98% Of Historians Call Bush Presidency A Failure

reply to post by danx


Any time someone in authority uses professionally-produced spin in place of cold hard facts to promote their "legacy", you know something is amiss. Bush isn't the only one guilty of such things, but he's certainly got enough in his record that needs to be spun to keep a marketing firm in business for a decade.

This is idiotic. Not perfect, certainly. Bad? Even maybe. But the worst? Absolutely not! Nearly everything wrong with Bush has been repeated before, at the very least by Franklin Roosevelt, also known as the man who finally tore the constitution to shreds.

well i disagree completely with this so called study.
the Bush admin. actually has been very successful since day one.
dont forget that bushs economic policies brought us out of a recession left by the clinton admin. also in his presidency kept our economy strong after 9/11.
for most of his presidency there was record economic growth, more jobs where created, small businesses prospered. we have two successful wars. that in the long run will be crucial to international peace.

i understand that most of you will disagree out of ignorance. but seriously look at the real truth. the extreme left, blames bush for everything, they call his admin. a regime they call him a war criminal, they protest the war. but if you ever look at these people theyre not high ranked govt officials theyre not even decent hard working people. most of them are bums. theyre angry and blame all their problems on the govt. this trend on hating bush has grown out of control, and everyone is getting away with it. its sad to see that some people can be this stupid.

this study is bias. who ever conducted it cherry picked the so called historians.

Originally posted by driveshaft08
reply to post by danx

 

Biggest Bush Lies

George Bush lies


George Bush Big Lies

9/11 lies, War on Terror & Torture
Iraq
Domestic Spy Program
Iran
Katrina
Domestic Policy

Awesome! If you like those- you'll love this:

www.netrootsmass.net...

Bush Scandals List:
updated 4/11/08, recent changes in red. please contact us with corrections and additions.


INTRODUCTION: George Bush, the Connecticut cowboy, the good old boy from Yale is a man of mediocre intelligence, little imagination, and great stubbornness and vindictiveness. He may be the Decider but his handlers have long known how to manipulate him. The key is to hook him with short, simple sells. Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice knew that once he has consulted his gut and perhaps his higher father his decision is forever. So whoever gets to him first is likely to carry the day because he doesn't like to be challenged and is, quite simply, too lazy to change his mind. The Bubble is a natural consequence of this decision making process where logic, reason, and facts have little or no role.
....Bush's Presidency began in the shadow of a contested and likely stolen election and promised to be unsuccessful in a largely forgettable and unremarkable way. 911 changed all that and transformed a plodding, and essentially AWOL one termer into an accidental hero. Enormous power flowed to his office but Bush had no idea how to use it. He liked to campaign, not govern. In those around him, he prized loyalty over competence and honesty. A believer in the notion of "to the victor go the spoils," he was the perfect mark for every conniver, bumbler, bungler, hack, hanger on, and would be crony that Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and their friends could find. In the normal course of things, this would have spelled failure. Post-911, it was catastrophic.
....At this critical juncture in our history we needed an adult but got an adolescent. Instead of responsibility, we got a truant. In place of flexibility we got obduracy. In the face of great and complex challenges, we got strawmen, a black and white universe, my way or the highway, regurgitated stump speeches, and a steadfast refusal to compromise not just with opponents but with reality.
....What all this comes down to is that George Bush should never have become our President. He is not just a bad President but the worst one we could have had, the worst our country has ever seen. This is a judgment that many Americans have come to but which our political establishment and media, even after 7 years, have yet to acknowledge, accept, and act on. This is the tragedy and crime of our times.

reply to post by logictruth


Well I disagree with you completely. Dont forget that the Bush administration is driving the American economy straight into the dirt right now. And if war is judged to be successful by the amount of casualties, and the amount of foreign prisoners mistreated and tortured, then YES! It has been an amazing success! WOO HOO...

Not to mention all of those who lost their lives and posessions in Katrina. Not much is needed to be said.



[edit on 16/4/08 by wisefoolishness]

Originally posted by Johnmike
This is idiotic. Not perfect, certainly. Bad? Even maybe. But the worst? Absolutely not! Nearly everything wrong with Bush has been repeated before, at the very least by Franklin Roosevelt, also known as the man who finally tore the constitution to shreds.

