including Bush and the FEDS have a share but the share was dumped on 1 man for the most part and used for political gain.

[paladin78749]

so then 0-99% - how much was bush?
how much was the local government?
how much the state government?


My main problem in the Katrina sceanario was the appointment of Brown as the head of FEMA. Pure incompetency. What some call "piling on" - I call simple accountability. It's a sad day when a terminated horse judge is deemed to be the best choice for such an important office.
IMO, Nagin a tool as well, but he wasn't the subject of this thread.

[ConcordCowboy]

Here's the difference between you and me.

You know what you know from media reports and like thinking people.

I know what I know from the LAW and the people on the ground in NO. I had family there who were missing for several days. I also have a cousin who owns a limo service there. He has 3 limos and 3 large passenger vans and called the mayors office and volunteered to ferry people out of there who didn't have the opportunity to get out. The mayors office said they had everything under control.

Don't tell me that Bush is responsible because you don't have a freakin' clue what you are talking about.

Knowing the law and what went on in NO, you tell me what Bush did wrong? And how Bush could have prevented it?Go ahead, this should be fun.

who has yet to say NO responsibility falls on bush?

right now if that's your goal, people to admit bush had *some* fault - great. i've yet to see anyone who says he doesn't bear some responsibility.

not sure who you're arguing with unless when they do say it's bush they also wash it with "but there are more". much like "yes the locals have blame, BUT BUSH DOES TOO!"

sounds like the same thing being said with the only difference being the focal part of the blame. bush or NO goverment. if we can all agree all share blame, why is this always a huge issue when it comes up?

I was talking to Cajun and that sounds like to me that he blames the locals and not Bush at all.

Now If I'm misreading him...I apologize.

[BrAinPaiNt]

who has yet to say NO responsibility falls on bush?

right now if that's your goal, people to admit bush had *some* fault - great. i've yet to see anyone who says he doesn't bear some responsibility.

not sure who you're arguing with unless when they do say it's bush they also wash it with "but there are more". much like "yes the locals have blame, BUT BUSH DOES TOO!"

sounds like the same thing being said with the only difference being the focal part of the blame. bush or NO goverment. if we can all agree all share blame, why is this always a huge issue when it comes up?

It would seem that cajun is at the very least hinting that W had no fault with his own words...

Knowing the law and what went on in NO, you tell me what Bush did wrong? And how Bush could have prevented it?

Go ahead, this should be fun.

[ConcordCowboy]

Yet he was the only one the Dems and many in the media laid the blame on. Yes many including Bush and the FEDS have a share but the share was dumped on 1 man for the most part and used for political gain.

Hell even McCain threw Bush under the bus for political gain on this...what did you really think the Dems where going to do?

:D

[iceberg]

I was talking to Cajun and that sounds like to me that he blames the locals and not Bush at all.

Now If I'm misreading him...I apologize.

It would seem that cajun is at the very least hinting that W had no fault with his own words...

point taken. i think bp already showed this to me and i forgot about it in my recent trip to vegas. for the record i do feel bush should have done more to step in when he saw the failures at the local level and dealt with the aftermath on that. i'd rather deal with breaking processes in an effort to do the right thing than blaming processes for inability to help. in that light bush should have done more.

as for what he says - no one ever really knows what the hell he's talking about so i won't pretend to try. : )

[iceberg]

My main problem in the Katrina sceanario was the appointment of Brown as the head of FEMA. Pure incompetency. What some call "piling on" - I call simple accountability. It's a sad day when a terminated horse judge is deemed to be the best choice for such an important office.
IMO, Nagin a tool as well, but he wasn't the subject of this thread.

i can agree 100% with accountability. but it can be pushed too far and in a single direction when i feel it should be spread out to all involved to be corrected.

maybe bush has made some bad choices for public offices. he wasn't the first and i doubt he'll be the last. as for the tools and other people in the NO area, well didn't the people elect them? are they not to be held accountable for who they voted in office?

the hate just seems to stop at bush a lot for broad statements. i try to balance it out and get told i'm a bush lover a lot.

