Grade George W. Bush's Presidency thus far

[The Man From G.O.P.]

If it weren't for Iraq, he probably would be a decent President.

Yet you are a Lieberman fan.  That makes no sense.  Iraq is as much Lieberman's war as Bush's.

Anyway I selected F.  I'd have given him a Zero if it was an option.  He is the worst POTUS in history.  By FAR.

Connecticut liberals suck my friend (glad I left for Texas)

[angus]

remember, dazzleman, that you mentioned perceptions in an earlier post.  And the perception is that any US military involvement in Iraq should take more than a few weeks.  The seed of that perception was no doubt planted in the minds of war supporters, many of whom have now turned sour on the whole venture, by the Bush administration in the leadup, and by their minions who testified before congress giving wildly underestimated figures for the number of dollars and weeks the effort would require.  Mind you, I'm neither defending nor attacking them here, but I do think your first sentence, while true, forgets that some of the culpability for the short war supposition lies with the Bushies themselves.  In my first few posts here, some two years ago, I said this Iraq war is bad business, and I'm not going to claim otherwise now.  But I will say that to their credit, most antiwar folks, democrat and republican alike, have stopped with the "quagmire" scenario and grade the war on its technical merits.  All smart-alek comments aside, I do think his order to dismiss the iraq army at the outset, and his decision to trust too much in rummy over the objections of seasoned field commanders has been a major source of expense, both of blood and money.  I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and I was quite serious when I said I admire htmldon for not trying to be fashionable by being anti-Bush.  But the fact remains that we're constantly bombarded by the message that Iraq is the Bush scorecard.  And Bush, unlike any president before him, by his own early speeches made it so.  He all but came out and said we can grade his whole presidency on this effort.  You know that.  If we put aside the platitudes, and the bickering over misinformation in the beggining, forget the unanswerable question of whether a people are better off running from bombs or running from a madman with a human paper shredder, and consider the goal of containment of terrorism and spread of democracy, we can make the case that Bush handling of the war was mediocre at best.  What is so frustrating is that in the campaign of 2000, all analysts claimed that his long suit was delegation and the ability to read people and put the best man to the task.  Katrina and the Waves put the latter idea to rest.  And while most Americans don't deny (well, memories are short, let's say didn't deny) that Bush was the right man for the job of president on September 11, 2001, it's also fair to say that he has made some serious errors in judgement since then.  I agree that some claims are exaggerated, and most stem from a deep hatred of Bush that was evident long before supreme court vacancies, Osama's extended absence, and Bagdad's long bloody war, but there is no hard evidence that anti-US mercenary/terrorist recruitment has abated as a result of this war, nor is there any evidence that a peaceful, democratically elected iraqi government with any real power to stem civil unrests is on the immediate horizon.

[jacob_101]

B+, not quite A material.

[MODU]

.... and he still has no real plan.

*dies laughin*

[opebo]

Its a war.  There is no perfect war.

Certainly there is, Htmldon - the one you forgo.

[dazzleman]

remember, dazzleman, that you mentioned perceptions in an earlier post.  And the perception is that any US military involvement in Iraq should take more than a few weeks.  The seed of that perception was no doubt planted in the minds of war supporters, many of whom have now turned sour on the whole venture, by the Bush administration in the leadup, and by their minions who testified before congress giving wildly underestimated figures for the number of dollars and weeks the effort would require.  Mind you, I'm neither defending nor attacking them here, but I do think your first sentence, while true, forgets that some of the culpability for the short war supposition lies with the Bushies themselves.  In my first few posts here, some two years ago, I said this Iraq war is bad business, and I'm not going to claim otherwise now.  But I will say that to their credit, most antiwar folks, democrat and republican alike, have stopped with the "quagmire" scenario and grade the war on its technical merits.  All smart-alek comments aside, I do think his order to dismiss the iraq army at the outset, and his decision to trust too much in rummy over the objections of seasoned field commanders has been a major source of expense, both of blood and money.  I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and I was quite serious when I said I admire htmldon for not trying to be fashionable by being anti-Bush.  But the fact remains that we're constantly bombarded by the message that Iraq is the Bush scorecard.  And Bush, unlike any president before him, by his own early speeches made it so.  He all but came out and said we can grade his whole presidency on this effort.  You know that.  If we put aside the platitudes, and the bickering over misinformation in the beggining, forget the unanswerable question of whether a people are better off running from bombs or running from a madman with a human paper shredder, and consider the goal of containment of terrorism and spread of democracy, we can make the case that Bush handling of the war was mediocre at best.  What is so frustrating is that in the campaign of 2000, all analysts claimed that his long suit was delegation and the ability to read people and put the best man to the task.  Katrina and the Waves put the latter idea to rest.  And while most Americans don't deny (well, memories are short, let's say didn't deny) that Bush was the right man for the job of president on September 11, 2001, it's also fair to say that he has made some serious errors in judgement since then.  I agree that some claims are exaggerated, and most stem from a deep hatred of Bush that was evident long before supreme court vacancies, Osama's extended absence, and Bagdad's long bloody war, but there is no hard evidence that anti-US mercenary/terrorist recruitment has abated as a result of this war, nor is there any evidence that a peaceful, democratically elected iraqi government with any real power to stem civil unrests is on the immediate horizon.

Interesting points angus, and it's nice that you presented them in a respectful way.

I don't deny that mistakes have been made by the Bush administration in Iraq.  One could say that about any war.  And you're correct that the administration helped to create the expectation that the war would be easy and fast.  The whole "Mission Accomplished" banner was obviously a huge blunder.

But that doesn't excuse the sentiment of people who want the effort to be unsuccessful.  I stand by what I said about them before -- they hate Bush more than they love America or care about the well-being of their fellow citizens.

[The Duke]

Progress is one twisted fool.

I support having a fire department, because it performs an important service.  Firefighters die every year in the line of duty.  I am not a firefighter, and don't plan to become one.  Am I a hypocrite?

I support having a police force to fight crime.  Cops die every day in the line of duty.  I am not a cop and don't plan to become one.  Am I a hypocrite?

I supprot having roads.  Yet being a transit wroker is one of the most dangerous jobs out there, and hundreds of transit workers are hit by cars every year doing road construction.  I am not a transit worker and don't plan to become one.  Am I a hyopcrite?

The argument that in order to have the right to have an opinion on something you must personally involve yourself in that thing is totally illogical, yet it seems to be the basis for your nonsensical belief system.

[The Duke]

Anyway, I voted C-, which is what he's spent most of his life getting.

[MarkDel]

I wasn't planning on returning here anytime soon, but another poster here just e-mailed me the link to this thread.

Almost 70% of the votes are less than a "C" and less than 10% are higher than a B+, yet according to most posters here, this forum is not biased towards one side of the political spectrum and is essentially right down the middle in political terms.

Sure it is...you guys keep telling yourselves that.

This forum USED TO BE great, but now it's essentially run and dominated by those of a left wing or center/left ideology. And that's a shame, because a couple years ago, I really enjoyed posting here. Now it sucks...

[GOP = Terrorists]

The argument that in order to have the right to have an opinion on something you must personally involve yourself in that thing is totally illogical, yet it seems to be the basis for your nonsensical belief system.

First off you can have whatever opinion you want.  But if you ask others to kill and die for a cause and you claim to feel strongly about it you should be willing to make the same sacrifice.  It is my opinion that if you don't have the balls to fight for a cause you advocate that puts thousands and thousands of American lives at great risk you are a coward and a chickenhawk.

And going to war is not comparable to other jobs.  Our jobs don't require us to wake up every morning with the goal of killing other people.  That is a very serious thing to ask someone and it should not be taken lightly.

[MarkDel]

Anyway, I voted C-, which is what he's spent most of his life getting.

John,

You know I like you a great deal and have the utmost respect for you as I have indicated on several occasions in the past. But with all due respect, your "C-" comment about Bush is absolutely ridiculous as you've never walked a mile in his shoes. You have NO idea what it takes to maintain an "A" or even "B" average at an Ivy League school. The grading is done almost entirely on a curve, meaning that a certain percentage of people are doomed to low grades under all circumstances. Then factor in the level of competition as virtually everyone you compete with is a former Valedictorian, or at the very least, in the top 1-2% of the nation in SAT scores, grades and/or high school class ranking. And to complicate matters even further, if you have the audacity to be a Conservative, and you're actually dumb enough to speak your mind to your professors, then you face yet another steep obstacle in your efforts to establish a decent GPA. This is what George Bush faced in college, and as someone who has been down the same road as Bush, I can tell you that it's a little harder to get good grades at an Ivy League school than Cal State-Bozo, or SUNY-Halfwits, or any other variation of the generic state schools.

[MarkDel]

The argument that in order to have the right to have an opinion on something you must personally involve yourself in that thing is totally illogical, yet it seems to be the basis for your nonsensical belief system.

First off you can have whatever opinion you want.  But if you ask others to kill and die for a cause and you claim to feel strongly about it you should be willing to make the same sacrifice.  It is my opinion that if you don't have the balls to fight for a cause you advocate that puts thousands and thousands of American lives at great risk you are a coward and a chickenhawk.

And going to war is not comparable to other jobs.  Our jobs don't require us to wake up every morning with the goal of killing other people.  That is a very serious thing to ask someone and it should not be taken lightly.

Progress,

You're right. If a person doesn't have the balls to stand up and fight for what they believe in, that person is a worthless coward. And in that context, I then have NO doubt, that if terrorists were shooting people in your neighborhood, you and most of your left wing buddies wouldn't raise a damn finger to help your fellow citizens.

You DO fight for what you believe in...it's just too bad it's not the United States of America pal.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I wasn't planning on returning here anytime soon, but another poster here just e-mailed me the link to this thread.

Almost 70% of the votes are less than a "C" and less than 10% are higher than a B+, yet according to most posters here, this forum is not biased towards one side of the political spectrum and is essentially right down the middle in political terms.

Sure it is...you guys keep telling yourselves that.

This forum USED TO BE great, but now it's essentially run and dominated by those of a left wing or center/left ideology. And that's a shame, because a couple years ago, I really enjoyed posting here. Now it sucks...

That's why only about half of this forum wants the federal minimum wage raised to $6.75 an hour, vs. 86% of the American population.

[The Duke]

Anyway, I voted C-, which is what he's spent most of his life getting.

John,

You know I like you a great deal and have the utmost respect for you as I have indicated on several occasions in the past. But with all due respect, your "C-" comment about Bush is absolutely ridiculous as you've never walked a mile in his shoes. You have NO idea what it takes to maintain an "A" or even "B" average at an Ivy League school. The grading is done almost entirely on a curve, meaning that a certain percentage of people are doomed to low grades under all circumstances. Then factor in the level of competition as virtually everyone you compete with is a former Valedictorian, or at the very least, in the top 1-2% of the nation in SAT scores, grades and/or high school class ranking. And to complicate matters even further, if you have the audacity to be a Conservative, and you're actually dumb enough to speak your mind to your professors, then you face yet another steep obstacle in your efforts to establish a decent GPA. This is what George Bush faced in college, and as someone who has been down the same road as Bush, I can tell you that it's a little harder to get good grades at an Ivy League school than Cal State-Bozo, or SUNY-Halfwits, or any other variation of the generic state schools.

I didn't really mean to say that people that get a C in Harvard are dumb, it was a snide comment because I think George Bush is not that smart a guy.

The argument that in order to have the right to have an opinion on something you must personally involve yourself in that thing is totally illogical, yet it seems to be the basis for your nonsensical belief system.

First off you can have whatever opinion you want.  But if you ask others to kill and die for a cause and you claim to feel strongly about it you should be willing to make the same sacrifice.  It is my opinion that if you don't have the balls to fight for a cause you advocate that puts thousands and thousands of American lives at great risk you are a coward and a chickenhawk.

And going to war is not comparable to other jobs.  Our jobs don't require us to wake up every morning with the goal of killing other people.  That is a very serious thing to ask someone and it should not be taken lightly.

No, Progress, thats just bad logic.  A cop absolutely wakes up every morning knowing he might have to kill someone.  Cops shoot criminals and kill them all the time, so how is that different?

Next, let's say that I think the war in iraq is justified, but I simultaneously think the genocide in Darfur must be stopped.  Am I morally obliged to fight in both wars at once, or else be labeled a coward?  You are not making any sense, you're just being shrill.

[Ben.]

Solid C.

[Gustaf]

Progress is one twisted fool.

I support having a fire department, because it performs an important service.  Firefighters die every year in the line of duty.  I am not a firefighter, and don't plan to become one.  Am I a hypocrite?

I support having a police force to fight crime.  Cops die every day in the line of duty.  I am not a cop and don't plan to become one.  Am I a hypocrite?

I supprot having roads.  Yet being a transit wroker is one of the most dangerous jobs out there, and hundreds of transit workers are hit by cars every year doing road construction.  I am not a transit worker and don't plan to become one.  Am I a hyopcrite?

The argument that in order to have the right to have an opinion on something you must personally involve yourself in that thing is totally illogical, yet it seems to be the basis for your nonsensical belief system.

I tried to show him this earlier, but he didn't get it. Another way of putting it is this: let's say I'm in an office building that has caught fire. I narrowly manage to escape. While sitting out-side waiting for help, I see some of my collegaues going in to save some of the children from the nursery on floor 3. Now, personally I'm too much of a coward and protective of my own life to go in. Still, I would probably cheer them on. Progress on the other hand seems to think that my duty here is to stop them, so that I'm not a hypocrite. That's another reason why the position is stupid.

[GOP = Terrorists]

You're right. If a person doesn't have the balls to stand up and fight for what they believe in, that person is a worthless coward. And in that context, I then have NO doubt, that if terrorists were shooting people in your neighborhood, you and most of your left wing buddies wouldn't raise a damn finger to help your fellow citizens.

You can think that all you want but I'm well armed, a crack shot, and have no problem defending myself or my family.  What I won't do is advocate for an illegal and immoral war of aggression while pretending that it has anything to do with terrorists invading my home.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would have been a Marine had Gore won in 2000.  And while I've got a family now and can't do what I once would have I will join the National Guard should a non warmonger be elected in 2008.   I'd fight for the United States of America.  Just not when it is slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children in an unjustified, immoral, and illegal war.

[GOP = Terrorists]

No, Progress, thats just bad logic.  A cop absolutely wakes up every morning knowing he might have to kill someone.  Cops shoot criminals and kill them all the time, so how is that different?

It is different because police officers do not wake up every day knowing that people are going to try to kill them and that they will have to kill.  To pretend that war is no different from being a police officer is absolutely insane.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're not legally obligated to do anything.  However you are still a coward should you be posting on a messageboard back in the states advocating warfare yet won't put your money where your mouth is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It makes perfect sense.  But I can see why warmongers would think otherwise.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Now, personally I'm too much of a coward and protective of my own life to go in. Still, I would probably cheer them on.

Sounds like we agree you'd be a coward.

[The Duke]

No, Progress, thats just bad logic.  A cop absolutely wakes up every morning knowing he might have to kill someone.  Cops shoot criminals and kill them all the time, so how is that different?

It is different because police officers do not wake up every day knowing that people are going to try to kill them and that they will have to kill.  To pretend that war is no different from being a police officer is absolutely insane.

You must not know many cops.  Cops in fact do wake up every day knowing full well they may die in the line of duty.  Every cop knows another cop who has been killed in the line if they do the job long enough, and they know that if they pull someone over for a busted tail light and that guy happens to be some gang banger that's packin' who doesn't want to pay a ticket then the cop may end up dead.  Yes, they do wake up every day knowing they may be killed.

[opebo]

When your job is to apply the bootheel to some oppressed person's face, you have to expect him to try to kill you.

[they don't love you like i love you]

No, Progress, thats just bad logic.  A cop absolutely wakes up every morning knowing he might have to kill someone.  Cops shoot criminals and kill them all the time, so how is that different?

It is different because police officers do not wake up every day knowing that people are going to try to kill them and that they will have to kill.  To pretend that war is no different from being a police officer is absolutely insane.

You must not know many cops.  Cops in fact do wake up every day knowing full well they may die in the line of duty.  Every cop knows another cop who has been killed in the line if they do the job long enough, and they know that if they pull someone over for a busted tail light and that guy happens to be some gang banger that's packin' who doesn't want to pay a ticket then the cop may end up dead.  Yes, they do wake up every day knowing they may be killed.

Hmmm, no cop has been killed in this city. About 90% of what they do is issue traffic tickets, break up bar fights and break up illicit keg parties (so everyone there can just flee to another party). I really doubt they wake up every day thinking they can be killed.

Plus even in the Twin Cities, there was the case of a cop being killed a few months ago, but the fact that it made front page news and stayed in the news for quite a few days after that shows that cop killing is not too common there. Plus it later turned out that he was drunk at the time and probably would've lived if he had been sober.

[Sam Spade]

Hmmm...  Right now I'd say about C+ in terms of personal grading.  For most of 2005, he was in a downward trend for me to about C- or D+, but the last few months, he's been on a slight upward trend to me.

In terms of historical grading, it's way too early to tell.  A lot will depend on Iraq and the future War on Terror, imo.

[GOP = Terrorists]

You must not know many cops.  Cops in fact do wake up every day knowing full well they may die in the line of duty.  Every cop knows another cop who has been killed in the line if they do the job long enough, and they know that if they pull someone over for a busted tail light and that guy happens to be some gang banger that's packin' who doesn't want to pay a ticket then the cop may end up dead.

Well I have friends who are police officers in Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport.  Now it isn't Detroit but they are the worst inner cities my state has to offer.  A friend of mine's father and member of the Newington Connecticut police department was shot and killed while responding to a domestic violence call.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes so does everyone else on the planet regardless of their job.  The difference is how likely that is.  And to compare working in the inner cities of my state at least to GOING TO WAR shows the very ignorance of the argument.  How many IED's have blown up police cars last year?  How many IED's have blown up Bradleys, Hummers, and the like?  It is absolutely insane to compare the two.

[Platypus]

F.