Is Bush a war mongering idiot?

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Well in my opinion, somebody was going to deal with Iraqs' situation sooner or later. Frankly, I don't really give a damn whether Saddam had WMDs or not. If he did, eventually, we'll find them. If not, somebody in the CIA is in BIG trouble. Despite Bush's idiocy, and his rampant lack of verbal and public speaking skills ( Which is on par with a high schooler on crack), he did the right thing. We didn't really know what went on in Iraq until we 'liberated' the country. Before the war people were going on about how the people were starving to death because they weren't getting enough food an how the people of iraq was living in poverty. I guess Saddam forgot that he had hundreds of millions of dollars stashed inside vaults, and had forgot he had several palaces furnished with luxuries beyond belief that could not be givin up in order to save the lives of his people.

[/quote]

[Perinquus]

You know, I find it interesting that even many of the people on this board who supported the war on Iraq subscribe to the view that Bush is an idiot. I'm reminded of a certain American president who, while he served, was very widely regarded as an unpopular bumpkin, without charm, charisma, social grace, or diplomatic skill, who was roundly despised as an unrealistic buffoon, and who was rearded to have a shaky claim to the presidency since he did not receive a majority of the vote - Abraham Lincoln. In fact the similarities between what was said about Lincoln during the Civil War, and what is being said about Bush today are uncanny.

I find it deliciously ironic that this man, who in his own day was called a "hillbilly bumpkin" and a "well-meaning baboon" (among the kinder epithets) is now almost universally regarded as our greatest president. Now does that mean I think George W. Bush will go down in history as a president fit to rank with Lincoln? No, not by a long shot. But I do think history will judge Bush to have been a good, effective president overall, and one generally far more capable than his many detractors gave him credit for. I also think posterity will remember him far more kindly than his immediate predecessor.

[NecronLord]

A little from Column A, a little from Column B.

certainly hes not the best president we've had. but hes not the worst, either.

Who is the worst?

[Joe]

A little from Column A, a little from Column B.

certainly hes not the best president we've had. but hes not the worst, either.

Who is the worst?

Depends on who you talk to. Warren Harding, William Howard Taft, Richard Nixon, and Martin Van Buren tend to be consensus picks; leftist scholars tend to include Reagan in that mix.

And Perin, the analogy with Bush and Lincoln doesn't quite add up. Lincoln may have been awkward, clumsy, and bumbling, but he had a amazing understanding the English language (read his debates and compare them to moden Presidential debates to see what I mean). I want to believe Bush isn't a moron, but the constant verbal bumbling, which Lincoln never would have done, is unworthy of grade schoolers and is rather off-putting.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Don't forget Grant and Hoover.

[Stormbringer]

Bush is perhaps too eager to get into a war. There's no question that he has handled the diplomatic aspects of the war on terror and the war in Iraq badly. But frankly, I find the repeated and totally ridiculious claims by the leftist-idiots that Bush is simply doing this to make himself look good and distract the nation ludicrious and the people making the claims fools.

Bush made dealing with Iraq a point of his campaign. Why are they so stunned that he's doing it now? All I can think of is they're so jaded that they simply can't believe a politician following through on a promise.

[Vympel]

Well in my opinion, somebody was going to deal with Iraqs' situation sooner or later. Frankly, I don't really give a damn whether Saddam had WMDs or not. If he did, eventually, we'll find them. If not, somebody in the CIA is in BIG trouble.

The CIA is already launching an investigation- hopefully some heads roll if there are no WMD.

I guess Saddam forgot that he had hundreds of millions of dollars stashed inside vaults, and had forgot he had several palaces furnished with luxuries beyond belief that could not be givin up in order to save the lives of his people.

Unfortunately, the war was not sold as a humanitarian mission, it was sold as an attempt to save America from a clear and present danger to it's national security. War to free the Iraqi people? Honestly, would anyone have cared? I doubt it, unfortunately. Wrong motives taint the entire process. If it was for feel-good 'liberation' reasons, then it's been handled piss-poorly. Disorder runs rampant. The new leaders have no credibility. The Shi'ites are set to align themselves with Iran the moment they get the chance. Thousands are dead. The infrastructure is wrecked. Are the Iraqi people better off? One day, hopefully, they may be. Because right now it's hell over there, and that's why I didn't support the war.

