News Is george w bush the worst president ever?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathwonk
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the perception of George W. Bush as potentially the worst U.S. president, with participants citing his decisions, particularly the Iraq War, as significant failures. Many argue that his presidency was marked by a series of detrimental actions, including economic decline and the misuse of military power for personal vendettas. Comparisons are made to other presidents, such as Nixon and LBJ, with Bush often ranked lower due to his perceived incompetence and the consequences of his policies. The conversation also touches on the role of figures like Dick Cheney in shaping Bush's presidency and the lasting impact of his decisions on U.S. reputation and foreign relations. Overall, the sentiment leans heavily toward viewing Bush as a historically negative figure in American politics.
mathwonk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2024 Award
Messages
11,934
Reaction score
2,195
I am only 65 years old so i am not sure, i can only remember back to truman.

Anyone with more history background?

Bush has given us such an amazing example that even right wing christian conservatives like Mitt Romney are claiming to be the agents of change.

Exactly how does Romney differ from Bush, that he is not stupid? Help me out here.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Romney is Mormon (not quite Christian - but then his religion shouldn't matter), and AFAIK, Romney actually worked and was a real manager of a company. :biggrin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Business_career - Wikipedia is probably suitable for this thread. :rolleyes:

Bush takes the prize as the worst president, IMO, eclipsing even Harding.
 
I used to live in Utah, and I seem to recall that Mormons consider themselves christians, but i may be wrong.
 
Last edited:
It depends on how you rate them. LBJ killed a lot more people in his war (on both sides) and trashed the economy real quick (the inflation in the seventies was really his fault). On the other hand he did some good stuff too. Hard to say. Bush is certainly way below average though.
 
Yes, Mormons are Christians. They are formally called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They use the Bible, and the Book of Mormon as a "supplemental text".

Given that I believe that Bush is an enemy of the state and should probably be up on war crimes charges, yes, I would say he is the worst.

How is Romney different? He doesn't have Cheney standing next to him. Romney also has better skin and nicer hair.

I don't like Romney but he would be better than Bush. He must be reasonably intelligent, at least.

Mathwonk, how do you think Bush compares to Nixon? Remember the good ole days when Nixon was the prime example of corruption? How far we have sunk!
 
Last edited:
mathwonk, if you do a search, you'll probably find the several threads we've had asking this exact question. They provide a history lesson of some truly awful Presidents. You can also google the question.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to a matter of opinion and as you imply - people's opinions are shaped by what they know and their short memories.

To put a finer point on it, of the half a dozen different things people generally think of when they do their rankings, I see only one ('Gitmo) that has the potential to be a [nearly] universally agreed upon heavy and lasting black stain.
 
Last edited:
If starting a unnecessary war for personal reasons is not a black stain then what is? Bush must be the first president to use US forces to resolve a personal vendetta. IMHO This makes him, as Ivan said a war criminal.
 
i like to think of a presidential list of faliures:
invade 2 countries: check
turn a succesfull economy into a failing one: check
turn 1.3 billion people into alleged terrorists: check
make your enemies stronger: check
be the worst speaker in american history: check
cause genocide: check
abuse power: check
longest time spent in vacations: check
be loathed by michale moore: check
help your corparate buddies by waging a few wars for them: check
total score: 10/10
good for you bush, you rank as the worst president of the US in modern history.
 
Integral said:
If starting a unnecessary war for personal reasons is not a black stain then what is? Bush must be the first president to use US forces to resolve a personal vendetta. IMHO This makes him, as Ivan said a war criminal.

Oh man, what was the UN and the rest of the world doing when all this was going on?

Where were those purveyors of liberty (Russia, China, France and Germany) at the time? They must have been forcibly removed from their seats in the UN.

For their was not a single resolution offered that condemned the US action.
 
  • #10
nabki said:
i like to think of a presidential list of faliures:
invade 2 countries: check
turn a succesfull economy into a failing one: check
turn 1.3 billion people into alleged terrorists: check
make your enemies stronger: check
be the worst speaker in american history: check
cause genocide: check
abuse power: check
longest time spent in vacations: check
be loathed by michale moore: check
help your corparate buddies by waging a few wars for them: check
total score: 10/10
good for you bush, you rank as the worst president of the US in modern history.

One more (I'm sure we can brainstorm a bunch) -
Lose any claim we had to the 'moral high ground': check
 
  • #11
extra marks for mr. bush!
 
