Bush was not a bad guy.

[SagaLore]

I would like to point out that George W. Bush, was a good guy, a cool guy. Right after the 9/11 attacks, everyone got together and supported him.

The real issue was never Bush. Yea he's not a good speaker, so its hard to take him seriously. But the real bad guys in the last 8 years - it was the VP and the rest of the Administration. They treated him like a puppet.

I feel bad for the guy. He's being labeled as the worst President we've had, but I don't think its his fault. It was a small fraction of the Republican party that really were running things. And that is why I'm glad that the Dems have an across the board majority right now.

:beer: for Bush.

That is all.

 

[heyheybooboo]

mmmm ... No.

 

[StageLeft]

If he allowed himself to be worked like a puppet for 8 years and was so arrogant and oblivious to it for that period of time, it certainly puts some onus on him for being a bad guy. And whether it was his conscious actions or being pushed around by people smarter than he, in the end during his administration some terribly poor decisions were made, so with him at the top he's still the worst president in decades.

 

[Dman877]

Bush is the kind of person who, admittedly, acts on his gut. He doesn't consider evidence contrary to his positions. He is a cowboy and he surrounded himself with a bunch of yesmen. He is the president. If his administration was manipulating him, it was his responsibility to rectify that and he didn't. In fact he went the other way, jettisoning the only voice of reason from his administration after reelection.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
I would like to point out that George W. Bush, was a good guy, a cool guy. Right after the 9/11 attacks, everyone got together and supported him.

The real issue was never Bush. Yea he's not a good speaker, so its hard to take him seriously. But the real bad guys in the last 8 years - it was the VP and the rest of the Administration. They treated him like a puppet.

I feel bad for the guy. He's being labeled as the worst President we've had, but I don't think its his fault. It was a small fraction of the Republican party that really were running things. And that is why I'm glad that the Dems have an across the board majority right now.

:beer: for Bush.

That is all.

You've had too many :beer: 's and possibly :kool-aids; too. Bush is a turd that needed to be flushed years ago.

 

[Craig234]

There's some truth to your comments, but you let him off far too easy.

He made the choice to run for president despite his lack of skils. He chose the arrogance and not to listen to others.

He's the one who let the crooks and evil people run things. His choice. He actually did a little sometimes to try to fix some of that, but not all that much.

He deserves a lto of blame, even if he was not entirely badly intended.

Did you just see the movie W or something?

Sounds like the same message the movie has, some sympathy for him.

 

[IronWing]

The King's evil advisers, oh my!

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Did you just see the movie W or something?

Nah, haven't seen it.

I do think that Bush was a poor choice for President, but I still preferred him over Gore and Kerry. They're much smarter people but also have very narrow minded agendas.

I think if we had had Bush/Palin the last 8 years, we would have been fine. They would have neutralized each other.

 

[Descartes]

In my view, a leader that lets his team get in the weeds is still a bad leader. He's the President, and while I don't think he should get all the blame for all the conditions of the US during his administration, the blame for how his administration acted is most certainly his.

There's simply no excuse. A leader doesn't get to hide behind his team, and applying blame to anyone else would further prove just how bad his leadership has been.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Craig234
Did you just see the movie W or something?

Nah, haven't seen it.

I do think that Bush was a poor choice for President, but I still preferred him over Gore and Kerry. They're much smarter people but also have very narrow minded agendas.

I think if we had had Bush/Palin the last 8 years, we would have been fine. They would have neutralized each other.

I suspect if your judgement in L&R is like it is in P&N, you would be praising the OJ-Nicole marriage.

How you can call Gore's (or Kerry's, but especially Gore's) agenda 'narrow' is so boggling it's one of those 'we're from different planets' comments.

The Palin comment raises questions about the same solar system.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I suspect if your judgement in L&R is like it is in P&N, you would be praising the OJ-Nicole marriage.

Excuse me?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Craig234
I suspect if your judgement in L&R is like it is in P&N, you would be praising the OJ-Nicole marriage.

