What Bush got right

[dudek#1]

I just read through this article on MSN which, despite agreeing George W. Bush made monumental errors in all areas of policy, argues these errors were in direct response to the Clinton administrations' policies.

 

It suggests he used 2001-2005 as a pro-neoconservative ideological detox against Clinton, but after the 2006 mid-term elections in the Senate, he made a vast shift in policy and has amended many of the mistakes he was responsible for.

 

What do you think? Was he really shamelessly exploited by Cheney, Rumsfeld etc. as a hark back to the Reagan years or was he just a belligerent, bloody minded idiot with no moral values?

[theghost]

[Section_31]

I just can't wait until he's fucking gone, eight years of this shit. The world needs a strong and capable American president.

[RedBrian84]

I have to admit I'm not completely clued up about the policies of the US; so I'm of the belief that Bush has followed a President in Clinton who worked damn hard to try and achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East, and instead of trying to follow that Bush instead went and carpet-bombed the place.

 

Again if I am wrong here I apologise for my ignorance. For me he'll be remembered like Tony Blair; whatever else he did there were too many big, glaring errors hat completely overshadow any successes he may have had.

 

Bush certainly seems like a fucking spanner but that Rumsfeld is an arse as well. I would be interested to hear the views of the Americans on the forums about him compared to his predecessor. I certainly can't wait for him to go though.

[dennis tooth]

I don't see Clinton as much different to Bush, he is just a little better at playing the game and went for stealth over overt agression. He repeatedly blocked attempts at any meaningful peace in the middle east and other places, was responsible for 500,000 infant deaths in Iraq, so in some ways Bush has a left a lot to be desired in terms of matching his acheivements.

[G Richards]

I think Bush served as President in a difficult time. Early on he had 9/11. That seemed to set the tone for his Presidency and I think in many ways he and America overreacted to the perceived threat. The overreaction came in the form of the Iraq war and the billions of dollars spent on anti-terrorism measures since then, both in other military operations and various security measures (if anyone has travelled to America since 2001 you will have noticed how different it has been in comparison to before then).

 

I don't think we can overestimate the impact on the confidence of America that 9/11 had. Americans have always had a certain sense of impregnability about them. Bounded on the West by the Pacific and the East by the Atlantic, with friendly Canada to the North and a developing Mexico to the South, there has always been the sense that America is secure, and any enemies are far away. 9/11 changed all of that.

 

It is easy to criticise the American response under Bush, but it is hard to imagine how any President would have coped. I think in some ways it has been unwise to overplay the terrorist threat, but arguably, that suits things politically, as if there is an enemy that is identified, then people are that bit more ready to do whatever is needed to defend themselves (though sadly along the way more of their own freedoms erode as the response has been largely misguided).

 

Further to the impact of 9/11, Bush has been President during a time when there has been a global economic downturn. Much of this has been exacerbated by the 'American Way' of overstretching yourself on the never-never. This is fine when times are good, but when you have to tighten your belt, the whole thing is in danger of collapsing because the underlying economic fundamentals are wrong.

 

His response to the worsening economic situation has been typical right wing fare - cut taxes to try to stimulate the economy by putting more of people's money in their pockets and encouraging them to spend it. That's not hugely worthy of criticism, as it is par for the course given his political point of view.

 

I feel under Bush America has lost a lot of the right to ethically comment or intervene in other situations around the world, and this is the greatest shame in my eyes. There is simply no defense for what continues to happen at Guantanamo Bay, and this undermines America's standing on the world scene.

[mattyq]

Bush has been the worst president in modern American history. Possibly in all American history - he's that bad

[RedBrian84]

I don't see Clinton as much different to Bush, he is just a little better at playing the game and went for stealth over overt agression. He repeatedly blocked attempts at any meaningful peace in the middle east and other places, was responsible for 500,000 infant deaths in Iraq, so in some ways Bush has a left a lot to be desired in terms of matching his acheivements.

 

That's opened my eyes a little cheers man. Genuinely had no idea he'd done that, always thought he'd been a keen advocate for peace in the Middle East. What happened to those infants in Iraq?

