I hear he increased support to those suffering in Africa during his terms as president.
My energy professor said he was good in funding alternative energy research (hydrogen, I think).
- Reduced the total number of dictators in this world by 1.
Signing off on the Do Not Call Registry.
That's when he retired ?
The way he led the country post 9-11 was certainly commendable. Yes, he did support quite a few programs in Africa. Every time he spoke, he undoubtedly made millions of people laugh out! Afghanistan was a just war and as commander in chief, he managed to conquer large swathes of the country pretty quickly although he did mess it up later on.
Unfortunately, he made lots of glaring mistakes which have caused lots of problems, both domestic and foreign for America.
"[C]onquer large swathes of the country"?
Please tell me this is sarcasm.
Control a city or two (in which US surrogates are still not truly safe) and cede control of the rest of the country to local warlords, Taliban, and other groups that support opium production, oppress women, burn schools dedicated to the education of girls, and generally enforce their own religious dictates? (The recent attack on musicians playing at a wedding, shaving and humiliating the musicians, etc, shows how open-minded these despotic groups are.) Does that equate to military/administrative "control" of a country in anybody's world (outside of la-la land)? Neighboring Pakistan cannot adequately exert control over areas of their country just 10s of miles from the country's capitol. How was the war in Afghanistan any more successful?
He left office without the country resorting to physical force to remove him.
Btw, I don't get what he is supposed to have gotten right in Africa.
I think the man was a Harvard Business School case study in mismanagement and poor strategic thinking. But mercifully, what he got wrong is not the topic.
This should be a short topic.
I was talking about the first month or so after the invasion. The Taliban retreated from most of their positions into the mountains. After that, yes, the Allies have pretty much messed up the situation and only control Kabul and a couple of other small villages. Having local warlords in charge, while not right, is based on practical realities. Better to have a warlord who is allied with the central government and NATO troops rather than the Taliban who are looking to kill just about everyone who disagrees with them.
He didn't issue blanket pardons to all the people in his administration that justified wars of aggression, suspension of human rights, extraordinary rendition in foreign secret CIA prisons, torture, or warrantless wiretapping and other violations of privacy against US citizens. I fully expected that he would issue blanket pardons for at least some of these offenses. Maybe he got something right, in the end.
@George W. Bush didn't do a single thing right:
Eliminating a dictator is only the right thing to do IF it was worth sacrificing over US 4000 lives, disrupting or permanently changing or ruining the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers and family members, at a cost of over a trillion dollars, and virtually destroying US credibility abroad, in order to do it. It was an unnecessary war based on false pretenses so it was not the right thing to do.
Now a lot of people think increasing support to Africa is a bad idea.
I think Bush did a few things right near the end of his term.
1). Quit listening to Cheney et. al. and instead listened to his dad's old buddies.
2). Dumped Rummy and brought in Bob Gates as Sec of Defense
3). Changed the war plan as per 1) and 2).
4). Signed the bailout plan
5). Has FINALLY learned to keep his mouth shut [refuses to comment on Obama's plans]
one forgets how much power it gave to the remaining one in the middle... but that's pure speculation.
Even though, of course, everybody knew that speculation long ago...
1. "Eliminating a dictator " is right
2. "sacrificing over US 4000 lives" is wrong
3. "disrupting or permanently changing or ruining the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers and family members" is wrong
4. "at a cost of over a trillion dollars" is wrong
I don't think 1 is dependent on 2, 3, or 4. It is right by itself.
And 2, 3, or 4 losses are short term unlike the benefits (from #1) which are long term and so it is hard to tell right now if it was right to do 2,3,4 for achieving 1. I would wait for 50-100 more years to see if it was in Iraq/US interest to invade Iraq.
And it's pretty much a factor of propaganda and perceptions as to which groups are considered terrorists, and which leaders are considered dictators. I can get BBC feeds from time to time, but US commercial and public TV is quite reluctant to express any progressive views. The fantasy of the "liberal media" died a long time ago.
And the number of dictatorial regimes by two.
He prevented multiple terrorist attacks on the US via his actions following 9/11.
Google is your friend, by the way. Here are ten examples of separate things he did right in one category, civil liberties:http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/tp/What-Bush-Has-Done-Right.htm
Newsweek also did a feature/cover article on this very topic: http://www.newsweek.com/id/151731
I take exception to that. It was meddlesome of the US to have intervened in the first place. Removing dictatorships is not our business. The US interfered in the sovereign affairs of another nation ... and acted without any other cause than that Bush-Cheney wanted to, and trumped up reasons to do so.
It is not for us to judge and then act in this way to enforce some no dictator policy. Otherwise, there is much work that is left undone that we are not doing. We would be at war with the world. And the World is not ours alone.
In general I think it is extraordinary hubris to suppose that it would ever be something that would be right for us to do, unless that dictator was specifically on our own shores, occupying our government, suppressing our Constitutional Rights.
Well, he did make a huge blunder in invading Iraq. He also saw much of the world in black and white, good vs evil which lead to a disastrous foreign policy and anti-americanism world wide. His policies on torture, spending etc also led to more trouble. But he made some hard but important decisions, the wiretapping was wrong but at that time, with the fear of attacks running high, who could blame him? He could have done more worse things like rounding up Muslims, sending the military into major cities etc which fortunately did not happen. As the president and commander in chief, he was responsible for protecting the civilian population and he did try his utmost best.
That looks highly speculative. Supposing that anything was specifically prevented, looks to be an invention of the Bush-Cheney supporters. Manufactured I'd say about as certainly as the reports of yellow-cake and bio-weapons that were supposedly under development in Iraq prior to the US invasion.
Yes, but to describe that as conquering large swathes of land...? This isn't exactly Rome in 52BC. You don't get brownie points in the 21st century for "conquering large swathes of land".
Besides, should Bush really get kudos when the United States Armed Forces gets the Taliban to retreat temporarily?
Getting back to the question posed in the OP, the big marine protection order in the final days of his term was applauded by environmental groups. It was an unexpected move, and has people suspicious of the motives behind it (marine bases in the South Pacific), but environmental groups are virtually unanimous that this is a good thing for marine life, so I believe there are a lot more people that were happy about this than not.
Separate names with a comma.