• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

George W. Bush: the legacy

Ziggurat said:
Our embassies are US soil (that's standard). So attacks against US embassies are indeed "inside our country".
Click to expand...
And our military bases aren't? Besides, you listed the attack on the Cole, so it appears that you are counting that one. The point is that although there may have been not attacks on our homeland or military bases since 911, attacks against the US and their allies increased under Bush. It is widely believed that our invasion of Iraq vastly improved Al Qaeda's recruting, bringing many Muslims into the fold who might have otherwise said, "None of my business". Heck, it mobilized a whole lot of Americans to speak out against their own government, or at least the current administration. Mostly, these were Americans who had few issues with the invasion and operations in Afghanistan. I'm one.

If Bush managed to alienate almost 70% of his own people, imagine how he is percieved by people who didn't much like us anyway.
 
Tricky said:
And our military bases aren't? Besides, you listed the attack on the Cole, so it appears that you are counting that one. The point is that although there may have been not attacks on our homeland or military bases since 911, attacks against the US and their allies increased under Bush. It is widely believed that our invasion of Iraq vastly improved Al Qaeda's recruting, bringing many Muslims into the fold who might have otherwise said, "None of my business". Heck, it mobilized a whole lot of Americans to speak out against their own government, or at least the current administration. Mostly, these were Americans who had few issues with the invasion and operations in Afghanistan. I'm one.

If Bush managed to alienate almost 70% of his own people, imagine how he is percieved by people who didn't much like us anyway.
Click to expand...
PLease provide proof that Al Qaeda has increased membership since 2003. Conventional wisdom is not sufficient.
 
Tricky said:
And our military bases aren't?
Click to expand...

No, they are not. They are the soil of the host country, though legal arrangements give us significant control over them (just as a tenant in an apartment has significant control but no ownership).

Besides, you listed the attack on the Cole, so it appears that you are counting that one.
Click to expand...

Because I'm not tied to "inside the US" - that was your qualifier.

The point is that although there may have been not attacks on our homeland or military bases since 911, attacks against the US and their allies increased under Bush.
Click to expand...

Yes, it did: we took the fight to the enemy, and increased the pace of combat. Which is what you're supposed to do in a war you intend to win, and which is why Al Qaeda wanted to attack us here. And for as long as they were bringing war to us, and we were not bringing war to them, it was entirely reasonable for them to think they were winning. But that has changed. They have not been on our doorstep since 2001, we have been on theirs. That's the way I want it.

It is widely believed that our invasion of Iraq vastly improved Al Qaeda's recruting, bringing many Muslims into the fold who might have otherwise said, "None of my business".
Click to expand...

Argument ad populum.

Heck, it mobilized a whole lot of Americans to speak out against their own government, or at least the current administration. Mostly, these were Americans who had few issues with the invasion and operations in Afghanistan. I'm one.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried that anti-war protesters are going to blow up buildings. Should I be?

If Bush managed to alienate almost 70% of his own people, imagine how he is percieved by people who didn't much like us anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm sure almost all of France hates the man, but I'm not too worried about Pierre flying an A380 into the Whitehouse. The popularity of the president (or lack thereof) isn't what determines our safety. I don't care if the middle east hates him or even us, as long as they think that they will pay a very steep price for trying to harm us.
 
Ziggurat said:
Um... I would have thought that everyone would agree that that is a good thing. Am I wrong about that assumption?
Click to expand...

You miss the point with assumption.

As a stand alone factoid, this looks like a good thing, however this is only a small lighter spot in a dark and bloody big picture. While we haven't been hit with explosions inside the US, we have been hit in many other ways, as has been pointed out.

Homeland Security, Patriot Act, TSA, rendition, Gitmo, warrentless wiretaps, economic toiletry, and many other factors. The losses in lives, dollars, civil liberties, long-term security far outweighs the small-picture comfort of no bombs in our backyard for 7.5 years.
 
Ziggurat said:
Um... I would have thought that everyone would agree that that is a good thing. Am I wrong about that assumption?
Click to expand...

It is an issue of the relevence. If you think that Bush played a significant roll in that, state why you think that, otherwise it seems like a fairly irrelvent data point.
 
Tricky said:
His greatest accomplishment is something that didn't happen? Shouldn't we also say that this is something that all the presidents before him also accomplished, and indeed, more completely than him, since most didn't even have one attack by foreign terrorists inside our country. Okay, there was a World Trade Center bombing a month into the Clinton administration. But none after. Didn't he keep us safe too?
Click to expand...

Safer, on his watch the towers didn't fall.
 
fishbob said:
As a stand alone factoid, this looks like a good thing
Click to expand...