[Ian Sea]

Bush has been the worst president in modern American history. Possibly in all American history - he's that bad

 

And he served 2 terms! How the fuck did that happen?

[AL66GOLF]

Bush has approval rating in the 20's in the US

[cochyn]

I don't see Clinton as much different to Bush, he is just a little better at playing the game and went for stealth over overt agression. He repeatedly blocked attempts at any meaningful peace in the middle east and other places, was responsible for 500,000 infant deaths in Iraq, so in some ways Bush has a left a lot to be desired in terms of matching his acheivements.

 

How exactly? If it was for supporting the continued sanctions against Iraq then why not go the whole hog and blame the entire UN, NATO and N.E. Other for taking the same stance against Saddam?

[dennis tooth]

Iraq was bombed almost daily by US/Uk aircraft under Clinton. It just wasn't reported.

There are other countries which has been the victim of his 'regime' but we only have to focus on this country as a case study of what the man is capable of.

 

"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

 

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

 

It's worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl--a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions.

 

A bit of a longwinded history lesson of stuff that was not widely reported on Clinton is here:

Clinton’s Worst Crimes - The Ornery American

 

As usual though, history is revised and written by the winners. Some people would have you compare him to Kennedy, who also, despite what people make him out as, was responsible for many atrocities. Evidence proves it, but hey don't let that get in the way, it's all about image.

[dennis tooth]

How exactly? If it was for supporting the continued sanctions against Iraq then why not go the whole hog and blame the entire UN, NATO and N.E. Other for taking the same stance against Saddam?

 

No, more that the US drafted and actively enforced it rather than simply supported the sanctions as you tried to portray it. The UN is powerless against America apart from passing empty condemnation here and there.

[Strontium]

I think Bush served as President in a difficult time. Early on he had 9/11. That seemed to set the tone for his Presidency and I think in many ways he and America overreacted to the perceived threat. The overreaction came in the form of the Iraq war and the billions of dollars spent on anti-terrorism measures since then, both in other military operations and various security measures (if anyone has travelled to America since 2001 you will have noticed how different it has been in comparison to before then).

 

I don't think the war in Iraq was an "overreaction" to 9/11; it was nothing more than a calculated and cynical attempt to achieve a policy objective in the Middle East, namely the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and the establishment of a friendly democracy in the region. Now I'm not opposed to waving goodbye to murderous tyrants and devolving power to the people in principle, but the way they went about it was disastrous.

 

In many ways, they underreacted to 9/11. They removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan - great - but then failed to pursue and bring Osama bin Laden to justice. If they'd have focused half the effort on getting Osama, the guy actually responsible for 9/11, that they did on getting Saddam, he'd be dead or captured by now.

 

9/11 was just a sorry episode from start to finish. The Bush administration were warned months in advance that terrorists were plotting to fly planes into skyscrapers and did nothing. I don't think the Americans were complicit in the attacks (I'm not a fucking lunatic) but they definitely left the back door open, and that was a gross abidication of responsibility.

 

Despite all this, I think the follies of 9/11 and Iraq could be forgiven if there had been positive change on the domestic front. But Bush turned a record surplus into a record deficit, just so he could give tax cuts to the people who needed them least. He brought in the Patriot Act, an appalling violation of civil liberties. Hurrican Katrina destroyed New Orleans, because Bush's people skimped on flood defences. A stunning lack of oversight on financial affairs saw scandals such as Enron, and the credit crunch we're currently in. He tried to privatise social security. The wacko religious right has more influence than ever...

 

Even his successes have been a shadow of what they could have been. He ousted the Taliban (a truly evil bunch of people) but failed to galvanise a wider coalition in stabilising the region, spent a pittance on reconstruction and saw suicide attacks proliferate, even in once peaceful areas. He gave billions to combat AIDS, but placed abstinence education at the forefront, rather than more condoms. He played a key role in ending the Sudanese civil war, but stood idly by while thousands perished in Darfur.

 

I could go on, but it's not necessary is it? He's going to go down as one of the worst presidents ever.

