Bush's successes and failures... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

hannukah harry · 06-15-2008, 04:07 PM

so i came across an article that mentions that Bush wants to get bin Laden before his term as president is up, so that way his presidency could be seen as having success as far as the war on terror (by capturing both saddam and osama). at this point, i don't think that capturing bin Laden would really be much more than a PR success, and would probably have little impact on the war on terror...

anyway, what i'm curious about, now that his second term is nearing it's end, what do you think were the successes and failures of his presidency? i'm still pretty up in the air on it, there isn't much i think he did that was positive or good, but i don't necessarily know enough about things outside Iraq and the 'war on terror.'

so what do you guys and gals think? where did he succeed and fail?

ratbastid · 06-15-2008, 04:09 PM

The whole presidency was a PR matter. A PR success would be a success, given what it was.

The only success I know of is Bush's Africa initiatives. He's done good work there to bring about economic justice and impact the AIDS epidemic.

Seanland · 06-22-2008, 07:17 PM

http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html

Under Careers and Public Service
First One Listed -* Owner, oil and gas business

there is his greatest success and failure

and he has a new photo album, all those presidential pictures!

Look at Cheney's profile for more fun!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/vpbio.html

*Chief Executive Officer of the Halliburton Company

Willravel · 06-22-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

so i came across an article that mentions that Bush wants to get bin Laden before his term as president is up

I read that, too. I remember thinking to myself "wishful thinking, or has he not been trying his best so far?" Regardless, I agree that even if this did happen it'd be irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

anyway, what i'm curious about, now that his second term is nearing it's end, what do you think were the successes and failures of his presidency? i'm still pretty up in the air on it, there isn't much i think he did that was positive or good, but i don't necessarily know enough about things outside Iraq and the 'war on terror.'

so what do you guys and gals think? where did he succeed and fail?

His failures are too numerous to mention. Still, he has inspired this generation to be involved in politics and pay attention to what's going on in the world. Good presidents eventually create apathy from comfort. Bad presidents activate self preservation. Without Bush, I'd not be as involved in politics.

guy44 · 06-22-2008, 09:19 PM

Successes? Uh....

Anyways, failures are far, far too many to mention. By the way, getting Saddam is a) Not a success on the war on terror, because Saddam wasn't a terrorist and didn't attack us, and b) one small part of the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history. So I'm not so sure I'd put that one under the success heading.

roachboy · 06-24-2008, 03:20 AM

it's hard to say anything.

Quote:

Government Study Criticizes Bush Administration’s Measures of Progress in Iraq
By JAMES GLANZ

Beyond the declines in overall violence in Iraq, several crucial measures the Bush administration uses to demonstrate economic, political and security progress are either incorrect or far more mixed than the administration has acknowledged, according to a report released Monday by the Government Accountability Office.

Over all, the report says, the American plan for a stable Iraq lacks a strategic framework that meshes with the administration’s goals, is falling out of touch with the realities on the ground and contains serious flaws in its operational guidelines.

Newly declassified data in the report on countrywide attacks in May shows that increases in violence during March and April that were touched off by an Iraqi government assault on militias in Basra have given way to a calmer period. Numbers of daily attacks have been comparable to those earlier in the year, representing about a 70 percent decline since June 2007, the data shows.

While those figures confirm the assessments by American military commanders that many of the security improvements that first became apparent last fall are still holding, a number of the figures that have been used to show broader progress in Iraq are either misleading or simply incorrect, the report says.

Administration figures, according to the report, broadly overstate gains in some categories, including the readiness of the Iraqi Army, electricity production and how much money Iraq is spending on its reconstruction.

And the security gains themselves rest in large part not on broad-scale advances in political and social reconciliation and a functioning Iraqi government, but on a few specific advances that remain fragile, the report says. The relatively calm period rests mostly on the American troop increase, a shaky cease-fire declared by militias loyal to the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, and an American-led program to pay former insurgents to help keep the peace, the report says.

“Clearly there are substantial changes in the security situation on the ground,” said Nathan Freier, a retired Army officer who served in Iraq in 2005 and 2007 and is now a senior fellow in the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The administration prefers to focus on those improvements, Mr. Freier said. But the accountability office report, which Mr. Freier read on Monday, and his own observations in Iraq contain a different message, he said.