No. It is a good thing, it is not merely the appearance of a good thing. I understand that it is not the only thing, and you are free to weigh other factors as more important if you like, but do not tell me I am missing the point on this. I am not.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. It is a good thing, it is not merely the appearance of a good thing. I understand that it is not the only thing, and you are free to weigh other factors as more important if you like, but do not tell me I am missing the point on this. I am not.
Click to expand...

But the question is, what would have been different without Bush? Only if you can show that, without Bush, there would have been another attack, *then* you can claim he prevented it.


It´s like that officer in the Ankh-Morpork Night Watch in Terry Pratchett´s Discworld. He spends all his days guarding the biggest bridge over the river Ankh - and guess what? It has never been stolen! What a great job this man is doing!
 
Ziggurat said:
We have not been hit since 9/11. Once the partisan bickering dies down, that's going to be seen as a major success.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time attributing this to Bush. The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot (which could have been more devastating than 9/11), for example, was prevented solely by British intelligence.
 
Ziggurat said:
We have not been hit since 9/11. Once the partisan bickering dies down, that's going to be seen as a major success. The Iraq war will also be seen differently a decade from now. There were plenty of mistakes made during its execution, but it looks like it's turning into a success, and that success will bury much of the criticism, just as failure tends to bury justifications. We feel the costs of war immediately, but the benefits will accrue over time.
Click to expand...

We were hit on 9/11.
 
Chaos said:
But the question is, what would have been different without Bush?
Click to expand...

That is not knowable, and so is not a useful standard. And it is not the standard demanded for criticism of Bush (and that's fine).

Only if you can show that, without Bush, there would have been another attack, *then* you can claim he prevented it.
Click to expand...

No. There have been interrupted plots. Whether or not those plots would have been interrupted under another president doesn't change the fact that they were interrupted.

It´s like that officer in the Ankh-Morpork Night Watch in Terry Pratchett´s Discworld. He spends all his days guarding the biggest bridge over the river Ankh - and guess what? It has never been stolen! What a great job this man is doing!
Click to expand...

No. The story you mention is humorous precisely because we know that bridges don't get stolen. But that's not applicable here, is it? Not only do terrorist attacks happen, a clear pattern of attacks by Al Qaeda existed prior to and including 9/11. That pattern has been broken - perhaps not permanently, but for a significant length of time, longer than any of the prior intervals between attacks.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
I have a hard time attributing this to Bush. The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot (which could have been more devastating than 9/11), for example, was prevented solely by British intelligence.
Click to expand...

That is far from the only plotted and foiled attack. Here are a few more:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-7.html
Not all targets are US, but some are, and many do involve US law enforcement/intelligence to a significant degree. That list was also written in 2005, it would be longer if written today.
 
Ziggurat said:
That is not knowable, and so is not a useful standard. And it is not the standard demanded for criticism of Bush (and that's fine).



No. There have been interrupted plots. Whether or not those plots would have been interrupted under another president doesn't change the fact that they were interrupted.



No. The story you mention is humorous precisely because we know that bridges don't get stolen. But that's not applicable here, is it? Not only do terrorist attacks happen, a clear pattern of attacks by Al Qaeda existed prior to and including 9/11. That pattern has been broken - perhaps not permanently, but for a significant length of time, longer than any of the prior intervals between attacks.
Click to expand...

Any president who didn't try to destroy al-Qaeda in the wake of 9/11 would easily lose reelection, so I'm not sure what's so remarkable about Bush's actions (other than the fact that they've infringed on civil liberties, pissed off our allies AND enemies alike, and wasted billions of taxpayer's dollars with useless bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security).
 
The problem with Bush's legacy is that, over time, this quibbling about who was responsible for what is going to go away, and what people will see is that during Bush's time in office

1) Our country was successfully attacked, on our soil, in the largest terrorist attack in history. I mean, we are talking about the deadliest attack by a foreign invader on US soil ever, right? I don't think 3000 died in Pearl Harbor.
2) Two wars were started, which were not completed by the time he left office
3) The economy had the largest collapse since the Great Depression.

Oh, and just for fun, let's throw in the fact that the Israelis and Palestinians are actively warring as he leaves office, too, although I'm not sure that will be remembered.

How much more of a disaster could a presidential term be? I mean, Herbert Hoover is usually considered a hopeless president, but he can say at least the US wasn't attacked and the country wasn't at war under his watch. FDR was attacked and took the country to war, but the economy recovered from the Depression while he was there (granted, the two aspects may not be unrelated, but there it is)
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
1) Our country was successfully attacked, on our soil, in the largest terrorist attack in history. I mean, we are talking about the deadliest attack by a foreign invader on US soil ever, right? I don't think 3000 died in Pearl Harbor.
2) Two wars were started, which were not completed by the time he left office
3) The economy had the largest collapse since the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

So Bush can look forward to being remembered like FDR then, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom