The Liberal claim that G. W. Bush is the most hated American president of all time is, in fact, true … if only “progressives”, Islamic Fascists, Europhiles, Communists, and Tyrants are polled. In the mean time, the good people of this world seem to think he’s doing just fine:
More generally, in a world supposedly awash in anti-US sentiment, pro-American leaders keep winning elections. Germany’s Angela Merkel is certainly more pro-American than Gerhard Schroeder, whom she replaced. The same is true of France’s Nicolas Sarkozy.
More importantly in terms of Green’s analysis, the same is also true of South Korea’s new President. Lee Myung-bak, elected in a landslide in December, is vastly more pro-American than his predecessor, Roh Moo-hyun.
Even in majority Islamic societies, their populations allegedly radicalised and polarised by Bush’s campaign in Iraq and the global war on terror more generally, election results don’t show any evidence of these trends. In the most recent local elections in Indonesia, and in national elections in Pakistan, the Islamist parties with anti-American rhetoric fared very poorly. Similarly Kevin Rudd was elected as a very pro-American Labor leader, unlike Mark Latham, with his traces of anti-Americanism, who was heavily defeated.
Even with China, the Iraq campaign was not a serious negative for the US. Beijing was far more worried by the earlier US-led NATO intervention into Kosovo because it was based purely on notions of human rights in Kosovo. Such notions could theoretically be used to justify action (not necessarily military action) against China over Taiwan and Tibet. Iraq, on the other hand, was justified on the basis of weapons of mass destruction, a justification with which the Chinese were much more comfortable.
cross posted @ Celestial Junk
More Reading:
VDH takes a delicious shot at some of the world’s chief Bush-haters … the Europhiles.
How do all these diverse narratives and agendas add up? The vaunted European multicultural, multilateral, utopian and pacifist worldview is now on its own and thus will get hammered as never before in the unrelenting forge of history. Very soon there will be no more George W. Bush to dump on, hide behind, and blame for the widening cracks in the Atlantic alliance. Instead Europeans may well have to call on the old pro, Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama, to lead them in negotiating sessions with jihadists, Iran, and Russia.
Jay,
Please read thread from beginning. Understand this: Bush is a crappy president. Trudeau was a crappy PM. A leader is someone who has people following them. Just because I read the new york times and quote a rediculous comment from an idiot rapper does not mean I’m a leftist.
I’m just a moderate conservative… rather than an ideologue.
Conservative reasons for Bush being a crappy president:
1) Price of oil from 35 to 125 in 8 years.
2) Increasing size of government ~30%
3) Increased debt
4) HAS NOT CAUGHT OSAMA BIN LADEN
5) Almost guaranteed that Dems will win in ’08
6) Destroyed confidence amongst moderates
7) Lost Senate Majority
8) Lost Congressional Majority
I hope some people realise here that Bush II is a poor to terrible president. He has hurt the cause of conservatism in the US.
Also, I quoted Bush AS QUOTED IN THE NY TIMES. Please read first, then comment.
Also Jay,
Every time that McCain (my guy for 2008) is seen with Bush (re: the picture)… it makes the 70% of Americans who believe that Bush is not doing a good job associate that with McCain.
Please do not associate your inability to read with my inability to write.
A parallel to Bush hatred.
Then there was “Hate Week”. A pale sun broke through the grimy windows. A man, with the glint of light turning his glasses into white discs, babbled. “Duck Speak”.
The grimy unwashed mob, men and women screamed their hate. “Goldstein, Goldstein, Goldstein”. It was hate and more hate.
They returned to their work. Their outrage sated, their misery exhausted.
Big Brother ruled.
“Conservative reasons for Bush being a crappy president:
1) Price of oil from 35 to 125 in 8 years.
2) Increasing size of government ~30%
3) Increased debt
4) HAS NOT CAUGHT OSAMA BIN LADEN
5) Almost guaranteed that Dems will win in ’08
6) Destroyed confidence amongst moderates
7) Lost Senate Majority
8) Lost Congressional Majority”
1) that was Clinton not Bush increasing the demand for oil with his penis.
2) Bushes true flaw, the question is what is the alternative? Obama?
3) War is expensive. Democrats and Republicans all share responsibility for this one.
4) F**K BinHidden. People who narrow success to finding this guy were not listening to Bush when he spoke at ground zero. This “war on terror” is much larger than that lanky coward.
5) Obama is toast. The fact that the super delegates do not appear to be siding with Billery is the best thing for the party long term, but in the short term it almost guarantee’s a GOP victory.
6) It is Obama who will lose the moderates.(White women)
7)&8) Americans who voted Dem and gave them the majority in congress wasted their vote,the Democatic congress has delivered nothing. Congress approval is lower than that of the President, it is the Democrats that will feel the pain in the end. It is evident to most that this congress has been one of the most ineffective in history. Our Liberals and their Democrats will be shocked when their base doesn’t vote for them because of both of their incompetence and inability to be the least bit effective.
Jon,
Your posts have been as devoid of content as your blog link is.
Despite your blather you still do not make sense. Yes a leader has someone following him. And I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Are you a dictionary?
Jon when you believe the NY Times, when you believe the pap the media is feeding you, including Kanye, you are a leftist.
Mcain has 1 thing going for him as a conservative.
1. He is a warrior. He was perhaps the most influential person on advising Bush to do the surge in Iraq. The successful surge in Iraq might I add. He will continue in Iraq until the job is done.
That’s it. He is very center even left on the rest of his politics. He could be a JFK democrat. Maybe he actually represents the traditional democrat party more than anyone in the last 40 years.
Once again, hindsight is 20/20;
Given the same information at the time, most prominent Democrats voted for the war against Iraq. Of course they’re free to wash their hands now and make Bush wear it. So what? All it says is Democrats are cowards and hypocrites. Not fit to run the US.
Whether right or wrong by history, Bush did make decisions, as a leader is expected to do, given the information at the time.
Democrats? Not one with any honour, moral sense of obligation, common sense, or vision since Kennedy.
New Orleans is Bush’s fault? That’s a juvenile way of looking at the sytem. The US is a big and tested system with default modes. No one person can take that blame. You’d have to be a complete and utter moron to believe otherwise.
Having said that, there’s a lot I don’t like about certain Bush foreign policies. I don’t like the cosy Saudi relationship, given that they and Egypt support more Islamofascist terrorism than anybody else. I don’t like the fact that America doesn’t demand separation of religion and state, the closure of madrassas, the imprisonment of terrorist imams, the absolute banning of shariah and demanding they sign onto and honour the UN’s Declaration of Universal Human Rights as an obligation for aid amongst its Islamic ‘clients.’ I don’t like the misdirected, fabricated and dangerous language, “War against terror,” “Islam is a religion of peace,” and “One of the great religions that’s been hijacked.” And I don’t like the fact that oil still controls politics through the wallet.
Play’nWitYoMomma: God I hope and pray that you are right!
Obama as Pres will negotiate with the scum. He will likely be successful. The scum will crawl back into their holes and rebuild their forces and alliances. When they are ready they will attack again. But they will attack a weakened US just as they did on 9/11. History repeats itself for those who don’t learn it’s lessons.
Jay,
Please see what I wrote earlier on understanding. Reading something (like the NYTimes or your banal posts) does not make you believe it; otherwise I would have to believe the vitriol that you’ve been spewing on this thread.
I’m not interested in an extended flamewar with you.
Play’n,
1) All presidents blame the previous administration. As our halfwit friend Jay tried to pound out using his hooves earlier, a leader should take responsibility for things that have occurred under their administration.
2) My point was about what made Bush bad in general, not compared to other terrible options.
3) If he fought the war like a man, with enough troops, it would have been cheaper. Again, not wanting to comparing him to others but… even FDR managed to launch a real assault during ww2 and he was an elderly cripple democrat.
4) If I may use ww2 as an analogue again. It would be like the US not going after Japan when it realised that Germany was a bigger threat. Osama is the leader of the Organization that attacked US on US soil. Bush is either weak for not getting them, or incompetent, not unlike our resident dunce Jay.
5) I can’t argue with you about the outcome of the future. I still think that McCain will have a hard time winning in 2008, despite being the better of 2 men, unlike Jay the Dim.
6) Once again, this is a prediction of the future so it’s unlikely that either of us know what is going to happen.
7&8) Americans did waste their votes on Dems in the midterms. They did however decide to vote for the Dems in part because Bush had very low approval numbers. Also Bush appeared at the time to be losing the war in Iraq, in which he was commander in chief (that means President, Jay).
I was just discussing with my co-workers today about how Bush may not be remembered as a failure like 70% of Americans see him now. As someone wrote above: Iraqis probably have a different view of him. I work on a reservation, and most natives (as my locals prefer to be called when called collectively) see him as a visionary leader for his policies on homeland protection and immigration.
History may judge him differently than the present, one can only hope the same for Jay.
One last note for Jay,
Perhaps when you are paid real money for writing, politicking or any other talent that you may be hiding, you’ll realise that sometimes it’s better not to give it away for free. After all, a conservative should be wise enough to know that in all labour there is profit but in talk, mere poverty. (Proverbs – It’s a book in the bible)
I hope you recognize what you are, because the purpose of your life seems to be only a warning for those following behind you.
Best Regards,
Jon
Irwin,
Hindsight is 20/20, but Bush’s approval rating might be an indication of how many Americans think he did/is doing the right thing. You might point out that his approval ratings were really high when Iraq II started. The citizens also expected that he would win as he said he would… to be greeted as a liberator. Americans should win wars against militias of Arabs… but they aren’t/weren’t which is one thing that I use to blame him for losing the Senate and the House.
I hope Obama doesn’t win, but hope and reality aren’t (may not be) the same thing. We’ve been discussing that very issue on this blog for weeks; Obama’s campaign is about running on hope, which is why we all make fun of him (much the same way I do Jay).
Play’n,
Irwin is right:
9) I don’t like the cosy Saudi relationship, given that they and Egypt support more Islamofascist terrorism than anybody else.
10) I don’t like the fact that America doesn’t demand separation of religion and state, the closure of madrassas, the imprisonment of terrorist imams, the absolute banning of shariah. Note: Fixed it for you Irwin… the UN is a Joke.
11) I don’t like the misdirected, fabricated and dangerous language, “War against terror,” “Islam is a religion of peace,” and “One of the great religions that’s been hijacked.”
12) I don’t like the fact that oil still controls politics through the wallet.
There are many reasons why many people think Bush has been a bad president, right now I can only think of 12 off the top of my and Irwin’s head.
As an aside: I too like Kanye, but mostly because some of his lyrics (like Jesus Walks) demonstrate a depth of understanding (unlike Jay). He also raps about many of the same issues I see on SDA (as a 5 year veteran), like the foolishness of going to university for the sake of going, or the decay of socialism (The Ghetto as he calls it) and how individual talent helps bring him away from it.
The thing I like about Toronto most is that I moved away from it 8 years ago.
So Play’n and Irwin, it’s nice to see you as always.
Bush is a terrible president who’s spent 1 Trillion dollars on a war that can not be one. The man is a bad president who’s spending on this war makes any socialist’s budget look conservative.
Imagine how much wealth he’s squandered with this bill which will cost each American about $20,000 personally!
I am no bleeding heart liberal. Sure Bush needed to deal with jihadism, however a Cold War in the spirit of Ronald Reagan would have been the way to go. Expelling anyone associated with jihadism from the USA would have been the way to go. But anyone who says Bush is a good president needs to have their head examine.
Folks, just because the left hates Bush’s presidency, does not mean we on the right need to say we love him. Dare I say it, even Jimmy Carter was a better president.
Consider what has been lost with going into debt to the tune of 1 Trillion dollars?
http://www.500billion.com/option4.htm
Jimmy Carter was a better president?
Curiously, none of my tax dollars went to the US Treasury.
With a nic like Tim Horton, I’m sure none of your tax dollars went there, either. Or, did they?
They’d better make the most of their Bush-bashing.
They’ve got less than eight months left.
It would be worth having Obama as president just to see how all these “progressives” and whiners react the first time he does something to upset their vision of him.
Because whatever they might think of him now, once he’s president, he’ll inevitably have to act in America’s interest first at some point.
‘The Liberal claim that G. W. Bush is the most hated American president of all time is, in fact, true … if only “progressives”, Islamic Fascists, Europhiles, Communists, and Tyrants are polled.”
That’s really profound. So…if you don’t poll the people who don’t approve of Bush, it turns out people approve of him?
Brilliant analysis.
Jon,
I am glad that you are not interested in a flamewar with me. If you mentioned my name anymore people might actually think you were referring to me, 8 times after you were done with me.
Genocide. Mr. Bush understands it. Apparently millions don’t.
During Lincoln’s presidency, he was criticized for taking what were considered “extra-constitutional measures.” But in the end, the verdict of history is that Lincoln’s use of power did not constitute abuse since every survey of historians ranks Lincoln as number one among the great presidents.
Far harsher would have been his denunciation if the whole American experiment of a democratic Union had failed–as seemed possible given the circumstances. If such a disaster occurred, what benefit would have been gained by adhering to a fallen Constitution? It was a classic example of the age-old conflict in a democracy: how to balance individual rights with security for a nation.
In the words of historian James G. Randall: “No president has carried the power of presidential edict and executive order (independently of Congress) so far as [Lincoln] did…. It would not be easy to state what Lincoln conceived to be the limit of his powers.
In the 80 days that elapsed between Abraham Lincoln’s April 1861 call for troops–the beginning of the Civil War–and the official convening of Congress in special session on July 4, 1861, Lincoln performed a whole series of important acts by sheer assumption of presidential power. Lincoln, without congressional approval, called forth the militia to “suppress said combinations, which he ordered “to disperse and retire peacefully” to their homes. He increased the size of the Army and Navy, expended funds for the purchase of weapons, instituted a blockade–an act of war–and suspended the precious writ of habeas corpus, all without congressional approval.
Lincoln termed these actions not the declaration of “civil war,” but rather the suppression of rebellion. We all know that only Congress is constitutionally empowered to declare war, but suppression of rebellion has been recognized as an executive function, for which the prerogative of setting aside civil procedures has been placed in the President’s hands.
For example, at this very moment, our country is involved in a war with Iraq. The war has not been formally declared. Where Lincoln used the term “suppression of rebellion,” President Bush has couched this effort as a movement to liberate Iraq’s people from their dictator and to prevent acts of terrorism against Americans and the citizens of other countries.
http://tinyurl.com/32ls7
Sound familiar.
I have already made a point of telling my wife on numerous occasions and a few close friends that it will be interesting to see how history will view GWB in 25-50 years, especially when those children of the middle east become adults. Many from the left hope that they will grow up hating America, thus justifying their long held beliefs. I believe history will judge GWB in a far greater light as he will be seen as the first leader of the world to recognize the fight against global Islamofascism.
The average person has a very limited grasp of history, has the attention span of a music video and has not been taught logic or how to interpret events in any context.
We expect to be told what is the correct way of thinking but of course only from approved sources.
How is it that history will judge G.W. favorably? Seriously, how can one arrive at that conclusion based on the body of evidence, both foreign and domestic, as to what is occuring in the U.S….and abroad via the USAs foreign policy blunders that are too numerous to convey.
It amazes me, yet again, when partisanship becomes the prime-mover of ones interpretation of reality & the facts. At what expense? The truth-for one.
G.W. viewed favorably…LOL…plz do not lend me your crystal ball when I am trying to decide…well, decide anything!
Bush alone cannot be blamed for US ME foreign policy vis a vis the Saudi and Egyptian special relationships. This client state policy certainly dates back to the cold war and the necessary balance of influence and power. Not to mention, energy and profits.
However, it seems to me that both Junior and Senior enjoyed this special relationship more than others.
The status quo is invalid. A foreign policy paradigm shift is necessary. It’s obscene that America through aid and oil dependence is engineering its own, if not the west’s demise through Saudi and Egyptian financed conquest strategies (active and passive jihad).
Or is it just a case of keeping your enemies closer?
Irwin,
I believe it is a case of the short term benefits of using Saudi Oil are considered more significant than the long term problems of doing so. What many people miss is that the House of Saud has been in power for a very short time (in ME context). Up to WW2 the Arabian Peninsula was British Controlled.
Personally I think that we’re putting the costs of our Saudi oil dependency on our children. They will be the ones who have to deal with the possible future chaos.
The oil is a decent deal right now, but we’re not considering the externalities of our actions… similar to how Bush didn’t consider the external consequences of going into Iraq. The whole world was behind the war on terror before 5 years ago.
13) Bush managed to destroy the War on Terror alliance by unilaterally invading Iraq.
Bush intended to take the war on terror outside of the US. The number of attacks on US soil since 9/11? Keeping the fanatics fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq seems to have tied up very many dead terrorists. If you believe that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq created only new fighters and the rest took time off from fighting, then yeah Bush screwed up.
If you believe that jihadis flocked to Afghanistan and Iraq to fight US forces then the situation changes.
When Iraq beats the foreign fighters and the internal terrorists in those countries and no US attacks have taken place, that may be the legacy Bush ends up with. Building a democracy in the middle east would be a great legacy.
The US is winning in Iraq. The surge was a success. The political process is working albeit not by western current standards.
Jay, I totally agree with your previous comment. Anyone who thinks America could shrink back into ”
Cold War” mode after having its’ institutions attacked on 9/11 has their head up their butt.
The last major “terrorist” attack on U.S. soil before 9/11 was Pearl Harbour by the Imperial Japanese. The goals of the Japanese back then were nearly identical to those of Islamic extremists today: brutal expansionism and totalitarian control empowered by supremacist ideology. The U.S. won the war with Japan and ended their reign of terror on neighbouring countries only by bringing them to their knees in an unconditional surrender. A cold war would not have stopped Japan’s tyranny, it just would have isolated and weakened the U.S. How different would the world be if the U.S. let Japan “win” and increase the power and influence of their racially hateful and criminally violent society?
As with Imperial Japan, victory against Islamic extremism can only be won if the enemy is pursued where they operate and exteme force is used without hesitation to overwhelm (i.e. War on Terror). There’s no Hiroshima or Nagasaki to quickly break the back of Islamic extremism in their home territory – but victory must be attained over there in order to get what the Japanese gave in the face of obliteration: unconditional surrender. Ultimately that is where peace will come from.
For those of us with our heads on straight, a pointer to something you can wear with pride, secure in the knowledge that for only a couple of dollars, you can make a moonbat’s head explode:
http://www.pinscentral.com/xq/asp/item.009001/Licensee.76545/qx/showproduct.htm
Sorry I cannot seem to post an image.