“Iraq remains a mixed bag and will continue to do so in perpetuity, to be quite honest,” he added.

Letters from the Treasury Department, the State Department and the Pentagon that were attached to the report all disagreed with many of its central findings. In the language common to such government exchanges, for example, the Pentagon said that it “nonconcurs” with the conclusion that a new strategy for stabilizing Iraq was needed.

The unclassified version of the American plan, laid out by President Bush in January 2007 in what he called “The New Way Forward in Iraq,” is still the proper guideline, according to the Pentagon, whose response was written by Christopher C. Straub, acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East.

“The New Way Forward strategy remains valid,” Mr. Straub wrote. “We recognize, as with all strategies, updates and refinements occur at various intervals to take into account changes in the strategic environment.”

But the president set out that plan as something that would take 12 to 18 months and would include achievements like enacting a law to regulate Iraq’s oil industry and handing all of Iraq’s provinces over to Iraqi control, the report says. As of this week, only 9 of 18 provinces had been handed over, according to the report, and the crucial oil law remains to be enacted.

In other cases, what appeared to be promising political developments have faltered. Although the Iraqi Parliament enacted a law reforming the heavy-handed purge from government of former members of the Baath Party, no members have yet been named to the commission created to carry out the law.

Still more important, the report asserts, the administration’s plan is not a strategy at all, but more a series of operational prescriptions scattered among various documents reviewed by the accountability office.

“A strategic plan should be a plan that takes you not only through the short term,” said Joseph A. Christoff, director of international affairs and trade at the accountability office.

“If the New Way Forward only takes you through July 2008, then you don’t have any guidance for achieving an Iraq that can do everything on its own,” including dealing with the threat of terrorism and defending its own borders, Mr. Christoff said.

Perhaps the most confounding element in the report is the sharp disagreement between the accountability office and the administration over the value of basic indicators of progress.

For example, in an analysis based on a classified study of Iraqi Army battalions, the office concludes that just 10 percent of them are capable of operating independently in counterinsurgency operations and that even then they rely on American support.

But the Pentagon, as stated in Mr. Straub’s letter, maintains that 70 percent of Iraqi units are in the lead in counterinsurgency operations. The difference may be partly semantics: Are the Iraqi units in the lead, with Americans close at hand, or are they able to operate on their own? But the office essentially concludes that the Pentagon is claiming that units with far lower readiness grades are ready to lead than it did in the past.

Similarly, by looking at official figures, the office was unable to substantiate American claims that Iraq had spent and committed more than 60 percent of its reconstruction budget in 2007. Instead, the number was 28 percent, the report said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/wo...=1&oref=slogin

forseti-6 · 06-25-2008, 09:54 PM

I'd say one of President Bush's greatest successes (although some might see it as a failure) was sparking the nation's realization that we are way too oil dependent. He has influenced (forced) auto-manufacturers to pour money into research alternative fuels so we can decrease our dependence on the middle east.

I don't think anyone will argue that the Middle East is the "hottest" area in the world in terms of conflict and terrorist havens. Much of it can exists because of oil and the wealth that it brings in. Perhaps in due time, this country, or the world no longer demands oil and the Middle East will settle down.

I think, however, defining President Bush's successes and failures now is overly premature. 20, 30, 50 years from now, his successes and failures might be seen extremely differently. It'll be interesting...

james t kirk · 06-28-2008, 06:16 AM

I think that overall Bush was a very poor president.

Outside of the obvious failures in Iraq and the so called War on Terror, the number ONE problem I have with Bush's policies is his economic policies.

Bush's ecomic policies have increased the US federal debt by double in his 8 year tenure.

I know it isn't as sexy as Iraq, or the War on Terror, but a US federal debt of 9.3 trillion is HUGE. Bush has more than doubled the federal debt during his tenure. And 9.3 T isn't the real number, there are all kinds of other debts that they don't include in that. But for the sake of arguement, lets say 9.3 trillion.

That equates to $31,000 for every man woman AND child in the United States. At this rate, the debt will pass 100% of GDP in the next 5 years. (Assuming that the next president doesn't do something about it.)

More and more US tax dollars are being chewed up just to pay the interest on the debt. Which means that they borrow even more money. When interest rates start to rise, this will get even worse. To compound the situation, the biggest holder of the debt are the Chinese. They could destroy the US dollar if they began to dump their US dollars onto the market.

This free lunch policy of George W Bush is going to haunt future generations. Either the next guy, or the guy after that is going to have some very real very hard economic issues to deal with that are not going to be politically popular.

It's farking unbelievable that Congress somehow thinks that borrowing money to finance tax cuts is a good idea. On top of that, Government Spending in the US is out of control with record increases and record spending in each of George Bush's years in office.

When times are good, he should have been paying down the debt, instead, he doubled it.

As to what good he has done, I have to agree with Ratbastid that Bush has done more for Africa and Aids in Africa than any president before him.

I also don't think he's that bad of a guy and I would invite him to my barbeque (but not Cheney).

guyy · 06-28-2008, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forseti-6

I think, however, defining President Bush's successes and failures now is overly premature. 20, 30, 50 years from now, his successes and failures might be seen extremely differently.

I disagree.

Has the book on Johnson changed that much? No. Even the parameters of the debates about FDR are pretty much the same as they were in the 1930s. Nixon is reviled today for the same reasons he was in the 1960s & 1970s.

History is something we make now. As something of our own making, as a conscious process, it is visible to us -- though of course not completely. I doubt that what is not visible will ever make much of a difference with Bush.

Our debates on Bush have already set the terms for future evaluations of Bush. He's going to be remembered for the illegitimacy of his election in 2000, exploiting 2001.9.11 for Iraq, torture & a Nixonian expansion of the state's repressive powers, & helping rich people. There's a reason he's the most unpopular president since Nixon.

dc_dux · 06-28-2008, 07:23 AM

I seriously doubt that we will ever see an objective and documented evaluation of Bush as a result of his gross abuse and violation of the Presidential Records Act, the intent of which is to preserve all documents for historical purposes.

We have already seen the loss (destruction) of millions of WH emails.

I expect that many (most) other documents that do not support the public statements and actions of Bush/Cheney will also mysteriously disappear and we will be left with the cleansed and sanitized version of the last eight years of the country's history.

william · 06-28-2008, 04:25 PM

His biggest failure (some see as success) is the erosion (or attempt of) of our Constitution. Habeas Corpus and the 4th Ammendment come to mind. Nuremburg, Germany showed the world what we stood for. GITMO does the opposite. There is supposed to be a system of checks and balances in our government. The Supreme Court had (barely) the guts to stand up for Habeas Corpus. The House caved on the 4th Ammendment; hopefully the Senate will stand.
His biggest sucess - being a puppet for Cheney. When will the secret energy meetings become public? Bush is an oil man. Cheney is/was on the board of Halliburton (Iraq/Afghanistan). And yet people do not see a correllation.
Bush vowed when he took Presidency to control oil prices. That's when it was $20/barrel. Now we're at $140/barrel. Some control. The companies have 10K+ of leases to drill in (over 39M acres) that they leave standing. Who do you really think are the speculators?
Oh wait - the housing speculators left town.

forseti-6 · 06-29-2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

I think that overall Bush was a very poor president.

Outside of the obvious failures in Iraq and the so called War on Terror, the number ONE problem I have with Bush's policies is his economic policies.

#1 I disagree Iraq is/was a failure. While many Americans, and certainly not the media will say Iraq was a success, if you look at it from the Iraqi standpoint, they have much more freedoms and opportunity then they've ever had. Is it still a mess there? Yes, but it's constantly getting better. I think Iraq will be Bush's main legacy and that's where I think the way he is viewed will change.

#2 Well it's not the 'so call War on Terror' it *is* the War on Terror. I think this was a great success on Bush's behalf. He pushes a loosely organize Al Qaeda into disarray. They don't have the ability to mount large attacks (due to their inability to fund and train on a large scale) as see on 9/11.

I feel Afghanistan should have received more attention, although it will come back to that as Iraq is cleaning up and improving.

james t kirk · 06-29-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forseti-6

#1 I disagree Iraq is/was a failure. While many Americans, and certainly not the media will say Iraq was a success, if you look at it from the Iraqi standpoint, they have much more freedoms and opportunity then they've ever had. Is it still a mess there? Yes, but it's constantly getting better. I think Iraq will be Bush's main legacy and that's where I think the way he is viewed will change.

