5 ms·

Bush: Terrible President, Also Not a Smart Man

4 points by kareemm 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago
It seems Bush's supporters are once again arguing that he was misunderestimated.
kbenson 14y ago
I'm not what anyone would call a Bush supporter, but the portion where they veer into personal attacks on his intelligence seems a bit out of place, if only for how low it stoops. I think that argument could have been framed much better. To me, it seems like he's someone that easily gets flustered when speaking publicly, and has the unfortunate habit of digging in when he feels threatened (and he probably got overly sensitive to feeling threatened as time went on and he was mocked for his speaking. It's also probably partly me. I would rather look for an explanation that doesn't entail him being an imbecile. Regardless of whether I liked or approved of him, I most definitely don't like the idea that we were lead by a moron for eight years, and what that implies about the country and populace that elected him - twice (depending on your view, I guess).
amalag 14y ago
I think one needs only to look at this paintings to decide for oneself.
rebelidealist 14y ago
Some who worked with him claimed he gave off an impression of an "extraordinarily intelligent" man. http://www.quora.com/George-W-Bush/What-is-George-W-Bush-really-like-in-one-on-one-conversation http://www.quora.com/George-W-Bush/What-is-George-W-Bush-rea...
venomsnake 14y ago
The greatest achievement of Bush is giving high quality material for Jon Stewart to work with. Whether his personal intelligence was high or low is irrelevant. But he handled almost any issue with the grace of a monkey with a wrench in a glass castle. With similar results. And he never had any real crisis to deal with. Terrorism while tragic is not a serious geopolitical treat and 9/11 should have been treated like Katrina and not Pearl Harbor(Perpetrators and masterminds and collaborators should have been brought to justice but the Eichmann way - kidnap and trial, as Obama proved the US president have long hands) Mishandling of the financial crisis also didn't help. The decade that US was focused only on terrorism is a wasted time. There could have been much achieved otherwise. Maybe Bush was held hostage by the hardliners in his party that completely took over the party after 2008 - that is argument I can accept and would have made decent Democratic president - he was never openly hostile towards the less fortunate. But his legacy is like so - a wasted decade, 2 infinite wars, more american lives lost in the war on terror than the 9/11 attack themselves, loss of money that could have fixed almost everything in US,the beginning of the erosion of the civil liberties and a financial meltdown.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  > Terrorism while tragic is not a serious geopolitical treat and 9/11 should have been treated like Katrina I think that's the first time I've seen the handling of Katrina held up as a positive model that anything else should reflect. I'd maybe understand "9/11 should have been handled the way Katrina should have been handled", but even then the two are so disparate in character that it wouldn't be clear what the analogy really meant in any kind of concrete terms.
  - venomsnake 14y ago
    I meant Katrina as a mark in the national debate/ conscience. Tragic one off event, which while we should try our best to avoid does not bring enough substance to be the pillar, let alone the foundation of the policies afterwards. The handling of Katrina was terrible, but for various reasons the event did not scar the public deeply. Maybe because no one could figure out how to (ab)use it for media whoring and free pass for every legislation.

4 points by kareemm 14y ago

It seems Bush's supporters are once again arguing that he was misunderestimated.

I'm not what anyone would call a Bush supporter, but the portion where they veer into personal attacks on his intelligence seems a bit out of place, if only for how low it stoops. I think that argument could have been framed much better. To me, it seems like he's someone that easily gets flustered when speaking publicly, and has the unfortunate habit of digging in when he feels threatened (and he probably got overly sensitive to feeling threatened as time went on and he was mocked for his speaking. It's also probably partly me. I would rather look for an explanation that doesn't entail him being an imbecile. Regardless of whether I liked or approved of him, I most definitely don't like the idea that we were lead by a moron for eight years, and what that implies about the country and populace that elected him - twice (depending on your view, I guess).

amalag 14y ago

I think one needs only to look at this paintings to decide for oneself.

rebelidealist 14y ago

Some who worked with him claimed he gave off an impression of an "extraordinarily intelligent" man. http://www.quora.com/George-W-Bush/What-is-George-W-Bush-really-like-in-one-on-one-conversation http://www.quora.com/George-W-Bush/What-is-George-W-Bush-rea...

venomsnake 14y ago

The greatest achievement of Bush is giving high quality material for Jon Stewart to work with. Whether his personal intelligence was high or low is irrelevant. But he handled almost any issue with the grace of a monkey with a wrench in a glass castle. With similar results. And he never had any real crisis to deal with. Terrorism while tragic is not a serious geopolitical treat and 9/11 should have been treated like Katrina and not Pearl Harbor(Perpetrators and masterminds and collaborators should have been brought to justice but the Eichmann way - kidnap and trial, as Obama proved the US president have long hands) Mishandling of the financial crisis also didn't help. The decade that US was focused only on terrorism is a wasted time. There could have been much achieved otherwise. Maybe Bush was held hostage by the hardliners in his party that completely took over the party after 2008 - that is argument I can accept and would have made decent Democratic president - he was never openly hostile towards the less fortunate. But his legacy is like so - a wasted decade, 2 infinite wars, more american lives lost in the war on terror than the 9/11 attack themselves, loss of money that could have fixed almost everything in US,the beginning of the erosion of the civil liberties and a financial meltdown.

dragonwriter 14y ago
> Terrorism while tragic is not a serious geopolitical treat and 9/11 should have been treated like Katrina I think that's the first time I've seen the handling of Katrina held up as a positive model that anything else should reflect. I'd maybe understand "9/11 should have been handled the way Katrina should have been handled", but even then the two are so disparate in character that it wouldn't be clear what the analogy really meant in any kind of concrete terms.
- venomsnake 14y ago
  I meant Katrina as a mark in the national debate/ conscience. Tragic one off event, which while we should try our best to avoid does not bring enough substance to be the pillar, let alone the foundation of the policies afterwards. The handling of Katrina was terrible, but for various reasons the event did not scar the public deeply. Maybe because no one could figure out how to (ab)use it for media whoring and free pass for every legislation.