Excuse me? The same Franklin Roosevelt who put America to work building the infrastructure we enjoy today, thus pulling us out of the Great Depression? The same Roosevelt who essentially created the Middle Class most of us likely grew up in? The same Roosevelt who sought to keep military contractors from profiteering during WW2? The same Roosevelt who ensured the retirement and health care of millions of Americans who otherwise would never have been able to fend for themselves upon reaching old age or becoming disabled? That Roosevelt? Hm. Seems to me you're a Neo-Con (Artist) looking for excuses to bolster a failed "conservative" political philosophy that thus far has only brought pain and suffering to Americans and the world.

"Conservatives" have hated Roosevelt for decades and now that they've succeeded in (mostly) rolling back the New Deal, the common man is starting to realize just how important the New Deal was in making this nation truly great. Some of his wartime policies notwithstanding, I consider Roosevelt something of a Champion of the Everyday American. He understood that unrestrained capitalism results in only one thing: a handful of mega-rich "aristocrats", and a huge nation of slaves in poverty. He sought to correct that, and "Conservatives" have hated him for it ever since. Sadly, many "common" Americans continue to believe the lies of the "Conservatives" and vote based on pointless wedge issues against their own economic best interests.

Reality has a Liberal bias, people. Deal with it.

reply to post by wisefoolishness


well the only thing i can agree with is that the economy is bad but not in a recession. the war is successful, so far iraq has been freed from a tyrant.
i dont want to get into the torture issue.

ok Katrina CAN NOT BE BLAMED ON BUSH!!!
the local and state govt did not do anything to evacuate citizens. the state govt didnt do s**t to prevent the levees from breaking. blame the local and state govt not bush.

reply to post by Drewdatt

Unfortunately I am human and I don't agree with your thoughts.
You have been attacked? Personally attacked? I understand if personally you have been attacked physically or anyone you know. This mentality of being "attacked" by other countries to me, sounds very out of this world.

No I was not personally attacked. But if I was or knew someone who was I would want to take some sort of action. Everyone was in shock and while most americans weren't personally affected by 911, they sided with their nation because it's one of the few forms of identity they know.

It doesn't matter if we are a nation of 300 million humans or a tribe of 50 apes... a group is a group. Nature can be a nasty thing, your either a predator or your prey. No I'm not totally for the war in Iraq and very against the way it was conducted. On the other hand, I can't sit here and say the correct course of action would have been to "turn the other cheek."

I agree that political boundaries lead to ridiculous ways of thinking. However, given the nature of our species I don't see a utopia happening until we establish a one world government and better integrate ourselves with respect to language and culture. For this to happen unfortunately there will be more cultures lost and many more people will die. I hope things will change but if history is any indicator we are will likely continue to face stormy weather.

reply to post by logictruth


The economy is bad, but not in recession? Is it not going down the drain?

Ok, ok, youre right. Katrina itself cannot be blamed on Bush, as hurricanes are part of nature. But you can't set there and tell me that there is absolutely nothing Bush could have done to help start an evacuation of the people that were in the states that got hammered by a category 5 hurricane. Hell, he still isn't helping the people that live in places like New Orleans.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Excuse me?

Excused, you always are.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
The same Franklin Roosevelt who put America to work building the infrastructure we enjoy today, thus pulling us out of the Great Depression?

This is actually a common misconception, for some reason, I think. That Franklin Roosevelt did not by any means pull out out of the Great Depression. He actually worsened it in a way only seen by fascist Italy in the same time period (well, Hoover started it, Roosevelt continued). It wasn't good at all.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
The same Roosevelt who essentially created the Middle Class most of us likely grew up in?

I don't think anything he did was even intended to create a middle class. It was intended (supposedly -- it didn't work) to help the poor with "prime the pump" corporatist/socialist economics. But it didn't do that. Many of his programs (TVA for example) actually put people out of work due to private enterprise's inability to compete with the endless pockets of the government.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
The same Roosevelt who sought to keep military contractors from profiteering during WW2?

I can tell you right away that I know nothing of Roosevelt doing so. I never really looked for that, feel free to explain.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
The same Roosevelt who ensured the retirement and health care of millions of Americans who otherwise would never have been able to fend for themselves upon reaching old age or becoming disabled?

Social security, a forced retirement fund? You're taxed the money, and then you beg the government to give you some later on. Do you have any clue what percent -- growing percent -- of the national budget goes to social security alone? This is money you could be investing, using as you need, but you are forced to give Uncle Sam your hard earned money so that you can, at the state's mercy, maybe get it back when you're around 65. It's costing us a fortune, both the government and us, in money we can invest or spend on, you know, food. My mother's FICA tax is actually more than her income tax, it's sick.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
That Roosevelt?

