Americans starting to like George W. Bush: Poll

[FDog]

I don't think Bush was stupid, but he was far from being very smart, IMO.

My opinion is based on the fact that he never seemed to excel in any particular area, his comprehension of nearly every aspect of the job was mediocre at best. His speaking ability was poor. His geography was poor. His knowledge of history was poor. He certainly did not excel in the area of economics. He was not a man of vision.

Add in that he was the leader of the most powerful nation and it would be a recipe for disaster and guess what, it was.

[heybruce]

Returning to Bush the argument that he was somehow a dimbulb just don't stack up.Heybruce tries to demonstrate this but can't make a convincing case and is reduced to invoking a childish website as his "proof".The fact that SAT didn't exist when Bush went to Harvard is neither here nor there as it deals only with entrance critewria.Bush achieved a Harvard degree, went on to complete an MBA there, and as has been pointed out learnt how to fly a military jet.

"a childish website"? Bush really did misuse and incorrectly define the word disassemble in a nationally televised speech. I thought the website was both amusing and revealing, and it is an actual recording of a snippet of a Bush speech. And he really did go to Yale with mediocre grades and test scores at a time when the top universities in the U.S. were almost entirely white, Protestant, rich, and well-connected, and the well-connected were almost always coached to some kind of degree. Going to Yale at that time is not conclusive proof of intelligence.

It's possible that his lifetime of advancement through connections resulted in his appointment of like-minded loyalists over competent people in everything from the reconstruction of Iraq to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However incompetent subordinates were only part of the problem with the Bush administration, in every way he demonstrated he did not have the intelligence, vision, and leadership skills to effectively execute the job. The results speak for themselves, he took office with the nation at peace, the federal budget in suplus and the economy in a mild recession, and left office with two unresolved wars, the nation running it's largest budget deficit in history, and the economy in free-fall. I can't think of any other viable candidate in the 2000 election that would have screwed up the country as much as George W. Bush did.

Regarding flying a military jet, it's a skill to be learned. The basics are similar to flying a small plane, only things happen a little faster and the consequences for mistakes are more severe. As navigators used to say in the Air Force "You can teach any monkey to fly if you feed it enough bananas."

Noted Yale not Harvard.What you say about Bush's academic record could equally have been said (and with much greater plausibility) about Winston Spencer Churchill.

You make an essentially political case against Bush, though it's one of course that millions of American would endorse (and millions would equally reject).I share some of your views myself but you unaccountably (and fatally I think for your argument) fail to note what happened on September 11th 2001 - and the challenges that followed from that event.In some ways Bush performed admirably in that crisis which was a major test of the kind no President had to face since FDR..However as Samran points out this discussion is not really about policy issues but Bush's character and qualities.His intelligence and shrewdness have been vouched for by independent high powered men and women who have worked with him.Was he a good or bad President? My guess he would have a middling mark but who knows what historians will say. Truman left office with an indifferent reputation and is now regarded as a giant.

I discussed September 11 in earlier posts, Bush froze for seven minutes after being told the nation was under attack. That is unforgivable for a commander and would have been disastrous in a different kind of attack. I agree the war in Afghanistan was necessary, but also believe, and mentioned in an earlier post, that he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan by getting distracted by an unnecessary war in Iraq. I think any of the other viable candidates in the 2000 presidential election would have handled September 11 better.

[heybruce]

Mr. Heybruce: From your post...""a childish website"? Bush really did misuse and incorrectly define the word disassemble in a nationally televised speech."

He also couldn't pronounce nuclear but he never did call the "US Marine Corps" the "US Marine Corpse" as the current WH resident has done. They all make grammatical errors. You make as many comments that are recorded as the average President does and I imagine you might make a faux pas or two as well.

BFD.

"a faux pas or two"? Books have been written on the foolish things George W. Bush has said. Go to Amazon.com and do a search of the books using the term "Bushisms".

[chuckd]

Mr. Heybruce: From your post...""a childish website"? Bush really did misuse and incorrectly define the word disassemble in a nationally televised speech."

He also couldn't pronounce nuclear but he never did call the "US Marine Corps" the "US Marine Corpse" as the current WH resident has done. They all make grammatical errors. You make as many comments that are recorded as the average President does and I imagine you might make a faux pas or two as well.

BFD.

"a faux pas or two"? Books have been written on the foolish things George W. Bush has said. Go to Amazon.com and do a search of the books using the term "Bushisms".

Do you really want to go there with Bush when the current Vice President is named Joe Biden?

I can give you link after link on nearly every politician and they all "misspeak" or say dumb things. Even the Messiah has been known to make a few gaffes.

[heybruce]

Mr. Heybruce: From your post...""a childish website"? Bush really did misuse and incorrectly define the word disassemble in a nationally televised speech."

He also couldn't pronounce nuclear but he never did call the "US Marine Corps" the "US Marine Corpse" as the current WH resident has done. They all make grammatical errors. You make as many comments that are recorded as the average President does and I imagine you might make a faux pas or two as well.

BFD.

"a faux pas or two"? Books have been written on the foolish things George W. Bush has said. Go to Amazon.com and do a search of the books using the term "Bushisms".

Do you really want to go there with Bush when the current Vice President is named Joe Biden?

I can give you link after link on nearly every politician and they all "misspeak" or say dumb things. Even the Messiah has been known to make a few gaffes.

George W. Bush was in a class of his own, his "misspeaks" were enough to produce a day calender with a new Bushism for every day of the year and more books than I cared to count. I seriously doubt that there will ever be a day calender of Bidenisms.

[F430murci]

If I was an American citizen I probably would have voted for Al Gore first time around and Kerry second time around.On reflection I definitely was mistaken about Gore, and am now more ambivalent about Kerry.It's however interesting that those who dismiss George Bush as a lightweight underestimate his strengths to the point of absurdity.Yet it's pretty much the mantra in popular culture and among comedians and other lightweights.I've read several accounts of encounters with Bush during his presidency, some by those who have nothing politically in common with him eg Alistair Campbell, the attack dog in Blair's No 10.The picture which consistently comes through is of someone quite different from the stereotype - shrewd,perceptive, funny, charming and decisive.I think it was Christopher Hitchens that pointed out that to label Bush as "stupid" is pretty much itself an indication of stupidity.Perhaps that's going too far but one can't help noticing the moronic nature of some of his cyber critics - most of whom would be quite unable to master a Harvard degree and MBA.

Interesting thing about George W. Bush--he got into Harvard before the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was mandatory, the good old days when money and connections were enough to get mediocre students into the top schools. His younger brother Jeb, the smart Bush, had the misfortune to enter college after SAT's became mandatory, and he went to the University of Miami (a.k.a. Suntan U.). George Bush illustrates the dangers of promoting priviledge over ability.

George Bush is well know for "peering into Putin's soul" and discussing "nucular" weapons. But if you need further convincing of his intellectual abilities, try this: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-disassemble.htm

That all might be true, but the fact that he learnt to fly one of these, tells me that he isn't a dumb bloke. And not many people have the aptitude to fly a light plane, let alone one of these

Takes intelligence to design a plane, but not to fly one.

[Scott]

A large number of off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

[chuckd]

If I was an American citizen I probably would have voted for Al Gore first time around and Kerry second time around.On reflection I definitely was mistaken about Gore, and am now more ambivalent about Kerry.It's however interesting that those who dismiss George Bush as a lightweight underestimate his strengths to the point of absurdity.Yet it's pretty much the mantra in popular culture and among comedians and other lightweights.I've read several accounts of encounters with Bush during his presidency, some by those who have nothing politically in common with him eg Alistair Campbell, the attack dog in Blair's No 10.The picture which consistently comes through is of someone quite different from the stereotype - shrewd,perceptive, funny, charming and decisive.I think it was Christopher Hitchens that pointed out that to label Bush as "stupid" is pretty much itself an indication of stupidity.Perhaps that's going too far but one can't help noticing the moronic nature of some of his cyber critics - most of whom would be quite unable to master a Harvard degree and MBA.

