More Americans like G.W. Bush then hate

[Simon_Jester]

Obama's also done more to support gay rights than Bush did.

And those two things Simon_Jester mentioned are pretty big things.

But as far as the spying is concerned, Obama's actions are inexcusable.

Put this way.

In terms of domestic policies he implements, Obama isn't a bad president, Bush was a bad president. In terms of foreign policy, Obama is a decent president, Bush was a terrible president.

In terms of "is the country trending towards a corporate-owned despotism, yes or no, and is the president trying to stop that, yes or no?" both Bush and Obama score very badly.

I can easily see someone thinking that the second pair of questions matter more than the first pair. The overall nature of the presidency, and of the government's relationship to various interests, continues to decay and get worse. It's fair to criticize Obama for utterly refusing to stop that, even though I'd rather have him than Bush, and much rather have him than, say, a Tea Party frontrunner for president.

[Thanas]

I think many people here are perhaps conflating a favorable view of the man, with a favorable view of his Presidency. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that he is a good man and a bad president, etc.

Agreed.

I do believe that Bush had good intentions as well for the record. Cheney, I am less certain.

[Gandalf]

I do believe that Bush had good intentions as well for the record. Cheney, I am less certain.

I always thought that Cheney was in it for Cheney, with little regard for the rest of the Republican agenda. He certainly doesn't seem to be much of a culture warrior.

[FaxModem1]

I'm reminded of this video:



Essentially, Obama's had to deal with a Congress that won't cooperate in any way for his entire presidency, and that's made his efforts seem rather lacking.

[Flagg]

I'm reminded of this video:



Essentially, Obama's had to deal with a Congress that won't cooperate in any way for his entire presidency, and that's made his efforts seem rather lacking.

But if he would only MAN UP and GROW A SPINE he'd somehow force them to bend to his will!

[Thanas]

Essentially, Obama's had to deal with a Congress that won't cooperate in any way for his entire presidency, and that's made his efforts seem rather lacking.

Too bad that congress is not forcing him to bomb funerals, committ signature strikes, expand rendition programs, violate the sovereignty of allied nations, spy on everybody or keep somebody locked up for over 1.5 years before charging him with anything. The only pass he gets on that issue is on Guantanamo and only if you are willing to accept his tale of how the big bad congress forced him to drop this at the earliest convenience when it came to negotiations.

[energiewende]

It's not like there's much difference. Unless you're a big fan of Obamacare - and I'm yet to meet many - policy has been remarkably continuous. At least Bush prosecuted aggressive foreign policy and megadebt with a smile; Obama doesn't even make Americans feel good about it.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The thread title is bugging me. They like Bush then hate him? What?

As for Obama, I seem to find equal numbers of people online who find him the second coming, and those who think he's actually worse than Bush for any number of reasons, from pet peeves over his health policies and coming-to-take-mah-guns thing, to the routine massacre of foreigners via robots in the air. I think more people have wised up to him not being a saint, while at the same time, there are still those who feel he can still rise above any other POTUS in the past.

It's nice sentiment, but it's totally out-of-line for reality where we find Obama is no better or worse than any number of previous presidents.

[Lord Relvenous]

I think many people here are perhaps conflating a favorable view of the man, with a favorable view of his Presidency. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that he is a good man and a bad president, etc.

Agreed.

I do believe that Bush had good intentions as well for the record. Cheney, I am less certain.

His administration did a lot of good in Africa, and I feel like that same urge to help was twisted by Cheney into the part of the justification for Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean sure, that's certainly not the first reason, but I can see Cheney selling Bush on the ideas with a bit of "the people there are starving and miserable! If we go in and remove the leaders, their lives will be better".

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Well all these, and there's also the possibility that Bush has managed to pull off the 'good ruler, bad advisors' trick.

[montypython]

Bush always gave me the impression of someone with good intentions but too easily swayed by bad arguments, whereas Cheney is basically Palpatine for all intents and purposes...

[Flagg]

Hey I heard Hitler only did bad shit cause Himmler told him to.

[energiewende]

I think many people here are perhaps conflating a favorable view of the man, with a favorable view of his Presidency. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that he is a good man and a bad president, etc.

Agreed.

I do believe that Bush had good intentions as well for the record. Cheney, I am less certain.

His administration did a lot of good in Africa, and I feel like that same urge to help was twisted by Cheney into the part of the justification for Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean sure, that's certainly not the first reason, but I can see Cheney selling Bush on the ideas with a bit of "the people there are starving and miserable! If we go in and remove the leaders, their lives will be better".

Given the context of the time is it even so unreasonable? We just came out of the peak of the "Asian Tigers" period (remember at that time it was all the democratic, pro-Western asian countries, not China and Vietnam) and immediately into the fall of the Soviet Union, which led to a dozen or so new NATO members enthusiastically embracing capitalism.

So if Iraq had actually had a large element of pro-liberal democracy/market opinion, and had thrown off the Saddamese yoke and become an enthusiastic, rapidly growing part of the West, would it really be remembered so badly? That's probably what Bush expected.

Now Obama on the other hand complained about all this with the benefit of hindsight, ran as "the anti-war guy", then when was elected, stuck to the Bush Iraq withdrawal timetable and ramped things up everywhere else.

[Metahive]

That's classical. "O no, the Czar/Emperor/Generalssimo/Vozhd/Führer etc. isn't bad, just his underlings, *sigh* if only he knew..." Are people really still falling for that? What did a certain american president once say? "The buck stops here". The guy who holds ultimate responsibility doesn't get to hide behind his subordinates. Either Bush supported all the shit his regime pulled in which case he's an asshole or it happened despite of him in which case he is incompetent and also an asshole for being so badly informed about his apparatus.
I'm disappointed that people actually trot this out in defense of the Chimpus Caesar of all people.

Given the context of the time is it even so unreasonable? We just came out of the peak of the "Asian Tigers" period (remember at that time it was all the democratic, pro-Western asian countries, not China and Vietnam) and immediately into the fall of the Soviet Union, which led to a dozen or so new NATO members enthusiastically embracing capitalism.

Yes, from the view of a sheltered, privileged, mollycoddled, naive and distant observer this might have been expected. That's why this sort of people shouldn't be making decisions about war and peace. Their views might be a teensy-tiny bit askew!

So if Iraq had actually had a large element of pro-liberal democracy/market opinion, and had thrown off the Saddamese yoke and become an enthusiastic, rapidly growing part of the West, would it really be remembered so badly? That's probably what Bush expected.

Bush being a delusional moron wasn't a bug, it was a feature! Yay!

[energiewende]

Given the context of the time is it even so unreasonable? We just came out of the peak of the "Asian Tigers" period (remember at that time it was all the democratic, pro-Western asian countries, not China and Vietnam) and immediately into the fall of the Soviet Union, which led to a dozen or so new NATO members enthusiastically embracing capitalism.

Yes, from the view of a sheltered, privileged, mollycoddled, naive and distant observer this might have been expected. That's why this sort of people shouldn't be making decisions about war and peace. Their views might be a teensy-tiny bit askew

You misunderstand me: the point is that taking into account the best evidence from all over the world, it was a reasonable expectation. Not that someone who ignored the evidence would consider it a reasonable expectation.

[K. A. Pital]

The US occupied the Philippines and directly administered it as a colony, then ruled by proxy pro-American dictators, and nothing good came out of this. Same goes for US intervention in many other nations, like Iran, Guatemala, etc. So there was ample evidence that US occupation or intervention does not produce the desireable result, depending on it being either democracy or richness, even way before the US started blowing shit up. Incidentally, Asian Tigers were not democratic, unless South Korea's dictator suddenly became a democrat.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Given the context of the time is it even so unreasonable? We just came out of the peak of the "Asian Tigers" period (remember at that time it was all the democratic, pro-Western asian countries, not China and Vietnam) and immediately into the fall of the Soviet Union, which led to a dozen or so new NATO members enthusiastically embracing capitalism.

So if Iraq had actually had a large element of pro-liberal democracy/market opinion, and had thrown off the Saddamese yoke and become an enthusiastic, rapidly growing part of the West, would it really be remembered so badly? That's probably what Bush expected.

Now Obama on the other hand complained about all this with the benefit of hindsight, ran as "the anti-war guy", then when was elected, stuck to the Bush Iraq withdrawal timetable and ramped things up everywhere else.

"The context" better describes Bush Sr. We aren't talking about him. And I don't think Bush Jr. didn't have the so-called benefit of hindsight when it came to the former Warsaw Pact. Jesus, look at what these guys "achieved" without even getting their ass kicked in a war.

[Lord Relvenous]

Agreed.

I do believe that Bush had good intentions as well for the record. Cheney, I am less certain.