#2 Well it's not the 'so call War on Terror' it *is* the War on Terror. I think this was a great success on Bush's behalf. He pushes a loosely organize Al Qaeda into disarray. They don't have the ability to mount large attacks (due to their inability to fund and train on a large scale) as see on 9/11.

I feel Afghanistan should have received more attention, although it will come back to that as Iraq is cleaning up and improving.

I guess it depends on where you get your information.

See, according what I am seeing, watching, and reading, Al Qaeda is more organized, more powerful, and has garnered more sympathy in the muslim world than ever before. (See Pakistan for example.)

Iraq is a civil war waiting to happen and things were far better under Saddam because he managed to keep a lid on the Sectarian violence.

Afghanistan is all but a losing battle to which no-one seems really that interested in doing what it takes. When Nato leaves, nothing really will have changed in Afghanistan. They basically despise westerners, and western values (now more than ever.) At best they might tolerate being in your presence.

forseti-6 · 06-29-2008, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

I guess it depends on where you get your information.

See, according what I am seeing, watching, and reading, Al Qaeda is more organized, more powerful, and has garnered more sympathy in the muslim world than ever before. (See Pakistan for example.)

Iraq is a civil war waiting to happen and things were far better under Saddam because he managed to keep a lid on the Sectarian violence.

Afghanistan is all but a losing battle to which no-one seems really that interested in doing what it takes. When Nato leaves, nothing really will have changed in Afghanistan. They basically despise westerners, and western values (now more than ever.) At best they might tolerate being in your presence.

You're right, it depends from where your information source is. Liberal news sources (those that want Iraq and Afghanistan to fail) portrays exactly what you say.

My point of view comes directly from the fact that I was in Iraq, in the worst part nonetheless, for 15 months. I saw it go from "a living hell" to "not so bad." Now obviously I wasn't in the entire country, but I was in an area named the "Triangle of Death" because Al Qaeda and insurgent fighters massed there because that's where they had their strongest support. By the time we left, you could walk around without your body armor and not even worry. Now were we a little naive to do that? Probably, because it wasn't *that* safe, but it was pretty safe.

Iraq *was* a civil war waiting to happen until Gen Petraeus changed the strategy in Iraq. I haven't heard the term Civil War and Iraq used in the same sentence in over 18 months.

You say that things were better in Iraq under Saddam? That couldn't be further from the truth. While yes, the sectarian violence was almost non-existent under Saddam, what the news source might not tell you is why. So why you ask... If there was sectarian violence, guess what Saddam would do? He'd send in troops and kill them! How is that better living under Saddam?

Al Qaeda is *not* gaining sympathy from the Muslim world. As a matter of fact Al Qaeda in general never had the sympathy of the Muslim world. They have had the sympathy of radical Islamists the whole time. The same people that support Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. So not exactly that comprehensive.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, I'm not sure about. You may have seen in the news of late that violence there has increased in the past few months. That is a fact. What the news isn't telling you (any more) is that a lot of the foreign fighters that were fighting in Iraq have shifted over into Afghanistan because they realize they can no longer aversely affect Iraq. So yes, you'll see a spike in violence in Afghanistan, however, when US forces will be drawn down in Iraq, more will be committed to Afghanistan, and I believe that will calm things down.

Sorry of the disorganized way of my post, I was trying to respond to each of your points.

dc_dux · 06-29-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forseti-6

You're right, it depends from where your information source is. Liberal news sources (those that want Iraq and Afghanistan to fail) portrays exactly what you say.

Actually, the sources are the combined NIEs from US intel agencies, SIGIR quarterly reports to Congress, GAO reports, State Department reports, reports from international NGOs, independent surveys of the Iraqi people.....

forseti-6 · 06-29-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Actually, the sources are the combined NIEs from US intel agencies, SIGIR quarterly reports to Congress, GAO reports, State Department reports, reports from international NGOs, independent surveys of the Iraqi people.....

If you're talking about the reports I'm thinking about, those are over a year old. Things have changed greatly in a years time.

dc_dux · 06-29-2008, 03:54 PM

The latest GAO report which evaluated the "surge" and its lack of success in meeting its stated goals was last week.

The State Department report on terrorism was early this year.

New international NGO reports on the status of Iraqi refugees and the deteriorating health conditions of Iraq children were also from earlier this year.