Interesting thing about George W. Bush--he got into Harvard before the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was mandatory, the good old days when money and connections were enough to get mediocre students into the top schools. His younger brother Jeb, the smart Bush, had the misfortune to enter college after SAT's became mandatory, and he went to the University of Miami (a.k.a. Suntan U.). George Bush illustrates the dangers of promoting priviledge over ability.

George Bush is well know for "peering into Putin's soul" and discussing "nucular" weapons. But if you need further convincing of his intellectual abilities, try this: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-disassemble.htm

That all might be true, but the fact that he learnt to fly one of these, tells me that he isn't a dumb bloke. And not many people have the aptitude to fly a light plane, let alone one of these

Takes intelligence to design a plane, but not to fly one.

We can then presume you are also a pilot?

[F430murci]

Interesting thing about George W. Bush--he got into Harvard before the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was mandatory, the good old days when money and connections were enough to get mediocre students into the top schools. His younger brother Jeb, the smart Bush, had the misfortune to enter college after SAT's became mandatory, and he went to the University of Miami (a.k.a. Suntan U.). George Bush illustrates the dangers of promoting priviledge over ability.

George Bush is well know for "peering into Putin's soul" and discussing "nucular" weapons. But if you need further convincing of his intellectual abilities, try this: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-disassemble.htm

That all might be true, but the fact that he learnt to fly one of these, tells me that he isn't a dumb bloke. And not many people have the aptitude to fly a light plane, let alone one of these

Takes intelligence to design a plane, but not to fly one.

We can then presume you are also a pilot?

Such a pleasant chap. You can presume anything you want.

Interesting Supreme Court decision today striking down Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship when they register to vote. Thomas and Alito outliers in 7-2 authored by Scalia.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/17/19003391-supreme-court-strikes-down-arizona-law-requiring-proof-of-citizenship-to-vote?lite

[heybruce]

That all might be true, but the fact that he learnt to fly one of these, tells me that he isn't a dumb bloke. And not many people have the aptitude to fly a light plane, let alone one of these

Takes intelligence to design a plane, but not to fly one.

We can then presume you are also a pilot?

This will probably be deleted as off-topic, but as a retired aerospace engineer who's done a bit of flying in propeller and jet airplanes, I can assure you that designing them is much harder. The basics of flying aren't that difficult--more difficult that driving a car or motorbike, but not something that requires genius. You just need to remember that a screw up can kill you.

[LomSak27]

Bush is fondly remembered here, the wars conveniently overlooked back then, forgotten now

I never saw that when Bush was in office, never heard it, never saw it once in the printed broadsheets either here in the Kingdom

But good posting strategy to pull it out of thin air and make like its a truth.

[antfish]

Deleted quote edited out

It's not the Americans of either party you need to worry about in Thailand. It's the ignorant fahlang from everywhere else -- they are grossly subcultural concerning their awareness of the United States. (A number of Canadians being of notable exception.).

The Thais openly supported Bush over both Gore and Kerry. The Thais don't like Democrats because we have a lot of strings attached to trade and the like, such as environmental protection, human rights, transparency and so much else. It's really a pain in the arse to Thai corporate types and to the government - often one and the same - whereas Bush and the Republicans don't care about all that stuff that adds to business costs, such as labor rights, standards, protections etc etc.

Bush is fondly remembered here, the wars conveniently overlooked back then, forgotten now.

The Thai corporate elite is suffering through Obama, to include his rebalancing to Asia, and all the strings Democrats attach to doing business. So Thais are going to go bonkers when they get Hillary too beginning January 2017. That'll pretty much mean 16 consecutive years of Democratic party presidents with all their strings attached..

So beware the Thais will fleece you, the fahlang will only show their own cultural self-retardation.

i loled.

I am not a fan of Bush, but there is that Christopher Hitchens quote floating around here i agree with.

I think what Thai mostly liked about Bush was to speak out his name loud. i remember that i met people who could not speak much English at all, but they could say "GEORGE DOUBLE YUUU BUSH" and after that they smiled that GWB winner smile. no string attached.

I laughed about this too, but of course will never forget the wars, drones, covert operations, Gitmo and so on.

Why i have to worry about " the ignorant fahlang from everywhere else -- they are grossly subcultural concerning their awareness of the United States." ? (your first paragraph)

Not sure what you wanted to say, but when it comes to US presidents, non US-foreigner will have obviously a different take on the presidents than an US-citizen. it doesn't have to mean that they are ignorant.

And here in Thailand a change in the presidency of the USA will not have much impact on the daily life anyway.

What you mean by "the fahlang will only show their own cultural self-retardation."?

[heybruce]

The only Thais I've met who say anything at all about U.S. politics (not many) seem to like Obama. Of course they may have seemed to like Bush as well, just to be polite. I think they are far more concerned with their own politics than politics on the other side of the world, which is reasonable.

[Publicus]

Deleted quote edited out

It's not the Americans of either party you need to worry about in Thailand. It's the ignorant fahlang from everywhere else -- they are grossly subcultural concerning their awareness of the United States. (A number of Canadians being of notable exception.).

The Thais openly supported Bush over both Gore and Kerry. The Thais don't like Democrats because we have a lot of strings attached to trade and the like, such as environmental protection, human rights, transparency and so much else. It's really a pain in the arse to Thai corporate types and to the government - often one and the same - whereas Bush and the Republicans don't care about all that stuff that adds to business costs, such as labor rights, standards, protections etc etc.

Bush is fondly remembered here, the wars conveniently overlooked back then, forgotten now.

The Thai corporate elite is suffering through Obama, to include his rebalancing to Asia, and all the strings Democrats attach to doing business. So Thais are going to go bonkers when they get Hillary too beginning January 2017. That'll pretty much mean 16 consecutive years of Democratic party presidents with all their strings attached..

So beware the Thais will fleece you, the fahlang will only show their own cultural self-retardation.

i loled.

I am not a fan of Bush, but there is that Christopher Hitchens quote floating around here i agree with.

I think what Thai mostly liked about Bush was to speak out his name loud. i remember that i met people who could not speak much English at all, but they could say "GEORGE DOUBLE YUUU BUSH" and after that they smiled that GWB winner smile. no string attached.

I laughed about this too, but of course will never forget the wars, drones, covert operations, Gitmo and so on.

Why i have to worry about " the ignorant fahlang from everywhere else -- they are grossly subcultural concerning their awareness of the United States." ? (your first paragraph)

Not sure what you wanted to say, but when it comes to US presidents, non US-foreigner will have obviously a different take on the presidents than an US-citizen. it doesn't have to mean that they are ignorant.

And here in Thailand a change in the presidency of the USA will not have much impact on the daily life anyway.

What you mean by "the fahlang will only show their own cultural self-retardation."?

Mai pen rai.

People can say Bush in small groups was witty, charming etc etc. But when a president can make a wrong decision, and does so every possible time, his judgment is revealed as fundamentally flawed. Bush is not a thinker who surrounded himself with same or similar types of advisers and cabinet officers. We want our president to be a man of action, but not of empty headed action (a woman who suits the position is presently in the wings).

Bush was fascinated by the poster of the old U.S. wild west, "Wanted. Dead or Alive." He loved referring to that, like some wannabe two-bit gunslinger reminiscing about his own missed and self romanticized past. Bush let bin Laden escape in the hills of Tora Bora very shortly after 9/11. Obama is the guy that got him, presiding over a well conceived, well organized, serious, intelligent, deliberate and well disciplined, determined process. Bush is incapable of that in anything and everything.

Bush was a loudmouth who made every possible mistake a president could make, and decidedly so; aggressively so. Bush is living proof that you can't make a monkey into a president no matter how many bananas you feed him.

[jackr]

I seriously hope that one day America will stop paying for Europes defense and will just let whatever happens happen. Must be nice having the world's most powerful military protecting you and bash it at the same time.

What a load of old tosh. How's this?

I seriously hope that one day America will stop polluting the planet more so than anyone else. It is not nice having the world's most powerful country not giving a monkey's about protecting the most important thing in life for ALL of us.

On Bush: I'd have him over your current mouthpiece any day--he says just what you want to hear--and he'd certainly be more of a laugh over a beer than most on here.

[F430murci]

Didn't they supposedly have him in their sights once and Bush balked? I think we are all talking out our butts here though and really have no clue who did what, when or why.

RE: poster before

One need not drink to be thoroughly amused by Bush. He is a village idiot and love to see him in one of those floppy funny five star multi colored hats with bells on the tips.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Scott
Deleted posts edited out

[Ulysses G.]

Didn't they supposedly have him in their sights once and Bush balked?

Actually, that was Obama. He cancelled three missions before greenlighting the last one after being pushed into it by Hillary Clinton.

Bush was in power during Tora Bora, but it was General Frank's decision to rely on Afghan forces as the main force deployed against Bin Ladin and his fighters. The Afghans allowed Bin Ladin to escape.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[F430murci]

Didn't they supposedly have him in their sights once and Bush balked?

Actually, that was Obama. He cancelled three missions before greenlighting the last one after being pushed into it by Hillary Clinton.

Bush was in power during Tora Bora, but it was General Frank's decision to rely on Afghan forces as the main force deployed against Bin Ladin and his fighters. The Afghans allowed Bin Ladin to escape.

Cool. The extent of my knowledge this subject mostly comes from movies like that zero dark thirty and I am too lazy to Ghogkr.

[chuckd]

Obama is the guy that got him, presiding over a well conceived, well organized, serious, intelligent, deliberate and well disciplined, determined process.

What a bunch of partisan tripe. The CIA and the Navy Seals got him. The president was just lucky enough to be in office at the time - and the reverse can be said about Bush and Tora Bora.

Didn't they supposedly have him in their sights once and Bush balked? I think we are all talking out our butts here though and really have no clue who did what, when or why.

RE: poster before

One need not drink to be thoroughly amused by Bush. He is a village idiot and love to see him in one of those floppy funny five star multi colored hats with bells on the tips.

You're thinking about Clinton. He's the one that balked, before 9/11.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Jackr:

A small point but I believe China is currently the world's worst polutter.

Your last sentence I agree with 100%.

[Scott]

Some posts have been deleted as well as replies. Please stay on topic.

[heybruce]

"You're thinking about Clinton. He's the one that balked, before 9/11."

Huh? Care to expand on that statement? Clinton went to great lengths to attack Al Qaeda, and was accused of "wagging the dog", stirring up a mess overseas to distract people from domestic problems. Also his warnings about Al Qaeda and recommended actions to the incoming Bush team were ignored.

"Actuallly, that was Obama. He cancelled three missions before greenlighting the last one...."

Missions are routinely cancelled if the latest intelligence reports indicate the risk/reward estimates don't justify them. I'm sure there were many more than three under Bush and Obama.

Bush started two wars, one justified and one clearly unnecessary, and he finished neither. The war in Afghaniston could have been finished on terms favorable to the U.S. and Afghanistan during the Bush administration if the focus had not been shifted to the unnecessary war in Iraq. Bush might even have killed Bin Laden if he had finished the job in Afghanistan before looking for other adventures.

Edited June 19, 2013 by heybruce

[chuckd]

"You're thinking about Clinton. He's the one that balked, before 9/11."

Huh? Care to expand on that statement? Clinton went to great lengths to attack Al Qaeda, and was accused of "wagging the dog", stirring up a mess overseas to distract people from domestic problems. Also his warnings about Al Qaeda and recommended actions to the incoming Bush team were ignored.

See links below. Satisfy yourself but Clinton's failures are off topic so this will be my last post to bring people up to speed on history.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-cia-official-to-60-minutes-clinton-white-house-wouldnt-approve-bin-laden-kill/

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4540958/ns/nbcnightlynews/t/osama-bin-laden-missed-opportunities/#.UcFiu-dXTSY

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2011/05/05/bin-laden-lived-to-fight-another-day-thanks-to-bill-clinton/

[heybruce]

"You're thinking about Clinton. He's the one that balked, before 9/11."

Huh? Care to expand on that statement? Clinton went to great lengths to attack Al Qaeda, and was accused of "wagging the dog", stirring up a mess overseas to distract people from domestic problems. Also his warnings about Al Qaeda and recommended actions to the incoming Bush team were ignored.

See links below. Satisfy yourself but Clinton's failures are off topic so this will be my last post to bring people up to speed on history.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-cia-official-to-60-minutes-clinton-white-house-wouldnt-approve-bin-laden-kill/

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4540958/ns/nbcnightlynews/t/osama-bin-laden-missed-opportunities/#.UcFiu-dXTSY

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2011/05/05/bin-laden-lived-to-fight-another-day-thanks-to-bill-clinton/

So Bill Clinton did not authorize a strike against a tall man surrounded by people who might have been bodyguards in an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan in 2000, and one person who was trying to sell a tell-all book he wrote says Bill Clinton missed another opportunity, but there appears to be no supporting evidence. Is that it? A combination of hear-say and caution about authorizing cruise missile strikes inside a country we were not at war with, is that all you have?

Yes, with the benefit of hindsight one can wonder what might have been. For example, what might have been if the Bush administration had paid more attention to the President's Daily Brief on August 6, 2001? The one titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US".

[samran]

"You're thinking about Clinton. He's the one that balked, before 9/11."

Huh? Care to expand on that statement? Clinton went to great lengths to attack Al Qaeda, and was accused of "wagging the dog", stirring up a mess overseas to distract people from domestic problems. Also his warnings about Al Qaeda and recommended actions to the incoming Bush team were ignored.

See links below. Satisfy yourself but Clinton's failures are off topic so this will be my last post to bring people up to speed on history.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-cia-official-to-60-minutes-clinton-white-house-wouldnt-approve-bin-laden-kill/

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4540958/ns/nbcnightlynews/t/osama-bin-laden-missed-opportunities/#.UcFiu-dXTSY

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2011/05/05/bin-laden-lived-to-fight-another-day-thanks-to-bill-clinton/

So Bill Clinton did not authorize a strike against a tall man surrounded by people who might have been bodyguards in an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan in 2000, and one person who was trying to sell a tell-all book he wrote says Bill Clinton missed another opportunity, but there appears to be no supporting evidence. Is that it? A combination of hear-say and caution about authorizing cruise missile strikes inside a country we were not at war with, is that all you have?

Yes, with the benefit of hindsight one can wonder what might have been. For example, what might have been if the Bush administration had paid more attention to the President's Daily Brief on August 6, 2001? The one titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US".

Which is why I've always struggled to critise these types of decisions - by either side of poltics. None of us were in the hot seat, and basically only at any one time, there are only 3 or 4 other men in the US at any time - former presidents - who know and fully understand the calculus (and the ramifications) of these decisions. If they were easy calls, they would have been left to someone four rungs down the chain of command.

Economics, social policy on the other hand, that is fair game.....and I've always disgreed with the rights race to the bottom on taxes for instance. I'm also a big fan of Obama care - bringing the US a somewhat more enlightened approach to caring for its sick.

But on Bush and military strategy in his duty to protect the US (and indirectly close allies), I'm holding my counsel. And if I don't, it won't be on the basis that the bloke was a moron. Far from.