well, depends on the bush. :eek:

[Angus]

point taken. i think bp already showed this to me and i forgot about it in my recent trip to vegas. for the record i do feel bush should have done more to step in when he saw the failures at the local level and dealt with the aftermath on that. i'd rather deal with breaking processes in an effort to do the right thing than blaming processes for inability to help. in that light bush should have done more.

as for what he says - no one ever really knows what the hell he's talking about so i won't pretend to try. : )

What!! Step in to say a black mayor and a woman governor were not up to the job? Concord Cowboy wouldn't have liked that at all. It would smack of race and gender put-downs.

:eek:

[iceberg]

What!! Step in to say a black mayor and a woman governor were not up to the job? Concord Cowboy wouldn't have liked that at all. It would smack of race and gender put-downs.

:eek:

ok, so far i've not heard race or gender as an issue so did we just flip to an extreme cause you had something "clever" to say?

just making sure.

[ConcordCowboy]

What!! Step in to say a black mayor and a woman governor were not up to the job? Concord Cowboy wouldn't have liked that at all. It would smack of race and gender put-downs.

:eek:

What are you frickin talking about?

I could care less if someone rips on a Black or a woman if they deserve it.

You must have me confused with someone else.

[ConcordCowboy]

ok, so far i've not heard race or gender as an issue so did we just flip to an extreme cause you had something "clever" to say?

just making sure.

Well considering he was talking about he...he seems to be talking out of his butt.

[iceberg]

Well considering he was talking about he...he seems to be talking out of his butt.

yea, cause as much as you and i have disagreed, race/gender never came up so it made no sense to me to "go there" unless you just had some extra needless sarcasm running around.

[Angus]

Extra needless sarcasm . . . maybe that's it.

[ConcordCowboy]

Extra needless sarcasm . . . maybe that's it.

Brilliant.

[paladin78749]

i can agree 100% with accountability. but it can be pushed too far and in a single direction when i feel it should be spread out to all involved to be corrected.

maybe bush has made some bad choices for public offices. he wasn't the first and i doubt he'll be the last. as for the tools and other people in the NO area, well didn't the people elect them? are they not to be held accountable for who they voted in office?

the hate just seems to stop at bush a lot for broad statements. i try to balance it out and get told i'm a bush lover a lot.

well, depends on the bush. :eek:

Accountability?
We still have that?
Sure the NO politicians should be held accountable
But I can't vote in those elections, unless I move there; and I'm not patriotic
enuf to endure NO.
Hey I understand a President appointing backers to offices such as the Deputy Undersecretary of Agricultural Weights and Measures, it's probably happened since the time of George Washington. But when you appoint an incompetent to be the head of FEMA, I think you're bordering on having a callous disregard for your citizenry.
As for NO politcians, I never had an iota of respect for them to begin with.
I always figured they were all cut from the same cloth as Huey Long.
My standards for the President has always been higher.
Maybe that is unreasonable?

[Thanos68]

I think the Average American Person think Bush is an idiot now. The people who thought he was an idiot before still think the same.. People who voted for him before have most likely been swayed to think he is an idiot. I don't think he has done anything to make people say.. SEE I TOLD YOU HE WAS THE SHIZZY !!!!! LOL.

[REDVOLUTION]

Bush understands the world and gets the big picture. Unfortunately, a large portion of the US just doesn't get it. But, they are also the true morons who think Bill Clinton was a good president.

A free and democratic Iraq and Afghanistan will add to his legacy.


Love him or hate him. Agree or disagree. THIS IS VERY TRUE.

[iceberg]

Accountability?
We still have that?
Sure the NO politicians should be held accountable
But I can't vote in those elections, unless I move there; and I'm not patriotic
enuf to endure NO.
Hey I understand a President appointing backers to offices such as the Deputy Undersecretary of Agricultural Weights and Measures, it's probably happened since the time of George Washington. But when you appoint an incompetent to be the head of FEMA, I think you're bordering on having a callous disregard for your citizenry.
As for NO politcians, I never had an iota of respect for them to begin with.
I always figured they were all cut from the same cloth as Huey Long.
My standards for the President has always been higher.
Maybe that is unreasonable?

no - it means you target your hate based on the person, not the actions.

pretty common.