[0.1]

Vmp,

I think what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you didn't like the reasoning Bush gave for the war. Thus, you didn't support the war then. And you don't support the war now because things are a mess down in Iraq.

Is that accurate?

So, what would have been the conditions under which you'd have supported the war then? Now, it doesn't matter since the war is over.

[Perinquus]

Who is the worst?

Depends on who you talk to. Warren Harding, William Howard Taft, Richard Nixon, and Martin Van Buren tend to be consensus picks; leftist scholars tend to include Reagan in that mix.

Actualy Nixon was a better president than most people give him credit for. He certainly wasn't the most honest chap ever to sit in the oval office, but I also don't think he was any more dishonest than a great many other presidents (LBJ comes to mind - he had a rather corrupt administration), the difference was, he got caught.

Don't leave out Carter. He was certainly one of our worst, our most ineffectual presidents. He managed to alienate not only most of the Republicans in Congress, but also a lot of the Democrats, and thus accomplished very very little while in office. And some of what he did accomplish was bad - like giving away the Panama Canal; now one of our most vital strategic assets is controlled by the Chinese. GREAT idea that was.

And Perin, the analogy with Bush and Lincoln doesn't quite add up. Lincoln may have been awkward, clumsy, and bumbling, but he had a amazing understanding the English language (read his debates and compare them to moden Presidential debates to see what I mean). I want to believe Bush isn't a moron, but the constant verbal bumbling, which Lincoln never would have done, is unworthy of grade schoolers and is rather off-putting.

Don't make the mistake of taking the comparison too closely. Like any comparison, it can only be carried so far. As I said, Bush is not a great communicator; Lincoln was. Lincoln was also a greater president, I think there can be no doubt. But the point I am making is that Lincoln was just a greatly detested, and greatly scorned as a dullard by his political opponents of that day as Bush is today by those on the left. In other words, Lincoln's critics were no less arrogantly certain the man they hated was an imbecile than Bush's opponents are today, and they were wrong. Today's leftists have that same arrogant certainty about them, and it no more guarantees they are right than Lincoln's opponents were. Just as history has thoroughly vindicated Lincoln, I think history will vindicate Bush, and he will go down as an effective president. Not on Lincoln's level by any means, but I think hindsight will show his critics to have been unduly harsh.

[Vympel]

Vmp,

I think what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you didn't like the reasoning Bush gave for the war. Thus, you didn't support the war then.

Kind of- I never bought the reasoning that "Saddam will give WMD to terroists". It's not something a dictator would do, and even the CIA said it was only a possible scenario if he had his "back against the wall". Both then, and now, I didn't support it because I didn't think Iraq would be better off to warrant the cost, combined with a greater terrorist threat, and the possibility of Iraq going Islamic fundie.

So, what would have been the conditions under which you'd have supported the war then? Now, it doesn't matter since the war is over.

I'd support a war on Iraq if it clearly carried out, or was clearly attempting to carry out, a terrorist attack on the United States- realistically speaking now, because a military attack by Iraq against any other nation in the region just couldn't happen- Iraq was too weak after 91.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Unfortunately, the war was not sold as a humanitarian mission, it was sold as an attempt to save America from a clear and present danger to it's national security. War to free the Iraqi people? Honestly, would anyone have cared? I doubt it, unfortunately. Wrong motives taint the entire process. If it was for feel-good 'liberation' reasons, then it's been handled piss-poorly. Disorder runs rampant. The new leaders have no credibility. The Shi'ites are set to align themselves with Iran the moment they get the chance. Thousands are dead. The infrastructure is wrecked. Are the Iraqi people better off? One day, hopefully, they may be. Because right now it's hell over there, and that's why I didn't support the war.

True, but the point I was trying to make was that we did not know the true condition Iraq was in until we went there with our tanks.

[HemlockGrey]

Who is the worst?

I remember Talen saying that the thought Wilson was the worst.

[Lonestar]

Who is the worst?

Harrision. Punk couldn't even stay in office 30 days.

[Raptor 597]

Don't forget Grant and Hoover.

Grant's aides perhaps but he himself was just ineffectual. And when the bottum fell oyut Hoover was stck in a ditch and the initial shock wasm pressing or nothing real could be done by the the end of his term.

[Joe]

Don't forget Grant and Hoover.

Grant's aides perhaps but he himself was just ineffectual. And when the bottum fell oyut Hoover was stck in a ditch and the initial shock wasm pressing or nothing real could be done by the the end of his term.

It is true that nothing could have been done during Hoover's Presidency except for maybe cutting taxes and spending (heaven forbid!. Unfortunately for America (and the rest of the world, for that matter), that didn't stop Hoover from raising marginal income tax rates considerably and passing one of the biggest tariffs in U.S. history. Hoover took what should have been a recession and laid the tracks for a Depression.

[The Albino Raven]

I felt it was neccessary to vote no. Although Bush is indeed a warmonger, he is most definately not an idiot. It takes a good deal of intelligence and cunning to become president, even if it is done so through connections with others. Yes, he has problems with public speaking, but he is most definately intelligent. He was smart enough to get himself elected, and smart enough to still keep many people supporting him.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Kennedy was our worst President. He started the programs that Johnson would carry through so disastrously at home while abroad he revamped the army away from the proven force composition that Eisenhower had worked out, into a worthless mixed conventional/nuclear force that left to much temptation for large scale interventions in places like 'nam.

Weak and shallow in foreign affairs, he allowed himself to be intimidated by Khrushchev, repeatedly placing the USA at the brink of crisis. Finally, of course, he got us involved in 'nam to begin with - Under conditions which, thanks to an assasination he sanctioned, prevent any chance of victory.

The man is a disgrace who, at least indirectly, caused the deaths of tens of thousands of American servicemen, and on this Memorial Day the only reason I do not revile him more thoroughly is because he himself served.

[HemlockGrey]

The man is a disgrace who, at least indirectly, caused the deaths of tens of thousands of American servicemen, and on this Memorial Day the only reason I do not revile him more thoroughly is because he himself served.

He got his boat blown up. Not exactly distinguised service.

[Vympel]

He got his boat blown up. Not exactly distinguised service.

Oi! Just because you suffered ill-fortune in combat doesn't mean you didn't serve with distinction. No one should say "oh, you got shot down over North Vietnam, you're a loser".

Shit happens- well, unless it was his gross negligence that go this PT Boat blown up- was it his fault?

Kennedy was our worst President. He started the programs that Johnson would carry through so disastrously at home while abroad he revamped the army away from the proven force composition that Eisenhower had worked out, into a worthless mixed conventional/nuclear force that left to much temptation for large scale interventions in places like 'nam.

What was Eisenhower's force structure?

[Sea Skimmer]

What was Eisenhower's force structure?

Bare minimal of conventional forces, which would serve no purpose in a war with the Soviet Union, and a huge nuclear force which would give the US a decisive advantage. Kennedy killed the US's nuclear advantage and used the money to build a large conventional army, nuke fodder against the Soviets, but one which made the intervention in Vietnam possibul.

[Stormbringer]

Oi! Just because you suffered ill-fortune in combat doesn't mean you didn't serve with distinction. No one should say "oh, you got shot down over North Vietnam, you're a loser".

Shit happens- well, unless it was his gross negligence that go this PT Boat blown up- was it his fault?

Nope. He was just unlucky enough to have his boat rammed by Japanese destroyer.

[Sea Skimmer]

He got his boat blown up. Not exactly distinguised service.

What exactly do you think happens when you pit four or so wooden boats aginst a destroyer squadron, with optional cruisers and battlecruisers, about every other night?

[Vympel]

What was Eisenhower's force structure?

Bare minimal of conventional forces, which would serve no purpose in a war with the Soviet Union, and a huge nuclear force which would give the US a decisive advantage. Kennedy killed the US's nuclear advantage and used the money to build a large conventional army, nuke fodder against the Soviets, but one which made the intervention in Vietnam possibul.

[Sea Skimmer]

Where you intent to add an actual reply to that quote?

[Montcalm]

Kennedy was our worst President.

WHAT i thought Clinton was the worsthe had no taste in women,he scraped the bottom of the barrel,while Kennedy banged some hot looking chicks.