 

I suppose if I was feeling kind, he has managed to contain North Korea. One unqualified success in 8 years isn't much of a record. IF Iraq eventually sorts itself out, history may be more forgiving than we are, but right now he's looking like a bit of a turkey.

[Stu Monty]

Saddam Hussein and Democracy my fucking arse. They're still currently crushing people calling for Democracy in the next house down. They couldn't give a fuck about it.

 

Oil and a completely free market to experiment with. That was the objective.

[Stu Monty]

Just in case anyone doesn't know why the US, with their man Paul Bremer as the driving force, wanted to put in place a goverment so quickly (not a democratic one initially, a Washington appointed one) I will outline it.

 

The Geneva conventions of 1949 and the Hague regulations of 1907 stipulate that an occupying force does not own the public buildings, real estate or natural resources of a country it occupies. It must abide by the country's rules unless "absolutely prevented" from doing so.

 

The plan for Iraq was going to be the largest fire-sale the world has ever seen who one of the main players in the Coalition Provisional Authority, Thomas Foley, described as a modern "Gold Rush". To fully carry out this fire sale they would have to put in place a puppet government that would agree to the selling off of all of the major national industry and also the 200 or so state-owned companies that made everything from cement to paper. If they didn't put the puppet government in place then their sale couldn't happen.

 

This sale was to be supplemented with the following:

 

Order 37: Lowering Iraq's corporate tax rate from 40% to 15%

Order 39: Allowing foreign companies to own 100% of Iraqi assets. Investors could also take out 100% of their profits, they would not have to re-invest and they would not be taxed.

Order 39: They could sign leases and contracts that would last 40 years (handy for investors who fear that the raping of the country might be reversed in time).

 

Basically the policies that the Neoliberals and the IMF are usually lobbying for but can't push through fully due to a national government stopping them.

 

It's a concept called economic shock-therapy.

[peekay]

Just in case anyone doesn't know why the US, with their man Paul Bremer as the driving force, wanted to put in place a goverment so quickly (not a democratic one initially, a Washington appointed one) I will outline it.

 

The Geneva conventions of 1949 and the Hague regulations of 1907 stipulate that an occupying force does not own the public buildings, real estate or natural resources of a country it occupies. It must abide by the country's rules unless "absolutely prevented" from doing so.

 

The plan for Iraq was going to be the largest fire-sale the world has ever seen who one of the main players in the Coalition Provisional Authority, Thomas Foley, described as a modern "Gold Rush". To fully carry out this fire sale they would have to put in place a puppet government that would agree to the selling off of all of the major national industry and also the 200 or so state-owned companies that made everything from cement to paper. If they didn't put the puppet government in place then their sale couldn't happen.

 

This sale was to be supplemented with the following:

 

Order 37: Lowering Iraq's corporate tax rate from 40% to 15%

Order 39: Allowing foreign companies to own 100% of Iraqi assets. Investors could also take out 100% of their profits, they would not have to re-invest and they would not be taxed.

Order 39: They could sign leases and contracts that would last 40 years (handy for investors who fear that the raping of the country might be reversed in time).

 

Basically the policies that the Neoliberals and the IMF are usually lobbying for but can't push through fully due to a national government stopping them.

 

It's a concept called economic shock-therapy.

 

I think you will enjoy this video Stu

BREAKING NEWS: The Footage Barack Obama Doesn’t Want You to See - Do the Letters “RR” Mean Anything to You? | Indecision2008 | Comedy Central

[Unrighteous]

The thing that Bush got right was his name. I expected a mispelling somewhere.

[Newport]

Oil and a completely free market to experiment with. That was the objective.

 

Exactly, and the actions in Iraq has caused the oil price to skyrocket and now they're talking about high petrol prices and their dependency on foreign oil. I know a way they could lower gas prices: Get the fuck out of Iraq!

 

But, now their corporate mates have earned a shitload of money and they don't even give a fuck about the young men and women giving their lives just so they can increase their appauling wealth. Corporate America is the root of all evil in this world. That, religion and self centered politicians.

[Stu Monty]

Corporate America certainly isn't the root of all evil in the world but it's doing its bit for the cause.