Rate Bush as president (scale 1-10)

[BanginJimmy]

I love this country, but when you start to sh!t on other countries, you start to make enemies. Clinton had a better rapport with the world, hence no attacks, our enemies got bold enough to attack us on our own soil after bush was in office.

You area showing your age and your ignorance. There fore I had no reason to read any further than this.

No attacks under Clinton? Are you serious?

What about the '93 WTC bombing?
What about the '95 car bomb in Riyadh?
What about the '96 bombing of the Khubar Towers?
What about the '98 bombing of Embassies in Africa?
What about the '98 rocketing of the Embassy in Beruit?
What about the '00 bombing of the Cole?

Funny how this lists ends with 9/11.

[DESTRO_91]

You area showing your age and your ignorance. There fore I had no reason to read any further than this.

No attacks under Clinton? Are you serious?

What about the '93 WTC bombing?
What about the '95 car bomb in Riyadh?
What about the '96 bombing of the Khubar Towers?
What about the '98 bombing of Embassies in Africa?
What about the '98 rocketing of the Embassy in Beruit?
What about the '00 bombing of the Cole?

Funny how this lists ends with 9/11.

Notice I said on our own soil. I did mention WTC bombing. Granted US embassies are considered our soil, but they are not the continental US.

[BanginJimmy]

Notice I said on our own soil. I did mention WTC bombing. Granted US embassies are considered our soil, but they are not the continental US.

so you have prov that Bush and Clinton had the same number of attacks on our soil during their presidency, and Bush had 5 less worldwide during his presidency, but Clinton's rapport with other countries kept us safer. Where do you get this stuff.

Also, look what you said again,

Clinton had a better rapport with the world, hence no attacks, our enemies got bold enough to attack us on our own soil after bush was in office.

That quote says that we never got attacked under Clinton, but in less than 9 months Bush managed empower the world's terrorists and led to an attack on our soil.
The actual truth of the matter is that Clintons inaction after repeated attacks, and his severe drawdown of US intelligence capabilities and military led to 9/11. Judging by the lack of attacks in the last 7 years I think it would be safe to say that if Clinton had the balls to fight terrorism back in '93, 9/11 would have never happened.

[BABY J]

LOL @ balls to fight terrorism. Show me some1 that has fought terrorism and won. You can't fight terrorism --- you can only respond to it. That's like waging a war on prejudice -- you can't. FYI: the US ALWAYS responds to attacks... the ones that you know about --- and the ones that you don't know about that I DO know about.

[BanginJimmy]

LOL @ balls to fight terrorism. Show me some1 that has fought terrorism and won. You can't fight terrorism --- you can only respond to it. That's like waging a war on prejudice -- you can't. FYI: the US ALWAYS responds to attacks... the ones that you know about --- and the ones that you don't know about that I DO know about.

Well Clinton's typical response was 1 or 2 cruise missiles and call it a day. It was obvious from the beginning that that response did nothing more than embolden terrorists.

There re plenty of ways to fight terrorism. Just because its a never ending battle doesnt mean we should jut give up and allow them to attack us at will.

I take it from your response though that you thought a cruise missile was a strong enough response though. You probably think that the reason we havent been attacked again is pure coincidence also.

[BABY J]

I probably worked at the Mountain for over 2 years (and over 10 years in intelligence altogether, both in and out of uniform) and PERSONALLY know more about what responses we have engaged in than you ever will - LOL. It's funny what people think they know. Remember this -- you don't know what you don't know.

[BanginJimmy]

I probably worked at the Mountain for over 2 years (and over 10 years in intelligence altogether, both in and out of uniform) and PERSONALLY know more about what responses we have engaged in than you ever will - LOL. It's funny what people think they know. Remember this -- you don't know what you don't know.

I'm not talking covert as I know I know very little about it. I am talking about overt action of the type that sets an example. Firing cruise missles into training camps does not instill fear. Covert action only instills fear in those that witness it. Clinton never took decisive overt action in his time in office and that hurt us. And if you were in uniform during his years you will know how far he drew down the intelligence communities.



BTW I am considering moving into the intell side when I re-enlist. Got any tip on what to go out for and what areas to avoid?

[BURRITO_mike]

7- because america was safer and not bowing to the arabs and i had a job ever since obama stepped ive been unemployed

[DriVaH]

i put a 1 caues -34178614144789617979815 was not a choice...lol

[bdydrpdmazda]

I voted a Bush a 5. He had a VERY difficult presidency and any comparisons to Clinton are completely unfounded. Clinton had a completely uneventful presidency, party because of him being spineless, partly becase nothing major happened. No major natural disasters, no single significant terrorist attack, 1 economic meltdown that was very localized and quickly smoothed over without white house intervention, and a very active and bi-partison republican congress. I would imagine ANY president could have done well during those times.

Back to Bush, history will look favorably on Bush, much as it has with FDR and Truman despite low approval at the time. We dont have nearly half the facts on what happened to make Bush head into Iraq. For all we know, they found a massive stockpile of nuke material that has not been made public so as to not cause more fear here at home. Outside of a few major decisions that I really dont like I think he has done well. Those bad economic decisions keep me from rating him high, as does the running of Iraq.

I gave him a 5 also and I agree with this post.

[Total_Blender]

Clinton was smart in not starting a war in central asia/middle east. Even Alexander the Fucking Great couldn't keep up a prolonged land war there. The smart approach is to use surgical strikes to go after the leadership of these groups, and to double up defensive measures on the homefront.

Also, a major part of Bush being elected in the first place was that he called Clinton/Gore out on the terrorism threat and their downsizing of the military. So if anyone should have been prepared for a terrorism event it was W.

[BanginJimmy]

So if anyone should have been prepared for a terrorism event it was W.

So conservatives are crazy to expect to see any improvement in the economy under Obama in 10 months, but Bush should have been able to rebuild trust within the intelligence community, rebuild and modernize the military, AND solve a moderate recession in 8? Makes perfect sense to me.

[Total_Blender]

Intelligence agencies were following Bin Laden already. The evidence that something big was about to happen concerning Al Qaeda was already on the table. The lack of intelligence wasn't the problem, the problem was the failure to act on the intelligence. And then once he did act, he fucked it up royally.

[BanginJimmy]

Intelligence agencies were following Bin Laden already. The evidence that something big was about to happen concerning Al Qaeda was already on the table. The lack of intelligence wasn't the problem, the problem was the failure to act on the intelligence. And then once he did act, he fucked it up royally.

There wasnt enough intelligence to act on, that was the problem Clinton had as well. From what I remember, we knew there were terrorists in the country, we knew they were planning something big, and we knew it had something to do with airplanes, airlines, or airports. That is all we knew at the time. Also, before 9/11 the intelligence community did not talk to each other about anything. That was one of the biggest consequences of Clinton's intelligence spending policies. Agencies were basicly paid for results, so they didnt tell anyone else about anything they uncovered.

I find it funny that Bush is hammered for not acting on sketchy and incompelete intelligence before 9/11, then is attacked again when he acted on much better intelligence that turned out to be false. The hypocrisy of a liberal knows no bounds does it.

[Total_Blender]

Are you talking about the intelligence of Ahmed Chalabi? The false testimony of ONE PERSON that led us into the Iraq war. As far as "intelligence" goes, that was transparent BS, and it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out at the time. We sure as hell didn't find Bin Laden in Iraq, no WMD's either.

The mark of a good comand is to be able to tell good intel from bad, to know when to act, and to act both judiciously and decisively. Bush sat on good intel, acted bigtime on bad intel, and failed to act judiciously, dividing the effort by adding an un-necessary front.

[BanginJimmy]

The mark of a good comand is to be able to tell good intel from bad, to know when to act, and to act both judiciously and decisively. Bush sat on good intel, acted bigtime on bad intel, and failed to act judiciously, dividing the effort by adding an un-necessary front.

Once again, the intel before we went into Iraq was BETTER than the intel before 9/11. We had far more info, but because the intelligence services didnt talk to each other, there was never a clear picture. You are also ignoring the fact that about 15 other country's intel services reviewed our raw data and came to the same conclusions we did.

[punkr6]

as bad as BUsh was, Obama is making him look better and better by the day....

[BABY J]

Once again, the intel before we went into Iraq was BETTER than the intel before 9/11. We had far more info, but because the intelligence services didnt talk to each other, there was never a clear picture. You are also ignoring the fact that about 15 other country's intel services reviewed our raw data and came to the same conclusions we did.

