[NYYS]

Based on a post I made elsewhere I'm suggesting Bush really made only two really bad decisions: Iraq and the deficit (which is a bunch of smaller decisions)

The Bush presidency could be best described as a bunch of time bombs that he didn't plant going off at once. Sure, he could have caught and diffused them, but given that no one else thought to before it's not really just on him. 9/11 (and by extension Afghanistan) was a result of lax anti-terror policies for years before. The Katrina bungling was because of poor federal and state response procedures that Bush either inherited or had nothing to do with, and they just happened to be tested during his presidency.

Most recently, the economic crisis was/is a result of government inflation of the housing bubble (especially among the poor), a practice that the US had been involved in for years but really got into full swing with the low interest rates early in the decade. Bush agreed that everyone should be able to own a house, which shows some serious ignorance of economics, but he was just continuing policy from before and was unlucky enough to be in office when it blew up. Had he seen it coming he could have eased off "everyone owns a house, gogogo Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" or regulated the financial industry to hell and back, but no one except for a handful of economists and professional investors saw it coming so it's unreasonable to think that the federal government, the poster child for incompetency, could.

Don't get me wrong, the deficit alone still puts him in bad, bad territory, but the rest of the stuff he gets too much blame for. Had His Highness Obama been in office these last 8 years I could see:
- Worse economic crisis. He undoubtedly would have made putting the poor in houses a higher priority than conservative (even if only barely) Bush. The bubble would have been propped up longer, probably.
- Far better Katrina result. The same thing that would have made the economic crisis worse would have made Katrina better: Obama would have shown deep concern for the poor citizens of New Orleans and deployed a great deal of federal aid. At the very least he'd come out of it looking like he did all he could, rather than Bush saying "good job Brownie" to a national audience. And Kanye West certainly wouldn't have suggested he doesn't care about black people.
- 9/11 would probably be the same. Obama certainly wouldn't have encouraged tightened security within our borders without pushing if Bush didn't.

It's not like the guy caused 9/11, or Katrina, or the housing/credit crisis.

[pikachu]

a practice that the US had been involved in for years but really got into full swing

If you're going to use the argument "Washington has been doing this for years", then most of Bush's actions can be excused since none of what he did was revolutionary or anything, most decisions had precedents.
Deficit? For all I know, there were only two years in recent US history without a budget deficit, the last two years of Clinton's rule. Aside from that, deficit was a standard which Bush's team, including all those who approved his budgets, chose to follow.
Iraq? Iraq has been harassed by the U.S. through the nineties, and the policy which called for removal of Saddam Hussein from power was signed by Clinton in 1998. The 2002 invasion authorization act was voted in by half the democrats plus nearly all republicans, kind of indicating that had there been a different President in office, Republican or Democrat, the war would have most likely still occurred.
And finally, we don't really know for sure if either one of these policies was a mistake. It definitely seems this way now, but I'm not entirely convinced.

[NYYS]

If you're going to use the argument "Washington has been doing this for years", then most of Bush's actions can be excused since none of what he did was revolutionary or anything, most decisions had precedents.

I'm not saying that Bush made a decision to do something that has been done in the past, I'm pointing out he basically just held steady on a policy that had been in place for a long time. His only "decision" was not to change anything, and the deals with the devil everyone had been making for years just happened to come due in the last 8 years.

Deficit? For all I know, there were only two years in recent US history without a budget deficit, the last two years of Clinton's rule. Aside from that, deficit was a standard which Bush's team, including all those who approved his budgets, chose to follow.

Clinton ran a surplus his last 3 years (a growing surplus, too), which Bush immediately ruined. I blame that one squarely on W, since that was something he actively chose to pursue.

Iraq? Iraq has been harassed by the U.S. through the nineties, and the policy which called for removal of Saddam Hussein from power was signed by Clinton in 1998. The 2002 invasion authorization act was voted in by half the democrats plus nearly all republicans, kind of indicating that had there been a different President in office, Republican or Democrat, the war would have most likely still occurred.

It appears that the right policy was to just harass Iraq. The invasion has already been too expensive to the United States. Bush pushed for it big time, I doubt Obama would have done the same, although I could be wrong. And the votes just mean that a) we had bad or made up information and b) Democrats are weak-willed, which is a surprise to no one.

