Military Power

Ok. First, I submit that I realize that this thread can get really ugly really fast and I urge anyone who posts here to attempt to be civilized human beings when posting (Remember the Board Rules when posting).

Now, on to the thread itself. The question posed here is whether George W. Bush was actually a bad president or did he just get a bad wrap from the events of his presidency? I know what I think, but I'd like to hear from some other people before I make my comments.

Well...I have always had for the past 8 years...mixed feelings and emotions on President Bush and the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. Do I believe Bush may be not as intelligent as other presidents? Most definitely. But how many presidents have we had in the last 50 years who were actually intelligent? The power of the President's Cabinet grows stronger with each election. I believe Bush may have been misinformed quite often over the years by his advisers and his cabinet leaders. Rumsfield may be a good example of this, Cheney is not far behind (forgive my treachery CCM and Max). Bush handled 9/11 absolutely brilliant, and I do not think anyone could have done better. However, some things which are currently going on may not be his fault at all...and may be the fault of the people he is supposed to rely on. Of course, I do not think anyone will really know if he did a good job or not, but President Bush himself.

Forgive me for poking my European nose in but (from what I see on my TV screen?) the Bush Administration has not exactly covered itself in glory in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Three and a half years later and still much of New Orleans is lying in wreckage. Surely they should have done more. What do you guys' think?

But if you think you've got problems then you should try having Gordon Brown as a Prime Minister (Then you would have a real cause for dissatisfaction) (Smile)

AmericanPride wrote: Do I believe Bush may be not as intelligent as other presidents? Most definitely. But how many presidents have we had in the last 50 years who were actually intelligent?

Let's see...
Here are some estimated and actual IQ scores from presidents from history:
Andrew Jackson-IQ Score 123
Bill Clinton IQ Score 137
Dwight Eisenhower IQ Score 122
FDR IQ Score 147
George H.W. Bush IQ Score 98
George W. Bush IQ Score 125
George Washington IQ Score 118
Gerald Ford IQ Score 121
Harry Truman IQ Score 132
JFK IQ Score 119
Jimmy Carter IQ Score 156
John Adams IQ Score 137
John Quincy Adams IQ Score 175
Lyndon B. Johnson IQ Score 126
Richard Nixon IQ Score 143
Ronald Reagan IQ Score 105
Source. Also, remember that 100 is "average" IQ, and the Standard Deviation is 15

In comparison, Barrack Obama's IQ is ~116 (estimated between 115 and 120, but it could be made more accurate if he simply permitted his scores to be released to the public.)

Collage Record:
George W. Bush
Yale: not an "easy school" by any means, His four-year average was 77 (out of 100), so a C+ student
Harvard Grad School: Even harder to get into than Yale, Where he got his MBA (He is the first U.S. president to hold an MBA) with average grades (only 1 D, in Astronomy)

One of the leading reasons people think he is not intelligent is his speeches. I personally like Bush's speeches because he tells you what he thinks, he doesn't reed off a teleprompter what other people think he should say, and as such he tends to sound less intelligent. Obama is an "eloquent" speaker (as long as his teleprompter doesn't go out as it did Here. Then he bumbles more than Bush (giving someone having an asthma attack a breathalyzer?)

Oh gosh! Sorry I just can't resist the temptation to ask the following question:

Has there ever been a President from Alabama?

If not I think we all now understand the reason why.

Hobilar wrote:Forgive me for poking my European nose in but (from what I see on my TV screen?)

Not at all, I think an outside view would be good for this...

Hobilar wrote:the Bush Administration has not exactly covered itself in glory in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Three and a half years later and still much of New Orleans is lying in wreckage. Surely they should have done more.

First off, New Orleans was a ticking time bomb to begin with. The city itself is below sea level, with the Gulf of Mexico on one side, Mississippi River on another, and rounded out by a very large lake. The levees to protect the city were only designed for a Category 3 and Katrina was a Category 4 featuring gusts topping 140 miles an hour (by the way to make reconstruction faster Congress, not Bush, approved rebuilding the levees back to Category 3 protection.) Still on the levees, the failure of the levees (which is the main cause of the destruction and contamination in New Orleans) was due to system design flaws for the most part, combined with the lack of adequate maintenance. Apparently, the designers, builders and maintenance people did not devote enough time or attention to the levees in the region. Again, that is something that had been building up for a long time, not something you can blame on Bush.

