the legacy of george bush....

[manu1959]

ya ya i know he will go down as the wrost president of all time.....

but what i think is an interesting discussion is.....

he could have made if you could have been advising him and having the benifit of hindsight what three decission would you have had him change that would have made him a great president.....

thoughts....

 

[Oddball]

Followed through on his promise of a humble foreign policy and no nation building.

Vetoed NCLB, campaign finance deform, the nationalization of airport security, Medicare D, bloated transportation and ag bills and broader trade protectionism (that's just a starter list).

Made his wimpy tax cuts permanent.

 

[JimH52]

Iraq
Iraq
Iraq

what a bubbling decision that the "Decider" made and then totally mismanaged the war.

 

[rightwinger]

After 9-11, George Bush was positioned to be one of the great presidents in American history. He had unprecidented support both home and abroad. Bush failed in that he viewed this support as a path to greatness and devised his scheme to unilaterally reshape the region.
Rather than share the glory like his father did. Bush shaped a coalition of the willing that was just the US and a reluctant UK. His choice to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time was catastrophic. He also had a simplistic view of what it would take to achieve victory and how the US would be perceived in the region

 

[Oddball]

ya ya i know he will go down as the wrost president of all time.....

but what i think is an interesting discussion is.....

he could have made if you could have been advising him and having the benifit of hindsight what three decission would you have had him change that would have made him a great president.....

thoughts....

My three wouldn't have made him great, just mediocre enough to have not harmed the patient any worse.

These days, that's close enough for gubmint work.

 

[MaggieMae]

Some interesting observations by Newsweek's Jon Meacham related to this topic.

The Obama-Bush Connection
Obama is a lot more like Bush 43 than anyone involved would readily admit.
By Jon Meacham | NEWSWEEK

Published Oct 17, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Oct 26, 2009

George H.W. Bush was delighted with his guest. Last Friday at the 41st president's library on the campus of Texas A&M in College Station, Bush and President Obama met to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Points of Light service program, part of Bush 41's legacy to the country. Unfailingly polite, Bush wrote the Aggie community before Obama's visit. The note was fairly anodyne, but 41 was worried about an adverse reaction to the incumbent on the largely conservative campus. "Along with the administration, faculty, and so many of you, I am honored that The President, our President, is taking the time and making the effort to come to College Station … This is not about politics."

There is a small grammatical clue here about how deeply Bush felt that Obama was to be treated with courtesy: 41 capitalizes the T in "The President" (and obviously the P) when he wants to invest the office with the highest possible importance and dignity. In the weeks after September 11, in a note to me declining a request for an interview for the magazine, Bush concluded: "Please say a prayer for our beloved son, The President." Now Barack Obama holds ultimate responsibility, and, in Bush's view, deserves ultimate respect.

The common wisdom—a phrase 41 uses more often than "conventional wisdom"—is that Obama is an heir of 41's style, particularly in the diplomatic realm. The storyline is clear: Obama is more like George W. Bush's father than George W. Bush ever was.

That argument is at best incomplete and at worst wrong. The Bushes have always been much more complicated than their caricatures. (A word of disclosure: I am at work on a biography of George H.W. Bush.) Bush 41 was a great multilateralist—one of the best ever—but he took a much tougher early stand against Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait than many in Washington, in New York, and around the world. We tend to forget the close-fought nature of the Senate vote authorizing the use of force, when lawmakers like Joe Biden and Sam Nunn opposed the president. And yes, 41 did go to the United Nations to win approval for military action against Saddam, but he was also quite prepared to turn Desert Shield into Desert Storm even if the U.N. vote had gone the other way.

If the first President Bush was more willing to use force than is sometimes remembered, his son was more open to diplomacy, especially in his last years in office, than is virtually ever remembered.

The image of Obama and the senior Bush together brought to mind another moment, long ago. In the wake of the Bay of Pigs in 1961, President Kennedy invited Dwight Eisenhower to Camp David. JFK had won in 1960 by saying we were too complacent at home and were losing ground to the communists abroad. Suddenly, however, once confronted by the complexities of the presidency, Kennedy found that perhaps Eisenhower was not so out of it after all. The photograph of the two men, taken from the back (Ike is carrying his hat), shoulder to shoulder, embodies a truth that remains relevant now: for all the sound and fury of the arena, on big issues American presidents tend to have more in common with one another than one might at first think. There is a presidential character intrinsic to the office. Part of this is because what seemed black and white while you were running looks a lot grayer once ultimate power is yours, and part of it is that the country changes presidents more frequently than the country changes itself. We are a center-right nation politically and culturally, which means we value moderate governance—and we punish those who stray too far one way or the other. (See Clinton in 1993–94, or George W. Bush between roughly 2003 and late 2006.)

Like Bush 41, Obama seems temperamentally incapable of extremism. Now, since the foregoing sentence will make conservatives' heads explode, here is a final point likely to drive liberals to distraction: from Guantánamo to the bailout of the financial system to antiterror tactics, Barack Obama is a lot more like George W. Bush (or at least the George W. Bush of his later years in office) than almost anybody involved—including, I suspect, Obama or Bush 43—would readily admit. At their best, both of them have worked to govern as presidents, not as partisans, which is the way good men have always conducted themselves in that office.

Obama—"The President," in Bush 41's formulation—will always be shouted at and about. But remembering that he, like his predecessors, is working within commonly accepted political boundaries may help put the shouting in context.

Find this article at
The Obama-Bush Connection | Newsweek Newsweek - Top of the Week by Jon Meacham | Newsweek.com

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

ya ya i know he will go down as the wrost president of all time.....

but what i think is an interesting discussion is.....

he could have made if you could have been advising him and having the benifit of hindsight what three decission would you have had him change that would have made him a great president.....

thoughts....

1) No Iraq.
2) More initial troops in AFG
3) No trying to be bi-partisan with immigration reform/or make tax cuts permanent

 

[kwc57]

ya ya i know he will go down as the wrost president of all time.....

but what i think is an interesting discussion is.....

he could have made if you could have been advising him and having the benifit of hindsight what three decission would you have had him change that would have made him a great president.....

thoughts....

Balls to the wall in Afghanistan to kill bin Laden.

Stay the hell away from fangless pissant Iraq.

Tell the social conservative folks to kiss his ass.

and for good measure

Pay attention to domestic policy.

 

[Misty]

Bush's war did have success. Saddam, his two creepy sons, al zarqawi, all dead.

He shouldve planned and executed the Iraq war with everything we had instead of half assing like Obama is doing now

 

[Oddball]

The lefties' only answer being "Iraq" seems indicative to me how truly far to the left the Shrub was otherwise.

 

[johnrocks]

Carried through on his promise of a humble foreign policy
Not got bogged down in Irag
Not signed and supported Medicare Part "D" or it's lesser known evil twin "C"
Kept up the fight to privatize some of Social Security

 

[RetiredGySgt]

ya ya i know he will go down as the wrost president of all time.....

but what i think is an interesting discussion is.....

he could have made if you could have been advising him and having the benifit of hindsight what three decission would you have had him change that would have made him a great president.....

thoughts....

Hate to break it to you but he will not go down as the worst President.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

After 9-11, George Bush was positioned to be one of the great presidents in American history. He had unprecidented support both home and abroad. Bush failed in that he viewed this support as a path to greatness and devised his scheme to unilaterally reshape the region.
Rather than share the glory like his father did. Bush shaped a coalition of the willing that was just the US and a reluctant UK. His choice to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time was catastrophic. He also had a simplistic view of what it would take to achieve victory and how the US would be perceived in the region

Italy, Spain, Poland, and Numerous other European nations were part of the coalition, as were nations from Central America and else where. To claim it was just the US and Britain is a bald faced lie, designed to pretend Bush had no support. In fact the only real world players in Europe that did not join the Coalition were France and Germany. France was to busy lying to us about joining while working to eliminate the embargoes and prevent the invasion and Germany was to cowardly. The only other Country that sits in Europe that complained was Belgium and we all know what power brokers they are.

This is another of those lies designed to mislead and misinform along the lines of the claim that Bush invaded Iraq because he linked Saddam to 9/11. Saying it over and over does not magically make it true today anymore then it did when first put forth.

 

[rightwinger]

After 9-11, George Bush was positioned to be one of the great presidents in American history. He had unprecidented support both home and abroad. Bush failed in that he viewed this support as a path to greatness and devised his scheme to unilaterally reshape the region.
Rather than share the glory like his father did. Bush shaped a coalition of the willing that was just the US and a reluctant UK. His choice to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time was catastrophic. He also had a simplistic view of what it would take to achieve victory and how the US would be perceived in the region

Italy, Spain, Poland, and Numerous other European nations were part of the coalition, as were nations from Central America and else where. To claim it was just the US and Britain is a bald faced lie, designed to pretend Bush had no support. In fact the only real world players in Europe that did not join the Coalition were France and Germany. France was to busy lying to us about joining while working to eliminate the embargoes and prevent the invasion and Germany was to cowardly. The only other Country that sits in Europe that complained was Belgium and we all know what power brokers they are.

This is another of those lies designed to mislead and misinform along the lines of the claim that Bush invaded Iraq because he linked Saddam to 9/11. Saying it over and over does not magically make it true today anymore then it did when first put forth.

Got numbers for your coalition of the willing?

How many allies sent more than a Battalion?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

After 9-11, George Bush was positioned to be one of the great presidents in American history. He had unprecidented support both home and abroad. Bush failed in that he viewed this support as a path to greatness and devised his scheme to unilaterally reshape the region.
Rather than share the glory like his father did. Bush shaped a coalition of the willing that was just the US and a reluctant UK. His choice to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time was catastrophic. He also had a simplistic view of what it would take to achieve victory and how the US would be perceived in the region

Italy, Spain, Poland, and Numerous other European nations were part of the coalition, as were nations from Central America and else where. To claim it was just the US and Britain is a bald faced lie, designed to pretend Bush had no support. In fact the only real world players in Europe that did not join the Coalition were France and Germany. France was to busy lying to us about joining while working to eliminate the embargoes and prevent the invasion and Germany was to cowardly. The only other Country that sits in Europe that complained was Belgium and we all know what power brokers they are.

This is another of those lies designed to mislead and misinform along the lines of the claim that Bush invaded Iraq because he linked Saddam to 9/11. Saying it over and over does not magically make it true today anymore then it did when first put forth.

Got numbers for your coalition of the willing?

How many allies sent more than a Battalion?

Spain, Italy and Poland all sent around 2000 men apiece. Or more, but hey you keep up that lie it goes well with the yellow streak down your back.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Three things Bush might have done differently
1 Confer with the heads of the CIA/FBI/NSA and ask “After calling my father on ‘it’s the economy stupid, what did that liberal fag Clinton mean about bin Laden being my biggest worry? Get me a concise report within the week, because if someone fails to report relevant facts and US citizens die I will personally go after the traitorous swine and see them rot in prison forever.” Follow through on this and prevent 9/11, which incidentally prevents Afghanistan and Iraq. After capturing bin Laden’s followers politely ask Afghanistan to hand bin Laden over to The Hague for trial as a terrorist. Offer to send Clinton there for trial on the same charges stemming from Clinton’s bombings in Kosovo, Yemen, etc. as son as bin Laden is in UN custody.

2 Stop all the idiotic Clinton era bank lending policies, and step up oversight on banks to prevent a need for a bailout. This will help in a variety of ways, both improving the economy and preventing the press (or will that be Hillary?) from manufacturing a crisis one month before the 08 election.

3 Downsize the federal government, returning as much autonomy and function as possible to the states. At the same time cut spending to the bone to reduce the debt. Yeah I know he inherited a collapsing economy because of Al Gore’s selfish insistence on trying to win the 2000 election in the courts, but it would have only hurt for a couple of years, instead of leaving us with Barry and the possibility it will hurt for a couple of lifetimes.

It was stipulated that we got the advantage of hindsight, right?

 

[Political Junky]

Carried through on his promise of a humble foreign policy
Not got bogged down in Irag
Not signed and supported Medicare Part "D" or it's lesser known evil twin "C"
Kept up the fight to privatize some of Social Security

Sure, great idea to privatize Social Security ... the market crashed under Bush Jr, remember?

 

[johnrocks]

Carried through on his promise of a humble foreign policy
Not got bogged down in Irag
Not signed and supported Medicare Part "D" or it's lesser known evil twin "C"
Kept up the fight to privatize some of Social Security

Sure, great idea to privatize Social Security ... the market crashed under Bush Jr, remember?

What does that have to do with me wanting to invest my SS money as I see fit?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Hate to break it to you but he will not go down as the worst President.

Worst? No. James Buchanan will probably hold that title, and deservedly so. George W. Bush will most certailnly find himself in the lower half of the Presidents.

As for the OP:

1. Greater Collaboration with Clinton during the transition. If necessary, Bush should have publically shamed Clinton into cooperation. That the two administrations hated each other is one of the great open secrets of the day, and as such a lot of stuff was just "lost" in the transition. I still believe any chance at stopping 9/11 was blown in the transition.

2. Iraq. Little else needs to be said here. Iraq was a distraction from the real front in the War on Terror, namely Afghanistan and Pakistan. We wasted too much time and material in Iraq and blew all hopes of cooperation. Not to mention, Iraq bought Iran and North Korea time and diplomatic cover that was necessary for them to become nuclear powers. Now we have to live with both states and their nuclear arsenals, where prior to Iraq we could have stopped them.

3. The first post 9/11 days: Bush could have used the bully pulpit to put the nation on war footing. He could have encouraged investing in war bonds. He could have encouraged first responder training for the populace at large. In short, we could have come out of 9/11 with renewed civic duty and preparedness. Instead, he consolidated federal power and allowed the public to go back to sleep.

 

[ihopehefails]

Bush was not the worst president in history but his opponents seem to think they have the final judgment on that My big gripe with Bush was that his tax cuts were not big enough and he should have vetoed a few budgets but instead he kept giving us that six year line as a way of passing it off.

Also, the signing the tarp money into law...I bailed on him after that.