[Gletkin]

If Bush was dealt a bad hand then Obama's got a platter of shit waiting for him at the table.
If he could've foretold how noticeably bad our economy would get during the elections I wonder if he would've sat this one out.
Yes, "things will get bad before they get better" but if things don't turn around in 4 years then fairly or not Obama's definately going to be a one-termer.

[SpiderMonkey]

Now we start with NYYS trying rewrite history, trying to ignore the massive quantity of facts that make him look ridiculous. Did anyone expect anything different?

Your friend Bush was a terrible leader. He is responsible for about a million deaths in Iraq (yes, I keep using that number. The way I go on about it, its almost like it was published in a peer reviewed medical journal or something...) and a good number in new orleans, where he appointed a lackey of his (who had previously been deemed to incompetent to put on a fucking horse show) to head FEMA. He has destroyed your countries reputation around the world, made containment of Russia politically near impossible, and accelerated the rise of China is a major world power.

But hey, its your country. I'm actually quite amused to see how much its gone downhill

[MatthewJ]

Bush is evil personified. He started two genocidal wars in the Middle East whilst I was trying to shop. How dare he inconvenience me like that! [/sarcasm]

I actually think the man is a saint. Nobody in history has had to put up with such a worldwide outpouring of irrational hate, lies, and ridicule. He was also a breath of fresh air. A plain talking conservative Christian as opposed to the radical narcissistic socialist that came before him.

[SpiderMonkey]

How many people do you think are going to pay attention to the postings of a man who calls bill clinton a 'socialist'. Even on the American political spectrum he isn't left wing:

Top bracket tax rate under Clinton: 36%
Top bracket tax rate under Eisenhower: 92%

By your logic (sic) the man synonymous with mid-twentieth century conservatism was an outright communist. Thus, as usual, you fail epically.

[MatthewJ]

By your logic (sic) the man synonymous with mid-twentieth century conservatism was an outright communist. Thus, as usual, you fail epically.

The public image of the Clinton’s does not represent their pasts and ideological roots. Consider the appointment of Derek Shearer and tell me with a straight face that Clinton is a centrist. Post Gramsci the Marxist will sacrifice his ideals in order to maintain the facade of normality and instead go down the route of slow, incremental change and hijacking of the culture. Look at how successful the Fabians have been in this respect.

Both Klintoons are devout Marxists. Billy organized anti-Vietnam War protets, spent time as a student in Russia in 1969 (where the KGB would have tried to recruit him), pardoned FALN terrorists and has ties to the Institute for Policy Studies. Not really the actions of a conservative, southern good ole boy is it.

Back to the main topic. I hope that the history books are kinder to Bush than the majority of the current MSN and people on forums such as this are. He’s a well meaning but flawed individual. I’ll miss his straight talking and gaffes.

[soron]

Clinton had an impeachement coming for lying about a totally private affair.
Bush and his buddies lied worse. They lied about Iraq. They actively produced false evidence to justify an war. They invaded Iraq without UN approval. They violated the Geneva Convention, they violated basic human rights, they restricted US citizens' civil rights and created a shadow legislation that would allow them to bypass the entire legal US system if they desired so, just by claiming "terror suspect".
They went ahead with the deficit spending economics and actively encouraged the Americans to do the same which in the end helped to bring about the worst economic crisis in 80 years.
They pissed away the results of 6 decades of diplomacy and put the US in the worst international isolation in half a century.
Imho the entire Bush administration should be tried for terrorism and crimes against humanity in The Hague.

[NYYS]

If Bush was dealt a bad hand then Obama's got a platter of shit waiting for him at the table.

No, because it's clear to everyone that the current situation isn't Obama's fault. In fact, Obama is in pretty much the best position a new president can be in. He's following a wildly unpopular president, the economy is at or near a real bottom, Iraq has been improving (but the bad part of it is still rightfully attributed to Bush). There's nowhere to go but up. When things improve, as they naturally will, Obama will get credit for it.

Your friend Bush was a terrible leader. He is responsible for about a million deaths in Iraq (yes, I keep using that number. The way I go on about it, its almost like it was published in a peer reviewed medical journal or something...)

Thus confirming my suspicions that Spidermonkey only reads the topic title before responding...