[paladin78749]

no - it means you target your hate based on the person, not the actions.

pretty common.

There's really no hate here, can you point it out?
No idea where you got that from.
I'm all about personal accountablility.
All I'm sayin is:
The higher your position, the greater the impact of your actions, the more accountablity that should rest upon your shoulders.

I just always liked the sign on Harry Trumans desk
"The buck stops here"

[Cajuncowboy]

Video shows Bush got explicit Katrina warning

President, Chertoff were clearly told of storm’s dangers numerous times



WASHINGTON - In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans’ Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.

Bush didn’t ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: “We are fully prepared.”

Bush declared four days after the storm, “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees” that gushed deadly floodwaters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility — and Bush was worried too.White House deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Brown discussed fears of a levee breach the day the storm hit.

“I talked to the president twice today, once in Crawford and then again on Air Force One,” Brown said. “He’s obviously watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the Dome, he’s asking questions about reports of breaches.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/page/2/

McCain, in Lower Ninth Ward, Blasts Bush Katrina Response

Touring the Lower Ninth Ward this morning, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) blasted the Bush administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina and vowed to respond differently if elected president.

"Never again, never again will a disaster of this nature be handled in the terrible and disgraceful way that it was handled," McCain told reporters after walking a few blocks through the still-devastated area.

In one of his clearest breaks with the current administration, McCain said he would handle natural disasters differently by putting qualified people in charge of the nation's emergency response team and enlisting the aid of private businesses. In an interview with reporters before his walking tour, McCain said he was confident voters would be able to able to distinguish between him and President Bush, saying, "People will judge me by my own actions, my own vision and my own record." When asked to describe, during his press conference, how the administration had failed to respond to Katrina, he replied, "I think everybody is aware of how it was a failure."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/24/mccain_tours_lower_ninth_ward.html

Unbelievable. As I said, you completely ignore the LAW and the facts. Bush could do NOTHING until the state and local acted. Bush called and asked them to twice and it was too late to stage relief prior.

Only an idiot would bash Bush for this. It was a states rights issue.

Good God, you people are insane. :banghead:

[iceberg]

There's really no hate here, can you point it out?
No idea where you got that from.
I'm all about personal accountablility.
All I'm sayin is:
The higher your position, the greater the impact of your actions, the more accountablity that should rest upon your shoulders.

I just always liked the sign on Harry Trumans desk
"The buck stops here"

and people put that HERE sign in different places through various laws of the land. the president is not responsible for everything that happens in this country unless you just have some undying need to move responsibility for our own lives as far away from yourself as you can.

now - about hating the person not the act - that's so very true.

if "not doing enough in a time of need' is hate worthy, then the hate should be even among all at fault from the lack of foresight to bush not getting there quick enough despite local/state laws.

but people get so bent on either defense or attack they focus on 1 person in that parade of fools and not the event that brought them ALL here.

but most slap bush around cause slappin around someone you've never heard of mentally does you no good in the need to feel superior.

if bush would have gone in early he'd be roached for abuse of power. why? cause people focus on bush, right or wrong, and make it negative cause it's the happy-trend for all the cool people these days.

some have legit complaints to be sure. some just hate and make it all bad.

now if you hate what happened in katrina great. but pinning it on one person is out of convenience to your views, not honest in nature. to me.

[ConcordCowboy]

Unbelievable. As I said, you completely ignore the LAW and the facts. Bush could do NOTHING until the state and local acted. Bush called and asked them to twice and it was too late to stage relief prior.

Only an idiot would bash Bush for this. It was a states rights issue.

Good God, you people are insane. :banghead:

Well don't vote for McCain then...because he's and idiot and insane...he right there with me. :laugh2:

Bush could have made sure that the Federal Govt was REALLY ready and he didn't.

