Comparing Bush and Obama

[cabiness42]

It is striking to me, as time goes on, how similar the Bush and Obama Presidencies are (in current light anyway). Both were elected amidst fears from the opposite party that they would be extremists. Both were/are far more moderate than that, save one Big Thing. Bush's Big Thing was Iraq, Obama's is ObamaCare. Both have shown to be poor executives who don't do the most basic job well - managing the agencies of government effectively. Both don't work well with Congress. Both were re-elected despite historical parameters that seemed to indicate they should lose - both in part because their opponents were awful. Both made poor choices of who they surrounded themselves with - Obama's being incompetent and Bush's being scary warmongers. And to their credit, both were Presidents during particulary difficult times - 9/11 and all that came after for Bush, and the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression for Obama.

 

One key difference though. Bush's One Big Thing (Iraq) resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens, and cost about a TRILLION dollars. Obama's One Big Thing (ObamaCare) will cost a fraction of that and it's failures appear to be not helping enough people and causing higher rates for others. Which is worse?

 

I'll give the nod to Obama, at this point, for being less bad. But I'll add the caveat that it will be a decade before we can look back and really get a complete picture.

 

The bolded part is the biggest reason why I will support Chris Christie in 2016 (unless Mitch Daniels does a 180 and decides to run). He's proven to be a competent executive who gets s*** done.

[Balta1701]

By the way...on this subject, it's probably worth pointing out that the big health care upgrade of the Bush years, the Medicare drug benefit/insurance company bailout act, had a ton of difficulty in its rollout too, including website and signup difficulties that lasted for months and impacted a large number of seniors. However, the only people who remember that today are the ones pointing it out as precedent for the healthcare.gov struggles; no one uses it to indict the administration's performance on the whole or describe them as a failure for that reason (of course, that could also be because they did so many things vastly worse than that).

[Jenksismyhero]

A war based on an obvious lie that wasn't believed by the international community at the time and is believed by nobody now is a weak claim?

 

A record surplus and thriving economy upon entry to the second worst economic crisis in the country's history is a weak claim?

 

A trend toward the loss of privacy, habeas corpus, and personal freedoms is weak?

 

IIRC other European countries had similar intelligence about Saddam, but yes, it was still a weak claim. Frankly Bush should have said we're doing this to set up a base of operations in the region to kill AQ and other similar groups while also getting rid of the world's most dangerous tyrant and he would have had more support.

 

Bush took office during a mini recession. We were not in a "thriving economy" in 2001 and 9/11 certainly didn't help. But yes, he spent way more than he should have. I'll agree with that.

 

And lastly, a trend that has not only been continued by Obama but expanded considerably (see, US drone policy).

 

[Balta1701]

IIRC other European countries had similar intelligence about Saddam, but yes, it was still a weak claim. Frankly Bush should have said we're doing this to set up a base of operations in the region to kill AQ and other similar groups while also getting rid of the world's most dangerous tyrant and he would have had more support.

And yeah, that worked spectacularly too.

[NorthSideSox72]

IIRC other European countries had similar intelligence about Saddam, but yes, it was still a weak claim. Frankly Bush should have said we're doing this to set up a base of operations in the region to kill AQ and other similar groups while also getting rid of the world's most dangerous tyrant and he would have had more support.

You are probably remembering Curveball. Read the book on him, it is worth your time. The Germans thought at first they may have had something, but quickly determined he was full of it. The US bullied Germany into handing him over, he made yet more inconsistent statements... but the CIA was so hell-bent on finding a reason to go into Iraq (so totally backwards by the way), they ignored Germany AND their own lower level analysts in favor of talking him up as knowing things he didn't. By the time the information made it to frat boy at the top, it was a "slam dunk".

 

[NorthSideSox72]

And you did not just call Saddam the world's most dangerous tyrant, did you? He wouldn't have made the Top 20 at that point in time.

 

[Balta1701]

And you did not just call Saddam the world's most dangerous tyrant, did you? He wouldn't have made the Top 20 at that point in time.

Eh, I think he would have made that list. Even with the no-fly zone he had a military strong enough to cause a lot of harm to his own people, that's something.

[Jenksismyhero]

You are probably remembering Curveball. Read the book on him, it is worth your time. The Germans thought at first they may have had something, but quickly determined he was full of it. The US bullied Germany into handing him over, he made yet more inconsistent statements... but the CIA was so hell-bent on finding a reason to go into Iraq (so totally backwards by the way), they ignored Germany AND their own lower level analysts in favor of talking him up as knowing things he didn't. By the time the information made it to frat boy at the top, it was a "slam dunk".

