Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Everyone is going to say bad because of the war, which is valid to dislike him about. However, I think he signed a lot of acts and bills that greatly helps our economy.
Besides the war and his strong opposition against stem-cell research, the guy got some good laws passed.
Horrible president, just horrible.
Medicare part D and NLCB are good laws?
In case you hadn't noticed, our economy tanked and the recovery process that started under his watch was horribly botched. Far too much government intervention, they could have just done a strong flow of quantitative easing from the Fed and let the individual banks fail as they might and we would then not still be sorting out the carnage 5-6 years from now. Instead they are consolidating into a few which are seen as safe because they are "too big to fail" without really acknowledging the damage those few did.
The only good thing about his Presidency in an historical sense is the relatively good relations we now have with most of Africa. His economic policies as studied by economists, from either liberal or conservative persuasions, are a complete disaster. Applying dogma (must cut taxes) without wisdom (should reform tax code) makes for bad policy. We had poorly enforced regulatory regimes across the board from the Fed to the EPA. We outsourced things like war that shouldn't be outsourced (Blackwater) while expanding the public sector in needless and expensive ways (TSA, HSA, NCLB, Medicare Plus).
And obviously the wars did not help.
Bush's tax cuts contributed significantly to the 25-year recovery begun under Reagan. Bush had the wisdom and courage to fight the war on terror. Under his administration, there was too much government spending and too much participation by liberals. The economic meltdown was mainly triggered by Democrats' refusal to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Bush was mistaken to get on board with Paulsen's bailouts, but overall, he had a greatly better administration than what we have now, in my opinion.
Overall, pretty horrid. His so-called 'War on Terror' was a botched effort- you can't wage war on terror, since terror is a concept. How do you wage war on a concept? His other actual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were horrid, and wrong. His economic policy was not much better, what with the bailouts and other things that Sun Tzu pointed out.
It is fair to note that Bush did warn Congress of the impending failure of Fannie and Freddie. There were some good things he did, just as I am sure there will be a few bright moments in the Obama administration. However, the PATRIOT act, the two wars, and legislation like NCLB were not bright moments.
Usually the Democrats have BS economic ideas and there's always a risk of warmongering and religious fanaticism with the Republican. George W. managed to be incompetent in new and exciting ways by both abandoning free market principles AND being a warmongering religious fanatic.
The GWB Presidency started out to be a mediocre one until 9/11/2001 when over three thousand innocent people we murdered by members of an Islamic based terror organization with the assistance of the Taliban run country of Afghanistan.
The only mistakes I see GWB had made were the drastic increases in the size and scope of government, and of course the TARP thing.
DHS is something that was not needed and is now the bane of law enforcement.
Bailing out the fat cats on wall street while letting the average American just hang out with nothing was ridiculous.
Perhaps history will see more of a positive note to his Presidency than the liberal fascists that now have this country in a death grip.
And that is just my not-so-humble opinion.
For what reasons?
I don’t see how George failed his country. The one thing that people don’t understand about the war was the seriousness.
Islam was declaring a full out war, and you can be assured that the only reason that islam bombs aren’t exploding on your street like Isreal is it is being occupied by the U.S, Bush saved thousands, maybe tens of thousands of american lives, and americans hate him for it.
Perhaps history will note Bush as the man who sacrificed his image for his country.
So what are we going to do? Be just as bad as the radical Muslims and declare war on anyone who wears a Burkha and professes to be a Muslim? Oh yes, that will help us so much!
I understand the justification for the war, but it just doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. We did not attack the people we should have right off the bat, if we were indeed searching for retribution or holy vengeance. Furthermore, we have been there much too long, and the reasoning for the wars has changed too many times for me to think that all is as meets the eye.
George W. Bush was a horrible president.
1) Awful diplomat.
2) Wrong about WMD's in Iraq.
3) Bailouts to corporations.
4) Tolerance to illegal immigration
5) Poorly handled the 2008 recession.
6) Domestically passive and large deficits.
7) Not sending enough troops to Afghanistan.
People say he was a terrible president because of the media's negative coverage on this man, but really he was not all that bad, a terrible speaker yes, but not an awful president. Let us take a look at "good" presidents and their flub ups: Andrew Jackson's decision right after the Civil War to side with Southern whites and oppose improvements to abolish slavery. James Madison's failure to keep the U.S out of the War of 1812 . John F. Kennedy letting the Bay of Pigs attack ocurr, later leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis. The list goes on, so give GWB a break.
Not sure I would put Madison or Jackson on any list of "good" Presidencies (plus I assume you're referring to Andrew Johnson, not Andrew Jackson. And Johnson is usually on the short list for worst President in our history, hardly the example you want to use here). JFK gets a pass because much of his agenda was passed after he was killed, but it's unclear whether he should receive any credit for that. And while you could argue the Bay of Pigs help start a chain of events that ended up with the Cuban Missile Crisis, I would say much of that had more to do with the missiles going into to Turkey instead. Nothing happens unless the Soviets care about their regional security. Castro's problems weren't that big a concern for them. Plus he handled it pretty well, considering. If the Bay of Pigs is the worst thing he did, that's a really weak comparison.
Bush did not handle his situations very well at all. I take your point to mean that Presidents are entitled to a few mistakes, which would be fair, because it's a pretty hard job and nobody will be pleased with everything a President does (in many cases, nothing they do will be pleasant). Lincoln did after all suspend habeas corpus and Washington did have the Whiskey Rebellion to deal with. But they're not entitled to compound their mistakes once made or to keep making the same ones. At least, I don't see how that would make for a very sensible criteria for evaluating their administrations.