FEMA, and it's blunders, are one of the biggest things people claim is, at least partially, Bush's fault. FEMA spent 26 cents on administrative overhead for every dollar they get. Government health care in the U.S. spends 31 cents for every dollar they get and transportation administrative overhead is over 50%. FEMA is a government agency, and by default, full of bureaucracy and inefficiency. In addition the Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco deserves a lot of the blame that is being put on George Bush. On August 27, 2005, Governor Blanco asked for $9 million in aid in response to Katrina (after stating earlier the same day "I believe we are prepared. That's the one thing that I've always been able to brag about."). President Bush authorizes the $9 million that same day. On August 28, Governor Blanco sent a letter to President Bush, which increased the amount of aid requested to $130 million. Governor Blanco also didn't activate much of the National Guard at her disposal (natural disasters of this sort are exactly what the National Guard is supposed to be used for). The Louisiana Guard has about 11,000 members, of whom 3,000 were in Iraq. Of the remaining 8,000, less than half were mobilized. Hurricane Katrina then struck land on August 29. According to an article in the Washington Post, as of September 3 Governor Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency in Louisiana. President Bush and Governor Blanco met on Air Force One on Friday, September 2, 2005 while it sat on the tarmac at the New Orleans airport. Echoing requests submitted by President Bush to Governor Blanco in a memo prior to the meeting, Mayor Nagin suggested federalizing the National Guard to improve the command structure. Governor Blanco subsequently rejected the proposal. In addition, the Louisiana Homeland Security Department (which operates under the authority of Governor Blanco) refused to allow the American Red Cross to enter the city of New Orleans. Aid was offered Louisiana by Congress and Bush, but, because it was less than what Mississippi was getting Blanco continued to press President Bush and Congress for additional recovery funds for Louisiana, in spite of statements that recommended quietly accepting what was offered and then possibly request more aid at a later date, which would have allowed aid sooner.

Hobilar wrote:Oh gosh! Sorry I just can't resist the temptation to ask the following question:

Has there ever been a President from Alabama?

If not I think we all now understand the reason why.

Actually, No, but the city of Huntsville, Alabama has the 2nd highest IQ per capita of any city in the U.S.

Spazz Maticus wrote:
Actually, No, but the city of Huntsville, Alabama has the 2nd highest IQ per capita of any city in the U.S.

Huntsville, of course, was originally named Twickenham (until 1812), and Twickenham, England is the home of English Rugby-Football. It is where all the big international games are played.

SORRY! I'm rambling off topic but I couldn't think of anything else to write about this morning (LOL)

For years knocks on Mr. Bush's intelligence have served as a substitute for arguing against the substance of his ideas. Indeed, the modern media age is replete with examples of prominent Republicans who have been ridiculed for being dim. Eisenhower was mocked for spending more time on golf courses than in briefing rooms, and Reagan was deemed "an amiable dunce" by Democratic wise man Clark Clifford. Today historians have revised the popular opinion of both men. Ike is seen as a crafty strategist who enjoyed being underestimated by his critics. As for Reagan, even former New York Times editor Howell Raines has admitted that "Clifford got indicted for bank fraud and the dunce ended the Cold War and the entire Soviet era."

For some reason, Democrats never get tagged with the "stupid" label. When asked if any leading liberal has developed a general media image as intellectually limited in recent years, journalists and political scientists always draw a blank. Clearly, a certain amount of bias is at work, since stupidity knows no ideology. Consider the treatment that past Democratic nominees received. Mr. Bush has been routinely pilloried for having been less than academically inclined while attending Yale and Harvard Business School. But when the Washington Post revealed Al Gore's unimpressive academic record, which included sophomore grades at Harvard that were "lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale," the media yawned. They had a similar reaction to the news that Mr. Bush's SAT scores were higher than both those of John Kerry.

