Is Bush really that bad? Or..

[RichardE]

Do we just hate him because he has the power to be bad? To be honest, many P&N posters would make much worse presidents due to different opinions I think. Also, looking at Bush's policies, as well as some decisions made he still seems to be an extremely, extremely intelligent person, even if his decisions were not liked by a good majority of people.

---

Locked at OP's request.

Harvey
Senior AnandTech Moderator

 

[Double Trouble]

Oh boy, this ought to be interesting.

<pulls up lawn chair>

 

[ultra laser]

I used to be anti-Bush but after reading this thread, I've changed my mind. Thanks for this insightful and eloquent post.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Oh boy, this ought to be interesting.

<pulls up lawn chair>

popcorn???

 

[frostedflakes]

"Is Bush really that bad?"

Yes

 

[Moonbeam]

I think he's pretty smart too. He got out bubbaed by some bubba in some race he lost and learned to sound like a idiot. That takes some talent, I think.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Do we just hate him because he has the power to be bad? To be honest, many P&N posters would make much worse presidents due to different opinions I think. Also, looking at Bush's policies, as well as some decisions made he still seems to be an extremely, extremely intelligent person, even if his decisions were not liked by a good majority of people.

Of course we would. Many of us would also make horrible nuclear physicists and brain surgeons. Is it really too much to ask in a country of 300 million people that our President be an exceptional person in the top 1%?

You don't have to be an expert at making movies to recognize a terrible film when you see one, so don't tell me it's unfair to judge a President's performance just because we've never been one.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I doubt the partisan lefties will end up defining whether Bush was good or bad just like the partisan righties missed the mark on Clinton. Both sides had/have a habit of overstating their case concerning the opposition.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Your measure of a good president is that some random internet forum users couldn't do better? Talk about low standards.

 

[nageov3t]

I wouldn't call him a traitor in chief or a murderer, but he's pretty bad as far as presidents go.

 

[fskimospy]

The only questions you need to ask are:
1.) Is the country better or worse off then it was 8 years ago?
2.) How much of that is attributable to Bush, and how much to events out of his control? Or in other words, would Bush have made the country a better place but was overwhelmed by other things?

As for #1, I believe most Americans would say we are worse off now then in 2000. So there's that.
For #2, that's definitely harder to judge. He made a catastrophic mistake with Iraq, so that's 100% his choice, and he deliberately pursued tax and spending policies that ballooned the deficit and disproportionately enriched the upper classes. I would say those were also on him. The US' diplomatic currency with foreign powers is at historic lows in the post WWII era, and countries are now instructing their people to be wary when the US promises something as our word cannot be trusted. (in relation to torture, etc.) Civil liberties have been under constant assault, and he bears a large amount of that burden too.

He has done some great things too... his work on AIDS in Africa is without a doubt head and shoulders above what any other president has ever done. And.. uhmm... I'm sure he's done a few other good things.

By and large though yes, Bush is pretty much that bad.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

I don't think he's the evil warmongering genius and polished liar most people make him out to be.

I just think he's a complete fvcking idiot who's in way over his head. I think he's made some disastrous decisions because he's too damn simple to comprehend all the intricate variables and possible consequences. I believe he probably honestly thinks he's doing the right thing for Jesus and the USA, but I also believe he's been utterly wrong about what that is and how to achieve it, because, again, he's just plain stupid. Now his henchmen, on the other hand, are evil, warmongering liars, and again, he's so ignorant and naive that they just lead him around on a leash and tell him he's heading the right direction.

In any case, whether I'm right or wrong about the details, his administration has certainly been an epic disaster for this country and the world at large.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
I don't think he's the evil warmongering genius and polished liar most people make him out to be.

I just think he's a complete fvcking idiot who's in way over his head. I think he's made some disastrous decisions because he's too damn simple to comprehend all the intricate variables and possible consequences. I believe he probably honestly thinks he's doing the right thing for Jesus and the USA, but I also believe he's been utterly wrong about what that is and how to achieve it, because, again, he's just plain stupid.

Now his henchmen, on the other hand, are evil, warmongering liars, and again, he's so ignorant and naive that they just lead him around on a leash and tell him he's heading the right direction.

That's also true. I don't think Bush is evil, I think he is a petulant anti-intellectual. In his mind I have no doubt he thinks he's doing what's right. I happen to hate nearly every thing that he does, and I do think he's a first rate scumbag for many reasons, but I don't think he's the sort of evil person some people try and portray him as.

 

[ProfJohn]

Trying to defend Bush on here is a waste of time, but what the heck

I saw a recent article that compared Bush to Truman. When Truman left office he was very unpopular but with time he was redeemed. A similar thing could happen to Bush to some extent, especially if Iraq continues to improve.

Both Presidents faced extremely difficult situations when they took office.

Truman had the end of WW 2 followed by the start of the cold war.
Bush had the whole war on terror thing.

You can see a lot of parallels between the two periods and can see lots of stupid mistakes as well.

 

[OrByte]

Its already pretty common practice to label GWB as the worst ever.

and he earned the label

 

[frostedflakes]

Does anybody else find it humorous that ACLU membership has more than doubled under the Bush administration?

 

[HomerJS]

Hey OP

Look at slide #9 and answer your own question...

Pics

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The only questions you need to ask are:
1.) Is the country better or worse off then it was 8 years ago?
2.) How much of that is attributable to Bush, and how much to events out of his control? Or in other words, would Bush have made the country a better place but was overwhelmed by other things?

I agree we are worse off, but how much of that is directly Bush's fault? And fundamentally I don't think we are worse off, we are just going through an economic down turn. There have been a dozen+ of these since WW2 and we always recover. In another year the economy will be up and running and this period will be a memory.

