Will GWB Please Go Away

[Monkeyleg]

Grampster, I suspect that Bush may be reluctant to say much more to avoid giving the media enough ammo to start a "Bush attacks Obama" story line.

If he explains why something he did was the best he could do, somebody is going to compare it to what Obama is doing in that arena right now. Afghanistan, for example.

[TommyGunn]

You obviously don't know a whole lot about the majority of posters on this forum. I'd suggest you go back through the five or so years this forum has been in operation, or stop screaming "BDS!" when your favorite politician brags about how wonderful he is while spending other people's money and gets criticized for it.

Thank you for the terrific advice, I will get right on it. 

[MechAg94]

Bush is a likable guy.  I and others thought he was fairly conservative based on his Texas Gov record.  In the end as President though, his record is more like his father's; he was a moderate.  He only looked conservative in caparison to the wacky leftist Democrats who ran against him.  In retrospect, the reason he probably looked more conservative as Texas Gov was that his Democrat opponents were more conservative to start with.

[Jamisjockey]

I tried to reply further but had a host of internet issues yesterday.

Further, on GWB:

Iraq descended into chaos purely because of Rummy and Cheney.  GWB approved the "limited" warfare strategy and they had absolutely no plan to occupy the country.
Not that I think the country should have been occupied.
9 years pissed away at war.  Why? Because the taliban sent a dozen attackers into our country.  Our response in Afghanistan was proper:  Overthrow the unfriendly government that sponsored the terror, kill and capture droves of taliban and alqueida.  Staying for 9 years?   
As for Iraq, well, why in the hell did we enforce the sanctions of the UN when they wouldn't enforce them?  We are not the enforcement arm of the UN.  If the UN can't get its *expletive deleted*it together, we shouldn't go off and play cowboy. 
We've pissed away our treasure and the blood of our troops for, for what?  The UN?  Eff the UN.  Compassionate conservatisim is crap.

[grampster]

What Jamis said.  Hindsight by another name is history.  We should pay more attention to history before doing certain things.

[mtnbkr]

I tried to reply further but had a host of internet issues yesterday.

Further, on GWB:

Iraq descended into chaos purely because of Rummy and Cheney.  GWB approved the "limited" warfare strategy and they had absolutely no plan to occupy the country.
Not that I think the country should have been occupied.
9 years pissed away at war.  Why? Because the taliban sent a dozen attackers into our country.  Our response in Afghanistan was proper:  Overthrow the unfriendly government that sponsored the terror, kill and capture droves of taliban and alqueida.  Staying for 9 years?   
As for Iraq, well, why in the hell did we enforce the sanctions of the UN when they wouldn't enforce them?  We are not the enforcement arm of the UN.  If the UN can't get its *expletive deleted* together, we shouldn't go off and play cowboy. 
We've pissed away our treasure and the blood of our troops for, for what?  The UN?  Eff the UN.  Compassionate conservatisim is crap.

Funny how the sentiment changes after a few years and a democrat prez...

When Bush was prez, nobody on this board wanted to hear that message.  We were bringing Democracy to the savages and fighting the terrorists there instead of here.  After 9 years we have nothing to show for it and suddenly people realize the mess we're in.  Shame we couldn't realize it sooner.

Not commenting on you specifically JJ, just commenting on how perceptions of this matter have changed...

Chris

[makattak]

Funny how the sentiment changes after a few years and a democrat prez...

When Bush was prez, nobody on this board wanted to hear that message.  We were bringing Democracy to the savages and fighting the terrorists there instead of here.  After 9 years we have nothing to show for it and suddenly people realize the mess we're in.  Shame we couldn't realize it sooner.

Not commenting on you specifically JJ, just commenting on how perceptions of this matter have changed...

Chris

My opinion of either has not changed.

We rightly went into Iraq as a warning to other rogue regimes that supporting terror and pursuing weapons of mass destruction are dangerous to their health. Then we showed we had no will after the fresh wound of an attack subsided, thereby showing the other regimes that they don't have to worry that much.