  • #12
nabki said:
i like to think of a presidential list of faliures:
invade 2 countries: check
With this metric Bush pales in comparison to FDR.
be loathed by michale moore: check
This is a good thing. Not being loathed by Michael Moore would be a bad sign.
 
  • #13
seycyrus said:
Oh man, what was the UN and the rest of the world doing when all this was going on?

Where were those purveyors of liberty (Russia, China, France and Germany) at the time? They must have been forcibly removed from their seats in the UN.

For their was not a single resolution offered that condemned the US action.

I did not see them on the ground fighting either. If there had been a real reason for the invasion would not there been some help? Bush was bound and determined to finish the job his pappy started.
 
  • #14
Well, I'm Canadian, so I suppose I have no right to comment, but it seems to me that if you agree with the founding fathers on much of anything, than Abraham Lincoln was the worst president.
 
  • #16
Integral said:
I did not see them on the ground fighting either. If there had been a real reason for the invasion would not there been some help?

Either that or they were making money under the table despite the official sanctions THEY had voted to initiate and enforce.

Got to love the revisionism.
 
  • #17
I can't find the video on the web, but CNN showed Bush and Bahrain's king marching with swords held in their right hand and over their right shoulder. It being a Barhrainian ceremony, the Bharain king displayed the proper way to march with a sword - serious, solemn, and proud. I wouldn't expect an American President to look quite as natural, but Bush's marching captured my image of him perfectly.

His walking style would have been more appropriate for Harry Husker (the Nebraska Cornhusker's mascot). It said "I'm an ignorant hick." His sword laid flat and at an angle - as if he were carrying a pitchfork back to the farmhouse after a day's work baling hay (while the Bahrainian king's sword rested on his shoulder with the blade parallel to his body and parellel with the direction he was walking).

His expression was worse. An open, ignorant expression would have at least been consistent with his marching style. Instead, his expression was more arrogant ignorance. "Life is easy, especially if you're rich and your daddy's President of the USA."

Expect his daddy's not President of the USA anymore - he is!

"I am? Heh hee, you got to love the USA."

Seven years on the job and he's not grown even a smidge. And it shows in both his policies and the people he hires to carry those policies out.
 
  • #18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html

This is a newspapr article written by an academic, citing how Arthur Schlesinger ranks Bush and others. Since Schlesinger is considered a leading Presidential scholar, it is worth a look. -- if you are disinclined to peek - he finds Bush to be the worst by a long shot, but for completely different reasons than those cited by Greg's link or other posts in this thread.
 
  • #20
One thing different about the Bush Presidency is that it has been veiled in secrecy. Until the secret web is untangled, if ever, history scholars will be to a great great extent left in the dark.

Bush's greatest obvious failure was to allow Cheney to control the executive branch.
 
  • #21
turbo-1 said:
The poll at the bottom is quite instructive. People can vote for any three presidents as the "worst" and 67% chose "W".

That is an interesting poll.

http://www.usnews.com/poll/ePollResults.php3?pollId=1&optionIds=40&pop=1&expiration=
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
jim mcnamara said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html

This is a newspapr article written by an academic, citing how Arthur Schlesinger ranks Bush and others. Since Schlesinger is considered a leading Presidential scholar, it is worth a look. -- if you are disinclined to peek - he finds Bush to be the worst by a long shot, but for completely different reasons than those cited by Greg's link or other posts in this thread.

Except according to Michael Lind from the same newspaper, Bush is only fifth worst.

Although Madison doesn't make many worst President lists, I have to admit that starting a war in which the US capitol is burned to the ground is pretty bad.
 
  • #23
BobG said:
Except according to Michael Lind from the same newspaper, Bush is only fifth worst.

Although Madison doesn't make many worst President lists, I have to admit that starting a war in which the US capitol is burned to the ground is pretty bad.
That article was written over a year ago, though, before Bush tried to expand the war to Iran - in spite of the fact that the NIE asserted that Iran has stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Bush and Cheney knew of the contents of the NIE in the fall of 2006, and blocked its release for a year because it did not agree with their assertions that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If the disastrous war in Iraq isn't already bad enough, W and Shooter want to start another one. That alone should launch W to the top of the list.
 
  • #24
Greg Bernhardt said:

turbo-1 said:
The poll at the bottom is quite instructive. People can vote for any three presidents as the "worst" and 67% chose "W".

The top six are six of the last seven Presidents. Was Gerald Ford so inconsequential he couldn't even make that list?

And among Presidents that served prior to 1970, Abraham Lincoln tops the list of worst Presidents?

That almost looks like a poll asking, "Can you identify three Presidents of the United States from among these photographs?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
jim mcnamara said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html

This is a newspapr article written by an academic, citing how Arthur Schlesinger ranks Bush and others. Since Schlesinger is considered a leading Presidential scholar, it is worth a look. -- if you are disinclined to peek - he finds Bush to be the worst by a long shot, but for completely different reasons than those cited by Greg's link or other posts in this thread.
The author Foner doesn't cite a Schlesinger ranking of Bush; its written solely as his own opinion. He likens Bush policies to the pro-slavery and racist ideologues of reconstruction. I value the opinion of the 'first twelve people in the phone book' over this Columbia academic.
 
  • #26
mheslep said:
The author Foner doesn't cite a Schlesinger ranking of Bush; its written solely as his own opinion. He likens Bush policies to the pro-slavery and racist ideologues of reconstruction. I value the opinion of the 'first twelve people in the phone book' over this Columbia academic.


Good for you - it seemed to me he was citing work by Schlesinger.
 
  • #27
mheslep said:
The author Foner doesn't cite a Schlesinger ranking of Bush; its written solely as his own opinion. He likens Bush policies to the pro-slavery and racist ideologues of reconstruction. I value the opinion of the 'first twelve people in the phone book' over this Columbia academic.

jim mcnamara said:
Good for you - it seemed to me he was citing work by Schlesinger.

He mentioned Schlesinger. The article was his personal comparison of Bush to Presidents that routinely wind up at the bottom of the rankings of many scholar surveys.

Counting the entire phone book, I value the opinion of one of the first three people in my phone book over Foner's (the first three people mentioned in my phone book are the Representative for Colorado Spring's Congressional District and the two current Colorado Senators). I think the rest of the first page is city and county agencies instead of people. I'm not sure. I got bored before I got half way through the first page.
 
  • #28
From CIA historian Bill Blum's intro to Freeing the World to Death:
This is written in June 2004, in the midst of the United States presidential election campaign. Millions of Americans, regardless of what they think of the Democratic Party candidate, are determined to vote for Anyone But Bush, so loathsome and repellent have the man and his policies become for them. They are convinced that the Bush administration is virtually unique in the manner in which it relates to the world; that no previous American government has ever exhibited such hubris, deceit, and secrecy; such murderous destruction, violation of international law, and disregard of world opinion.

They are mistaken. All this wickedness has been exhibited before, regularly; if not packed quite as densely in one administration as under Bush, then certainly abundant enough to reap the abhorrence of millions at home and abroad. From Truman's atom bomb and manipulation of the UN that spawned bloody American warfare in Korea, to Clinton's war crimes in Yugoslavia and vicious assaults upon the people of Somalia; from Kennedy's attempts to strangle the Cuban revolution and his abandonment of democracy in the Dominican Republic, to Ford's giving the okay to Indonesia's genocide against East Timor and his support of the instigation of the horrific Angola civil war; from Eisenhower's overthrow of democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala and the Congo and his unprincipled policies which led to the disaster known as Vietnam, to Reagan's tragic Afghanistan venture and unprovoked invasion of Grenada.

(some examples of stuff that Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, Walt Rostow & others said/did)

Does anything done by the Bush administration compare to Operation Gladio? From 1947 until 1990, when it was publicly exposed, Gladio was essentially a CIA/NATO/MI6 operation in conjunction with other intelligence agencies and an assortment of the vilest of right-wing thugs and terrorists. It ran wild in virtually every country of Western Europe, kidnapping and/or assassinating political leaders, exploding bombs in trains and public squares with many hundreds of dead and wounded, shooting up supermarkets with many casualties, trying to overthrow governments ... all with impunity, protected by the most powerful military and political forces in the world. Even today, the beast may still be breathing. Since the inception of the Freedom of Information Act in the 1970s, the CIA has regularly refused requests concerning Gladio, refusing not only individual researchers and the National Security Archive -- the private research organization in Washington with a remarkable record of obtaining US government documents -- but some of the governments involved, including Italy and Austria. Gladio is one of the CIA's family jewels, to be guarded as such.

The rationale behind it was your standard cold-war paranoia/propaganda: There's a good chance the Russians will launch an unprovoked invasion of Western Europe. And if they defeated the Western armies and forced them to flee, certain people had to remain behind to harass the Russians with guerrilla warfare and sabotage, and act as liaisons with those abroad. The "stay-behinds" would be provided with funds, weapons, communication equipment and training exercises.

As matters turned out, in the complete absence of any Russian invasion, the operation was used almost exclusively to inflict political and lethal damage upon the European Left, be it individuals, movements or governments, and heighten the public's fear of "communism". To that end, violent actions like those referred to above were made to appear to be the work of the Left.
the rest is here:
http://members.aol.com/essays6/intro.htm
 
  • #29
Integral said:
If starting a unnecessary war for personal reasons is not a black stain then what is? Bush must be the first president to use US forces to resolve a personal vendetta. IMHO This makes him, as Ivan said a war criminal.
As already pointed out, the UN gave tacit approval and congress gave specific approval, but even assuming you are correct about his motives, what law, exactly, was broken?

Was Vietnam a less unnecessary war?
 
Last edited:
  • #30
DeadWolfe said:
Well, I'm Canadian, so I suppose I have no right to comment, but it seems to me that if you agree with the founding fathers on much of anything, than Abraham Lincoln was the worst president.
This is an important point. Depending on what is important to certain people, some Presidents may make the best-of list for some people and the worst-of list for others...and perhaps even for the same people. People hate the Patriot Act, but Lincoln did by far the worst damage to the Bill of Rights of any President, ever (it didn't outlast his Presidency). He'd still make my ten best list, though.
 
  • #31
edward said:
One thing different about the Bush Presidency is that it has been veiled in secrecy. Until the secret web is untangled, if ever, history scholars will be to a great great extent left in the dark.
This is an important point as well. I forgot one issue that may produce a serious, lasting stain (his penchant for rewriting/interpreting laws himself), but another, the events at Guantanamo Bay, will not be laid bare until after he leaves office and the next President has to clean up the mess.
 
  • #32
What, have you guys forgotten about http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6470450895164255089&q=clinton+chronicles&pr=goog-sl ?

"All information presented in this program is documented and true."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
  • #34
it's a twofer on this one. Bush isn't intelligent enough to do this much damage alone, he needs his partner in crime, VP Cheney! Worst combo ever, you bet!
 
  • #35
DeadWolfe said:
Well, I'm Canadian, so I suppose I have no right to comment, but it seems to me that if you agree with the founding fathers on much of anything, than Abraham Lincoln was the worst president.

Actually outside opinions are quite interesting and should be made.
 
  • #36
IMO, Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter were the worst Presidents. Bush IMO has been a fairly good President overall.
 
  • #37
Well, the Founding Fathers were hypocrites who owned (and in the case of Jefferson, propogated with) slaves. Myths have a way of softening and distorting things.
 
  • #39
Depends which way you look at it. He was an absolutely excellent president for the international bankers he represents. He got them the oil and defense contracts they so desperately wanted while taking away the civil liberties of the ordinary US populace.
 
  • #40
I don't see anything bad about Bush's presidency. He has done an outstanding job reacting to 9/11, I don't think there is much more anyone could do, he certainly has not left the country strongly divided on his actions.

But, Americans have an odd way of judging presidents. Nixon ended the gold standard, the most unpopular war in US history and started trade relations with China! Yet he is the most hated president ever because a party conection related him to a rather childish crime.
 
  • #41
DrClapeyron said:
I don't see anything bad about Bush's presidency. He has done an outstanding job reacting to 9/11, I don't think there is much more anyone could do, he certainly has not left the country strongly divided on his actions.

But, Americans have an odd way of judging presidents. Nixon ended the gold standard, the most unpopular war in US history and started trade relations with China! Yet he is the most hated president ever because a party conection related him to a rather childish crime.

In my opinion Bill Clinton and George Bush senior are the bad presidents the US has had in the last thirty years.Bush senior could have sorted saddam out 17 years ago and Clinton's sanctions made Iraqi's suffer to the extent that more of them were dying because of sanctions than because of the current war in Iraq.
 
  • #42
Has the Bush administration really done much damage to civil liberties in any practical sense.? I mean, (as I understand it) the PATRIOT act widens the scope of allowable searches and wiretaps, but to what degree is this really being used? It seems that other causes are doing more damage to civil liberties: The War on Drugs, hate crime legislation, the death penalty, insane litigation rulings, etc...

In fact, what President in the past 50 years has shown any sign of respecting the notion that the government has no business legislating morality? Let's all admit it, the reason Bush gets a bad rap is because he is baffoonish, not because of any of his policies.
 
  • #43
DeadWolfe said:
In fact, what President in the past 50 years has shown any sign of respecting the notion that the government has no business legislating morality? Let's all admit it, the reason Bush gets a bad rap is because he is baffoonish, not because of any of his policies.
Well, let's consider a few things:
-Lied about Iraqi WMDs - none found
-Lied about Iraqi nuclear weapons program, citing aluminum tubes for centrifuges and procurement of yellowcake from Niger - tubes unsuitable for that purpose, story about attempt to procure yellowcake was fabricated
-Lied about Iraqi involvement in 9/11 attacks - main participants hailed from Saudi Arabia, the leaders of which are close Bush family friends.
-Hustled Saudis (including Bin Laden family) out of US shortly after 9/11 so that they could not be questioned, while US citizens were forbidden to fly.
-Outed Valerie Plame, who was a CIA NOC tasked with preventing the proliferation of WMDs, specifically in Iran. Can you spell treason?
-Issued many hundreds of "signing statements" "exempting" his administration from complying with laws passed by Congress.
-Destroyed over a year's worth of public records (emails) in direct contravention of the law.
-Authorized kidnapping and torture of people (many of whom are demonstrably innocent) in violation of US law and the Geneva convention.
-Suspended Habeas Corpus for any person that the Administration labels "terrorist".

The list goes on and on, and due to the extraordinary secrecy with which this administration cloaks its activities, we may never know the extent of the damage that they have willfully inflicted on our country and the world. Bush is a tool of the neocons - a willing warmonger who smirks and giggles as he sends US service-people to their deaths to destabilize the ME and pump countless billions of dollars into the petro-giants and military contractors. None of this crap protects US citizens, nor does it help our economy, feed our populace, or help people improve their lives. Many of the Guard deployed to Iraq had (operative word!) their own businesses, homes, etc, and stand to lose everything. They should have been here at home to respond to disasters and emergencies, but instead they and their generators, water-trucks, medical equipment, etc, etc, are half-way around the world enriching neo-cons at our expense. The damage that Bushco has wreaked on our full-time and part-time military may not be measurable (in total) for many years.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
DrClapeyron said:
I don'ot see anything bad about Bush's presidency. He has done an outstanding job reacting to 9/11, I don't think there is much more anyone could do, he certainly has not left the country strongly divided on his actions.

But, Americans have an odd way of judging presidents. Nixon ended the gold standard, the most unpopular war in US history and started trade relations with China! Yet he is the most hated president ever because a party conection related him to a rather childish crime.

Now that's about the most egregiously narrowminded remark I've even seen on PF for many moons. An outstanding job of reacting to 9/11? No terrorist, including OBL, could have dreamed of a better rxn. He has wasted more money, eroded civil liberties in a land we call free, and been a better recruit agent for terrorism than any misguided dozen individuals in power could have managed alone. He fell for it hook, line and sinker--course whem you're hovering at a 40 percent approval rating erm-i can see where he needed a shot in the arm. Too bad it has cost a trillion plus and created animosity everywhere. He needed that second term. Bush by far, not even a contest.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
denverdoc said:
whem you're hovering at a 40 percent approval rating erm-i van see where he needed a shot in tst teirarly in a the arm. Too bad it has cost a trillion plus and created animosity everywhere. He needed that second term. Bush by far, not even a contest.


I can't agree with this - I don't believe Bush went into Iraq because of poor opinion poll ratings - he wouldn't have received support from so many other people in the US government and senate - republican or otherwise for this.The question was always was saddam a nuclear or chemical threat - Bush may have lied about this or kidded himself saddam was a threat in this regard.Sanctions were killing lots of iraqis and something had to change - Bush tried to change the situation.You can call him naiive about how he tried to change the situation in iraq.I've no doubt that peole like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld thought they had a workable strategy for improving the sityuation in the middle east as a whole for the long term.The problem the Bush administration has had is that they didn't listen to iraqi exiles who were saying that invasion would lead to tribal chaos
and also they underestimated how bad European countries are at committing themselves
to war, which given how hard the mainland of europe suffered in world war 2 is not surprising. But guantanamo bay is undeniably a bad thing and if innocent people have been torured there ( using sleep deprivation loud noises and humiliation) then Bush should face charges.Even Colin Powell wants Guantanamo shut down so it must be awful.
 
  • #46
It wasn't up to Bush to change the situation in the middle east. Thats up to the people in the middle east. The only reason he went to Iraq was for the huge profits it would generate for him and his friends.
 
  • #47
russ_watters said:
As already pointed out, the UN gave tacit approval and congress gave specific approval, but even assuming you are correct about his motives, what law, exactly, was broken?

Was Vietnam a less unnecessary war?

You seem to have forgotten, Vietnam was not a war, it was a police action. There was never a declaration of war, it built slowly. The blame for that "police action" needs to be spread from Eisenhower to Johnson, maybe even a bit of Nixon, thought he did finally end it. And for that I will never forgive him.
 
  • #48
pitot-tube said:
I can't agree with this - I don't believe Bush went into Iraq because of poor opinion poll ratings - he wouldn't have received support from so many other people in the US government and senate - republican or otherwise for this.The question was always was saddam a nuclear or chemical threat - Bush may have lied about this or kidded himself saddam was a threat in this regard.Sanctions were killing lots of iraqis and something had to change - Bush tried to change the situation.You can call him naiive about how he tried to change the situation in iraq.I've no doubt that peole like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld thought they had a workable strategy for improving the sityuation in the middle east as a whole for the long term.The problem the Bush administration has had is that they didn't listen to iraqi exiles who were saying that invasion would lead to tribal chaos
and also they underestimated how bad European countries are at committing themselves
to war, which given how hard the mainland of europe suffered in world war 2 is not surprising. But guantanamo bay is undeniably a bad thing and if innocent people have been torured there ( using sleep deprivation loud noises and humiliation) then Bush should face charges.Even Colin Powell wants Guantanamo shut down so it must be awful.
IIRC, Bush's public opinion ratings were up around 70% following 9/11.

On the other hand, Bush had mentioned using troops to deal with (oust) a dictator as early as 2000 during the debates with Gore. Former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill indicated that Iraq and Hussein were key topics of discussion at the first cabinet meeting! And subsequent events would indicate that the Bush administration was looking for anything that would justify the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam Hussein. So there was intent to wage war even before 9/11 attacks.

Sanctions were killing lots of iraqis and something had to change - Bush tried to change the situation.
By killing even more Iraqis?! Bombing the infrastructure such that the Iraqis had no electricity, no running water, while unprocessed sewage was flowing into the only available water ways is not the way to help them. And that was on top of the fact that Iraqis had limited food and very little medication because of the sanctions. There was no effective plan to aid the Iraqis, who have been grossly violated by the Bush administration.
 
  • #49
pitot-tube said:
I've no doubt that peole like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld thought they had a workable strategy for improving the sityuation in the middle east as a whole for the long term.The problem the Bush administration has had is that they didn't listen to iraqi exiles who were saying that invasion would lead to tribal chaos
and also they underestimated how bad European countries are at committing themselves
to war, which given how hard the mainland of europe suffered in world war 2 is not surprising.
Apparently you haven't seen this C-Span video of Dick Cheney explaining why Bush I's administration did not go after Saddam. They knew that toppling Iraq's government would result in chaos, factional conflict, and a quagmire for US troops. This time around, with military support functions increasingly farmed out to his company (Halliburton/KBR), Cheney figured the trade-off was worth it. There was only one reason to invade Iraq - money for big businesses and their neo-con enablers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
Honestly, how many people felt the reason for sending troops to Iraq had anything to with WMDs at the time? Quite right, it was part of Bush's road map towards stablity in the region and Saddam simply was still his cranky self. Don't forget this man attacked Quwait and planned an attack against Saudi Arabia to avoid paying his war debts, this was a man who did not want to play by the rules and get along with others, why should the US not have sent troops?
Bush stood up and did what was right, whether anyone else agrees they would have done the same they are comparing apples and oranges. The security of the greater good was the issue at hand and still is such. Saddam was mad man and a very irrate, greedy murderer. It's funny that no one mentions the support Bush and his administration received from Iraq's neighboring countries such as Quwait, UAE, Bharain and Saudi Arabia.
 

Similar threads

Replies
56
Views
11K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
88
Views
14K
Replies
11
Views
9K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
5K
Back
Top