Would your opinion on Bush would've been different if......

[Papewaio]

Please explain how Saddam Hussein who was on the Al Qaeda hit list was helping Osama Bin Laden.

Even with the shonkiest of low grade evidence used to justify WMD in Iraq there is still none showing Iraqs involvement in 9/11.

[Gregoshi]

I had hopes for Bush when he was elected. He had a reputation as governor of Texas as being able to work with both parties to reach consensus on legislation. I voted for him in hopes he would do the same as president - the parties working together rather at each other's throats. Alas, 9/11 completely changed and defined his presidency. I still wonder every now and then if Bush would have been a better president (and viewed as such) had 9/11 never occurred.

[Ironside]

A lot of the bad stuff from Bush was predicted before 9/11.

The Onion article about Bush from jan 2001 got pretty much fullfilled.
Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

The neocon, the religious tendencies, "the private sector is the solution to all problems" and "tickle down" ideas were there from the start.

[HoreTore]

No.

He was still a reagonomics fanatic. Bastard.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No Child Left Behind was a disaster. Medicare Part D was a disaster. He vetoed laws to promote stem cell research and to include sexual orientation under hate laws. He withdrew US support of the Kyoto Protocol.

He was a shit president even you leave aside the foreign policy. Literally the worst the US has seen since the 1920s.

[Beskar]

No Child Left Behind was a disaster. Medicare Part D was a disaster. He vetoed laws to promote stem cell research and to include sexual orientation under hate laws. He withdrew US support of the Kyoto Protocol.

He was a turd president even you leave aside the foreign policy. Literally the worst the US has seen since the 1920s.

I remember a thread a few years ago suggesting "Don't you wish Bush was still in power?" in regards to Barack Obama. Obama isn't a special or a particularly good president, but by comparison to Bush, he is somewhat of a good direction. There are some really toxic elements in American politics and these fester and grow considerably worse under Republican leadership and interference.

Clinton was actually a relatively good president by American standards and since Hillary is more the brains of that operation, I think Hilary next might be a good call since I can already guess what the Republican candidate will be saying, and it is generally frothing at the mouth with some neo-con warmongering screw-everyone agenda, especially since 'Romney' took a lurch to the far-right during his campaign and he was punished by the Republican echo-chamber as too 'moderate' still ! They won't make that mistake again, going to start seeing some real nutjobs come out the woodwork.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I remember a thread a few years ago suggesting "Don't you wish Bush was still in power?" in regards to Barack Obama. Obama isn't a special or a particularly good president, but by comparison to Bush, he is somewhat of a good direction. There are some really toxic elements in American politics and these fester and grow considerably worse under Republican leadership and interference.

Obama is mediocre as far as presidents go and everything he will be remembered for happened between 2008 and 2010. American politics is the result of a combination of disenfranchisement and apathy. I have no idea how so many people could utterly fail at being citizens. The worst thing I hear all the time is when people over 50 bring out the phrase "I can't stand all these ultra liberals and ultra conservatives in government" as if Obama and Boehner are either. It shows how little people pay attention to the details and prefer to think of politics in broad strokes. That's what toxic in American politics.

Clinton was actually a relatively good president by American standards and since Hillary is more the brains of that operation, I think Hilary next might be a good call since I can already guess what the Republican candidate will be saying, and it is generally frothing at the mouth with some neo-con warmongering screw-everyone agenda, especially since 'Romney' took a lurch to the far-right during his campaign and he was punished by the Republican echo-chamber as too 'moderate' still ! They won't make that mistake again, going to start seeing some real nutjobs...

Clinton rode on the coattails of the personal computer reaching a mass market, but at least he didn't do anything to hinder that. I don't care for Hilary because I think she will pick all the wrong battles and make the Democrats look foolish and play into the Republican PR machine.

Who knows who the Republican nominee will be. Part of me thinks the Republican primaries can't be as hilarious as the Cain, Bachman, Paul, Perry train wreck of 2012, but I still hope 2016 will give plenty of fodder for the Daily Show.

[Kadagar_AV]

Clinton was actually a relatively good president by American standards and since Hillary is more the brains of that operation, I think Hilary next might be a good call [cut]...

President Clinton was the only president in my life time that I somewhat respected and thought rather well of. Sex scandal aside, and starting a war to confuse it all, he was quite capable, and most definitely a gifted individual.

HILLARY Clinton on the other side.... Wow... What a woman.

When it comes to rhetorics, she is sharper than a razor, and she has a HUGE amount of respect internationally... Probably more so than any other living American, Chuck Norris and the astronauts going to the moon aside.

There are quite few women I openly admire, specially in politics. hillary Clinton however is one.



As to Bush... Meh.

I think it's unfair to talk about his pros and cons... As he was simply a puppet without any will of his own. A guy with normal intelligence and normal but rich background who's familys ties got him the job. No more, but also no less.

A tool, in the exact meaning of the word - as well as the popular meaning.

[Greyblades]

Of course the biggest sin Bush made was making an unrepentant meglomanic psychopath his vice president.

[Shaka_Khan]

Please explain how Saddam Hussein who was on the Al Qaeda hit list was helping Osama Bin Laden.

Even with the shonkiest of low grade evidence used to justify WMD in Iraq there is still none showing Iraqs involvement in 9/11.

I never said that Saddam Hussein was. I know that Bush used 9/11 under false pretenses. What I meant was that Bush wouldn't have been able to invade Iraq without those false pretenses. Hence, I believe that his presidency would've been different had 9/11 never happened.

[Ironside]

I never said that Saddam Hussein was. I know that Bush used 9/11 under false pretenses. What I meant was that Bush wouldn't have been able to invade Iraq without those false pretenses. Hence, I believe that his presidency would've been different had 9/11 never happened.

Different yes, but they would probably try to invade anyway. And accept lower popular ratings, since it would be a short war and most things would fix itself quickly as long as Saddam falls. And then the popularity would rise again. If everything goes according to plan, but why shouldn't it?

It was very much a point in the neocon agenda.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Please explain how Saddam Hussein who was on the Al Qaeda hit list was helping Osama Bin Laden.

Even with the shonkiest of low grade evidence used to justify WMD in Iraq there is still none showing Iraqs involvement in 9/11.

Quite true. Even at the height of the effort to build support for the attack on Saddam, nobody in the Bush administration was arguing that he'd played a role in the 9-11-01 attacks. Even the Bush administration noted that al-queda had no more than a token presence in Iraq (OBL really thought SH was part of the problem and certainly would have targeted him eventually, any "connection" betweeh AQ and the Hussein's regime was a token to minimize OBL's desire to act immediately against him). The war was sold on Iraq refusing to honor all of the particulars of the agreement at the end of Gulf One and on WMD's -- and the evidence for the latter was never evaluated critically because it was an easy way to get support for a power move that a cadre within the Bush43 admin wanted to do all along.