His administration did a lot of good in Africa, and I feel like that same urge to help was twisted by Cheney into the part of the justification for Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean sure, that's certainly not the first reason, but I can see Cheney selling Bush on the ideas with a bit of "the people there are starving and miserable! If we go in and remove the leaders, their lives will be better".

Given the context of the time is it even so unreasonable? We just came out of the peak of the "Asian Tigers" period (remember at that time it was all the democratic, pro-Western asian countries, not China and Vietnam) and immediately into the fall of the Soviet Union, which led to a dozen or so new NATO members enthusiastically embracing capitalism.

So if Iraq had actually had a large element of pro-liberal democracy/market opinion, and had thrown off the Saddamese yoke and become an enthusiastic, rapidly growing part of the West, would it really be remembered so badly? That's probably what Bush expected.

Yes, it is unreasonable. While Saddam was certainly a terrible, horrible leader, forcing help onto those who don't want it will always end badly. Starting said help with an invasion of their homeland only makes it worse. And see Stas' post for a response to the "good" interventions.

"O no, the Czar/Emperor/Generalssimo/Vozhd/Führer etc. isn't bad, just his underlings, *sigh* if only he knew..."

If this is directed at me and my Cheney comment, point out to me where I said Bush doesn't have culpability. Just because he had good intentions doesn't mean he isn't a war criminal who caused the deaths of millions. I'm just saying those good intentions were probably an element of his justification. That doesn't make the action that needs justification any less heinous.

[energiewende]

It didn't end badly in Korea or Japan. For those of us who would regard the Cold War as some sort of conflict which the US "won" (and this was, if not universal, a widely held view at the time) it worked well in the Baltics and elsewhere.

Since we're specifically not talking about either colonies or replacing one native dictator by another, but rather imposing democracy then leaving, Stas Bush's examples wouldn't have been persuasive.

[Thanas]

It didn't end badly in Korea or Japan. For those of us who would regard the Cold War as some sort of conflict which the US "won" (and this was, if not universal, a widely held view at the time) it worked well in the Baltics and elsewhere.

Please enlighten us which massive occupation made the baltics democratic. Last I checked, it had more with integration into the European economy and more importantly their own institutions than anything else.

[energiewende]

None, rather the collapse of the USSR and re-establishment of democracy. The view was that all countries were ultimately liberal democracies yearning to break free of despots, and therefore the US only had to establish democracy in Iraq and it would become a prosperous and willing ally. No colonisation, no coupist dictators, simply the creation of a new ally in free association.

This view was of course wrong - it ignored the religious and nationalist politics of the region that are strong than any westernising impulse - but it was not altogether unreasonable given the recent history.

[Thanas]

Yes it was because countries with European culture, European history etc. just might not have the same values as ME countries.

[energiewende]

Same thing also happened in Asia, Japanese, Korean and Chinese cultures not being incredibly similar to European. At the time it was believed to be a universal phenomenon. I mean, that argument isn't too many steps away from outright racism, not that I think you personally are guilty of that. They certainly ignored the religious and nationalist problems that the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular suffered from, but decoupling from the Soviet Union was also quite a big problem and that had been dealt with effectively. So was being decolonised, being nuked and losing WWII, etc.

[Thanas]

Same thing also happened in Asia, Japanese, Korean and Chinese cultures not being incredibly similar to European. At the time it was believed to be a universal phenomenon. I mean, that argument isn't too many steps away from outright racism, not that I think you personally are guilty of that.

It is not a universal phenomenon and I am still waiting on that great list of successful asian democracies.

They certainly ignored the religious and nationalist problems that the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular suffered from, but decoupling from the Soviet Union was also quite a big problem and that had been dealt with effectively. So was being decolonised, being nuked and losing WWII, etc.

Another one size fits all argument. Not worth replying to.

[energiewende]

This is not my argument; I am only saying it was not a totally unreasonable argument.

Of course a 'One Size Fits One' series of arguments is more convenient to the critic because it obviates the need, even the ability, to draw any trend at all from past evidence, and so any outcome at all can be post-rationalised and everyone can be criticised for not having perfect prior knowledge of future events. But the people making decisions have to take the information available to them from the past and produce some kind of predictive theory to guide their actions before they are able to look and see what the results of those actions are. Even if the conclusion of that theory is "any intervention in an Islamic country is doomed to failure", it must be based on extrapolation from prior circumstances that are not in every respect the same as current ones, and bear some risk of failure - even if that risk is that Iraq remains under Saddamite despotism when it could otherwise have become a prosperous Taiwanalogue.