Bush Poses Interesting Question!

[ScottishJohn]

Found this today - thought it was worth a look:

George W Bush has considered life after the White House and is very interested in his legacy, reports of interviews with the author of a new book suggest.

And the question I think is interesting is this:

"But the fundamental question is, is the world better off as a result of your leadership?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6975916.stm

So what do we think? If you answer - please give supported reasons. More interesting that way!

 

[Ringo84]

I know America isn't, and I doubt that the rest of the world is either.
Ringo

 

[Grizzly]

hmm

Wrong on WMD's.
Wrong on invading Iraq.
Wrong on post war planning.
Throwing away international goodwill.
Abu Graib.
Gitmo.
Justifying torture.
Imbalancing the power of the three branches of government.
Indefinite dentions without trial.
Eavesdropping without warrants.
Borrow and spend.
Hundreds of billions of our tax dollars in Iraq.
Cronyism.
Katrina - heck of a job, Brownie!
Policy is Politics.
Stem cell research.


After weighing the pros and cons, I am gonna have to vote no.

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

No real change.

The world is still gonna be messed up when he leaves.

 

[KarateCowboy]

hmm

Wrong on WMD's.
Wrong on invading Iraq.
Wrong on post war planning.
Throwing away international goodwill.
Abu Graib.
Gitmo.
Justifying torture.
Imbalancing the power of the three branches of government.
Indefinite dentions without trial.
Eavesdropping without warrants.
Borrow and spend.
Hundreds of billions of our tax dollars in Iraq.
Cronyism.
Katrina - heck of a job, Brownie!
Policy is Politics.
Stem cell research.


After waying the pros and cons, I am gonna have to vote no.

Wow. Neo-Liberals sure are judgmental. I thought they all saying "Judge not lest ye be judged". It is apparent that you are full of hatred against this man. Seriously, is this going to produce anything intelligent, or will it just be a "hate Bush" thread.

 

[whatbogsends]

Wow. Neo-Liberals sure are judgmental. I thought they all saying "Judge not lest ye be judged". It is apparent that you are full of hatred against this man. Seriously, is this going to produce anything intelligent, or will it just be a "hate Bush" thread.

What items on Grizzly's list do you disagree with?

To contrast, why don't you post a list of the things Bush has done which has benefitted America/the world?

 

[Grizzly]

Wow. Neo-Liberals sure are judgmental. I thought they all saying "Judge not lest ye be judged". It is apparent that you are full of hatred against this man. Seriously, is this going to produce anything intelligent, or will it just be a "hate Bush" thread.

I don't hate Bush. I just think he's been a terrible president. And yes, as an american citizen I think I am allowed to judge the performance of all my presidents.

Will my post produce anything intelligent? I really can't say. I guess its up to all of us participating here.

Is there something on the list you disagree with?

PS - what's a neoliberal?

 

[ScottishJohn]

I voted no. My main reason is the 'War on Terror'. The concept was poor, and the execution has been worse. Bush inherited a difficult situation, but has managed to spend an inordinate amount of money, and lives, making the world a more dangerous place. Under his leadership global terrorism has increased by over 6000%. He leaves the world a more dangerous and fractured place than he found it, and, he was part of the problem.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I call Non Sequiteur. Bush's office is not of the world. So in my opinion the fundamental question by which he should be judged is not "Is the world better off" but "is the USA better off", to which the answer is a resounding 'yea and nea'

 

[Ringo84]

I hate Bush, and I'll admit it readily.

It's not because he's a Christian, though, to tell you the truth, I don't think Bush is much of a Christian.

It's not because he's a Republican and/or conservative. I don't have a problem with either one. I have a problem with extremism.

It's because of the deceitful, manipulative, underhanded and spin-filled way in which Bush has chosen not only to prosecute the War On Terror or the way in which he has chosen to treat fellow Americans who had and still have valid questions about his methods.

You do not defeat terror by showing exactly how much the terrorists have intimidated and scared us (though they have admittedly done both) by destroying the foundational freedoms upon which this nation was founded: freedom of speech, freedom from unusual search and seizure, habeas corpus. In doing that, the terrorists, in a sense, have already won. That is because there is no better way to show exactly how much you have instilled fear into a country than seeing that the citizens are willing to turn on the principles that have defined their country from the beginning in order to feel just a little bit safer.

I don't care whether Bush is the President or the Grand Poobah: he doesn't have the right to redefine or destroy this country's principles simply because of a few terrorists with box cutters. The terrorists are a danger to us. It's true that we are faced with the prospect of another 9/11. But there is no better way to fight against freedom-hating terrorists than to demonstrate to them that despite their attempt to disenfranchise and terrorize us, we are still the shining beacon of democracy - at home as well as abroad - that we always have been.

Bush may be the President, but he still must earn my respect and trust. By accusing those who questioned him in the least after 9/11 by calling them traitors, by enacting freedom-hating laws such as the Patriot Act and the wiretapping measures, by condoning torture and then attempting to justify it, by using WMD as one of the major rationales for invading Iraq when he knew that Saddam had no WMD, by spinning the Saddam-al-Qaida link and the threat posed by Saddam, and by denying reality through obfuscation and spin, Bush has earned neither my respect nor my trust. I can't respect someone who has no respect for me, the truth, or the Constitution.
Ringo

 

[invisible trousers]

Of course not. His administration has screwed up in Iraq and screwed up the war on "terror". In fact, most every foreign policy decision that's been made has been screwed up.

Wow. Neo-Liberals sure are judgmental. I thought they all saying "Judge not lest ye be judged". It is apparent that you are full of hatred against this man. Seriously, is this going to produce anything intelligent, or will it just be a "hate Bush" thread.