This is not true. LOTS of the major players didn't go w/ us on this one. We basically did it alone.

[JDMbabe]

um 2

that is all.

[XanRules]

LOL @ people saying Bush kept us safe from terrorism, especially compared to Clinton.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Anyone else remember that?

[BABY J]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/...bora_bin_laden

[BanginJimmy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/...bora_bin_laden

Just another attack on Bush. We are all used to those at this point.

At the time, Rumsfeld expressed concern that a large U.S. troop presence might fuel a backlash and he and some others said the evidence was not conclusive about bin Laden's location.

Here is the problem the military faces no matter who is in office. We should be nice to the people that hate us cause we dont want to make enemies out of enemies. End this PC shit and end the war. Send 4 or 5 full divisions into Pakistan and wipe out anyone that fires a shot at them. It wont take long at all before you find someone that will tell you exactly what you want to know.

[BABY J]

What part of that makes it look like an attack? It's just good news reporting correct?

[BanginJimmy]

What part of that makes it look like an attack? It's just good news reporting correct?

Not the reporting, the whole review and the fact that it was made public. Its just another attack on Bush by Obama. He's good for at least 2 or 3 a week.

[BABY J]

Pretty sure Obama had nothing to do w/ that article - LOL. But okay.

[Black4DrEK]

2 for shits and giggles.. FUCK BUSH!

[BanginJimmy]

Pretty sure Obama had nothing to do w/ that article - LOL. But okay.

Fine, I will say the Obama administration. Its all the same though as Obama gave the go ahead to release it.

[BABY J]

Show me where you get that info.

[BanginJimmy]

Show me where you get that info.

Its called common sense.

[BABY J]

Oh - so you can't show me. You could have just said that... it's kool.

[Glides]

Here is the problem the military faces no matter who is in office. We should be nice to the people that hate us cause we dont want to make enemies out of enemies. End this PC shit and end the war. Send 4 or 5 full divisions into Pakistan and wipe out anyone that fires a shot at them. It wont take long at all before you find someone that will tell you exactly what you want to know.

While this may sound like a good strategy, it will never work for one reason.

You are only thinking of Pakistan. You aren't thinking globally. Yes we are the largest super power on the planet but we are not above every other power. If we go into Pakistan stomping around, shooting whoever does this and that, the ENTIRE world will turn on us. Once that happens, we are fucked.

We are in the midst of an economic crisis now. We cannot afford to piss anyone off, especially our somewhat allies, such as China and Japan, who combined hold about %45 of our debt. Not to mention India who is the largest Democracy in the world at this time. So going in guns blazing will do nothing but turn the world even further against us and undo what Obama has done (see below)

Bush was not the worst president in the United States by far, but he was pretty shitty on the grand scale of things. His personal vendetta against Saddam was responsible for much of the hatred of Americans worldwide and in their eyes, showed America as what they always thought it was, Cowboys. We are still recovering from Bush's bullshit and will be for years to come. The Iraq war was bullshit, a waste of resources and lives. It will go down in history as a failed war simply for that reason alone. There was no need for it. We pulled troops out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq and now are having to deal with what we should have dealt with back then, wasting more American lives and money.

Now for Obama. Obama is good for the country, in the worlds eyes, simply because he is black. That is not the only reason he is good for the country, he is charasmatic, level headed, a good speaker and he is alot more real world person than Bush ever was. Bush was an idiot. He mispronounced words, used them in sentences incorrectly and generally made an ass out of himself....like hugging the Queen. Just sheer stupidity. He embodied every other countries idea of what an American is...ignorant, flippant, deserving, unclassed and apathetic to anything other than themselves. That's pretty much Bush.

But what most of the world sees when Obama gets on stage, is that he's black. So in their eyes, we as a country have elected a black president and maybe...just maybe, we are coming out of the caveman days. Add to that the fact that he's pretty much the exact opposite of Bush, and you have countries warming up to us now. They want to impress Obama. You have countries sending more troops to Afghanistan now simply bcause Obama is. They don't have to....but they are, because of Obama. The exception is Germany, who is waiting til January. but even they are under pressure from allies now that Obama has announced the 30,000 troop surge.