Everyone has long known the president is no Pericles. One of Mr. Bush's friends cheerfully admitted that "every morning George gets up and arm-wrestles the English language all day. He often loses." Many bright people are inarticulate. Albert Einstein was dyslexic, and his lectures in both English and German were said to be full of malapropisms and gaffes. Christopher "Mad Dog" Russo, a host at sports radio station WFAN in New York, is famous for his synaptic misfirings, but his depth of sports knowledge is encyclopedic and he holds an audience with style and panache. Indeed, Jacob Weisberg, the editor of Slate.com, who has compiled the definitive collection of verbal presidential flubs he calls "Bushisms," says Mr. Bush's verbal difficulties appear to represent "some kind of linguistic deficit akin to dyslexia that does not indicate a lack of mental capacity per se. Bush also compensates with his nonverbal acumen.

Well, there seem to be enough differing opinions out here now that I can tell mine without feeling like I am "leading" the thread in one specific direction.

There seem to be 4 major areas that people tend to attack Bush on. Those would be:
1) His Intelligence (or lack thereof)
2) Katrina
3) Iraq
4) The Economy

Number 1 (regarding intelligence) seems to have already been covered in considerable detail here, so I won't repeat it.

Number 2, Katrina, is what many say put the nail in the coffin on his presidency, I have to disagree. I think, given the tools he was given to work with, specifically a Federal Emergency Management Agency that was as ill-prepared for such a large disaster as Katrina turned out to be, and to be quite fair, the lapses FEMA had were not because of Bush (or at least not entirely because of him, but problems that had been building up over time (and other Administrations). One of the other major Katrina related items "blamed" on Bush is the horrific loss of life that was sustained. Critics argued that he should have done something to get those people to leave. The problem is, first, that isn't his job, that is the Governor's job, and second, there was a MANDATORY evacuation order given. However, as with all Hurricanes, there were people who refused to follow the order and decided to stay behind. Whether more than normal stayed behind, the terrain involved, or a combination of the two was to blame, any way you cut it, they were the ones who CHOSE to risk their life, and sadly many of them lost that gamble. The last of the big "Katrina failures" that I hear often blamed on Bush is the fact that it has been years and New Orleans still hasn't fully recovered. I honestly don't think it ever will. I think many people nor realize how stupid it is to live in a city, surrounded on all sides with water, that is BELOW sea level. That has absolutely nothing to do with Bush.

Number 3, Iraq, was probably the most damaging to Bush (until the economy crashed), but again, I say that the failure is not Bush's. The entire world had the same intelligence, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or the capability of building said weapons. It had been known for years. Bill Clinton, in 1998, stated, "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." Strangely enough, Clinton didn't do a thing about it, even after stating that the U.S. should. Tom Daschle, in 1998, stated, "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." Even Nancy Pelosi, on December 16, 1998, stated, "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Did they do anything about it then? No. I find it hard to believe that the Bush Administration made up evidence about Iraq to get us to invade years before he even ran for the Presidency. Why did Bush have the stones to invade Iraq when none of these others did? My thought is that it has to do with September 11, 2001. On 9/11 terrorists attacked the U.S. by means unfathomed before, and it is my thought that this brought up a renewed search for other terrorist ties and other possible means of attack not made before. While I can't say that "finishing" his dad's war and removing Saddam from power (strangely, something the democrats, as well as other world leaders criticized George Bush Sr. for not doing) had nothing to do with the decision, I do believe that he acted in what he perceived as the best interest of the United States (and before it became a guerrilla war with U.S. casualties, so did the majority of the United States). One of the main reasons people use to claim he made up intelligence on Iraq was that "No weapons of mass destruction we ever found". This has plenty of flaws, for one, as I showed in this thread, there have been WMD components (if not full WMDs) found in Iraq. Besides that, do you really think that Saddam kicked out the weapon inspectors out of Iraq and then got rid of his confirmed stockpiles of WMDs? My last comments on Iraq are these, as, if not myself, I'm sure someone else on here has mentioned before, Bush didn't need evidence of WMDs to invade Iraq legally. Saddam had broken the terms of the ceasefire many times since the end of the "Gulf War", effectively declaring war on the U.S., U.K., and all other nations involved in ending the "Gulf War".

Number 4, the economy, is the newest, and biggest to many, item added to the Bush blame list. While there are aspects of the economy that the president manipulates (either directly or, most often, indirectly) this economic problem has nothing to do with the president and everything to do with the American society. Americans are a "give it to me my way and give it to me now" society, which is the major problem with our economy. People want big houses (that they can't afford) so they take out huge loans that they shouldn't be able to get. The banks don't care because if they default on the loan the bank gets the house (in addition to the money that has already been payed on it) and can turn around and sell it for the full price again. The problem is that the housing market collapsed all at once and the banks were stuck with houses and land that they had to pay taxes on, and that suddenly no one wanted (or could afford). A lot of that again falls back on the "average" American. On average, today's consumer has a total of 13 credit obligations on record at a credit bureau. These include credit cards (such as department store charge cards, gas cards, and bank cards) and installment loans (auto loans, mortgage loans, student loans, etc.). Not included are savings and checking accounts (typically not reported to a credit bureau). Of these 13 credit obligations, nine are likely to be credit cards and four are likely to be installment loans. (Source: myfico.com) The average American with a credit file is responsible for $16,635 in debt, excluding mortages, according to Experian. (Source: U.S. News and World Report, "The End of Credit Card Consumerism," August 2008) Total U.S. consumer debt (which includes credit card debt and non-credit-card debt but not mortgage debt) reached $2.55 trillion at the end of 2007, up from $2.42 trillion at the end of 2006. Considerably higher than the National Debt figures. (Source: Federal Reserve) The average college graduate has nearly $20,000 in debt; average credit card debt has increased 47 percent between 1989 and 2004 for 25-to 34-year-olds and 11 percent for 18-to 24-year olds. Nearly one in five 18-to 24-year-olds is in "debt hardship," up from 12 percent in 1989. (Source: Demos.org, "The Economic State of Young America," May 2008) 28 percent of those surveyed say their ability to pay off their credit card balance has become more difficult. (Source: Javelin Strategy & Research, "Credit Card Issuer Profitability in a Difficult Economy," July 2008) Between 1989 and 2006, the nation's total credit card charges increased from about $69 billion a year to more than $1.8 trillion. (Source: Demos.org, April 2008) There is a Kia dealer in Nashville that states, regardless of your credit score, if you have a job and $149, he can get you in a new car. So, you have all these people buying huge houses they can't afford, and cars they can't afford, and buying all this other "stuff" on credit cards that they can't pay off, and they blame it on Bush when they lose everything. On top of that, Unions (I believe they were formed by FDR for the most part, and unions remain an important political factor (especially within the Democratic Party) are destroying the U.S. economy (Off topic in a way, but with the new, VERY pro-union, Labor Secretary appointed by Obama, I see the economy getting worse, not better). For the most part, unions are the main reason American jobs are going overseas or to Mexico. They can't compete price wise because of the exorbitant wages and benefits they have to pay, products made by union workers are incredibly more expensive than those made by non-union workers (if you convert benefits to salary, the average UAW worker makes roughly the equivilent to $80 an hour). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people making money but that's just being greedy, and to those people that have to have the $3 million house, 3 SUVs, Prada and Guchi clothes, and half a dozen credit cards, Live Within Your Means, Or there Is No One To Blame But Yourself. And to any American who wants to complain about the price of gas, for one year, take your vehicle, go to England, and drive it the same amount you do here, then you can come back and complain.


Personally, I think Bush was an excellent President when it comes to doing what a President is supposed to do, not when it comes to being the most popular person in the world. The President of the United States isn't supposed to be "popular" he is there to make the hard decisions, which very often make you very unpopular. The President is supposed to be the U.S. and as such, even if he isn't personally responsible for faults in the country, he is to take the blame. As such, Bush has done an excellent job, one can only hope Obama can let go of his "celebrity" image and do the same. I don't remember Bush ever even commenting about political cartoons of him (most of which were highly unflattering), but one of the biggest things I remember about Obama is his reaction to the New Yorker cover. I personally prefer a President who will ignore the "script" written by people who are there to gloss over issues and make the President appeal to everyone, if he is going to tell me what he believes. I could care less what his aids want his image to be if it is a complete lie. I'm much more likely to respect someone who tells me that they personally believe all guns should be destroyed than someone who says they will only pass a law that both sides agree on, and then passes a law to destroy all guns.