I mean this was a storm that was going to possibly wipe a U.S. city off the map and I'm supposed to sit here and listen to you tell me that he couldn't at least properly prepare the Federal Govt without being asked by the state first? BS.

Then he turned around and lied saying nobody had brought up that the levees could break.

He could have not appointed Brown who was incompetent.

He could have made sure after the relief was underway that Brown was REALLY doing a heckuva job...before he started to spout off.

Oh forget it...you have your head so far up Bush's rectum that God himself could tell you Bush was to blame for some of it and you would still argue.

Bush HIMSELF took some frickin blame and he would NOT have done that if he wasn't.

That's not the way the man works and you know it.

You can come back with the BS of he took a bullet for the team crap...but that's just what it is crap.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Well don't vote for McCain then...because he's and idiot and insane...he right there with me. :laugh2:



He will vote with McCain and he will do so with a smile on his face because even though McCain is not a conservative, it did not stop Cajun from voting for Bush twice nor has it stopped him from defending him at almost every chance and let's face it...McCain is probably more conservative than bush, at least by spending means.

[Cajuncowboy]

Well don't vote for McCain then...because he's and idiot and insane...he right there with me. :laugh2:

Bush could have made sure that the Federal Govt was REALLY ready and he didn't.

I mean this was a storm that was going to possibly wipe a U.S. city off the map and I'm supposed to sit here and listen to you tell me that he couldn't at least properly prepare the Federal Govt without being asked by the state first? BS.

Then he turned around and lied saying nobody had brought up that the levees could break.

He could have not appointed Brown who was incompetent.

He could have made sure after the relief was underway that Brown was REALLY doing a heckuva job...before he started to spout off.

Oh forget it...you have your head so far up Bush's rectum that God himself could tell you Bush was to blame for some of it and you would still argue.

Bush HIMSELF took some frickin blame and he would NOT have done that if he wasn't.

That's not the way the man works and you know it.

You can come back with the BS of he took a bullet for the team crap...but that's just what it is crap.

You are out of your mind. Had Bush broken the law and stepped on the states rights or violated his circle of authority, you'd be the first one to act all indignant. You don't know what you are talking about. You are a hack and would be the loudest big mouth on here screaming about it.

[Cajuncowboy]

He will vote with McCain and he will do so with a smile on his face because even though McCain is not a conservative, it did not stop Cajun from voting for Bush twice nor has it stopped him from defending him at almost every chance and let's face it...McCain is probably more conservative than bush, at least by spending means.

I'll vote for McCAin because he is the lesser of two evils. I will do my part to keep Obama out of office. But you know as well as I that McCain is not my first choice. Heck he ain't even my third or fourth choice but that's what we have now.

And once again, since you fail to read all of my posts in a thread, I have already said I disagree with Bush on his bloated spending.

Can you people not keep on track?

[ConcordCowboy]

You are out of your mind. Had Bush broken the law and stepped on the states rights or violated his circle of authority, you'd be the first one to act all indignant. You don't know what you are talking about. You are a hack and would be the loudest big mouth on here screaming about it.

I think we all know who's out of their mind here and it's not me.

And don't give me the BS you're not a Kool-Aid drinker with some lame attempt to say you disagree with him on spending or whatever.

It's Kool-Aid Deluxe for you.

Just admit it and we can move on.

Like Brain said you can't even take the word of the man you're defending. :laugh2:

It's really pathetic.

[Cajuncowboy]

I think we all know who's out of their mind here and it's not me.

And don't give me the BS you're not a Kool-Aid drinker with some lame attempt to say you disagree with him on spending or whatever.

It's Kool-Aid Deluxe for you.

Just admit it and we can move on.

Like Brain said you can't even take the word of the man you're defending. :laugh2:

It's really pathetic.

Like I said, it's pathetic that you would have him break the law. YOu are ignorant of the facts and what Bush is allowed to do.

You are really lost and have not one clue what you are talking about.

[ConcordCowboy]

Like I said, it's pathetic that you would have him break the law. YOu are ignorant of the facts and what Bush is allowed to do.

