Poll: Which decision/event cost President George W. Bush the most?

[hangfan91]

Of all these events during the Bush Jr. presidency, which one do you think did the most damage to his administration?

For me, I think it is the War in Iraq which led to a destabilizing of the Middle East and propping up a fragile government led by al-Maliki.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The Bush Presidency might have been just bad instead of awful if he didn't go into Iraq.

[New_Conservative]

Hurricane Katrina was bad.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The Iraq War is what all the casuals point to. I doubt most Americans even know what half the other things are.

[DC Al Fine]

Your average Joe who doesn't like Bush knows about Iraq, Katrina, and maybe the tax cuts for the rich. Of those, I think Iraq hurt him most, although I doubt not invading would've made a huge difference. When everyone was baying for blood, there would've been some significant blowback for not going to Iraq.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Your average Joe who doesn't like Bush knows about Iraq, Katrina, and maybe the tax cuts for the rich. Of those, I think Iraq hurt him most, although I doubt not invading would've made a huge difference. When everyone was baying for blood, there would've been some significant blowback for not going to Iraq.

Going into Iraq wasn't the problem (well, IMO it was, but I'm talking about the greater picture), it was the handling of the war. The bad intel might have been forgiven if we weren't bogged down there.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Iraq is the one everyone remembers, but Bush's presidency died with the economy in 2008.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

The Iraq War is directly responsible for a lot of the turmoil in the Middle East right now, so that.

[ElectionsGuy]

The Bush Presidency might have been just bad instead of awful if he didn't go into Iraq.

[BaconBacon96]

The Iraq War was bad, although it was the economy that completely ruined Bush's presidency.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Attacks of September 11, 2001   : Ignoring the repeated warnings of Richard Clarke, Gary Hart, the 8/06/01 memo should have cost him big time. Instead, he got a 91% approval rating. Well, I'm proud to say I was not one of the 91%.

Decision to take out the Taliban government: No

Bush tax cuts/2008 Financial downturn/economic policy: The tax cuts certainly hurt the deficit, but not so much his approval ratings. The lackluster economy of his entire administration did hurt him, but not as much as it should have. The 2008 financial downturn should have had him end up more like Hoover in the eyes of history, but it didn't.

Iraq War: This hurt him the most. He certainly deserved all the hurt from it and more, but he should have also been hurt from his other policies more

Hurricane Katrina: This did some long term damage to his approvals, but not as much as the Iraq war

No Child Left Behind Act: Crappy, but no

Failure to pass through immigration reform: No

[bedstuy]

Your average Joe who doesn't like Bush knows about Iraq, Katrina, and maybe the tax cuts for the rich. Of those, I think Iraq hurt him most, although I doubt not invading would've made a huge difference. When everyone was baying for blood, there would've been some significant blowback for not going to Iraq.

No.  The Bush administration largely created the rush to war and fueled it with their misinformation campaign.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Your average Joe who doesn't like Bush knows about Iraq, Katrina, and maybe the tax cuts for the rich. Of those, I think Iraq hurt him most, although I doubt not invading would've made a huge difference. When everyone was baying for blood, there would've been some significant blowback for not going to Iraq.

No.  The Bush administration largely created the rush to war and fueled it with their misinformation campaign.

They spent $200 million of taxpayer money, and then held the Congressional vote right before the midterm elections. Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention knew it was all done for political reasons.

[TNF]

The Iraq War is directly responsible for a lot of the turmoil in the Middle East right now, so that.

No it isn't. American policy toward the Middle East since the 1940s is pretty much directly responsible, although Iraq is a very big part of that, given that the Bush administration (like previous American administrations) would rather deal with Islamic fundamentalists than secular Arab nationalists.

[anvi]

I understood the question prompting to poll to be asking which event was most costly during the Bush presidency, politically.  It seems to me Bush's poll numbers started on a steady downward spiral after Hurricane Katrina.  The Afghanistan War was generally supported, and so was the Iraq War during the first several years of its campaign (more favored it than didn't).  The tax cuts didn't much register with the public until very late in his presidency, I think.  But Katrina really seems to have put the idea in the public's mind that Bush was not responding to national domestic crises as he should have been.  After that, the steady deterioration of circumstances in Iraq, the subsequent need for the surge, and then the worsening economy and financial crisis tanked him in the polls, when even conservative supporters abandoned him.  It was a steady decline, but Katrina was what pushed it downhill initially.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Iraq had the potential to be a broadly popular move, only opposed by peaceniks; but the Bush administration botched the handling of it. It's one thing to provoke war, it's quite another to have the leadership delegated to incompetents like Franks and Bremer.

[Mechaman]

Getting sworn in (sane).

If Bush was realistic about his life's goals and dreams he would've realized that his only place in society would've been as an investment scam artist with a record of turning ventures broke while somehow pocketing millions for himself.  Or he could've become a typical greedy oil and gas executive and pocketed billions while his buddies in Congress and the White House did the same sh*t he would've done otherwise.  However, they likely would've done it a bit more competently and less dumb apishly as Bush did it.

Point is, Bush is literally somebody who should not have been President.

[dead0man]

Invading Iraq wasn't the problem, it was the handling of it.  Specifically standing down the Iraqi military.  People like to forget (or just don't know) that Saddam had more blood on his hands than ISIS ever will.  Saddam needed to go.

Katrina was a blunder, but he shares the blame with lots of people.

The economy was going to tank at some point no matter who was in charge or what economic policies were put in place.  Bubbles tend to do that.

So Iraq is the answer, for the sh**tty handling of it.

[7,052,770]

From a long-term perspective, Iraq.
From a short-term perspective, Katrina.

[bedstuy]

Invading Iraq wasn't the problem, it was the handling of it.  Specifically standing down the Iraqi military.  People like to forget (or just don't know) that Saddam had more blood on his hands than ISIS ever will.  Saddam needed to go.

Bush, Rumsfeld and the military leadership were incompetent, sure.  I  don't know if we can point to a few single decisions though.  Was there any feasible way to quickly invade, restore order and restart an Iraqi government?  I don't think anyone knows.

It's also doubtful that a President could have told the American people, we're going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and many American lives to fight a war, but for humanitarian reasons, not for US security reasons.  That's a tough pitch to make internationally as well in terms of creating a coalition.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Being elected.  That administration was going to be terrible no matter what was going on in the world. 

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The Bush Presidency might have been just bad instead of awful if he didn't go into Iraq.

[AggregateDemand]

Democrats had no traction until the Iraq War, which was basically a rehash of American Civil War politics. Democrats asking Radical Republicans why they thought Muslims could handle democracy and immediate emancipation, and why democracy, which makes no economic promises, is preferential to the stability of benevolent tyranny via UN receivership. It's the same general argument we have about the American poor every election cycle.

The political fallout from the Iraq War was pure schadenfreude. Some Democratic politicians derived the similar delight from the Iraq insurgency that they derived from insurgents in the South, and many politicians of liberal and moderate persuasions (both parties) rejected the Radical Republican plan to combat the insurgents with renewed military vigor in 2007. After reconstruction was complete, and after the Panic of 1873, I mean 2008, Republicans were sent packing.

The major difference is that the modern version of Radical Republicans didn't raise taxes to finance the war; instead, they left the economic chores to the Obama admin.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

The Iraq War is directly responsible for a lot of the turmoil in the Middle East right now, so that.

No it isn't. American policy toward the Middle East since the 1940s is pretty much directly responsible, although Iraq is a very big part of that, given that the Bush administration (like previous American administrations) would rather deal with Islamic fundamentalists than secular Arab nationalists.

Well yes, of course, I should have probably noted that it wasn't the first instance of America antagonizing the Middle East, but Iraq was on such a large scale that it essentially accelerated all of the turmoil to the point that instead of the Middle East being a wasteland, it's now a literal hellhole.

[Phony Moderate]

Other: "Rumors on the internetz"