I said Iraq is inexcusable and completely on Bush. You're agreeing with me, which you'd know had you read any of the thread.

and a good number in new orleans, where he appointed a lackey of his (who had previously been deemed to incompetent to put on a fucking horse show) to head FEMA.

The problem in New Orleans was that the federal and state response procedures were terrible and everyone misjudged the threat. The state response obviously isn't Bush's fault, and the federal response was a result of poor FEMA planning, which had never been tested up until this point. One appointment doesn't make a huge difference.

and accelerated the rise of China is a major world power.

What?

[W01f]

In fact, Obama is in pretty much the best position a new president can be in. He's following a wildly unpopular president, the economy is at or near a real bottom, Iraq has been improving (but the bad part of it is still rightfully attributed to Bush). There's nowhere to go but up. When things improve, as they naturally will, Obama will get credit for it.

Ok what? Following a wildly unpopular president is about the only thing Obama has going for him right now. Otherwise he's in about the worst position imaginable, except for if there were a major world war going on or something.

First, what makes you think the economy is at or near a bottom? It's been getting worse month by month (not the stock market, actual economic figures). Inflation (or deflation) hasn't even hit yet, the dollar hasn't even begun to fall yet. We don't even know Q4 figures after that disastrous holiday season. We've barely scratched the surface. I believe Paulson said back in April that things were near a bottom after finally admitting that there were problems in the housing market. And I bet you believed him while you laughed at and ridiculed people like me who saw things differently (I remember this from you specifically).

Second, Iraq is nowhere near finished. Obama is faced with the potential prospect of pulling out and seeing the whole house of cards come crumbling down. A house of cards that he didn't build. And now he has Afghanistan to worry about, which has been getting worse by the day, while other NATO members have been itching to get out for some time now.

Now think of just how much Obama is going to have to cut back as far as his plans go. He's not going to be able to focus on anything he had been promising during his campaign. He's going to be stuck fixing what other people broke, and even if he does manage that in his first four years, which is doubtful, he still won't have anything to show for his own ideas and plans. His best case scenario is getting things right back to where we were a year and a half to two years ago. So much for change right?

Nowhere to go but up? You must have a fever or something.

[Grognonours]

I hate to have to keep pointing this out but

had an impeachement coming for lying about a totally private affair

No, Clinton was not impeached for getting a blow job. He was impeached for obstruction of justice in the Paula Jones case. Enough of that.

While I don't agree with many of the things Bush did, I understand why he did them and I think his intentions were good. Iraq was long overdue. That's a given to anyone who remembers history. Afghanistan is necessary but all it really did was slow down terrorism coming from there which allowed other groups to grow larger. Much in SE Asia. His spending was what the problem was, but I don't know why the liberals hate his spending since much of it was going to social programs. The wars were expensive. They always are, but usually there is a cut in social programs when at war, which didn't happen this time. Overall it was a good 8 years and it doesn't seem like Obama is really going to change much, to the chagrin of those who voted for him. Well, it would be to their chagrin if they even knew what was going on.

[NYYS]

Ok what? Following a wildly unpopular president is about the only thing Obama has going for him right now. Otherwise he's in about the worst position imaginable, except for if there were a major world war going on or something.

The country is in a bad position, no doubt, but Obama is in a good political position.

First, what makes you think the economy is at or near a bottom? It's been getting worse month by month (not the stock market, actual economic figures).

It would be a hard sell that there is still significantly worse damage to be done. The big thing was the damage to the financials because of the derivatives they had been flinging around on the assumption that housing was correctly valued, but at this point it seems we're mostly clear on the extent of that damage, and the government has stepped in to mostly prevent cash flow problems where they arise. That's the cause of this, what's left is the effects - unemployment, negative growth, etc. Those numbers will continue to be poor for a little while (I think most predictions say another 6 months or so?) but the underlying causes of them aren't going to take too much more of a beating.

And the stock market is almost definitely at a bottom (already cleared it, actually), and from the excessive damage priced in there it will have a huge rebound within a couple years, which looks great for Obama.

