Good, Bad, or really sad Bush?

[Jackal.aHa!]

Hello, jackal here!
I just wanted to know how you all think Bush is doing as of right now.  Heres what i think...in the months he has been in charge, North Korea hates us...we will go to war with Iraq...Terrorism activity has increased (though he has no control over that)...Iran is now evil and im sure he will try to start a war with them.  Also he favors the rich and has done nothing to help California's energy problem.   Hes a puppet, big companies who paid for his campain are telling him what to do.  All in all, hes a bad leader, just like his father.

Some advice...RUNNIN AMERICA ISNT LIKE OWNING A BASEBALL TEAM!  YOU CANT TAUNT OTHER COUNTRIES, FIGHT THEM, AND THEN EVERYTHING GOES BACK TO NORMAL.  THIS ISNT BASEBALL, WE AIRNT THE YANKEES AND KOREA AINT THE METS!

Well maybe thats too extreme there, just voicing my opinion.  I know wise men will come and post, and tell us whats really up..lol

Adios,
Jackal

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I was too young to vote in the last election...but I would have voted for Nader damnit.  Next election I'll be in Canada working on getting citizenship and thus not giving a damn about voting in the US election.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I think he's been the normal Republican.

His domestic policy is for shit as far as the ecology goes.

He caters to the rich and big business.

His is much stronger on his forigh policy and international relations.  No kidding.  While Gore would have done a much better job on many domestic issues, he would have handled 9/11, Iraq and North Korea much worse the Bush has.  My opinion, but I'll argue it plenty if you don't agree.  But if you don't think it could have been handled worse, consider that we aren't in a war yet on the one side, and that on the other, we could have completely ignored it, and had many more terrorist attacks happen.  So, yes, it could be much much worse, even if you hate Bush.

So personally, I didn't vote for him, most likely wont vote for him next time, unless I can't find anyone better to vote for when the next elections come around.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Ok, I do think there are a few things in particular that Bush has done very poorly on in foreign affairs.  I think he has made some very ill-advised comments such as the axis of evil and played to his cowboy image on a number of occasions basically telling Europe that we don't give a fuck about them.  Him or his staff has basically supported the image of the US as an arrogant nation that is perhaps something to worry about as a risk to their own people through the stirring up of terrorism there.

This effect is what I think is his greatest negative legacy that it looks like he may leave in foreign affairs.  If/when the war happens more things may come to replace it, but I think the friction with our allies is the greatest.  Now I know many other countries are sticking with us.  But that doesn't mean the harm isn't felt there.  Tony Blair in the UK is under emmense criticism for supporting the US.  He could very well be beaten out by someone running in a less supportive campaign and then the UK would too be added to the list of weakened allies.  Same is true in Australia.  Even though we are getting support, the lack of popular support for the war in virtually every nation will have an influence on who leads these countries in the years to come and thus affect the relationships with the countries.

I wouldn't want to predict what will happen with Iraq and North Korea...I can't say Bush has done a splendid job...certainly there could be the chance that it works out and he comes out smelling like roses.  Of course there is an equal chance I think that he'll come out smelling like shit.

[alaric]

Yeah, Bush sure hasn't been all peaches and cream when it comes to foreign policy either. Gore would probably have been far to lax in response to 9/11. Bush just doesn't have the finesse his father had. It's a trade off really.

*sighs and thinks back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt*

Ah, now he really was a soldier and a statesman...

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Just an opinion, but I bet Teddy would have nuked Iraq by now given his forign policy.  Or do we forget "speak softly but carry a big stick."

[Mr. Lothario]

...unless I can't find anyone better to vote for when the next elections come around.

     Now THAT gave me a serious case of the heebie-jeebies. In all seriousness, that's a scary, scary idea.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Reading an editorial in Newsweek I have an expansion on the problem of how Bush and his adminstration have handled Iraq vocally.  Basically they have made such a strong ultimatum that unless things go perfectly our way we will attack.  While this is fine in providing pressure, it also leaves no room to back down.  If the US doesn't go through with it they make others think the US won't hold to its word, something that could be very dangerous.  Of course the solution here isn't to go to war so that doesn't happen, it would have been to not make such absolute statements and get stuck in this position.

[cookie]

 I think he has made some very ill-advised comments such as the axis of evil and played to his cowboy image on a number of occasions basically telling Europe that we don't give a fuck about them.

Well, it's time Europe heard that I think. Seriously, from what I've seen Europe has done VERY little to try and alleviate any problems, plus they have been just as arrogant in terms of acting like they're above everyone else and their problems.

About Bush:
If I could have voted, I wouldn't have voted for him.. but I wouldn't have voted for Gore either. We have had shit for candidates in recent years.
Anyway, I think that managing the country in these times has to extremely tough, and I don't try and blame all our problems on him like most people. We were heading for recession (however I admit not one as bad as this), California really only has itself to blame for its energy problems, and nobody could have helped the terrorism thing. On the other hand, I think that he is mishandling North Korea and going about Iraq the wrong way in some aspects.

As a closing point, I think alot of you are blaming your troubles on the wrong person. We as a population need to learn to take responsibilty for things, and stop pretending like every little thing in your American lifestyle is the fault of one guy. The government doesn't dictate your lifestyle unless you let it.

[kami]

I think Bush has been horrible for America, probably the most hated American president ever, he has really given the US a bad image. I think Gore could've done a great job on the domestic affairs bit, although I don't know enough to say whether he'd be good at foreign affairs.

Cookie, they have done little to alleviate problems? What has the US done to alleviate the problems?

[tasty]

His is much stronger on his forigh policy and international relations.  No kidding.  While Gore would have done a much better job on many domestic issues, he would have handled 9/11, Iraq and North Korea much worse the Bush has.  My opinion, but I'll argue it plenty if you don't agree.  But if you don't think it could have been handled worse, consider that we aren't in a war yet on the one side, and that on the other, we could have completely ignored it, and had many more terrorist attacks happen.  So, yes, it could be much much worse, even if you hate Bush.

If you're looking for someone to argue that Gore would have handled foreign affairs better than Bush has, you've found him. While Bush has made us a pariah in the court of international opinion, Gore had the support of virtually every major foreign country. This would have greatly aided Gore in his foreign policy, as they would have cooperated better with him. Bush gave the impression of not caring what other countries thought, and its an impression he still carries with him and carries out in our foreign policy today. While Bush's foreign policy is deeply rooted in militarism and nationalism, Gore's would have been much more balanced. As a moderate Democrat, Gore would have taken into account both the security of our country and weighed that against international opinion and the lives of innocent civilians before plunging into military action. With Bush, it doesn't stop and end with Iraq. He has vowed to preemptively strike any country his administration views as a danger to the US. This amorphous policy could really be interpreted to carry out war against most nations in the world. Gore could have fought the war on terrorism without starting unnecessary military conflict. Democrats are viewed as being soft on enemies, but they are willing to use military force as well. I think that in our nations 46th (?) presidency, Gore would have done a better job than Bush in every possible respect. Too bad I was too young to vote for him.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Ok Tasty, I'm going to chip away at you and Bondo with the same point.

The people that write for Bush should have lost their jobs long ago.  If he's writing his own stuff, he needs to not be allowed to anymore.  Because you are both right in the fact that his mouth has really hurt the USA in the "court of public opinion".

So, let us from this point forward know him as the Anti-Willie.  Because while Slick Willie could say lots of the right things, his actions didn't always match his words.

Now, let's remove our focus from the words that come out of his mouth (Bush's mouth), and look more upon the actions.

I hear many, many people here saying that Bush would go to war if he could already, and other themes on that track.  But, let's look at what he's actually done in the case of Iraq.  And let's do this with the volume on MUTE.

He's taken his case to the UN.

He's collected and presented evidence to the UN.

He's pushed the UN and allied nations to Force Iraq to conform to previous UN Resolutions.

Here's a real biggie, and goes right to Bondo's Newsweek article.  In the latest news from yesterday, it seems the US is going to propose a new resolution to the UN this week, not one asking for war or military action.  But one to set a deadline on when Iraq has to fully cooperate with the previous resolutions by.

I don't see bombs droping on Iraq.  I don't see bombs droping on North Korea.  I don't see the US walking away from treaties.

So, while there are many, many people on here that concentrate on what Bush says, and talk about how bloodthirsty he is, I think the phrase "actions speak louder then words" comes to mind too.  Yes, he's talking way too much smack, and it's pretty stupid in my opinion.  But his actions are pointing in a different direction.

I do not defend Bush either.  I don't like him at all.  But I don't think Gore would have done a better job with 9/11, Bin Laden, or Iraq.  It's not like I think Clinton did a decent job with Iraq at all (this mess should have been cleaned up long ago and not let to get in this condition).  

And Tasty, I don't care if they are Republican or Democrat.  

I also want to know what unnecessary military action we have been plunged into so far?  

All I see people focused on is the "impression" they get from "listening" to Bush.  Well, if I listen to Howard Stern, I think he's a complete asshole.  But if I look at the money he donates to charity, I'd think he was a saint.  Which is true?  Something in the middle no doubt.