The latest survey of Iraqi citizens in which a majority blame the US for the deteriorating state of conditions in Iraq was in March.

Bush refused to declassify key judgements of recent NIE perhaps because they concur with the 2006 NIE which declared Iraq a "cause celebre" for terrorists around the world and a spreading jihadist movement as a result.

forseti-6 · 06-29-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The latest GAO report which evaluated the "surge" and its lack of success in meeting its stated goals was last week.

I haven't seen this report. Let me take a look at it and I'll comment on it.

Quote:

New international NGO reports on the status of Iraqi refugees and the deteriorating health conditions of Iraq children were also from earlier this year.

Iraqi refugees living where? In the US? In Europe? This is not an effort related to the military success in Iraq.

Quote:

The latest survey of Iraqi citizens in which a majority blame the US for the deteriorating state of conditions in Iraq was in March.

I'm not familiar with this survey either. If you have a link to it, I'd like to see. Regardless, these survey of Iraqi citizens are very skewed. Reason being they change their stances daily. And based on what group of Iraqis you ask, their opinions are widely varied. If you ask Sadr-ists, they're going to say negative things about the US because al-Sadr tells them these things.

The bottom line is, the state of conditions in Iraq are *not* deteriorating.

Quote:

Bush refused to declassify key judgements of recent NIE perhaps because they concur with the 2006 NIE which declared Iraq a "cause celebre" for terrorists around the world and a spreading jihadist movement as a result.

Well it's pure speculation, which is pointless to discuss if neither of us have access to the true contents.

dc_dux · 06-29-2008, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forseti-6

I haven't seen this report. Let me take a look at it and I'll comment on it.

The issue is NOT military success... but meeting the political and economic goals which was the stated purpose of the surge. By any measure, Bush has lowered the bar in order to show some level of success.

The report (Wash Post article) cites the failures to meet those goals

One reason for the "military success" and declining civilian deaths is the fact that 4 million Iraqis have been displaced within the country and to neighboring countries as a result of our invasion and occupation

Quote:

Iraqi refugees living where? In the US? In Europe? This is not an effort related to the military success in Iraq.

To igore the 4 million displaced Iraqis is to ignore the heart of the problem Iraq faces in moving forward.

Quote:

The bottom line is, the state of conditions in Iraq are *not* deteriorating.

Read the WHO reports on cholera outbreaks (just one measure) and other health crises as a result of the deteriorated infrastructure

If you only want to define "success or progress" in military terms, you are doing exactly what Bush is doing....and you can claim some marginal level of progress or success.

forseti-6 · 06-29-2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If you only want to define "success or progress" in military terms, you are doing exactly what Bush is doing....and you can claim some marginal level of progress or success.

Well I claim no likeness with President Bush. Militarily, I say Iraq has been a success. The security issue has increased dramatically since May 2007.

Now, if you want to talk about the Iraq government? OK, you're right. It's be an utter failure. There is fairly wide corruption and discord among the Iraqi law makers. However, (and I'm not sure who to blame here) too many people expected a quick turnover and governmental success. This expectation was bound for failure. I agree the Bush administration expected this, and was completely wrong. However, governments need time, and I don't believe all hope is lost on the establishment of a sovereign government in Iraq. I just don't think the timeframe set is realistic at all.

So I guess the bottom line is, we were speaking about two different things. Hope that draws my opinion a little better.

ubertuber · 06-29-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forseti-6

Militarily, I say Iraq has been a success. The security issue has increased dramatically since May 2007.

But is Iraq more secure than it was in March of 2003? To me, that's the measure of success.

Are the Iraqi people more or less secure? Do they have better access to jobs, running water, electricity, and education than they did in March of 2003?

In my opinion, if the answer to any of these questions is no, then we have done them a grave injustice.

forseti-6 · 06-29-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

But is Iraq more secure than it was in March of 2003? To me, that's the measure of success.

Are the Iraqi people more or less secure? Do they have better access to jobs, running water, electricity, and education than they did in March of 2003?

In my opinion, if the answer to any of these questions is no, then we have done them a grave injustice.

It's not a clear cut answer. How do you define secure during the Saddam era? If you were a Baathist, yes you were safe and secure. If you were a Kurd or a disagreeing Shia, you feared for your life every single day.

The thing is, during the Saddam era, only the 'chosen' people had all the good stuff. The people like the Tikritis, Carghulis, etc, had the lush land, the nice amenities, the riches. Many of the Shia didn't have schools, much work, many freedoms.

The goal of the new Iraqi government is the extend all the opportunities once only experienced by Saddam supporters to all the citizens of Iraq.

high_jinx · 06-30-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

#1 I disagree Iraq is/was a failure. While many Americans, and certainly not the media will say Iraq was a success, if you look at it from the Iraqi standpoint, they have much more freedoms and opportunity then they've ever had. Is it still a mess there? Yes, but it's constantly getting better. I think Iraq will be Bush's main legacy and that's where I think the way he is viewed will change.

i'm happy for iraq. but none of this makes for any success that bush has had as america's president. the fact that oil is involved and the agenda is more self serving, and that there are plenty of other places in the world where we could have played World Police and still other places where we turn a blind eye to injustice and human rights violations, like china, makes it a questionable success at best.

Quote:

#2 Well it's not the 'so call War on Terror' it *is* the War on Terror. I think this was a great success on Bush's behalf. He pushes a loosely organize Al Qaeda into disarray. They don't have the ability to mount large attacks (due to their inability to fund and train on a large scale) as see on 9/11.

i think it's ridiculous to take credit for something *not* happening, especially when there's so many questions on how we somehow let 9/11 happen to begin with. i would like someone to list any kind of domestic successes garnered over the last 8 years, because i'm not seeing any.

the worst failure to me was when hurricane Katrina happened and we had all our flood gear and high water disaster machines in iraq, and it took weeks to get them back to deal with the mess back here. yet another example of us trying to impose our will and rules on the rest of the world while we have enough problems to deal with internally first. we'll only spread ourselves to thin and our integrity will erode from the middle outward this way.

forseti-6 · 06-30-2008, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by high_jinx

i think it's ridiculous to take credit for something *not* happening, especially when there's so many questions on how we somehow let 9/11 happen to begin with. i would like someone to list any kind of domestic successes garnered over the last 8 years, because i'm not seeing any.

9/11 could have happened under any president. I don't particularly see 9/11 happening as a failure. I personally believe it came to be due to the Clinton administration's failure to be more proactive.

But you're absolutely right about the domestic success. I have to say that was president Bush's biggest failure - not doing much domestically.

06-15-2008, 04:07 PM	#1 (permalink)
hannukah harry Junkie	Bush's successes and failures... so i came across an article that mentions that Bush wants to get bin Laden before his term as president is up, so that way his presidency could be seen as having success as far as the war on terror (by capturing both saddam and osama). at this point, i don't think that capturing bin Laden would really be much more than a PR success, and would probably have little impact on the war on terror... anyway, what i'm curious about, now that his second term is nearing it's end, what do you think were the successes and failures of his presidency? i'm still pretty up in the air on it, there isn't much i think he did that was positive or good, but i don't necessarily know enough about things outside Iraq and the 'war on terror.' so what do you guys and gals think? where did he succeed and fail? __________________ shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

06-22-2008, 07:17 PM	#3 (permalink)
Seanland Psycho Location: Ontario, Canada	http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html Under Careers and Public Service First One Listed -* Owner, oil and gas business there is his greatest success and failure and he has a new photo album, all those presidential pictures! Look at Cheney's profile for more fun! http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/vpbio.html Chief Executive Officer of the Halliburton Company Last edited by Seanland; 06-22-2008 at 07:21 PM.. Reason: more info*

06-22-2008, 09:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Successes? Uh.... Anyways, failures are far, far too many to mention. By the way, getting Saddam is a) Not a success on the war on terror, because Saddam wasn't a terrorist and didn't attack us, and b) one small part of the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history. So I'm not so sure I'd put that one under the success heading. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

06-25-2008, 09:54 PM	#7 (permalink)
forseti-6 Existentialist Location: New York City	I'd say one of President Bush's greatest successes (although some might see it as a failure) was sparking the nation's realization that we are way too oil dependent. He has influenced (forced) auto-manufacturers to pour money into research alternative fuels so we can decrease our dependence on the middle east. I don't think anyone will argue that the Middle East is the "hottest" area in the world in terms of conflict and terrorist havens. Much of it can exists because of oil and the wealth that it brings in. Perhaps in due time, this country, or the world no longer demands oil and the Middle East will settle down. I think, however, defining President Bush's successes and failures now is overly premature. 20, 30, 50 years from now, his successes and failures might be seen extremely differently. It'll be interesting... __________________ "Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened." - Dr. Seuss