So I voted 4. Bush wasn't the worst, but he damm sure wasn't the greatest.

[MachNU]

i am willing to bet everyone who voted 1-3 all voted for Obama...therefore there vote is null and void!

[Total_Blender]

i am willing to bet everyone who voted 10 all voted for McCain/Palin...therefore there vote is null and void!

Fixed it for you

[MachNU]

Fixed it for you

This coming from the man who voted for the person whos going to go down in history as the WORST president ever.

[Glides]

This coming from the man who voted for the person whos going to go down in history as the WORST president ever.

I have to somewhat agree with this statement.

Obama was seen by many, blacks especially, as the saviour of America. he was thought off to be the culmination of all the struggles of the blacks throughout history and the symbol of the "We shall overcome" train of thought. He wins, gets in office and his populatiry skyrockets.

Come to present day. his populatiry is steadily going down, especially amongst those who thought him the harbinger of change. Now alot of blacks don't care for Obama since he didn't do for them what they thought he was going to.

Unfortunatly, he will go down in history as the guy who "Gave away the Country". Him and his democratic army passed so much, so fast and gave away so much money.....that his own party is slowly turning against him. The amount of money he has spent is incredible......money we don't have.

I personally like Obama, didn't vote for him, but I like him. I think had he not had to deal with Bush's fuck ups that were already stinking up the White house, he could have done much better.

[Total_Blender]

I think this poll shows that Bush is the one going down as "worst". Most of what Obama is doing now is continuing crap that W started. We're still fighting both of W's wars, after all. Meet the new boss: same as the old boss.

[BanginJimmy]

Bush will not be thought of as anywhere near the worst. That title is firmly implanted on the Carter name. Bush will go into a long line of presidents that were mediocre. He got 1 bad deal after another during his 8 years and still stayed his course. This country is FAR safter today than we were on 9/10 2001. As far as I'm concerned, he is in the same class as Eisenhower, Clinton, and Reagan. No one else is really worth mentioning in the last 60 years.


BTW, Truman had equally bad polling numbers when he left office and some still think of him as a good president.


BTW, since we are using an IA poll to decide a president's place in the pecking order. Obama is ALREADY far worse than Bush.

[David88vert]

Bush will not be thought of as anywhere near the worst. That title is firmly implanted on the Carter name. Bush will go into a long line of presidents that were mediocre. He got 1 bad deal after another during his 8 years and still stayed his course. This country is FAR safter today than we were on 9/10 2001. As far as I'm concerned, he is in the same class as Eisenhower, Clinton, and Reagan. No one else is really worth mentioning in the last 60 years.


BTW, Truman had equally bad polling numbers when he left office and some still think of him as a good president.


BTW, since we are using an IA poll to decide a president's place in the pecking order. Obama is ALREADY far worse than Bush.

I disagree. You cannot put either Bush in the same league as Reagan or Eisenhower. They were clearly better.

I personally think that even Clinton was better than Bush on a large variety of issues, especially domestic. I feel Bush did better than Clinton on others, such as security.

Carter was terrible, but I wouldn't say that allows Bush to be put on a pedestal.

It is way too early to decide on Obama's legacy.

[BanginJimmy]

I disagree. You cannot put either Bush in the same league as Reagan or Eisenhower. They were clearly better.

Bush Sr wasn't a good president. The only reason he was elected in the first place was his being VP for Reagan. Without that name association he didn't have a shot. I think Jr will be looked upton kindly because he stayed the course even when he could have justified wavering in favor of polling numbers. The relative safety we enjoy now falls squarely on his shoulders.

I personally think that even Clinton was better than Bush on a large variety of issues, especially domestic. I feel Bush did better than Clinton on others, such as security.

Clinton was solid on domestic issues but lacked dangerously in foreign issues. I also give a lot of credit to congress duing that time.

Carter was terrible, but I wouldn't say that allows Bush to be put on a pedestal.

I'm not putting Bush on any pedistal, just dropping Cater into the dumpster he belongs in.

It is way too early to decide on Obama's legacy.

I agree to a point. His legacy may well be decided by outside forces, but to this point he has been a complete disaster.

[On_Her_Face]

Bump.