Excuse me?

My point was that preferring Bush over Kerry and Gore knowing what we know now is as hard for me to comprehend as someone saying OJ and Nicole had a great marriage.

It's just so obviously contradictory to thousands of facts we know, in the case of Bush, as to boggle. I picked L&R for a cute analogy given your role there.

I'm just pointing out that the gaps in our views are *huge*.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
I would like to point out that George W. Bush, was a good guy, a cool guy. Right after the 9/11 attacks, everyone got together and supported him.

The real issue was never Bush. Yea he's not a good speaker, so its hard to take him seriously. But the real bad guys in the last 8 years - it was the VP and the rest of the Administration. They treated him like a puppet.

I feel bad for the guy. He's being labeled as the worst President we've had, but I don't think its his fault. It was a small fraction of the Republican party that really were running things. And that is why I'm glad that the Dems have an across the board majority right now.

:beer: for Bush.

That is all.

I can't see how anyone can say that. Bush was the president. Famously said 'the buck stops here' when it comes to him. If he let his bad advisors steer him into disastrous policies, then it's his fault for choosing them to begin with, and for using their advice when given.

As to the quality of a president, making a bad choice because you had your own bad idea, and making a bad choice because someone else had a bad idea comes down to the same end: you made a bad choice. It doesn't help any of the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people dead in Iraq right now that Bush might have made that choice on bad advice. He deserves every bit of the ridicule he gets.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Craig234
My point was that preferring Bush over Kerry and Gore knowing what we know now is as hard for me to comprehend

The single biggest mistake that Bush made was the Iraq war. HUGE mistake. Had that not occurred, our economy would still be in the crapper, but at least people would not have died, and our image would not have been tainted. However, the reason that 9/11 was even allowed to occur, was under Clinton's watch. And Clinton is rather moderate compared to many democrats in power right now. When 9/11 happened, under Gore, I think we would have been F'ed. Then under Kerry, doubly F'ed. I can't excuse the poor decision for going into Iraq even if they actually did end up having WMD. He just got too obsessed for national defense.

Also, I can't retrospectively choose a presidential candiate. "Oh, Bush sucks, definitely should have voted for Gore". No, doesn't work that way, you can't turn back time. At the time, I still think he was the better choice. The Dem's should have picked someone better than Kerry, and that person might have one.

 

[techs]

I think of Bush as a tragic figure. He is man without the gifts to be President, who by an accident of birth, was given the opportunity.
He has neither the intelligence, self-awareness nor judgement needed to have been President.
If you sat down to watch a football game with him would you like him? From all reports yes.
The judgement on whether Bush was not a 'bad' guy might stand alone, but in your comments you allude to what his adminstration did behind his back. That raises the idea that Bush would have done things better if only his employees hadn't done things.
Do we rate a CEO on how his company did? Yes. Do we say he was not a bad guy because his employees screwed the company up? No, because once you include the employees you are judging him by what happened when he was in charge, not if on a personal level he was pleasant fellow.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Craig234
My point was that preferring Bush over Kerry and Gore knowing what we know now is as hard for me to comprehend

The single biggest mistake that Bush made was the Iraq war. HUGE mistake. Had that not occurred, our economy would still be in the crapper, but at least people would not have died, and our image would not have been tainted.

Not too bad, until you lose control of the car:

However, the reason that 9/11 was even allowed to occur, was under Clinton's watch. And Clinton is rather moderate compared to many democrats in power right now.

First, 9/11 was not 'allowed' to occur. You apparently haven't learned much of anything about the whole history of it. And Clinton did far, far more than Bush did before 9/11.

For a start, go read Richard Clarke's book - he worked for them both. Bush *de-prioritized* terrorism as an issue. The daily presidential meetings on it ended.

And being 'moderate' politically has nothing to do with the issue; your statement implies that left-wing leaders, of course, can be expected to be pro-terrorist but not moderates.

When 9/11 happened, under Gore, I think we would have been F'ed. Then under Kerry, doubly F'ed. I can't excuse the poor decision for going into Iraq even if they actually did end up having WMD. He just got too obsessed for national defense.

You could try to make a case for your opinion, but I think we'll find that nothing but misguided fantasies you have about Gore and Kerry are the reason.

Also, I can't retrospectively choose a presidential candiate. "Oh, Bush sucks, definitely should have voted for Gore". No, doesn't work that way, you can't turn back time. At the time, I still think he was the better choice. The Dem's should have picked someone better than Kerry, and that person might have one.

No, but you can say that knowing what you know now you do *not* think Bush was the best choice, which is the only sensible conclusion.

There was nothing wrong with Kerry. You can always say the candidate who loses was the issue, but it's not always the case. There are things that would make him better, but in terms of being the clearly superior choice that election, he was. To find the real reason, look to the flaws in the voters, the election system, the lies and funding for lies by right-wing tycoons, from the right-wing noise machine.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Craig234
My point was that preferring Bush over Kerry and Gore knowing what we know now is as hard for me to comprehend

The single biggest mistake that Bush made was the Iraq war. HUGE mistake. Had that not occurred, our economy would still be in the crapper, but at least people would not have died, and our image would not have been tainted. However, the reason that 9/11 was even allowed to occur, was under Clinton's watch. And Clinton is rather moderate compared to many democrats in power right now. When 9/11 happened, under Gore, I think we would have been F'ed. Then under Kerry, doubly F'ed. I can't excuse the poor decision for going into Iraq even if they actually did end up having WMD. He just got too obsessed for national defense.

Also, I can't retrospectively choose a presidential candiate. "Oh, Bush sucks, definitely should have voted for Gore". No, doesn't work that way, you can't turn back time. At the time, I still think he was the better choice. The Dem's should have picked someone better than Kerry, and that person might have one.

You're going to have to explain that one. I've never heard a case in which the failure of basic intelligence work for 9 months under a sitting president was the fault of the guy before him.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You're going to have to explain that one. I've never heard a case in which the failure of basic intelligence work for 9 months under a sitting president was the fault of the guy before him.

We had Osama. Clinton let him go.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You're going to have to explain that one. I've never heard a case in which the failure of basic intelligence work for 9 months under a sitting president was the fault of the guy before him.

We had Osama. Clinton let him go.

Show me where.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You're going to have to explain that one. I've never heard a case in which the failure of basic intelligence work for 9 months under a sitting president was the fault of the guy before him.

We had Osama. Clinton let him go.

Show me where.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%...nton_let_bin_laden.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/...terrogatory091103b.asp (omg NRO )

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You're going to have to explain that one. I've never heard a case in which the failure of basic intelligence work for 9 months under a sitting president was the fault of the guy before him.

We had Osama. Clinton let him go.

Show me where.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%...nton_let_bin_laden.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/...terrogatory091103b.asp (omg NRO )

Factcheck.org and the 9/11 commission disagree with you.

I guess it comes down to who you want to trust, a highly respected nonpartisan fact site and the 9/11 commission, or NRO. Tough choice.

 

[dawp]

President = administration

he picked his people.

 

[jpeyton]

Revisionist history.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You're going to have to explain that one. I've never heard a case in which the failure of basic intelligence work for 9 months under a sitting president was the fault of the guy before him.

We had Osama. Clinton let him go.

Show me where.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%...nton_let_bin_laden.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/...terrogatory091103b.asp (omg NRO )

Thanks for the morning humor......

 

[Moonbeam]

The convenient, and obviously, therefore, coincidental feature of your conclusion is that it excuses and renders blameless the well intentioned and sound-of-judgment selection of Bush by those who voted for him just as bad intel excused those poor deluded congress people who voted for the war and returns them lily white and pristine of guilt in their own minds and in the tombs of history. How nice.