George W Bush: Was he really that bad?

[Chica Chaser]

This should be fun

George W Bush: was he really that bad?

It is George W Bush’s particular achievement to be disliked by both sides in American politics.
Democrats of course excoriate the damage done to the budget by waging two wars while cutting taxes, his conduct after Hurricane Katrina and his shoot from the hip style, not to mention that fact that he presided over the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

His own Republican party utterly rejected him during the 2012 campaign. Tea Party types saw him as a big-spender guilty of extending federal government, while few who once stood with him were prepared to defend his military achievements.
But presidents tend to look better, or at least different, from a distance, and with the opening of his presidential centre in Texas, there are suggestions that Bush the younger may be more fondly remembered than was thought possible when he left the White House in January 2009 as the most unpopular president in living memory.

He was certainly more socially liberal than his critics give him credit for. No Child Left Behind, whatever its faults and funding, was a centralised attempt to raise educational standards across the board. A new prescription drug benefit scheme may have been expensive (though Bush himself argues its cost has been exaggerated) but its aim was to make medicines more affordable for the elderly. Bush failed in his most ambitious social reform of immigration law, but he was defeated primarily by the Right of his party, not the Democrats.

The Obama administration may blame Bush for the crippled economy it inherited, but it has for the most part been unable to rescind his tax cuts. For the time being, the tax argument has been won by conservatives. Liberals may have berated Bush for the security policies of his “war on terror”, but they have been continued and in some regards expanded by President Obama.

Writing in the Washington Post recently, Jennifer Rubin argued that “Bush seems to be a more accomplished Republican figure in the Obama era”, while summarising his successes. Bush himself has told the Dallas Morning News, in an exclusive interview, that he still stands for the “compassionate conservatism” that he ran on in 2000. “I’m comfortable with what I did,” he said. “I’m comfortable with who I am.”

On the debit side, the list remains heavy. His tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq produced budget deficits, which were compounded by a recession and economic stimulus spending. Bush inherited a $5.7 trillion debt, which became a $10.6 trillion debt, and bequeathed his successor an economy on the verge of collapse.

Obama duly expanded health care and stimulus spending, endured a second recession, deepening the debt still further.
As Factcheck.org points out, both presidents are to blame for taking the debt to record levels.
Indeed in Washington they both occupy the middle ground, where most presidents find themselves.

They could not be more different in terms of background and character; they are far apart on tax, healthcare and gun control. Obama has ended both Bush’s wars. But both presidents found themselves in charge of a country in gentle decline without an overpowering vision of how to reverse that process.

Both have been frustrated by the mud-slinging intransigence in Washington, and a sense that it is all but impossible to get big business done. Six months after his re-election, Obama has yet to table legislation on immigration reform. Gun control, reforming a Byzantine tax code, and reforming Social Security (another Bush failure) remain in his in-tray.
We may yet be too close to Bush’s presidency to see this clearly, but in the future he and his successor could be seen as having as much in common than not.

[JCM800]

"On the debit side, the list remains heavy. His tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq produced budget deficits, which were compounded by a recession and economic stimulus spending. Bush inherited a $5.7 trillion debt, which became a $10.6 trillion debt, and bequeathed his successor an economy on the verge of collapse."

well God did tell him to go to war.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

[Yssup Rider]

YES

[CJ7]

even the conservatives agree W was a nightmare

[Guest032516]

Fuck him. He never vetoed a single spending bill. In fact, he added to them.

He borrowed and spent. We would be better off if he had taxed and spent.

[yardbird74]

Yes - he was that bad.

[Guest040616]

Was GW that bad?

He was actually much worse than "that bad!"

[acp5762]

George W. Bush was really nothing but a big lush. I think the only time he was ever sober is when he first got up in the morning. He was a lousy president, but good for a few laughs like in this video.

http://youtu.be/0OWuq9WFqCc

[Randy4Candy]

Does the pope shit in the woods?

[i'va biggen]

He was a boon to the comics ,all they had to do was read back what he said that day...

[Guest121613]

I am Reagan republican, and I admire George W's handling of 9/11, and being aggressive in anti-terrorism actions. However, his second term, he failed america, as much as I hate it to admit it.

When he took over the office, the terror networks were thriving and had eyes on big targets, and after 9/11, he did put them on the run, and made countries fearful to support al qaeda.

The Afghan conflict needed to end during his time, he should not have handed it off to the next president, and the costly war with Iraq was never funded. The Iraq conflict took too much of his attention, and he failed us (Americans) on the home-front by overlooking needs here. As a result, his popularity declined drastically, and the democrats regained the White House. I usually support republicans tooth and nail, but facts are facts.

George W was good and bad.

I read his book, and it was a good read, yet it felt apologetic. In his mind, he did what he thought was right and did not care others thought, sometimes a good trait, but he needed to balance the people's needs. His neglect resulted in the government having to bail out the banks, and GM.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by lostforkate

I am Reagan republican, and I admire George W's handling of 9/11, and being aggressive in anti-terrorism actions. However, his second term, he failed america, as much as I hate it to admit it.

When he took over the office, the terror networks were thriving and had eyes on big targets, and after 9/11, he did put them on the run, and made countries fearful to support al qaeda.

The Afghan conflict needed to end during his time, he should not have handed it off to the next president, and the costly war with Iraq was never funded. The Iraq conflict took too much of his attention, and he failed us (Americans) on the home-front by overlooking needs here. As a result, his popularity declined drastically, and the democrats regained the White House. I usually support republicans tooth and nail, but facts are facts.

George W was good and bad.

I read his book, and it was a good read, yet it felt apologetic. In his mind, he did what he thought was right and did not care others thought, sometimes a good trait, but he needed to balance the people's needs. His neglect resulted in the government having to bail out the banks, and GM.

Very well said, Thanks. GW loves this country...

Which is more than the President "O"ism.. and his Obabykillers...

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Very well said, Thanks. GW loves this country.

But does he love it more than your BFE, StupidOldLyingFart loves IIffy's "sweet ass?"

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Very well said, Thanks. GW loves this country...

Which is more than the President "O"ism.. and his Obabykillers...

You're a jerkoff.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're a jerkoff.

Isn't that what StupidOldLyingFart does over his BFE (IIFFY's) "sweet ass?"