06-28-2008, 06:16 AM	#8 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	I think that overall Bush was a very poor president. Outside of the obvious failures in Iraq and the so called War on Terror, the number ONE problem I have with Bush's policies is his economic policies. Bush's ecomic policies have increased the US federal debt by double in his 8 year tenure. I know it isn't as sexy as Iraq, or the War on Terror, but a US federal debt of 9.3 trillion is HUGE. Bush has more than doubled the federal debt during his tenure. And 9.3 T isn't the real number, there are all kinds of other debts that they don't include in that. But for the sake of arguement, lets say 9.3 trillion. That equates to $31,000 for every man woman AND child in the United States. At this rate, the debt will pass 100% of GDP in the next 5 years. (Assuming that the next president doesn't do something about it.) More and more US tax dollars are being chewed up just to pay the interest on the debt. Which means that they borrow even more money. When interest rates start to rise, this will get even worse. To compound the situation, the biggest holder of the debt are the Chinese. They could destroy the US dollar if they began to dump their US dollars onto the market. This free lunch policy of George W Bush is going to haunt future generations. Either the next guy, or the guy after that is going to have some very real very hard economic issues to deal with that are not going to be politically popular. It's farking unbelievable that Congress somehow thinks that borrowing money to finance tax cuts is a good idea. On top of that, Government Spending in the US is out of control with record increases and record spending in each of George Bush's years in office. When times are good, he should have been paying down the debt, instead, he doubled it. As to what good he has done, I have to agree with Ratbastid that Bush has done more for Africa and Aids in Africa than any president before him. I also don't think he's that bad of a guy and I would invite him to my barbeque (but not Cheney). Last edited by james t kirk; 06-28-2008 at 06:22 AM..

06-15-2008, 04:09 PM	#2 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	The whole presidency was a PR matter. A PR success would be a success, given what it was. The only success I know of is Bush's Africa initiatives. He's done good work there to bring about economic justice and impact the AIDS epidemic.

06-28-2008, 07:23 AM	#10 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I seriously doubt that we will ever see an objective and documented evaluation of Bush as a result of his gross abuse and violation of the Presidential Records Act, the intent of which is to preserve all documents for historical purposes. We have already seen the loss (destruction) of millions of WH emails. I expect that many (most) other documents that do not support the public statements and actions of Bush/Cheney will also mysteriously disappear and we will be left with the cleansed and sanitized version of the last eight years of the country's history. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-28-2008 at 07:26 AM..

06-28-2008, 04:25 PM	#11 (permalink)
william Psycho	His biggest failure (some see as success) is the erosion (or attempt of) of our Constitution. Habeas Corpus and the 4th Ammendment come to mind. Nuremburg, Germany showed the world what we stood for. GITMO does the opposite. There is supposed to be a system of checks and balances in our government. The Supreme Court had (barely) the guts to stand up for Habeas Corpus. The House caved on the 4th Ammendment; hopefully the Senate will stand. His biggest sucess - being a puppet for Cheney. When will the secret energy meetings become public? Bush is an oil man. Cheney is/was on the board of Halliburton (Iraq/Afghanistan). And yet people do not see a correllation. Bush vowed when he took Presidency to control oil prices. That's when it was $20/barrel. Now we're at $140/barrel. Some control. The companies have 10K+ of leases to drill in (over 39M acres) that they leave standing. Who do you really think are the speculators? Oh wait - the housing speculators left town.

06-29-2008, 03:54 PM	#17 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The latest GAO report which evaluated the "surge" and its lack of success in meeting its stated goals was last week. The State Department report on terrorism was early this year. New international NGO reports on the status of Iraqi refugees and the deteriorating health conditions of Iraq children were also from earlier this year. The latest survey of Iraqi citizens in which a majority blame the US for the deteriorating state of conditions in Iraq was in March. Bush refused to declassify key judgements of recent NIE perhaps because they concur with the 2006 NIE which declared Iraq a "cause celebre" for terrorists around the world and a spreading jihadist movement as a result. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-29-2008 at 04:02 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost