Honestly, George Bush was NOT a bad person.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I had my disagreements with some of his policies, especially Iraq, but I never understood why many people acted like Bush was the devil. He wasn't, from watching interviews and whatnot he doesn't seem like a bad person at all, and I don't think he went to Iraq for oil nor do I think he was behind 9/11.

I feel much the same way about Obama (who I voted for last year), I have some disagreements to be sure, but I don't understand why some people want to personally attack him and make him out to be a monster. He doesn't seem like a bad person in the slightest.

A bad person? Well, I don't know, I've never met the guy, but probably not. Not fit to run the country, maker of bad decisions, and possibly any idiot? I could see it.

As for people calling him and Obama evil and the devil, most of the time it is because media, churches, and whatever else push these ideas into their head and/or it makes them feel better about themselves.

Bush wasn't a bad person, not even really a dumb person, just not really a super wonderful president. I have mixed feelings on him, same for Obama, but I don't think either are evil or were/are trying to destroy America. My impression is that he should have thought some more things through, specifically Iraq, where he went in on false info. That was a mess. Time will be his judge though.

Did you forget about something?

Not to mention the PATRIOT Act, the bollocks with trying to simultaneously treat terrorist suspects as prisoners of war and then torture and execute them, and starting two wars.

Is that enough to consider him a dick?

Edit: For the record, since Obama is fine with at least two of those things, I also consider him a dick.

I never understood this obsession with people wanting to have a country's leader be a guy you'd want to have a beer with. Never mind the fact that I wouldn't want to have a beer with Bush, why would it matter what he's like personally? He's an atrocious leader who lied his country into an unnecessary war leading to more than a hundred thousand civilian deaths. I... really don't care... if he's "nice"... at that point.

He was pretty hilarious during those press dinners... About your point of him not being the Devil, though, isn't the Devil supposed to by some sort of sly charmer who can trick people into trusting him?

Bad person? No, probably not. An incompetent politician and atrocious leader thrust into a position with too much responsibility for him to handle? Most certainly.

DJjaffacake:

Not to mention the PATRIOT Act,

You mean the one that Joe Biden wrote?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:s.00390:
Which was implemented pretty much word for word post 9/11 as the USA Patriot Act.
Not enough? Guess who was one of the 2 democrats and 4 senators in total that first introduced the post 9/11 "Patriot Act"(Well the "Combating Terrorist Act 2001")?
Dianne (F'ING) Feinstein.

I bet Gengis Khan was a cool dude to his friends. I never got the sense that him being 'nice' had any bearing on the quality of his work

DJjaffacake:

Not to mention the PATRIOT Act, the bollocks with trying to simultaneously treat terrorist suspects as prisoners of war and then torture and execute them, and starting two wars.

Is that enough to consider him a dick?

Not necessarily.

People might be faced by a moral dilemma. Let's imagine you think torture is bad, but your advisors tell you that if you don't agree to it then innocents die - and that's bad as well. What do you do? And people are, let's face it, often not very forgiving when you've paved the road to hell with good intentions. If 50 million die in a war you thought you had prevented when you walked off the flight from Munich and declared "Peace in our time", people might think your good intentions can sod off.

Now, if we're talking Idi Amin or Nikolai Ceaucescu, odds on they were deeply unpleasant. But GWB? It's much less clear.

It's easiest just say he was a bad president, and leave whether he's a bad person to those who know him better.

W? Not a bad guy to have a beer with, if you don't mind the blood dripping from his warmonger hands.

Agema:

DJjaffacake:

Not to mention the PATRIOT Act, the bollocks with trying to simultaneously treat terrorist suspects as prisoners of war and then torture and execute them, and starting two wars.

Is that enough to consider him a dick?

Not necessarily.

People might be faced by a moral dilemma. Let's imagine you think torture is bad, but your advisors tell you that if you don't agree to it then innocents die - and that's bad as well. What do you do? And people are, let's face it, often not very forgiving when you've paved the road to hell with good intentions. If 50 million die in a war you thought you had prevented when you walked off the flight from Munich and declared "Peace in our time", people might think your good intentions can sod off.

Now, if we're talking Idi Amin or Nikolai Ceaucescu, odds on they were deeply unpleasant. But GWB? It's much less clear.

It's easiest just say he was a bad president, and leave whether he's a bad person to those who know him better.

That approach rather relies on the belief that the ends justify the means. While it's true that you could come up with a somewhat understandable 'for the greater good' justification for what Bush did, the same could be said of the examples you gave: Amin could claim that he thought the Acholi and Lango were a real threat to the well being of innocent people, Ceausescu could claim the same with regards to political dissidents. They might even be telling the truth; we have no real way of knowing why people do what they do, all we can know is what they do, and Bush is responsible for the deaths of close to two hundred thousand people, according to one source well over half a million. Given that this is not dissimilar to the number of people killed under Amin's regime, I find it difficult to condemn one as a monster and not the other.

Verbatim:

DJjaffacake:

Not to mention the PATRIOT Act,

You mean the one that Joe Biden wrote?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:s.00390:
Which was implemented pretty much word for word post 9/11 as the USA Patriot Act.
Not enough? Guess who was one of the 2 democrats and 4 senators in total that first introduced the post 9/11 "Patriot Act"(Well the "Combating Terrorist Act 2001")?
Dianne (F'ING) Feinstein.

And those people can equally go fuck themselves.

Skeleon:
I never understood this obsession with people wanting to have a country's leader be a guy you'd want to have a beer with. Never mind the fact that I wouldn't want to have a beer with Bush, why would it matter what he's like personally? He's an atrocious leader who lied his country into an unnecessary war leading to more than a hundred thousand civilian deaths. I... really don't care... if he's "nice"... at that point.

At the same time, though, I think people should be a little bit more understanding of the fact that politicians can't necessarily do what they want, or what they think is right.

And then they still have to try and sell it to the people.

Agema:
Let's imagine you think torture is bad, but your advisors tell you that if you don't agree to it then innocents die - and that's bad as well. What do you do?

Display some moral responsibility, do some research, find out that the consensus is that torture is a completely unreliable source of information, fire my advisors, and hire ones who know what they're talking about.

Maybe, maybe not. I thought his policies were vicious and idiotic, so why should I care about his character?

I think he was a puppet more than a bastard like Cheney. A drunkard who saw Jesus instead of pink elephants and used daddy's influence to become president.

You're right that we should attack a man's policies rather than his character, but I don't think Bush's personality excuses anything he's done.

He wasn't evil but he sure was an idiot.

Being a 'nice guy' does not excuse his incompetence as a world leader.

Maybe his intention in Iraq wasn't oil, but that was the intent of the people controlling him.

Furthermore, he had intelligence on his desk the month before 9/11 laying out that Al Qaeda planned to attack buildings in New York by the air. It seems likely that he quite likely allowed at attack to happen, not believing it would be as bad as it was, to justify going to war.

TheLycanKing144:
I had my disagreements with some of his policies, especially Iraq, but I never understood why many people acted like Bush was the devil. He wasn't, from watching interviews and whatnot he doesn't seem like a bad person at all, and I don't think he went to Iraq for oil nor do I think he was behind 9/11.

I feel much the same way about Obama (who I voted for last year), I have some disagreements to be sure, but I don't understand why some people want to personally attack him and make him out to be a monster. He doesn't seem like a bad person in the slightest.

How do you feel about Dick Cheney?

For a Norwegian like me, and I am not alone with this impression, Bush came off like a blundering fool.
Your typical stereotype ignorant redneck. Only he had money and power.

Looking at your presidential candidates over the years, we admittedly scratch our heads and wonder what you
Americans are thinking. A guy like Rick Santorum would not even get media time here. No one would take him
seriously. He would be ridiculed and laughed at until he went away.

Well, invading Iraq for no good reason, and coming up with various lies to rationalise it sorta kinda makes him a bad person.

McMullen:

Display some moral responsibility, do some research, find out that the consensus is that torture is a completely unreliable source of information, fire my advisors, and hire ones who know what they're talking about.

One presumes two things: that a person in that situation believes his existing advisors already know what they are talking about, and that he is far too busy (running a country not being a trivial task) to do his own research.

DJjaffacake:

That approach rather relies on the belief that the ends justify the means. While it's true that you could come up with a somewhat understandable 'for the greater good' justification for what Bush did, the same could be said of the examples you gave: Amin could claim that he thought the Acholi and Lango were a real threat to the well being of innocent people, Ceausescu could claim the same with regards to political dissidents. They might even be telling the truth; we have no real way of knowing why people do what they do, all we can know is what they do, and Bush is responsible for the deaths of close to two hundred thousand people, according to one source well over half a million. Given that this is not dissimilar to the number of people killed under Amin's regime, I find it difficult to condemn one as a monster and not the other.

In practice, I suspect relatively few people strictly believe either the ends justifies the means or that certain means are never justified whatever the end. Most will believe some combination of the two.

One might indeed justify reasons for why Idi Amin and Ceaucescu were not bad people, and maybe they were not. But it is reasonably clear they did not seem to be act with any care towards their enemies where Bush did: let's not forget, most deaths due to the Iraq War were Iraqis murdered by other Iraqis and Islamist terrorists.

personally i always felt george w was a basically a puppet/stooge.

Dubya, not his dad? I think he was/is a good guy. Flawed in every possible way, over his head as President by miles, completely delusional based on his beliefs of what effects his policies would have, and yet... I think he wanted to do good. I've hung on to very few ideas I had when I was a Republican, but this one I have-- I disagree profoundly with his politics, I think through his hands were horrible things done, and hell, he specifically acted against my religion in a way that's dishonorable even from his own moral thinking, but I still like him as a person. I also think his silence since he left office speaks to that. He's not an ideologue, he's a lazy man with perhaps immature ideals who got talked into something he was completely unprepared for, and paired with users.

Cheney, now... terrible human being. Oddly focused terrible human being, driven by his deep belief of an America in horrible danger for which every fiber of his being was concentrated to combat (even his oil business interests go to that-- no, they do. Greed is not what drives him) and which he would and did go to any length to stop. What he saw was more paranoid obsession than reality, but he projected competence that fooled a *lot* of people.

Two people who were handed an astonishing amount of power, neither of whom saw reality as reality. One a blinkered idealist with Convert Syndrome, and one an obsessive with ridiculous skill at manipulating bureaucracy (seriously, read "The Angler", the definitive book on Cheney, it's terrifying). One with no interest in anything outside of his narrow obsessive band, and one with no skill to tell one advisor's advice apart from the other.

Yeah I think he was a nice person bother him and his father where good people but as far as presidents go they where horrible, at least one was voted out before he could do an equal amount of damage as his son.

And to let everyone know bush doesn't drink, he stopped drinking at 40.

thaluikhain:
Well, invading Iraq for no good reason, and coming up with various lies to rationalise it sorta kinda makes him a bad person.

Well to be fair, as much as I disagree with the Iraq war, Saddam did threaten his father... Wars throughout history have started with far less than that. Not to say it is a good thing in any way shape or form, I am just sayin I don't think that makes him a bad person, just a misguided one. The man received false information, that doesn't make him a "bad man."

Then there was this of course:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/18/no_books_were_cooked_bush_iraq_wmd_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Leadfinger:
W? Not a bad guy to have a beer with, if you don't mind the blood dripping from his warmonger hands.

Of course the same could be said about Clinton, Bush Sr, and Obama. It has been a long while since a non war monger has been elected in the United States.

Ron Paul on Impeaching Clinton over bombings 1998:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA

Yo ass should read his book. It aint nuthin but muthafuckin pretty phat n' hilarious at times.

I don't mind tha guy.

Lil devils x:

Leadfinger:
W? Not a bad guy to have a beer with, if you don't mind the blood dripping from his warmonger hands.

Of course the same could be said about Clinton, Bush Sr, and Obama. It has been a long while since a non war monger has been elected in the United States.

Ron Paul on Impeaching Clinton over bombings 1998:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA

Point taken. However, W decided to fight two Asian land wars simultaneously, one ginned up based on lies, and the U.S. is still there more than ten years later. The sheer destruction and loss of life engendered kind of make the other presidents look like pikers. Dubya's only real competitor in the field of warmongering is Tricky Dick.

He did, does, and is significantly better than most people give him credit for. (granted, a blind monkey with asperger's could do better than those same people think of him)

I do have to say however that him being nice doesn't help with the fact that he was a lackluster president in a long line of failures to crop up from both parties.

I don't think he was an evil person. I just think he was a terrible president. He meant well, but he seemed to have very little understanding of what he was doing and acted based on emotion rather than logic.

TheLycanKing144:
I had my disagreements with some of his policies, especially Iraq, but I never understood why many people acted like Bush was the devil. He wasn't, from watching interviews and whatnot he doesn't seem like a bad person at all, and I don't think he went to Iraq for oil nor do I think he was behind 9/11.

I feel much the same way about Obama (who I voted for last year), I have some disagreements to be sure, but I don't understand why some people want to personally attack him and make him out to be a monster. He doesn't seem like a bad person in the slightest.

If you don't believe that he took us into Iraq under false pretenses then I can see how your opinion would differ from mine.

I won't say Bush himself was behind 9/11 but I do believe it was an inside job. It's been a few years since I really looked into it but I remember walking away believing that it was an inside job.

Also, you seem to be more concerned with what type of person a POTUS is instead of being more concerned with how well/badly he does his job.

I'm not sure he was evil or an idiot, but he wasn't a great president. I also feel this way about Obama.

They're just not great leaders, and I'm not sure any candidate in the past few elections have been.

Who cares if he was good or evil? That's between him and his deity. What matters are the effects of his policies on his country's citizens. And regardless of whether he invaded Iraq for oil or whether it was because the influence of war hawks/ defense department assholes like Cheney and Rumsfeld was greater than the influence of doves (comparatively speaking) like Powell, one can hardly say he invaded Iraq out of benevolence.

Lil devils x:

Leadfinger:
W? Not a bad guy to have a beer with, if you don't mind the blood dripping from his warmonger hands.

Of course the same could be said about Clinton, Bush Sr, and Obama. It has been a long while since a non war monger has been elected in the United States.

Ron Paul on Impeaching Clinton over bombings 1998:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA

I think there's a difference between what's closer to bullying with a big stick (Bush Sr's Panama invasion, Clinton's Iraq bombings and arguably his intervention in the Bosnian-Serb war/genocide) and a full blown war, with its thousands of deaths and big profits to defense/rebuilding contractors. Bush Sr and Clinton, I'm sure you'll agree, have considerably less blood on their hands than Bush Jr

dyre:
Who cares if he was good or evil? That's between him and his deity. What matters are the effects of his policies on his country's citizens. And regardless of whether he invaded Iraq for oil or whether it was because the influence of war hawks/ defense department assholes like Cheney and Rumsfeld was greater than the influence of doves (comparatively speaking) like Powell, one can hardly say he invaded Iraq out of benevolence.

Lil devils x:

Leadfinger:
W? Not a bad guy to have a beer with, if you don't mind the blood dripping from his warmonger hands.

Of course the same could be said about Clinton, Bush Sr, and Obama. It has been a long while since a non war monger has been elected in the United States.

Ron Paul on Impeaching Clinton over bombings 1998:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA

I think there's a difference between what's closer to bullying with a big stick (Bush Sr's Panama invasion, Clinton's Iraq bombings and arguably his intervention in the Bosnian-Serb war/genocide) and a full blown war, with its thousands of deaths and big profits to defense/rebuilding contractors. Bush Sr and Clinton, I'm sure you'll agree, have considerably less blood on their hands than Bush Jr

Clinton bombed more than just Iraq, if you had watched the clip I posted above, you would see it was not just a discussion about Iraq, It was Clintons actions as well that were the reason Bin Laden targeted the US. Clinton did not give notice to the civilians in the area before bombing either, at least Bush let them know he was coming and to flee. CLinton never gave them that option, no he blind sided them.

I also disagree that bombing or attacking without an actual war is any better, I actually consider that worse. In war, you know where you stand, there is the understanding that this is a war and that you should flee, take shelter, or fight. Blind attacks are no better than terrorist attacks, because they do not even know they are coming. I think the non declarations of war are far worse than even a long drawn out wrong war, as they attack more like terrorists or pirates rather than give them a chance to prepare both civilians and their forces. Not giving the families and children a chance to take cover is far worse. Bush dropped an insane amount of leaflets prior warning them, so many he was criticized for spending too much on them, but it is better to give them notices than to attack them blind.

If today, it was announced your nation was being invaded and you were at war, you would respond accordingly. Suddenly your streets are filled with paper telling you to flee or die, are you just going to sit there? Failing to make that announcement causes MORE civilian deaths, not less, because they don't know where they stand. When it is announced, that you are war, and it is coming to YOU, you respond. You either Flee, Fight or take cover. There is no room for "an in-between war". I have no respect for leaders who fail to announce they are coming,or failing to give notice to the people there to protect their children. That I can never respect.

In Iraq the Iraqi government and surrounding nations were responsible for increasing civilian deaths because they would not allow the people to evacuate, even after they were given notice. It isn't like the government there treated their own people humanely in the first place, they had a terrible history of civilian abuse.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked