Who's worse, Bush or Trump?

[Oystein]

Those two I like:

To quote Hamilton

I have never agreed with Jefferson once
We have fought on like seventy-five diff’rent fronts
But when all is said and all is done
Jefferson has beliefs. Burr has none.

Some of you simply don't seem to comprehend the danger we're in because of Trump.

His incompetence has been a net positive thus far, but he is undermining key provisions and principles of our entire society, including an independent media, justice, thoughtfulness, the rule-of-goddamn-law, international diplomacy and simple *********** civility.

We elected the biggest mouthed douche from the trailer park, and now all of the other mouth breathers have been emboldened. Woohoo.

I so long for the days when adults on different sides of the aisle will argue about vouchers, tax policy and immigration again, because nobody is spending time clarifying remarks made about racists or pardoning them.

It's August 31st today. Trump hasn't made it through September 11th yet.

You need to compare DJT with GWB on 08/31/2001. By that time, Bush had put together an effective team of qualified administrators and politicians, foreign relations were going smooth, and they were working on the legislation they had proposed in the campaign.

On the negative side: Bush was pushing through a desastrous tax cut plan and undoing Clinton's fiscal responsibility, plunging the USA back into mayhem debt-making. AND they were looking for a way to blame something - anything - on Saddam Hussein to finish him off.


Then came 9/11.
In your assessment, you need to consider how Trump might react should an atrocity occur tomorrow: I see two possibilities, given his record so far:
a) Timidly fail to react substantially at all, thus allowing the country to lose faith
b) React with even less cohesion and more recklessly than Bush did.
(What would the right thing have been? Leave Iraq alone, reach out to the moderate forces in the Islamic world, re-assess fundamentally relationships and policies in the Middle East - among them the dependency on dictator oil; a dependency that, finally, Obama was able to reduce. And then go after AQ in a much more focused way. Enlist the Taliban as allies, not as enemies, for example; allow for many grays where Bush painted everything black or white. Do you see Trump embark on such a nuanced, inclusive, courageous policy?)


Bush was a bad president, and his reaction to 9/11 escalated to loads of bad consequences.
And even without 9/11, his would have been a bad presidency because of the ill-conceived tax reform and his eagerness to tackle Iraq with military solutions and deadly embargo.
But that is, to a large extent, an expression of my own political opinions and priorities, and I grant that other people assess these things differently. As I said, his Administration was staffed with able people, and Bush himself at least was a Gentleman. So all was not bad.

With Trump, all is bad. There is no mitigating aspect whatsoever. We cannot even cite differences on opionion and principles, for Trump has none.

 

[Oystein]

By the way: It would be fun if we could rewind time and re-word the poll question to the equivalent "Who's better, Bush or Trump?"

 

[Brainster]

I haven't even read the whole thread; but I know it's about 3.5 7.5 years too soon to know.

FTFY.

 

[Trebuchet]

FTFY.

Thank you SO much for my not being able to sleep tonight!

 

[Darth Rotor]

Based on their actions as president who would you say was the worst between our 2 most recent republican presidents?

Too early to tell with Trump. With W, we have 8 years worth of stuff to mull over. Not the best body of work ever. With W, I got the impression that he cares/cared about America, whatever issues I have had with a variety of his policies.

With Trump, he says he cares about America but I get the feeling that he mostly cares about Donald Trump. America is his brand du jour to try and promote ... with mixed success so far. After he's been in office for a year, I wonder if he'll have realized what all of his predecessors discovered: everyone learns on the job in that job. The good ones learn faster than the bad ones, and apply the lessons.

 

[Trebuchet]

With Trump, he says he cares about America but I get the feeling that he mostly ONLY cares about Donald Trump.

FTFY

 

[Fudbucker]

I voted Bush; starting two unnecessary wars that also tanked the economy is unforgivable.
Now, if Trump is found to have colluded with Russia, continues to tacitly support hate groups and racists, and causes some kind of constitutional crisis as I suspect he will, then he will take the top spot.

Continues? Once is bad enough.

 

[Mumbles]

I haven't even read the whole thread; but I know it's about 3.5 years too soon to know.

Trump's not going to change, he's been like this for *decades*. He's obsessed with himself and his polls numbers, A brazen white supremacist, petty as all hell, and has little to no clue how to run much of anything - and with an amazing need to show that he's the best at everything and no sense of ethics to boot. He's already lost quite a few *very* good, experienced people at State, enraged the entire FBI, managed to get publicly rebuked by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, lost his claim to "leader of the free world", and remember when he decided that we shouldn't be looking into white supremacist groups anymore?

The question is, how much damage will he do while everyone else works around him.

 

[Octavo]

The lack of a Planet X option has been duly noted, rendering the entire poll void and without any value.