We further have tried to set up a functioning democracy in the Middle East. I don't know about the wisdom of such a plan, but as we have no taste for colonization, it may be the next best alternative. 

My complaint about Obama's prosecution of the current wars is the restrictive RoE. If we're going to fight, destroy our enemies. If we aren't going to fight, why are we there?

[longeyes]

Jamis +1

[Tallpine]

When Bush was prez, nobody on this board wanted to hear that message.

You calling me a nobody...?      


As I recall, certain of us were shouted down as being "Bush Haters" and "Damn Dirty Hippies" etc etc etc for not 100% agreeing with our glorious conservative leader.

[longeyes]

Yeah, he's just another "nice guy."  The country's full of 'em.  How nice was he when was he selling his Harken stock?  Geez louise.

[Perd Hapley]

Funny how the sentiment changes after a few years and a democrat prez...

When Bush was prez, nobody on this board wanted to hear that message. 

Funny how people forget all the ugly arguments that took place on this board, over those exact issues. I guess every person involved was just arguing with nobody.

I suppose next, mtnbkr will observe that conservative Republicans never cared about Bush-era spending.

[mtnbkr]

Funny how people forget all the ugly arguments that took place on this board, over those exact issues. I guess every person involved was just arguing with nobody.

Nope, I remember them well, I also remember them ending much like Tallpine suggests.

I suppose next, mtnbkr will observe that conservative Republicans never cared about Bush-era spending.

No, we certainly did, but were constantly reminded that spending was necessary to fight terrarrrr and that the Democrats would be worse.  That was always the argument, the Democrat would be worse.

Chris

[Jamisjockey]

I will admit that for awhile I believed the "fight them over there" bit.  Some of it was also a belief that while I didn't support the need to go to war in Iraq, I thought we ought to finish what we started.
 Several years ago, though, it occured to me that it wasn't about that.  If there was a true need to engage in an extended war, then we ought to be willing to do everything necessary to win that war.  Anything short of total war should be treated as retalitory action.  Go in, decimate the enemy, leave behind stacks of propoganda that say "If you kill 1 of us, we will kill 100 of you.  Knock it off or die.", return home vicorious.
And I will admit I had high hopes that Obama would get us out of Afghanistan.  One of the (few) positive attributes he displayed during the campagin that, while I didn't support his candidacy, I did agree with.  Turns out he is a liar to the tenth degree, but I kind of saw that coming.

[Tallpine]

Turns out he is a liar to the tenth degree, but I kind of saw that coming.

Chicago Politician - how could anyone not see that coming 


If I had believed that he really was a "peace president" then I might have considered voting for him despite the other issues.

Instead I filled in the oval for McPalin, which is analogous to trying to grasp the rockface with your fingernails as you fall down a cliff 

[Perd Hapley]

Nope, I remember them well, I also remember them ending much like Tallpine suggests.

So you were wrong. Thank you.

No, we certainly did, but were constantly reminded that spending was necessary to fight terrarrrr and that the Democrats would be worse.  That was always the argument, the Democrat would be worse.

Still wrong. I guess you forgot about prescription drugs, African aid, and the dozen other things not even allegedly connected to terrorism? And you forgot the years and years of outcry and denunciation of Bush-era spending, even from GWOT-hawks? But, yeah, of course the Democrats are worse. That's one thing that's always true, even if Bush supporters say it.

But, hey, I guess when certain people exaggerate the support Bush received from other people, that first group feels good about themselves.  It certainly serves no other purpose.

[Jamisjockey]

Oh, thanks, Fisty.  I forgot the Prescription drugs deal.  Add it to my list.

[Perd Hapley]

Wonder much we spent on that whole marriage counseling thing?

[MechAg94]

If I remember correctly, the War on Terror and our various wars cost a 100 billion to 150 billion a year.  That was a small part of the increases in spending that happened under the Bush Presidency. 

This was brought up in those past arguments more than once (by me at least part of the time). 

[sanglant]

Apparently.  Even folks like me who voted for the schlub shrub.

fify.

[roo_ster]

It seems several GWB-boosters took exception to the author's curt dismissal of their revered GWB and went after him with sharpened blades like fencers with parkinsons.

The author's response:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254540/response-peter-wehner-pepfar-john-derbyshire
Wherein he responds to the substantive & pseudo-substantive objections, including a very nice inclusion of Charles Murray's "Trendline Test" (http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Diaries/2010-08.html#trendline)

As for some of the more "speculative" and personal objections, I doubt the author would mind a small direct quote:

Then there are some impertinent speculations concerning what I do and do not care about. I shall surrender here to the temptation that always comes over me when I am the target of sanctimonious bullying by self-congratulating prigs:  Bite me, pal.

[MechAg94]

Is GWB "revered" or are a lot of people just sick of the same old anti-Bush propaganda?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Is GWB "revered" or are a lot of people just sick of the same old anti-Bush propaganda?

This.  We all know and agree that the man made some mistakes, did some things we don't agree with.  But incessantly bashing the man, for things deserved and undeserved, just gets tiresome.  Really, really tiresome.

Honestly, what's the point?  If you have nothing new or interesting to add to the conversation, why open your mouth at all?

[roo_ster]

Is GWB "revered" or are a lot of people just sick of the same old anti-Bush propaganda?

Did you read the links in the OP?  I suspect not.

This.  We all know and agree that the man made some mistakes, did some things we don't agree with.  But incessantly bashing the man, for things deserved and undeserved, just gets tiresome.  Really, really tiresome.

Honestly, what's the point?  If you have nothing new or interesting to add to the conversation, why open your mouth at all?

In this case, there is cause and GWB added the "something new" his own self (GWB's patting himself on the back in the pages of the WaPo for spending billions of OPM in Africa).

I'd like for you or anyone else to demonstrate for a reasonable audience where I have "incessantly" bashed GWB.  I was happy to rarely mention him since he left office and appreciated his avoidance of the media. 

GWB has stuck his mug out there, again, and made a nuisance of himself.

[Perd Hapley]

roo_ster,

Your previous post started out with a cryptic comment about GWB-boosters and reverence. It was not immediately clear (or even eventually clear) that you were talking about some business at the National Review, rather than this thread. At first, I thought you were accusing some here of revering and "boosting" GWB, for our comments in protest of excessive Bush-bashing.

I don't know if that's what prompted HTG's reply, but if so you might want to take some of the blame.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Fisty nailed it.

Some seem to treat GWB and/or the Republican Party as some sort of verbal whack-a-mole game.  When ever the topic pops up, they have to beat on it with a great big hammer.  No reason, no purpose, no sense.  Just do it.  Again and again.  And again.  And again.

It's not just roo-ster, it's plenty of other people on APS.  And plenty of people in the wider world.

Someone tell me what the point is.  Surely the point isn't merely to express your opposition.  That's been manifestly accomplished already.  Really, we get it, you don't like the guys.  No, really, we get it.  We got it after the first 5,000 times.

Granted, I'm a strong supporter of the Rep Party.  Been pretty heavily involved in local and some state politics for a few years.  So that gives me some additional reason to take exception to the knee-jerk attacks on me and mine.  But even if I had no extra care or concern, I'd still be sick and tired of it, just as everyone else is.

It's time to move on.  Long past time, actually.

Now, if you want to talk specifically about the GWB bit in WaPo, fine.  But can everyone leave out the tired old reflexive attacks?  

What's so wrong with the WaPo piece, really?  Bush makes a few syrupy ra-ra go-USA remarks about how helping people is good and how the USA helps lots of people, and then he goes on to advocate for a nice do-good cuase.  Isn't this sort of thing that ex-presidents are supposed to do in their off-time?

If your gripe is that the US spent some tax dollars on African AIDs work, fine.  I get it, and I mostly agree.  But we spend gazillions of dollars on foreign policy and foreign aid all the time, in ways big and small, trying to further our own interests and those of others who matter to us.  What makes African AIDs money so extra special evil compared to all the rest?

It doesn't seem any special or more noteworthy than the rest, at least not to me.  It leaves me wondering if the gripe isn't about the AIDs money or advocacy, and just about some personal feelings towards the man behind it all.