You are really lost and have not one clue what you are talking about.

http://www.nigelsmith.net/assets/images/head_up_arse.jpg...See any Kool-Aid up there?

[iceberg]

You are out of your mind. Had Bush broken the law and stepped on the states rights or violated his circle of authority, you'd be the first one to act all indignant. You don't know what you are talking about. You are a hack and would be the loudest big mouth on here screaming about it.

maybe, but i'm one who'd rather be punished for trying to do the right thing than punished cause i didn't do enough.

[arglebargle]

Like I said, it's pathetic that you would have him break the law. YOu are ignorant of the facts and what Bush is allowed to do.

You are really lost and have not one clue what you are talking about.

Funny thing about this is that this administration's MO is twisting or breaking the law in any instance that they felt it gained them power. They have never been very shy about this. I guess they just didn't feel they would gain anything by it.

Maybe it was because NO voted too democratic...?
;)

[Thanos68]

I can just see Bush in the white house smoking a cigar during Katrina while he knows people are dying in NO...Him going.. Hey, I can't do anything it's their fault. I could jump in and do something..but nah... It's the states problem...let them handle it... *** goes back to cmoking cigar**** Once Bush saw nothing was being done he should have had something done..He waited too long. Yeah that state screwed up. No excuse for Bush to do nothing once he knew what was going on. So Cajun Cowboy, I would have to say while your arguement may be valid, I would still disagree with it. Bush could have done something sooner.

[masomenos]

Bush is partially to blame because, as Adam Entous reported for Reuters, "President George W. Bush sought to cut a key program to help local governments raise their preparedness, and state officials warned of a 'total lack of focus' on natural disasters by his homeland-security chief, documents show."

However, Bush actually declared Louisiana to be in a "state of emergency" two days before the storm hit, on August 27th. Therefor the real blame is pushed to FEMA and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.

An LATimes article reported on Chertoff speaking to Congress, "The Federal Emergency Management Agency's lack of planning, not the failures of state and local officials, was to blame for much of what went wrong with the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told members of Congress today."

Even before the storm Chertoff had power to begin mobilizing a "massive" response, but he didn't. Then after the storm hit and after a day of not taking any action Chertoff passed the power of response to FEMA director Michael Brown. Before Chertoff passed response power to him Brown only had limited powers.

The blame that should be put on Bush is minimal, CajunCowboy is right in that regard. It was a federal issue more than a state issue though.

[iceberg]

Bush is partially to blame because, as Adam Entous reported for Reuters, "President George W. Bush sought to cut a key program to help local governments raise their preparedness, and state officials warned of a 'total lack of focus' on natural disasters by his homeland-security chief, documents show."

However, Bush actually declared Louisiana to be in a "state of emergency" two days before the storm hit, on August 27th. Therefor the real blame is pushed to FEMA and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.

An LATimes article reported on Chertoff speaking to Congress, "The Federal Emergency Management Agency's lack of planning, not the failures of state and local officials, was to blame for much of what went wrong with the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told members of Congress today."

Even before the storm Chertoff had power to begin mobilizing a "massive" response, but he didn't. Then after the storm hit and after a day of not taking any action Chertoff passed the power of response to FEMA director Michael Brown. Before Chertoff passed response power to him Brown only had limited powers.

The blame that should be put on Bush is minimal, CajunCowboy is right in that regard. It was a federal issue more than a state issue though.

but there's a difference between being "minimal" and "no blame". it's almost as if cajun says "yes, there's some blame" he's afraid it will open the door to 100% falling on bush vs. maybe 10%.

[arglebargle]

but there's a difference between being "minimal" and "no blame". it's almost as if cajun says "yes, there's some blame" he's afraid it will open the door to 100% falling on bush vs. maybe 10%.

There's plenty of blame for Fema; their reorganization and move into Homeland Security, budget cuts, lack of leadership, the exodus of competant managers and replacement with party lackeys and so on.

Corps of Engineers needs to shoulder their part of the Katrina problems. Local and State officials as well. Two many cooks, imo. Many of the problems were common knowledge, but were ignored for too long or too difficult to get the different groups to agree on.

Even I, who really dislike the methods of Bush and crew, would not lay the blame at his feet. But his part in it was another example of the problems his style of polarizing influence can lead to. Ignoring competance for lock step party loyalty.

Once things started going down bad, he was a fool for not leaping in immediately. The bad PR is going to follow him, no matter how much he deserved that blame... Might as well get credit for helping....

[iceberg]

There's plenty of blame for Fema; their reorganization and move into Homeland Security, budget cuts, lack of leadership, the exodus of competant managers and replacement with party lackeys and so on.

Corps of Engineers needs to shoulder their part of the Katrina problems. Local and State officials as well. Two many cooks, imo. Many of the problems were common knowledge, but were ignored for too long or too difficult to get the different groups to agree on.

Even I, who really dislike the methods of Bush and crew, would not lay the blame at his feet. But his part in it was another example of the problems his style of polarizing influence can lead to. Ignoring competance for lock step party loyalty.

Once things started going down bad, he was a fool for not leaping in immediately. The bad PR is going to follow him, no matter how much he deserved that blame... Might as well get credit for helping....

oh don't get me wrong. in the end i don't think bush does have *much* blame. i just won't say he's blame free cause we've plenty to go around. then again, i'm not much into the "who's to blame!" game simply because i find that a waste of time when we should be asking "how do we fix this"?

if only 1 thing went wrong in katrina, it wouldn't have been memorable probably. if 2-3 did, it may have made a footnote in history. but for katrina just about everything that could go wrong did at all levels. my blame for bush is really that *if* he wanted for the state to say "help" then he waited too long. but i also understand the decision there would hurt him either way - it's too easy to pass up. bush did nothing. bush is power hungry and crossed state lines.

those who hate bush would use one or the other against him and i find that pathetic. putting someone where they can't win usually means you couldn't either and probably wouldn't try. i'm not saying anyone in here is doing that, mind you. but i know it can seem that way when the discussion gets to that level of detail. in those times it's hard to remember it's still just 1 of many details.

but if we have some who say bush did no wrong and believe it we'd also have to have some who said bush only does wrong and they believe it. therein we find our extremes. : )

bush should have dove in sooner. that's my main point.

[masomenos]

I think the real issue here is that if Gore had been in office then we wouldn't have global warming and therefor Hurricane Katrina wouldn't have been as strong as it was.

:)

[iceberg]

I think the real issue here is that if Gore had been in office then we wouldn't have global warming and therefor Hurricane Katrina wouldn't have been as strong as it was.

:)

if gore had been in office he'd keep changing his mind about their being a problem down in NO or not.

[masomenos]

if gore had been in office he'd keep changing his mind about their being a problem down in NO or not.

I think that would be more in the line of Kerry, which is rather beneficial because I hear flip flops are great for wading through water.

Poor poor past dem. candidates.

At least one of them invented the internet.

[arglebargle]

oh don't get me wrong. in the end i don't think bush does have *much* blame. i just won't say he's blame free cause we've plenty to go around. then again, i'm not much into the "who's to blame!" game simply because i find that a waste of time when we should be asking "how do we fix this"?

....


bush should have dove in sooner. that's my main point.

I agree that he should have gone in sooner, and I think he would have ended up looking better for it, all other things being the same.

I do think that while 'blame finding' can grow to exteme proportions, we also let people slide way too much. When someone screws up the same way over and over again, they shouldn't expect to see anyone taking them at face value.

Croney-ism and putting party loyalty over the good of the country is a bad thing on either parties plate. If someone doesn't think this has increased in the last 8 years, they just don't want to see it....

[jimmy40]

OK

here we go.


I will have to continue this later .... I am closing down my shop and going to eat at Red Lobster.No matter how much people blame Bush for everything under the sun and no matter how much his defenders support him one thing is for sure, Red Lobster sucks, the McDonalds of seafood.