Also think of this: the 1992-92 recession was worse than this one and the budget deficts were far worse at that time too and then just a few years later the economy was doing great and the budget was balanced. No reason to think we can't do that again.

BTW Bush SUCKS at spending and went way overboard.


As for Iraq: I think we WAY over blow Iraq. Compared to Korea and Vietnam Iraq has been a walk in the park. We had more soldiers dying per year in the 80s due to training accidents than have died in the entire Iraq war and the cost of the war is a drop in the bucket compared to our overall spending.

I think Bush's biggest problem is his inability to communicate effectively. Because of this he can't control the media in the same way Reagan and Clinton could. No body is really out in front selling his agenda and his ideas.

 

[TechAZ]

Oh man

/facepalm

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Hey OP

Look at slide #9 and answer your own question...

Pics

haha, that is actually pretty funny...love the caption.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The only questions you need to ask are:
1.) Is the country better or worse off then it was 8 years ago?
2.) How much of that is attributable to Bush, and how much to events out of his control? Or in other words, would Bush have made the country a better place but was overwhelmed by other things?

I agree we are worse off, but how much of that is directly Bush's fault? And fundamentally I don't think we are worse off, we are just going through an economic down turn. There have been a dozen+ of these since WW2 and we always recover. In another year the economy will be up and running and this period will be a memory.

Also think of this: the 1992-92 recession was worse than this one and the budget deficts were far worse at that time too and then just a few years later the economy was doing great and the budget was balanced. No reason to think we can't do that again.

BTW Bush SUCKS at spending and went way overboard.


As for Iraq: I think we WAY over blow Iraq. Compared to Korea and Vietnam Iraq has been a walk in the park. We had more soldiers dying per year in the 80s due to training accidents than have died in the entire Iraq war and the cost of the war is a drop in the bucket compared to our overall spending.
I think Bush's biggest problem is his inability to communicate effectively. Because of this he can't control the media in the same way Reagan and Clinton could. No body is really out in front selling his agenda and his ideas.

For a war the cost over 4100 lives and over 650B to date and should have never been fought we can not say enough about this travesty.

Bush's biggest problem is he is intellectually uncurious possibly borderline lazy. This resulted in people around him having too much influence and driving their own agendas. He didn't stay on top of things a connected President would have, Katrina and the multiple warnings before 9/11 (not saying it would have been prevented)

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I saw a recent article that compared Bush to Truman.

When Truman was faced with the enemy in Korea he didn't make up a bunch of lies about the situation in, say, Turkey and then invade them.

Truman courageously integrated the American armed forces. Bush courageously, ummmmm . . . errrrrrrr . . . well, I'll have to get back to you on that one.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The only questions you need to ask are:
1.) Is the country better or worse off then it was 8 years ago?
2.) How much of that is attributable to Bush, and how much to events out of his control? Or in other words, would Bush have made the country a better place but was overwhelmed by other things?

I agree we are worse off, but how much of that is directly Bush's fault? And fundamentally I don't think we are worse off, we are just going through an economic down turn. There have been a dozen+ of these since WW2 and we always recover. In another year the economy will be up and running and this period will be a memory.

Also think of this: the 1992-92 recession was worse than this one and the budget deficts were far worse at that time too and then just a few years later the economy was doing great and the budget was balanced. No reason to think we can't do that again.

BTW Bush SUCKS at spending and went way overboard.


As for Iraq: I think we WAY over blow Iraq. Compared to Korea and Vietnam Iraq has been a walk in the park. We had more soldiers dying per year in the 80s due to training accidents than have died in the entire Iraq war and the cost of the war is a drop in the bucket compared to our overall spending.

I think Bush's biggest problem is his inability to communicate effectively. Because of this he can't control the media in the same way Reagan and Clinton could. No body is really out in front selling his agenda and his ideas.

As someone else said: More then 4,000 Americans dead. At least 100,000 or so Iraqis dead. By the time we're done it will be more than a trillion dollars spent. All of this for a war that never needed to happen. You need to train in order to fight wars. You don't need to fight unnecessary wars. Surely you can see the difference.

Repeat that in your head a few times. More than one hundred thousand people dead. More then a trillion dollars flushed down the toilet. A region in chaos. And for what? How much of oil's current price is based around middle eastern instability that we've created? How many billion dollars more does that add to the price tag?

Sure Vietnam was a bigger mistake, but it was one shared between many presidents. Iraq is Bush's baby. The saddest thing is that most of the time large events like this take many people to screw up. So in that respect Bush is really ahead of the curve.

 

[extra]

Yes, foreign policy and national debt wise, civil liberty wise, etc, he is bad. However, he's not the cause of all our problems like some people seem to get carried away and think....

He does get blamed for crap that he has little or nothing to do with: the economy sucking right now, katrina, global warming, and god knows what else.

To be honest, many P&N posters would make much worse presidents due to different opinions I think

Yeah, but a lot of anandtech members (especially some of those who don't frequent P&N) would do a WAY better job lol.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: extra
Yes, foreign policy and national debt wise, civil liberty wise, etc, he is bad. However, he's not the cause of all our problems like some people seem to get carried away and think....

He does get blamed for crap that he has little or nothing to do with: the economy sucking right now, katrina, global warming, and god knows what else.

To be honest, many P&N posters would make much worse presidents due to different opinions I think

Yeah, but a lot of anandtech members (especially some of those who don't frequent P&N) would do a WAY better job lol.

He had a direct effect on the Katrina response since the Idiot he put in charge of FEMA blew it.

And it could be argued that his corperate policies has caused the deeping of the economic troubles.