Those are my thoughts, disagree if you want.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

From the day President Bush took office, the long knives were out for him - in ways they will not (and should not) be out for President-elect Barack Obama. The chattering class saw Dubya as a walking style crime in a cowboy suit. They hit Bush for everything - for the way he mangled syntax, for the books he read, because he worked out too much.

Note now that the buff Obama is taking office, stories gushing about Obama's daily workouts flood the channels. Oh, yes, and the same people who belittled Bush for sending troops to war even though he only served in the National Guard somehow do not seem to notice Obama's utter lack of military experience.

To trash Bush was to belong. There was little upside in supporting Bush, even if you had supported his agenda. Most of the Democratic candidates for president in 2004 and 2008 voted for the Patriot Act - and then campaigned against it. They voted for the resolution authorizing U.S. military force in Iraq - then bolted from the war itself. Likewise with No Child Left Behind. Somehow Bush was the guy who looked bad as he withstood the heat, while his caving critics preened.

When the Dems were pushing for a humiliating retreat from Iraq and opinion polls supported troop withdrawal, Bush instead pushed for a troop surge that has made all the difference. Vice President-elect Joe Biden - who voted for the war before he was against it - visited Iraq last week. While there, he promised the Iraqis that America would not withdraw troops in a way that undermines Iraqi security. Yet that was exactly what his party advocated a year ago.

Does Bush get any credit? No, just as he has received little credit for efforts that have prolonged millions of lives, thanks to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Forget considerable goodwill in India and Africa. His good deeds, you see, don't fit with the prescribed story line that, with Bush in charge, the rest of the world hates us.

Osama bin Laden once told Time magazine that the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia after the murder of 18 U.S. troops on a humanitarian mission made him realize "more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat." Members of al Qaeda have told intelligence officials that they never thought that Washington would respond to the 9/11 attacks as ferociously as Bush responded. They expected a few bombs to be dropped, no boots on the ground, a swift withdrawal if casualties mounted - the usual short-attention span foreign policy that warped Lebanon, the Persian Gulf War, Somalia, the African embassy bombings and the attack on the destroyer Cole. Bush showed America's enemies a country that does not retreat in fear, does not bomb with impunity, and most important, does not desert civilians or foreign governments that trust us. If you think that doesn't matter, look at Libya, which disarmed its weapons program.

One of the defining moments of the "failure" of Bush was FEMA's failures in New Orleans. I lurk on several sites and I found the following quote on the Forum Directory (KT posted a link there when I was just a lurker here)

I've been without power the last week--still have no power, but we did manage to get ahold of a generator and get a few things working--computer, tv, refrigerator--that sort of thing.
We had a total of 3 to 4 inches of ice--Kentucky was really hit hard by this storm--the warm weather today has really helped, but there is so much widespread devestation that it will be at least Feb 15 and possibly into March before everyone has power again in this state.
There are actually counties close to me where the county officials have requested a total evacuation of the entire county, because there are absolutely no services--and none in the forseeable future.

I find it interesting that FEMA isn't around, but that unlike New Orleans and Bush that fact isn't very widely reported, as it might hurt Obama's celebrity status.

Luther Sloan wrote:I find it interesting that FEMA isn't around, but that unlike New Orleans and Bush that fact isn't very widely reported, as it might hurt Obama's celebrity status.

I don't think it will hurt Obama's celebrity status at all. Mainly because if it hasn't happened yet, it won't. Notice how fast the population's response was after Katrina on FEMA and Bush? Almost instantly. Now if it comes March, and there is no response from Obama...maybe you'll see his popularity drop a little tiny bit.

Obama's celebrity power is ridiculous, and let me bring up another point...IT'S KENTUCKY! I wouldn't be surprised if most of Obama's supporters don't know where Kentucky is even located on a map! Also, Kentucky tends to have a bad wrap as being a "hill-billy" state, and no one will even care if they lost power for a month. They probably will think: "They had power grids in Kentucky?" It's so stupid how people judge state's like that, but I think that is how it will come down to.

So...I don't see Obama taking any blame or heat for this.