 

I thought English and French intelligence also thought he had WMD's and/or were contacting terrorists. But yes, the problem was they were using old intelligence and/or relying on questionable intelligence to make a case when they shouldn't have.

[Jenksismyhero]

Eh, I think he would have made that list. Even with the no-fly zone he had a military strong enough to cause a lot of harm to his own people, that's something.

 

Right, tyrant in the sense of a somewhat modern country with the means to do something significant and the balls to do it. You could say someone like Kim Jong had equally sophisticated weapons (if not more advanced), but I don't think they would ever actually do something. Saddam had a track record.

 

African war lords don't really count because as disgusting as they are, they can't create world wide problems.

[Jake]

I agree that the Obama administration has done little to push back against Bush era spying and extrajudicial bombing operations, instead just deploying them as it sees fit. I would like to see a completely reformed NSA/CIA/FBI, as each of these organizations has a past rife with terrible and illegal activity and have done little in the recent past to disprove such claims.

 

At this point, Obama's biggest failure as president is allowing this to go on and perhaps encouraging the growth of it. I hope he does something about all of this while he's a lame duck (or sooner). As far as the "unforeseen national events" I mentioned earlier that could derail his presidency, it seems like a spying or bombing revelation could indeed be such a thing. The right believes it too, because they keep trying to find such a revelation. The most troublesome thing about our Democrat president not dismantling these (probably) unconstitutional programs is that it makes me fearful that no politician will be willing to do so.

[bmags]

What's worse is the huge corruption in the military contracts in Iraq where hundreds of millions would disappear or be shotty work. Yes, this web site sucks but at least it can be transparent. That contracting we had no way for it to check its oversight, and there was no oversight.

[Cknolls]

Yeah, remember how they decided an appellate court didn't need a full slate of judges entirely and they were going to block any appointment to that court?

 

I sure don't.

 

 

Oh let me get the handkerchief out for you two whiners. boo f***ing hoo....l

[Jenksismyhero]

I agree that the Obama administration has done little to push back against Bush era spying and extrajudicial bombing operations, instead just deploying them as it sees fit. I would like to see a completely reformed NSA/CIA/FBI, as each of these organizations has a past rife with terrible and illegal activity and have done little in the recent past to disprove such claims.

 

At this point, Obama's biggest failure as president is allowing this to go on and perhaps encouraging the growth of it. I hope he does something about all of this while he's a lame duck (or sooner). As far as the "unforeseen national events" I mentioned earlier that could derail his presidency, it seems like a spying or bombing revelation could indeed be such a thing. The right believes it too, because they keep trying to find such a revelation. The most troublesome thing about our Democrat president not dismantling these (probably) unconstitutional programs is that it makes me fearful that no politician will be willing to do so.

 

I think we're well past that point. That was one of Obama's campaign talking points and he's expanded those programs. If a national embarrassment like Snowden doesn't stop the practice, nothing will.

[StrangeSox]

Oh let me get the handkerchief out for you two whiners. boo f***ing hoo....l

"Stop pointing out how transparently bad my argument is!"

[TaylorStSox]

IIRC other European countries had similar intelligence about Saddam, but yes, it was still a weak claim. Frankly Bush should have said we're doing this to set up a base of operations in the region to kill AQ and other similar groups while also getting rid of the world's most dangerous tyrant and he would have had more support.

 

Bush took office during a mini recession. We were not in a "thriving economy" in 2001 and 9/11 certainly didn't help. But yes, he spent way more than he should have. I'll agree with that.

 

And lastly, a trend that has not only been continued by Obama but expanded considerably (see, US drone policy).

 

I can't believe you were able to type some of this with a straight face. Sadam wanted no part of a war. The world's most dangerous tyrant? Seriously? He hated AQ as much as anyone and everyone knew it. The Iraq war was a farce. The Bush administration would have made up anything to justify an invasion. It was just an excuse for the Neo Cons to finance their war machine and satisfy the nation's need for vengeance by blowing up brown people. It didn't matter that they were completely unrelated. They were Muslims, damn it!

[Jenksismyhero]

I can't believe you were able to type some of this with a straight face. Sadam wanted no part of a war. The world's most dangerous tyrant? Seriously? He hated AQ as much as anyone and everyone knew it. The Iraq war was a farce. The Bush administration would have made up anything to justify an invasion. It was just an excuse for the Neo Cons to finance their war machine and satisfy the nation's need for vengeance by blowing up brown people. It didn't matter that they were completely unrelated. They were Muslims, damn it!

 

I buy the "revenge for trying to kill my daddy" theory over the "must kill brown people" theory. But that doesn't fit the narrative that all conservatives hate colored people.

[TaylorStSox]

I buy the "revenge for trying to kill my daddy" theory over the "must kill brown people" theory. But that doesn't fit the narrative that all conservatives hate colored people.

The "blowing up brown people" part was bipartisan.

[NorthSideSox72]

Some of you guys should really read Woodward's books, or other pieces on the Iraq war. First, if Daddy was a factor for W, it wasn't the way you think. HW made a point of staying out of things, and the one time he talked to his son about it, he warned him off of it. Second, I think it is pretty obvious at this point that the thought process that got the Iraq war machine going:

 

1. Wasn't Bush - it was the people who convinced him (RUmsfeld, Cheney and others) who got things going.

 

2. Was founded on neo-con thinking for sure, but more specifically, there was a belief that if you could turn a middle eastern country into a shining democracy, you could both bring the war to you AND cause a wave of democracy that would consume the region and make everything OK.

 

I really see no evidence it was "avenge Daddy" or anything of the sort. But I would say that the general thinking in point 2 above certainly does have racist undertones. Basically, we can "fix" you by making you more American.

 

[StrangeSox]

Some of you guys should really read Woodward's books, or other pieces on the Iraq war. First, if Daddy was a factor for W, it wasn't the way you think. HW made a point of staying out of things, and the one time he talked to his son about it, he warned him off of it. Second, I think it is pretty obvious at this point that the thought process that got the Iraq war machine going:

 

1. Wasn't Bush - it was the people who convinced him (RUmsfeld, Cheney and others) who got things going.

 

2. Was founded on neo-con thinking for sure, but more specifically, there was a belief that if you could turn a middle eastern country into a shining democracy, you could both bring the war to you AND cause a wave of democracy that would consume the region and make everything OK.

 

I really see no evidence it was "avenge Daddy" or anything of the sort. But I would say that the general thinking in point 2 above certainly does have racist undertones. Basically, we can "fix" you by making you more American.

 

Sure sounds like he surrounded himself with incompetent people...

[NorthSideSox72]

Sure sounds like he surrounded himself with incompetent people...

Less about incompetence, more about morally wrong. Bush was incompetent as a leader.

 

[greg775]

I just read a newspaper today at dinner that said Obama's approval rating was horrifically bad right now. To that I say, who cares? I'm sure he doesn't care, either. He won 2 fricking elections despite very very limited success as Prez.

 

Also I read a long column on how Jack Kennedy is viewed by experts as a horrible president. And they say his womanizing with a 19 year old ... the article said he had sex with her after feeding her several marguritas, was pretty disgraceful. I know little about Jack, but this columnist was published and made these allegations about the womanizing. Said Jack gets credit for civil rights stuff, but actually Lyndon deserves the credit for those. And said Jack would have been clueless on what to do in Vietnam had he not tragically been killed.

[Y2HH]

I just read a newspaper today at dinner that said Obama's approval rating was horrifically bad right now. To that I say, who cares? I'm sure he doesn't care, either. He won 2 fricking elections despite very very limited success as Prez.

 

Fitting for the topic of conversation.

 

Bush was, once again, the exact same.

 

People only care when approval ratings are favorable to "their" choice as President. If Obama had a great approval rating, I bet you'd suddenly care.

[Reddy]

Bush was a figurehead for the people behind the scenes.

 

Obama is trying to do his own thing and failing miserably.

 

Both are incompetent for different reasons. Ideologically they're far more similar than people realize.

[DukeNukeEm]

Fitting for the topic of conversation.

 

Bush was, once again, the exact same.

 

People only care when approval ratings are favorable to "their" choice as President. If Obama had a great approval rating, I bet you'd suddenly care.

Its funny isnt it, the electoral mandate now trumps everything whereas during the last administration it meant nothing.

[Balta1701]

Its funny isnt it, the electoral mandate now trumps everything whereas during the last administration it meant nothing.

Yeah. I mean, that's why the last administration was so hesitant about advancing policies like huge upper class tax cuts or insane wars during their first term. After all they lost the popular vote, it was only fair.