George W Bush's Legacy

[Balloon guy 158]

because it was his administration prioritizing, filtering and distributing the intel. And because it was his choices at the CIA who were gathering the intel. And because at the end of the day, he is commander in chief which means foreign engagements and their results are going to be at his feet.

So you are saying that Bush KNEW there were no WMDs but he lied about it in order to invade Iraq?

[CaneBrain 95]

So you are saying that Bush KNEW there were no WMDs but he lied about it in order to invade Iraq?

I am saying he knew and lied or he was negligent and passed off unsure intelligence as a certainty.The head of the CIA at the time has accused him of the same as a side note.Brv, if you think the CIA and FBI are independent of the president, you are being naive. The head of the CIA reports directly to the President EVERY day.If there was NO DOUBT that Iraq had WMDs and that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda, how come both of those turned out to be false? What's your explanation? That the entire world was duped.....but a large number of our allies criticizes us for going anyway for fun? That George Bush was just a victim of incompetent intelligence agencies?

[Balloon guy 158]

A lot of these countries thought it was possible. They did not think it was beyond a doubt. And that is why they criticized us from the moment we set foot in Iraq. The British did back us up from day one though. Australia too.

And here is the problem.Bush had on his shoulders clear proof that the Islamic terrorist were willing to kill 50,000 people in an act of terrorism on US soil if given the opportunity. ( the towers had 50,000 people in them, but most got out )So now exactly how much chance do you allow for them to get their hands on a dirty bomb?1%?2%?20%?It is your job to protect the country, and you take that job serious.So do you hold back everything unless you have 100% proof on everything before you ever act?Do you sit back in the WH and hope the UN stops them?How about if Bush just sends the troops since that takes weeks or months, and then gave an ultimatum to Saddam? All Saddam had to do was prove to us that there were no WMDs.How about that? We are ready to invade, but here's your chance to stop it. Just open the borders and let the UN inspectors back in.No?Okay, well then you caught our bluff, we'll go back home now and hope you don't have what most everyone thinks you have.Yea, I can see why you voted for Obama.

[CaneBrain 95]

And here is the problem.Bush had on his shoulders clear proof that the Islamic terrorist were willing to kill 50,000 people in an act of terrorism on US soil if given the opportunity. ( the towers had 50,000 people in them, but most got out )So now exactly how much chance do you allow for them to get their hands on a dirty bomb?1%?2%?20%?It is your job to protect the country, and you take that job serious.So do you hold back everything unless you have 100% proof on everything before you ever act?Do you sit back in the WH and hope the UN stops them?How about if Bush just sends the troops since that takes weeks or months, and then gave an ultimatum to Saddam? All Saddam had to do was prove to us that there were no WMDs.How about that? We are ready to invade, but here's your chance to stop it. Just open the borders and let the UN inspectors back in.No?Okay, well then you caught our bluff, we'll go back home now and hope you don't have what most everyone thinks you have.Yea, I can see why you voted for Obama.

Yeah, you should be pretty close to 100% before you invade a country. That's a monster of a decision. And how close to 100% could he be if everything he based the war on was false? Not that close, I think. It's scary to me that you would invade a country halfway across the world based on 20%.It's also a complete crock to pretend that invading Iraq was the only way to handle this problem. That was the "nuclear option". There were other steps we could have taken (you mentioned some of them) while we waited to get closer to 100% on the intel.You are also ignoring a major issue. What is the damage to the US if you invade and YOU ARE WRONG? That's part of the calculation too.You act like it was either invade or drag your feet and pray. There were a million other options.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, you should be pretty close to 100% before you invade a country. That's a monster of a decision. And how close to 100% could he be if everything he based the war on was false? Not that close, I think. It's scary to me that you would invade a country halfway across the world based on 20%.It's also a complete crock to pretend that invading Iraq was the only way to handle this problem. That was the "nuclear option". There were other steps we could have taken (you mentioned some of them) while we waited to get closer to 100% on the intel.You are also ignoring a major issue. What is the damage to the US if you invade and YOU ARE WRONG? That's part of the calculation too.You act like it was either invade or drag your feet and pray. There were a million other options.

You have to hope that the opposition puts up a John Kerry or Algore to run against you? Otherwise you might lose your job.Yea, hindsight I wish we never went into Iraq, but one of the worst things that can come from this whole mess is the notion that the next time we need to go to war, we don't and suffer worse for it.Some people just need killing

[Balloon guy 158]

And now that we have exhausted both sides of that issue and I have clearly won, let's move on to NCLB.Bush tried to appease the left by passing a bill that they had wanted for a long time. Kennedy wrote it, and they sat on it because they knew no republicans would vote for it if Clinton tried to push it through.Along comes Bush, who 'wants to get along' and he offers to take a leftist plan and push it through.Well surprise surprise, the left can't do anything right and the program is a disaster. So what's the left to do? Blame Bush for it.Of course they had nothing to do with it, other than write it, sponsor it and vote for it. Other than that they were lied to...Bush was the fool for trying to get along with the left. That hopefully will be the lesson the next republican president will learn in 2012, don't try to get along with the left, just defeat them and crush their dreams, because they are idiots.

[vbnautilus 48]

You guys are pretty ridiculous. Either - Bush created an ill-conceived and unnecessary war out of hubris and greedor- Bush created an ill-conceived and unnecessary war because he just kinda went along with what everyone else was saying at the time, even other countries!I don't really see either of these as positive views of Bush.

[CaneBrain 95]

You have to hope that the opposition puts up a John Kerry or Algore to run against you? Otherwise you might lose your job.Yea, hindsight I wish we never went into Iraq, but one of the worst things that can come from this whole mess is the notion that the next time we need to go to war, we don't and suffer worse for it.Some people just need killing

Or next time we will just be a little more careful about it. America loves going to war; we convince pretty easily.I have a very hard time believe that NCLB was written by Democrats and then passed unchanged under Bush. I can't imagine that Kennedy would have ever been a proponent of tying Federal Education Funding to standardized test performance. And that's the part of NCLB that is so horrible.Also, if I am following you right BG, in your version of this Earth, George W. Bush was a desperately unlucky President with a talent for choosing to implement the worst ideas of his advisors and opponents.....but had the good luck to run against two morons devoid of personality. That's almost plausible.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I'm sure LG is loving this.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

You guys are pretty ridiculous. Either - Bush created an ill-conceived and unnecessary war out of hubris and greedor- Bush created an ill-conceived and unnecessary war because he just kinda went along with what everyone else was saying at the time, even other countries!I don't really see either of these as positive views of Bush.

Come on, you're better than that. Please rephrase "just kinda went along with what everyone else was saying" to something more reasonable.

[LadyGrey 6]

I'm sure LG is loving this.

Yeah, I guess I couldn't have hoped for anything else from the zealots in the politics forum. None of this petty back-and-forth about Iraq is useful to me, and it will probably deter people from actually answering my questions. So thanks, guys.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Yeah, I guess I couldn't have hoped for anything else from the zealots in the politics forum. None of this petty back-and-forth about Iraq is useful to me, and it will probably deter people from actually answering my questions. So thanks, guys.

Maybe continue to be non-partisan. Take a look at the last X number of presidents, and analyze their legacy's (legacies?) using whatever definition of that word that makes sense to you, and see what people remember those presidents for, and see how the population thinks over time. That might give you a better idea of what sorts of things will be considered more important or add to his 'legacy'. Or something.Sorry if that's confusing.

[CaneBrain 95]

Yeah, I guess I couldn't have hoped for anything else from the zealots in the politics forum. None of this petty back-and-forth about Iraq is useful to me, and it will probably deter people from actually answering my questions. So thanks, guys.

Or it shows a couple things:1) Bush was incredibly polarizing and inspires strong opinions. That's a legacy. You either loved him or hated him there was nothing in between.2) Even now, passion about the Iraq War runs incredibly high because it was the signature decision of his presidency. What happens to Iraq over the next 5, 15, 50, years will have the largest effect on his legacy ainec and I think that is actually quite obvious. (Will it become a stable Democratic regime? Will it descend into chaos? Will Iran basically become the de facto power broker there? The 3rd one is my guess.) Much more so than his two Supreme Court Appointments Brv (who half this country at least could not name, let's be serious!)You're welcome.

[strategy 4]

hahaha... oh Canebrain. Good one. He worst annual deficit was 490 billion. Obama is going to quadruple that this year. 2009's was 1.6 trillion.

hold on, hold on...http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/upload...eficit_2010.jpgMy question is: who set the 2009 budget? That was on Bush, no? That would mean his worst annual deficit was close to $1.5T.I mean, whatever, it's a dumb argument. Everyone's going to spend as much as they can get. I would just prefer we stop trying to differentiate between the two parties on fiscal responsibility.

[Balloon guy 158]

Or next time we will just be a little more careful about it. America loves going to war; we convince pretty easily After they have been attacked for no reason other than a political statement that kills over 3,000 innocent civilians

FYP

I have a very hard time believe that NCLB was written by Democrats and then passed unchanged under Bush. I can't imagine that Kennedy would have ever been a proponent of tying Federal Education Funding to standardized test performance. And that's the part of NCLB that is so horrible.

Pretty much everyone knows this.which is enough facts for me.

Also, if I am following you right BG, in your version of this Earth, George W. Bush was a desperately unlucky President with a talent for choosing to implement the worst ideas of his advisors and opponents.....but had the good luck to run against two morons devoid of personality. That's almost plausible.

Nope, Bush was a good man who was in a very tough time and did what needed to be done, and the dems have tried to twist facts to put him in the worst light for political gain which shows they place their party ahead of their country.

[CaneBrain 95]

FYPPretty much everyone knows this.which is enough facts for me.Nope, Bush was a good man who was in a very tough time and did what needed to be done, and the dems have tried to twist facts to put him in the worst light for political gain which shows they place their party ahead of their country.

I feel better knowing that one person is in his corner at least.America goes to war a lot. You can pretend like we don't but we do. Were there any Iraqis involved in 9/11? If not, did they really attack us? I mean come on that is a softball. Thank you for pointing out we went to war with a country that did not attack us.

[Balloon guy 158]

You guys are pretty ridiculous. Either - Bush created an ill-conceived and unnecessary war out of hubris and greedor- Bush created an ill-conceived and unnecessary war because he just kinda went along with what everyone else was saying at the time, even other countries!I don't really see either of these as positive views of Bush.

Or, Bush took the fight to the enemy, and stopped the spread of unnecessary violence from Islamic terrorist for a decade, leaving the next decade for the people of that time to decide if they think sitting back and letting the terrorist gain more and more power and hoping they don't attack them is a good national policy.Personally, I like that the terrorist now get to try their tricks on fully armed Marines in their own countries over letting them have a safe haven to plan fund and attack wherever they want whenever they want.But I don't have guilt over killing people who want to destroy the western world over faulty religious doctrine promoted by power hungry clerics who will suffer an eternity in hell for their evil teachings that have corrupted a generation of people who are screwed because they have so much money from oil.

[Balloon guy 158]

I feel better knowing that one person is in his corner at least.America The world goes to war a lot. You can pretend like we don't but we do.

I read some thing a while back that since recorded history there has been something like 16 total years of no wars anywhere in the world.And besides...we got to protect the rest of the world, they spent all their defense spending on free healthcare that is bankrupting their countries, so if we don't protect them...who will?

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, I guess I couldn't have hoped for anything else from the zealots in the politics forum. None of this petty back-and-forth about Iraq is useful to me, and it will probably deter people from actually answering my questions. So thanks, guys.

yea that makes sense.The 9-11 aftermath and the war in Iraq's cause are totally irrelevant to the legacy of Bush.I'm sure you will do well in your paper as long as you have a typical idiot prof who wants you to tow the party line and not challenge conventional wisdom so as long as you paint Bush in the worst light you will do fine.Never question your understanding of the world when you are spoon fed your beliefs by a press that voted 80+% against the president.This is why chicks should never be world leaders.Except for the Iron Lady, she rocked.

[CaneBrain 95]

Or, Bush took the fight to the enemy, and stopped the spread of unnecessary violence from Islamic terrorist for a decade, leaving the next decade for the people of that time to decide if they think sitting back and letting the terrorist gain more and more power and hoping they don't attack them is a good national policy.Personally, I like that the terrorist now get to try their tricks on fully armed Marines in their own countries over letting them have a safe haven to plan fund and attack wherever they want whenever they want.But I don't have guilt over killing people who want to destroy the western world over faulty religious doctrine promoted by power hungry clerics who will suffer an eternity in hell for their evil teachings that have corrupted a generation of people who are screwed because they have so much money from oil.

None of the above has anything to do with the Iraq War. That's the problem, BG. That's ALWAYS been the problem. Saddam was a very horrible dictator. But our post-9/11 "enemy" does not have any connection to him or Iraq. It was a giant waste of time.If the above is what you believe, it would have made a lot more sense to invade Afghanistan and Iran or Saudi Arabia.

[Balloon guy 158]

None of the above has anything to do with the Iraq War. That's the problem, BG. That's ALWAYS been the problem. Saddam was a very horrible dictator. But our post-9/11 "enemy" does not have any connection to him or Iraq. It was a giant waste of time.If the above is what you believe, it would have made a lot more sense to invade Afghanistan and Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Let's not pretend that we wanted to escalate this. Saddam was a good target to get the anger out that the American people had over 9-11. We were in Afghan, but that was hardly a fight and as such we wanted more. There were huge approval ratings to keep kicking butts at the time.Add to that Saddam was an idiot, he is the one who pushed the notion that they had WMDs to keep Iran from invading after gulf war 1, and he was the one who refused to allow Hans 'couldn't find a shoe in a shoe store" Blixt to return and confirm the lack of WMDs. He was given a chance to stop the invasion and he thought he could ride it out like the last one and stay in power. There was a lot more than just WMDs in play here.Saudi would make no sense, even though the people are mostly scum, because the government is 'semi' pro America. Sure they pay millions to Al Qeade to not be attacked, sure they allow the crazy teachings etc, but like Pakistan, it's better to have a semi-pro American government than a anti American government.Iran is kind of the opposite imo. they have an anti US government, but a generally pro-western populace. Invading them would have been counter productive.And don't forget, we did get some WMDs out of Muslim hands when Libya turned over their 40,000 tons (?) of chemical weapons stuff after we told them they couldn't have it anymore. Invading Iraq put the fear of God in them and they gave them up.So in a way, we did get WMDs. Just not in a way worth claiming victory over.I thought we were going to move on to NCLB so I could muddy the waters and blame the dead guy for it?

[Balloon guy 158]

hold on, hold on...http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/upload...eficit_2010.jpgMy question is: who set the 2009 budget? That was on Bush, no? That would mean his worst annual deficit was close to $1.5T.I mean, whatever, it's a dumb argument. Everyone's going to spend as much as they can get. I would just prefer we stop trying to differentiate between the two parties on fiscal responsibility.

Well we used to be able to claim it was our issue.But Bush did kind of screw that up for us.

[LadyGrey 6]

yea that makes sense.The 9-11 aftermath and the war in Iraq's cause are totally irrelevant to the legacy of Bush.I'm sure you will do well in your paper as long as you have a typical idiot prof who wants you to tow the party line and not challenge conventional wisdom so as long as you paint Bush in the worst light you will do fine.Never question your understanding of the world when you are spoon fed your beliefs by a press that voted 80+% against the president.This is why chicks should never be world leaders.Except for the Iron Lady, she rocked.

My professor is a badass, maybe you should read one of his books. My press didn't vote for or against Bush, I live in the UK, we can't vote in your elections.I didn't say that 9/11 and the Iraq war are irrleveant to Bush's legacy, just that your biased rants are useless to me.

[CaneBrain 95]

Let's not pretend that we wanted to escalate this. Saddam was a good target to get the anger out that the American people had over 9-11. We were in Afghan, but that was hardly a fight and as such we wanted more. There were huge approval ratings to keep kicking butts at the time.Add to that Saddam was an idiot, he is the one who pushed the notion that they had WMDs to keep Iran from invading after gulf war 1, and he was the one who refused to allow Hans 'couldn't find a shoe in a shoe store" Blixt to return and confirm the lack of WMDs. He was given a chance to stop the invasion and he thought he could ride it out like the last one and stay in power. There was a lot more than just WMDs in play here.Saudi would make no sense, even though the people are mostly scum, because the government is 'semi' pro America. Sure they pay millions to Al Qeade to not be attacked, sure they allow the crazy teachings etc, but like Pakistan, it's better to have a semi-pro American government than a anti American government.Iran is kind of the opposite imo. they have an anti US government, but a generally pro-western populace. Invading them would have been counter productive.And don't forget, we did get some WMDs out of Muslim hands when Libya turned over their 40,000 tons (?) of chemical weapons stuff after we told them they couldn't have it anymore. Invading Iraq put the fear of God in them and they gave them up.So in a way, we did get WMDs. Just not in a way worth claiming victory over.I thought we were going to move on to NCLB so I could muddy the waters and blame the dead guy for it?

A lot more terrorists come from Saudi Arabia and Iran than Iraq. That's all. I think winning over the general populace of Iran is our best bet for bringing stability to that region.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Jeepster is right ... what all this barrage of talking points really means is that one of the most enduring legacies of Bush is that he contributed to the polarization between parties in the US. Nixon made peace overtures to communist China and stayed popular with Republicans (until Watergate), Clinton co-opted Republican ideas on welfare and budget and was still popular with Democrats, but in the last eight years we saw an astonishing entrenching of partisanship and a bitterness of debate that will not go away for many years. From voters to members of Congress, fewer and fewer people are willing to cross party lines.Historians have pointed out that this is most similar to the period that was the run-up to Civil War, the 1850s, and the hardening of attitudes about slavery.My personal insight is that another similarity between the 1850s and now is an explosion in new forms of media. I don't think Bush is personally responsible for all the polarization, although he is indeed personally polarizing. I think the growth of 24-hour news channels defined by their partisan leanings, and the sudden ability to limit all your media to outlets you already agree with, is behind it. There's a reason newspapers, circa 1850, were so often called the "So and So-Ville Democrat" or the "Podunk Republican."That might go a little deeper than a term paper needs to, though. Suffice it to say that polarization and divisiveness will be one of Bush's big legacies for decades to come.