Inflation (or deflation) hasn't even hit yet

Huh? We had our inflation scare in early 2008, and deflation is probably going to be warded off by the easy money getting handed around right now. Besides, in that sentence you basically said that no matter what happens it's bad. Either we're inflating or deflating (I suppose 0 inflation could happen, but it's basically impossible), and you've deemed them both bad.

the dollar hasn't even begun to fall yet.

What? Do you even know how that works? The dollar has to fall against something. It fell earlier when the Eurozone and other economies hadn't begun their recessions yet, since we were 6 months ahead of them. What is it going to fall against now? Everyone else is in the same situation we are, all that matters is relative to each other. In fact, the dollar had been strengthening against the basket of currencies in 2008 for a while when it looked like they would get it worse than we did (then Lehman collapsed and the rest is history).

And I bet you believed him while you laughed at and ridiculed people like me who saw things differently (I remember this from you specifically).

I don't recall that but I don't doubt it. I definitely don't remember anyone here in April saying that the housing-based derivatives were as widely invested in as they were and thus financials were in that serious of trouble, leading to a credit crisis. I only remember your typical "Communism is the only answer! Marx was right!" that come with every recession regardless of the cause or understanding of the situation from the people making those declarations. And can you really blame anyone for laughing at those people?

I don't know you all that well, but you appear to be a perma-bear, constantly seeing the end of America and capitalism around every turn. Granted I probably fall under the perma-bull category, but that still makes me right 9 times out of 10. Did you really understand the financial markets well enough to see what was coming or were you just making another negative guess that happened to be right? If you really understood can you please let us know what will happen next?

Second, Iraq is nowhere near finished. Obama is faced with the potential prospect of pulling out and seeing the whole house of cards come crumbling down.

Yes, but Obama didn't get us there. Whatever he does will be seen as cleaning up after Bush.

And now he has Afghanistan to worry about, which has been getting worse by the day, while other NATO members have been itching to get out for some time now.

That is a stumbling block, agreed.

Now think of just how much Obama is going to have to cut back as far as his plans go. He's not going to be able to focus on anything he had been promising during his campaign. He's going to be stuck fixing what other people broke, and even if he does manage that in his first four years, which is doubtful, he still won't have anything to show for his own ideas and plans. His best case scenario is getting things right back to where we were a year and a half to two years ago. So much for change right?

First of all, the majority of Obama's campaigned-on ideas were terrible, so this is fine.

Second, like I said in the public eye everything that is wrong right now is Bush's fault, and everything that continues to be wrong in the first, I don't know, year or so of Obama's presidency will be Bush's fault. If he has to put things off it's because of the state of the economy, which can easily be blamed on Bush. And when things do recover, as they will, he will be seen as the savior that got us there.

[Gletkin]

No, because it's clear to everyone that the current situation isn't Obama's fault.

Sure things will turn around....but when? How long will "eventually" be?
If time is not on Obama's side, when people's patience runs thin and partisan rhetoric heats up, it'll be Obama's turn at the whipping post.

[NYYS]

Things would have to last pretty long for it to become Obama's fault in the public eye. Americans really hate Bush, it won't be that hard to blame it on him.

[Nattering Nabob]

If we are still in a recession after four years Obama will not be re-elected IMO...that is his time limit.

[canadiancapitalist]

9/11 wasn't Bush's fault, and I don't think he can be blamed for not stopping it. So that's unlucky. Of course he followed up by committing the war crime of aggressive war and murdering hundreds of thousands to a million innocent civilians, so it's sort of a wash. Of course the economic crises wasn't his fault, but he was as terrible on the economy as a president could be. Where were the veto's? He had a favourable congress. He just didn't care.

He was a terrible president during a bad time.

[Ombrageux]

It depends what catastrophe we are talking about. If it's the economy, I think it is much bigger than W. Sure, he encouraged it by coupling his reckless military expenditures with calls to shop, but this pattern of debt-driven consumption and investment has been around since the 1980s.

On Iraq, and the Mideast more broadly, the clusterfuck is entirely his own. It was a war of choice, both the war itself, and the arrogant way which he went about it. This includes his trumping up the war on terror to be both a warmonger and, as are 'illegal combatants' are concerned, an arbitrary despot.

[Perry Logan]

Let him who is without sin cast the first shoe.

[DarkInsight]

Let him who is without sin cast the first shoe.

There is a reason for the existence of punishment and criticism.