As for someone saying that Bush was the most hated American President ever, please check the gallop polls and history books.  Because the American public hasn't rated him that low yet.  And if you are talking about from outside the US (be more specific next time), then I'll still point out a few names like Johnson, Ronnie ray-gun, Nixon, (I have 200 years of them to work with, and Bush hasn't come close to the top yet)

As for Gore.  I think he would have been an overall better president then Bush.  But I don't think his actions would have been better (my opinion is he would have talked much more, had much more sympathy from the rest of the world, and not stepped up security or attacked Bin-Laden, and we would have seen more terrorist attacks).  It's my opinion, and while I can tell you why I think it, I can't back a "what would have happened" anymore then you can prove it wrong.  Because it's just an opinion.  But Gore never has shown himself to be a strong leader (or great speaker for that matter).  He's more likeable then Bush, sure.  But would he have been as decisive as Bush in the days after 9/11?

One last thought.  Looking at the Patriot Act, I think Gore would have gone even farther with it in the reduction of liberties because of his track record from the old days.  If Tipper has any influence on him, you could bank on it (you all remember Tipper and the quest for censorship, right?  Some of you older people, help remind these guys of it).

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Considering you think Bush is doing better than Gore would in foreign matters and Gore would do better in domestic matters.  Which president in hindsight would you want to have won the election knowing you would have to accept the flaws...Bush or Gore (feel free to add in other candidates as well because I'd choose Nader...I think he would do well with foreign policy as well).

[kami]

If I was an American citizen I'd probably have voted Gore.

Bucc, I meant globally, and alright, I'll rephrase, one of the most hated American presidents ever.

[cookie]

Cookie, they have done little to alleviate problems? What has the US done to alleviate the problems?

At least they're trying.

[tasty]

Obviously our differing opinions on who would have handled 9/11 and foreign policy stem from the fact that our opinions differ on what the best way to handle those matters would have been. As far as taking the case to the UN and proposing a new plan that does not involve immediate military action, good for Bush. It means he is taking this in the right direction. As far as strongarming the UN and bullying countries that don't agree with us into supporting us, I think that this is the wrong thing to do. Right now we are starting an economic embargo on Germany to punish their chancellor for what Bush called "traitorous behavior". This is not just arrogant talk, this is arrogant action. We can't honestly expect everyone to agree with what we do, and alienating a major powerhouse like Germany is never a good idea.

I also want to know what unnecessary military action we have been plunged into so far?  

The first action that comes to mind is Afghanistan. Now I'm not saying that nothing should have been done in response to 9/11, because the terrorist groups definetely need to be pursued and punished. And its good that we destroyed strongholds they may have had in Afghanistan. But the other effects of the war weren't so good. Bush claims that we liberated the people and that people were in the streets praising the US. But all we did was essentially replace one fundamentalist Islamic dictator that supported Al-Qaeda with another fundamentalist Islamic dictator that doesn't support Al-Qaeda. Are the values of the Northern Alliance really any different? And do the Afghan people want to be westernized? I would say that the answer to both of those questions is no. Bush vowed that after occupying their country that we would not abandon the Afghan people. Guess which country had literally $0.00 in aid allotted to them in the new budget? Also, whether or not that war actually deterred any terrorist attacks is up for argumentation. Obviously we didn't get Osama (as Bush promised he would). Were the terrorists actually deterred by us, or are they just waiting for the right moment to attack? Either could be true. I'm not entirely sure what the best method of attacking terrorism would have been, but I think the whole Afghanistan situation could have been handled much more prudently. Obviously they harbored terrorists there, but they harbor terrorists in numerous other countries and it just seems like the US government needed a scapegoat for 9/11.

[Cossack]

Where did you find out about the German embargo.I have to see it to beleive it. When did it start? And to what degree?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Where did you find out about the German embargo.I have to see it to beleive it. When did it start? And to what degree?

Yeah, I hadn't heard that...sounds too stupid to be real...but then I remember this is Bush we are talking about.

[tasty]

I read about it at the eschaton weblog. Atrios linked to a story about it in the UK newspaper The Guardian. Here's a link to the story:

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,896573,00.html

Also, here's a link to the eschaton weblog if you guys are interested in reading some top class liberal commentary:

http://atrios.blogspot.com

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Great, THAT is going to make the US popular.  They make an example to threaten Europe to play along.  My guess is it will just make countries more likely to stand against the US if they are going to try and blackmail Europe into fighting a war at the threat of lost economic activity.

There was a quote in my (very conservative) local paper from an American that was at one of the rallies in Europe saying she didn't think Americans really understood how much dislike there was for us.  Mind you this was probably an AP or similarly syndicated story.

In other news from today, the protests held here in Colorado Springs resulted in the police using tear gas and pepper spray on the crowd of 2-3k (largest protest ever in the city).  Rather glad I didn't go.