I think you say things like this because you can't competently argue any of the points he listed.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Seriously, is this going to produce anything intelligent, or will it just be a "hate Bush" thread.

Grizzly's is an intelligent response, the kind I was hoping for when I asked people to list their reasons for however they voted in the poll.

I would prefer it not to become an 'I hate bush thread' but a thread which discusses the actual merits or otherwise of his time in office. The responsibility for what it turns into is shared between all who post here.

 

[ScottishJohn]

I call Non Sequiteur. Bush's office is not of the world. So in my opinion the fundamental question by which he should be judged is not "Is the world better off" but "is the USA better off", to which the answer is a resounding 'yea and nea'

I'm afraid the question was in fact framed by Bush - it is one which he applies to himself. Why is why I found it interesting, and why I wanted to ask others for their opinions. Thankyou for yours.

 

[Aquamarine81]

I voted no.
Bush's legacy will be the war on terrorism -- and on that, Bush has failed miserably. Terrorism has only gotten worse since Bush has been in office. I can think of many other things our tax dollars could be used for instead of wasting it on Iraq.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I voted no.
Bush's legacy will be the war on terrorism -- and on that, Bush has failed miserably. Terrorism has only gotten worse since Bush has been in office. I can think of many other things our tax dollars could be used for instead of wasting it on Iraq.

So you're saying that terrorism has become worse? So what you mean is that from the start of Bush's presidency until now the US has incrementally suffered more and more acts of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets(the definition of terrorism) ? To my knowledge 9/11 was the biggest terrorist attack. Can you cite examples that are worse that have happened since then?

 

[Allahuakbar]

I call Non Sequiteur. Bush's office is not of the world. So in my opinion the fundamental question by which he should be judged is not "Is the world better off" but "is the USA better off", to which the answer is a resounding 'yea and nea'

This is very short sighted. The President of the US has tremendous power to both directly or indirectly influence the world politically, economically, and even culturally. Even domestic policy can impact the world through unintended consequences.

You might be interested in a political theory called "Complex Interdependence."

 

[KarateCowboy]

This is very short sighted. The President of the US has tremendous power to both directly or indirectly influence the world politically, economically, and even culturally. Even domestic policy can impact the world through unintended consequences.

You might be interested in a political theory called "Complex Interdependence."

So you are saying that we should be liberal in the boundaries of judging influence? If we take that idea and play with it a little we could blame your very own Muhammed for any children killed in the 9/11 attacks and the war on terror itself. If "Even domestic policy can impact the world through unintended consequences." then it is equally true that "Even religious practice can impact the world through unintended consequences." After all “Fight… the People of the Book until they pay the poll tax out of hand, having been humbled.” (9:29) and “Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And Allah knows and you know not.” (2:216)

But the point is not to lay blame on your prophet. The point is that we need clear and reasonable confines by which to judge a president, and even if Bush deems himself ruler of the world his job description is to serve and better the people of the United States, and that is the primary criteria by which he should be judged.

 

[Allahuakbar]

So you are saying that we should be liberal in the boundaries of judging influence? If we take that idea and play with it a little we could blame your very own Muhammed for any children killed in the 9/11 attacks and the war on terror itself. If "Even domestic policy can impact the world through unintended consequences." then it is equally true that "Even religious practice can impact the world through unintended consequences." After all “Fight… the People of the Book until they pay the poll tax out of hand, having been humbled.” (9:29) and “Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And Allah knows and you know not.” (2:216)

But the point is not to lay blame on your prophet. The point is that we need clear and reasonable confines by which to judge a president, and even if Bush deems himself ruler of the world his job description is to serve and better the people of the United States, and that is the primary criteria by which he should be judged.

The problem is that your comparison stretches the two individuals to the point of absurdity. The US President makes definitive policy decisions. He makes a direct impact. A religious figure that lived almost a millennium and a half in the past does not necessarily pass current policy directives.

If, in 1000 years or so people refer back to President Bush’s insistence on preemptive action, they you might have a point. As it is it seems you are simply making sophomorically veiled derogatory remarks about Islam to hide the poor logic and argumentation.

 

[variant]

So you're saying that terrorism has become worse? So what you mean is that from the start of Bush's presidency until now the US has incrementally suffered more and more acts of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets(the definition of terrorism) ? To my knowledge 9/11 was the biggest terrorist attack. Can you cite examples that are worse that have happened since then?

Terrorism as a whole is a worse problem low grade and long term, making it hard for entire regions to work properly and fostering long term socio-economic problems.

That is the sort of terrorism that Bush's approach seems to be completely impotent to control.

To be fair, I don't think anyone has had much luck with it.

 

[blueapplepaste]

So you're saying that terrorism has become worse? So what you mean is that from the start of Bush's presidency until now the US has incrementally suffered more and more acts of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets(the definition of terrorism) ? To my knowledge 9/11 was the biggest terrorist attack. Can you cite examples that are worse that have happened since then?

An extremely narrow minded view of the world to only judge it from an American perspective. If you look at worldwide attacks they're way up. Just look at the blood shed in Iraq; thank you Mr. Bush for the quagmire you have created. Sure there have not been terrorists attack against us since 9/11; but we're not the only ones living in this world.

Bush is directly responsible for the diaster in Iraq. His war mongering and ignorance of the aftermath will be his legacy (though I don't so much blame him as I blame the people that surrounded him).

Is the world better off? Absolutely not. Is America better off? No way. Bush will not be an Eisenhower; 50 yrs from now history will not judge him kindly. His presidency and everything about it has been a complete failure.