Nope.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Seems to me you're a Neo-Con (Artist) looking for excuses to bolster a failed "conservative" political philosophy that thus far has only brought pain and suffering to Americans and the world.

If you edit out that idiotic "Neo-Con" label I'll erase it and this from this response.

I was taught to believe in socialism, in all those beautiful economic philosophies of hope and equality and all those warm, fuzzy things. But as I read, I learned, I discovered how economics works, and realized just how impossible it is to run an effective centrally-planned economy. I'd be all for it if it worked, but it results in nothing but increased poverty, decreased efficiency, and a reliance on the welfare state.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
"Conservatives" have hated Roosevelt for decades and now that they've succeeded in (mostly) rolling back the New Deal, the common man is starting to realize just how important the New Deal was in making this nation truly great.

I think it's just recently that people have realized what a failure they were. Nothing in the New Deal did a thing to help us economically, all he tried to do was mold us after fascist Italy. Read about economics from less biased sources, you'll see just how destructive this man was.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Some of his wartime policies notwithstanding, I consider Roosevelt something of a Champion of the Everyday American.

The Japanese-American citizens who were sent to concentration camps would disagree with you.

But hey, the everyday American, right? Populist democracy, surrender of individual liberties to the majority? The mob? Maybe you might be right.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
He understood that unrestrained capitalism results in only one thing: a handful of mega-rich "aristocrats", and a huge nation of slaves in poverty.

I can understand that the sky is green, that the world is flat, and that the sun goes around the Earth, but it'll still make me an ignorant moron.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
He sought to correct that, and "Conservatives" have hated him for it ever since. Sadly, many "common" Americans continue to believe the lies of the "Conservatives" and vote based on pointless wedge issues against their own economic best interests.

I guess I can call myself "conservative," though not in the way that's been hijacked by the new, neo-conservative Republicans since the 90's. But my political and economic beliefs stem from research regarding policy and its effects, not some dogmatic principle.

reply to post by wisefoolishness


He tried, repeatedly, to start an evacuation BEFORE the hurricane hit. It was Ray Nagin that told everyone to just come to the Superdome and wait out the storm, everything would be OK. If anyone is to blame for the chaotic aftermath of New Orleans, it's Nagin for his ignorance, Governor Blanco for her lacidaisical "I'll just wait for the feds to help" attitude, and, dare I even say it, the people of New Orleans themselves for not A) taking the hurricane seriously from the start and B) acting like animals in the aftermath of the hurricane.

reply to post by wisefoolishness


technically we are not in a recession. we actually wont know if we are till another couple of months. but lets all hope we are not whether we hate the guy or not.
and yes and no on katrina. the governor and the mayor knew about the hurricane they failed to evacuate or at least start to evacuate. but also no one saw what was to come. no one saw the levees breaking im sure if they had known they would have done sumthing. but that is the state govt fault they should take care of their levees.

Originally posted by logictruth
well the only thing i can agree with is that the economy is bad but not in a recession.

It's a recession in all but name. Ask pretty much any economist not directly connected to the Bush Admin, and you'll find truth. Real wages for Americans are down, inflation is out of control, jobs paying more than minimum wage (or just a hair above) are nearly impossible to find for those without college degrees (less than 20% of Americans have a Bachelor's Degree or higher) and health care costs amount to highway robbery. People literally are deciding whether they can afford to buy gas just to go to work, and still have enough left over to buy food. If that's not recession, then I don't want to know how much worse you think things need to get to make it official.

the war is successful, so far iraq has been freed from a tyrant.

But that's not why we supposedly went there in the first place. Both reasons given to the American people turned out to be lies. WMD, and Saddam's involvement in 9/11. Aside from that, having our soldiers die while trying to play referee in the dead-center of a civil war that's been brewing for centuries, and keeping them there indefinitely with no concrete definition of "success" while generals tell the public the military is falling apart because of it, AND it drives our national debt to unheard-of levels, is not what I'd call "success". It's not even a "war" anyway. The "war" is over. Bush himself said so. This is an occupation. The war was illegal from the beginning, and the occupation doubly so. As for Saddam, and removing a "tyrant", we helped create that tyrant and gave him the tools he used to abuse his people. Those Kurds he gassed? The weapons were built in American factories.

If the Iraqis wanted freedom from Saddam they had the responsibility to take it from themselves, without our interference.

i dont want to get into the torture issue.

Because you'll lose. Torture is against American law, against international law, and Dammit, it's just plain wrong!! Some "Christian" Bush is.

ok Katrina CAN NOT BE BLAMED ON BUSH!!!
the local and state govt did not do anything to evacuate citizens. the state govt didnt do s**t to prevent the levees from breaking. blame the local and state govt not bush.

Ever heard of FEMA? Do you have any idea what their job actually is? The state and local governments shouldn't have had to ask for help. That's why FEMA exists, to be at the ready when disasters too large for the state and local government to handle happen. FEMA failed, and still fails today, because Bush appointed incompetent cronies to run it and cut its funding to ensure it couldn't work as designed. Bush's fault.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Ever heard of FEMA? Do you have any idea what their job actually is? The state and local governments shouldn't have had to ask for help. That's why FEMA exists, to be at the ready when disasters too large for the state and local government to handle happen. FEMA failed, and still fails today, because Bush appointed incompetent cronies to run it and cut its funding to ensure it couldn't work as designed. Bush's fault.

Thank you Nighthawk. I don't think I need to say anything else about Katrina. That pretty much sums it up.

About this torture argument. If torturing a terrorist or supporter of enemies of this nation leads to information that can prevent even one attack from happening as planned on US soil, then waterboard away! I find it fascinating that Saddam Hussein could break virtually every international law pertaining to torture, and I'm talking serious torture here... starvation, chemical testing, breaking bones one by one over a long period until death, executing/raping/beating family members while you're tied up and forced to watch... not nonsense like the human butt pyramid or waterboarding/toilet swirllies, and the same people who cry the loudest about how we're supposedly "torturing" hostiles in Gitmo and Bush should be tried as a war criminal are the same ones that question what right we had to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power in a "sovern" nation. Your logic is flawed, to put it in the kindest terms I can generate.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Waterboarding is the only kind of torture that we know for sure that is done. The government hides everything else from us, good Lord why would they tell us if they were torturing someone?

I'm really not so sure that it's fair to compare what evils a dictator does to the actions of what is supposed to be the greatest country in the world. No matter how painful or violent the torture that the US does, the bottom line is that torture is illegal.

reply to post by The Nighthawk


like i said the economy hopefuly wont go into a recession. and cant be called one till it officially is one.

i agree completely with the Iraq war. whether WMD where there or not.(do research on the possiblity of saddam moving his WMDs to syria.) i believe the war liberated Iraq and now that country has a chance to be a role model for the rest of the middle east countries ruled by tyrants

and yeah ive heard of FEMA. but this disaster could have been prevented if the state govt had taken a look at its levees.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


i completely agree with you.
i still cant see the logic these people use when they say we shouldnt torture someone with time sensitive info.
if waterboarding someone gets info on a possible attack on US or allied soil then its ok with me.
they behead our guys we just waterboard them and then they live comfortable in a prison.


its so stupid how some people on this site want to have bush impeached and tried as a war criminal, when he hasnt done anything illegal. the same people that want that wont support liberating a country ruled by a real tyrant

[edit on 16-4-2008 by logictruth]

Originally posted by Johnmike
This is actually a common misconception, for some reason, I think. That Franklin Roosevelt did not by any means pull out out of the Great Depression. He actually worsened it in a way only seen by fascist Italy in the same time period (well, Hoover started it, Roosevelt continued). It wasn't good at all.

[sarcasm]Oh wise Master of History[/sarcasm], then what exactly did?

I don't think anything he did was even intended to create a middle class. It was intended (supposedly -- it didn't work) to help the poor with "prime the pump" corporatist/socialist economics. But it didn't do that. Many of his programs (TVA for example) actually put people out of work due to private enterprise's inability to compete with the endless pockets of the government.

And yet it created new private enterprises, when the people who did the work took their knowledge and new-found money to start their own companies and hire more people. They also were able to spend money again, instead of hoarding for their survival, thus reviving manufacturing.

I can tell you right away that I know nothing of Roosevelt doing so. I never really looked for that, feel free to explain.

"No new Millionaires while our boys are fighting overseas".

Social security, a forced retirement fund? You're taxed the money, and then you beg the government to give you some later on. Do you have any clue what percent -- growing percent -- of the national budget goes to social security alone? This is money you could be investing, using as you need, but you are forced to give Uncle Sam your hard earned money so that you can, at the state's mercy, maybe get it back when you're around 65.

But it won't be used for investing. Study after study shows that when Americans have more money in their pockets they don't save it, or invest it--they spend it. Often (like now) they have little choice. Ending Social Security in favor of gambling on the Stock Market would be a financial disaster for tens of millions.

It's costing us a fortune, both the government and us, in money we can invest or spend on, you know, food. My mother's FICA tax is actually more than her income tax, it's sick.

It wouldn't be a problem if the rich paid their fair share. Right now SS taxes only count on the first $90K of one's income. If people who made $1Million or more were (rightly) forced to pay SS on their entire income SS would not only be solvent, it would be stronger than ever.

If you edit out that idiotic "Neo-Con" label I'll erase it and this from this response.

I call it like it is. Conservatism is dead, and "Neo-Conservatism" needs to die with it. The two are so intertwined as to be unrecognizable as separate philosophies.

I was taught to believe in socialism, in all those beautiful economic philosophies of hope and equality and all those warm, fuzzy things. But as I read, I learned, I discovered how economics works, and realized just how impossible it is to run an effective centrally-planned economy. I'd be all for it if it worked, but it results in nothing but increased poverty, decreased efficiency, and a reliance on the welfare state.

I was a Libertarian. I read too, and came to the exact opposite conclusion.

I think it's just recently that people have realized what a failure they were. Nothing in the New Deal did a thing to help us economically, all he tried to do was mold us after fascist Italy. Read about economics from less biased sources, you'll see just how destructive this man was.

"Less biased" sources such as?

The Japanese-American citizens who were sent to concentration camps would disagree with you.

As I said, I don't agree with some of his wartime policies.

But hey, the everyday American, right? Populist democracy, surrender of individual liberties to the majority? The mob? Maybe you might be right.

Where do you people get the idea that "Democracy" automatically means "surrender" to the majority? If you don't believe in democracy you're in the wrong damn country, buster. The Founding Fathers believed in Democracy along with Self-Determination. They created a system of checks and balances to preserve it. It took men like Roosevelt to realize that without economic freedom (as in, freedom from being a slave to your boss just to survive), people cannot truly be free.

I can understand that the sky is green, that the world is flat, and that the sun goes around the Earth, but it'll still make me an ignorant moron.

You're denying that capitalism with no limits or regulations results in a slave state? Then yes, your statement about yourself is indeed true.

I guess I can call myself "conservative," though not in the way that's been hijacked by the new, neo-conservative Republicans since the 90's.

Any more, they're one and the same. Lie down with pigs and expect to wake up covered in poop.

But my political and economic beliefs stem from research regarding policy and its effects, not some dogmatic principle.

As do mine. I'm a Democratic Socialist and Damn proud of it.

[edit on 4/16/2008 by The Nighthawk]

Staff note: Please try and avoid the profanity (even using *'s for letters). There are other words that could be used like the one I changed in the bold above. Thanks.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
About this torture argument. If torturing a terrorist or supporter of enemies of this nation leads to information that can prevent even one attack from happening as planned on US soil, then waterboard away!

But it doesn't. Torture is not only wrong, it doesn't work. Ask retired intelligence officials. When you torture a suspect that suspect will tell you whatever you want to hear. In fact, it can lead directly to more attacks not being prevented as interrogators waste time chasing false leads.

I find it fascinating that Saddam Hussein could break virtually every international law pertaining to torture, and I'm talking serious torture here... starvation, chemical testing, breaking bones one by one over a long period until death, executing/raping/beating family members while you're tied up and forced to watch... not nonsense like the human butt pyramid or waterboarding/toilet swirllies, and the same people who cry the loudest about how we're supposedly "torturing" hostiles in Gitmo and Bush should be tried as a war criminal are the same ones that question what right we had to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power in a "sovern" nation.

Both Saddam and Bush were wrong. But again, the Iraqi people, and nobody else (except possibly a consensus of the U.N.) had the right and the responsibility to remove Saddam from power. They didn't ask us, or the U.N., for any help. It wasn't our fight. But we went anyway, because Bush's best buds in the MIC wanted new yachts.

Your logic is flawed, to put it in the kindest terms I can generate.

And your morals are nonexistent if the best you can do is "He did it, we should too".