 

[McHrozni]

(What would the right thing have been? Leave Iraq alone, reach out to the moderate forces in the Islamic world, re-assess fundamentally relationships and policies in the Middle East - among them the dependency on dictator oil; a dependency that, finally, Obama was able to reduce. And then go after AQ in a much more focused way. Enlist the Taliban as allies, not as enemies, for example; allow for many grays where Bush painted everything black or white. Do you see Trump embark on such a nuanced, inclusive, courageous policy?)

This is a bit wishy-washy, to be honest.

Obama's hand in dependency on dictator oil was one of timing, he was elected at a time when historically high oil prices were making fracking profitable and continuation of that made fracking into a major business it is today. Had it been Trump in 2008, Trump would oversee this change, and I wouldn't put it as an achivement of his.

Taliban as allies? You do realize they knew full well what Osama was about and allowed him to plot his business, right? They had no interest in an alliance with US and it's somewhat at odds with the next point I'll mention.

Reaching out to moderate Islamic forces? They had no voice to speak of in 2001. They still don't, but are trying to get heard from time to time, in no small part because of what's happening in the Islamic world.

But yeah, he could've left Iraq alone. We'd be dealing with the Iraq civil war, like the one in Syria, all the same, but it would be slightly more difficult to blame the US for it. A better way would be to actually engage in nation-building in Iraq in the same way as it was done in Germany and Japan after WW2. It wasn't even attempted, which is Ws greatest failure.

McHrozni

 

[ddt]

Taliban as allies? You do realize they knew full well what Osama was about and allowed him to plot his business, right? They had no interest in an alliance with US and it's somewhat at odds with the next point I'll mention.

I've read articles that claimed with details on when and how, that there were promising talks between the US government and the Taliban on the Taliban cutting ties with Osama and throwing him out of the country.

Reaching out to moderate Islamic forces? They had no voice to speak of in 2001. They still don't, but are trying to get heard from time to time, in no small part because of what's happening in the Islamic world.

In 2001, most of the Arab world was ruled by secular dictators. Assad, Mubarak, etc., had nothing with Islamic fundamentalism and eagerly suppressed it within their borders. Saddam too; he only started to use religious language when W added him to the "axis of evil" in the run-up to the invasion.

The only exceptions were Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Iran doesn't really count because they hated AQ et al too (the wrong brand of Islam ).

But yeah, he could've left Iraq alone. We'd be dealing with the Iraq civil war, like the one in Syria, all the same, but it would be slightly more difficult to blame the US for it. A better way would be to actually engage in nation-building in Iraq in the same way as it was done in Germany and Japan after WW2. It wasn't even attempted, which is Ws greatest failure.

I think Oystein means not even invading Iraq. Then there would have been no civil war either. Saddam still was solidly in power when W invaded. There is no really telling how long he could hold on to it without an American invasion.

 

[Oystein]

This is a bit wishy-washy, to be honest.

Sure.

Obama's hand in dependency on dictator oil was one of timing, he was elected at a time when historically high oil prices were making fracking profitable and continuation of that made fracking into a major business it is today. Had it been Trump in 2008, Trump would oversee this change, and I wouldn't put it as an achivement of his.

Could be - and Obama handled it well, not recklessly.

Taliban as allies? You do realize they knew full well what Osama was about and allowed him to plot his business, right? They had no interest in an alliance with US and it's somewhat at odds with the next point I'll mention.

Even the Taliban have interests which guide their politics, and those interests were not aligned with AQ's. Present them with a covinving cost/benefits package, strike an "enemy-of-my-enemy" pact, and voilà - alliance of convenience.

It's dirty, I hate it, I generally blame many failings of US post-war politics on such dirty alliances, but possibly better than the drawn-out hot wars.

Reaching out to moderate Islamic forces? They had no voice to speak of in 2001.

Which is the best reason to reach out to them.

They still don't, but are trying to get heard from time to time, in no small part because of what's happening in the Islamic world.

Terribly difficult in a world where the dominating forcs believe in escalation.

But yeah, he could've left Iraq alone. We'd be dealing with the Iraq civil war, like the one in Syria, all the same, but it would be slightly more difficult to blame the US for it. A better way would be to actually engage in nation-building in Iraq in the same way as it was done in Germany and Japan after WW2. It wasn't even attempted, which is Ws greatest failure.

Nation building was comparatively very easy in Germany and Japan because those countries already were nations to begin with, in stark contrast to the states carved out of the former Ottoman Empire. Germany, in addition, already had a democratic tradition, and of course western values (rooted in Christianity and Enlightment).
It was a terrible, stupid foolish objective in Iraq.

 

[McHrozni]

I've read articles that claimed with details on when and how, that there were promising talks between the US government and the Taliban on the Taliban cutting ties with Osama and throwing him out of the country.

There were negotiations about Taliban letting Osama leave the country voluntarily, if the US provided firm evidence of Osama being the culprit. The Taliban would decide whether the evidence presented is good enough or not of course.

In other words, US would have to give up its' intelligence assets and hope it will convince the Taliban to give away one of their main allies and supporters from the goodness of your heart. What could the US do if two months later the Taliban decided the evidence wasn't good enough again?

It was a transparent tactic to stall for time and hope the moment passes, nothing else. You really should be able to see through it.

In 2001, most of the Arab world was ruled by secular dictators. Assad, Mubarak, etc., had nothing with Islamic fundamentalism and eagerly suppressed it within their borders. Saddam too; he only started to use religious language when W added him to the "axis of evil" in the run-up to the invasion.

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

In June 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion, some of which are part of Islamic Sharia law, while government members and Saddam's family members were immune from punishments ranging around these crimes.

In 2001, the Iraqi government amended the Constitution to make sodomy a capital offense.

Saddam went for hardline Islamist support to retain power after 1991, not as a response to the US threat in 2003. If you doubt that please realize a few months isn't enough to build up significant Islamist support in the first place. Ten years on the other hand, is.

The only exceptions were Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Iran doesn't really count because they hated AQ et al too (the wrong brand of Islam ).

This is a very common misconception. Iran happily supports Sunni terrorists when it suits them.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unlikely-alliance-irans-secretive-relationship-with-al-qaeda/
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/10/opinion/bergen-iran-al-qaeda/index.html

Their support for Hamas alone should tell you that and they aren't even secretive about that.

I think Oystein means not even invading Iraq. Then there would have been no civil war either. Saddam still was solidly in power when W invaded. There is no really telling how long he could hold on to it without an American invasion.

Saddams' grip on power was marginally less solid than the grip on power Assad had in 2011. It would decay between 2003 and 2011.

It may well be true Iraq wouldn't suffer a civil war between 2003 and 2011. I see no reason to doubt it would suffer a civil war from 2011 onwards though. Iran would move in just the same, perhaps even stronger and more emboldened than with the Iraq which kinda needs the US for its' civil war more than it needs Iran. You could say it would be done without US casualties and expenses and I won't disagree with that. But to say Iraq is much worse off today than it would've been otherwise? Not really. Iraq is messed up, but it was that way before the war. The war just kicked the rotting door open. W failed at fixing it, in fact he never even made a serious effort to do so. He deserves due criticism for that, but putting all the blame on the results of the war on W is just ridiculous.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Could be - and Obama handled it well, not recklessly.

I won't deny it, but he could only marginally steer the fracking revolution. He certainly didn't cause it.

Even the Taliban have interests which guide their politics, and those interests were not aligned with AQ's. Present them with a covinving cost/benefits package, strike an "enemy-of-my-enemy" pact, and voilà - alliance of convenience.

Enemy of my enemy is how they viewed al-Queda.

Which is the best reason to reach out to them.

From what I gather about Islamists, reaching out to them would grant them even less of a voice. I think you don't realize the marginal liberal Islamic backlash we see now is primarily the result of the many attrocities comitted in the name of Islam in the past decade and a half and the amount of publicity these stunts get (sometimes due, sometimes overblown). There was far less of that just after 9/11. Islamic world talked more about Israel than 9/11 within a couple of weeks, even though it might well have been a watershed movement for their religion.

Terribly difficult in a world where the dominating forcs believe in escalation.

Sure. Difficulty is set on hard/nightmare.
What of it?

Nation building was comparatively very easy in Germany and Japan because those countries already were nations to begin with, in stark contrast to the states carved out of the former Ottoman Empire. Germany, in addition, already had a democratic tradition, and of course western values (rooted in Christianity and Enlightment).
It was a terrible, stupid foolish objective in Iraq.

Perhaps, but it was the only way the country could be pacified on a long-term basis without a genocide or two. A division into three entities wouldn't work, because it was (and still is) an oil rent state and there is no oil in Sunni Arab area, plus Turkey has issues with a Kurdish state. Iraq will either be in the state of a perpetual civil war where occasionally one side will be victorious and claim it has brought "peace" (by making it a desert) or else the Iraqi tribes will have to learn to live with one another. There is no way around it unless (until?) Turkey implodes.

A much more significant effort at making the country work, including enrolling the aid of the former Baath party members, police officers and Republican guard, might result into something like a functional state eventually. It doesn't need to work well on the level of Germany or Japan either, it needs to work well enough to avert a civil war and prevent mass retreats in the face of inferior forces like in 2014 Mosul. The effort could well fail, but what was attempted never had a chance of working in the first place.

Note one more thing, Iraq didn't work under Saddam either. Saddam just made the problems less visible, akin to giving paracetamol to an AIDS patient with high fever.

McHrozni