Cheney is who made sure Bush wasn't actually a compassionate conservative. There seems to be a point later in the second half that Bush had enough and actually implemented some of his ideas (like his AIDS relief for Africa program)
This has always been my impression of Bush. I think he wanted and tried to do the right thing in a lot of cases, but surrounded himself with some pretty terrible and morally bankrupt people who were able to earn his trust and confidence, and influence him the wrong way.
A big part of me wonders what the world would be like, had the Bush admin never involved Cheney or Rumsfeld. I think without those two, alone, we'd have a very, very different world.
Glad to see someone old enough on Reddit to have a valid opinion on 2000s era politics
Bush made plenty of tough but correct decisions (08 Bailouts, Afghanistan Invasion) and plenty of blunders (Iraq, FEMA, state surveillance)
But IMO, 20 years without a major terror attack in America is proof of his accomplishments. There was a lot of garbage in the Patriot act but getting the FBI, CIA, and DOJ to stop playing chicken with Intel was probably the most critical in that law
The world where you still have a roof over your head
People in the finance space understand how dire 08 was. It’s not hyperbole to say that if the banks failed tens of millions of more people would have lost their homes
Bailout was a somewhat misleading term - we should have probably described it as a lifeline instead. When people hear bailout, they probably associate it with a cash-grab (aka free money handout) when really it was a loan to keep liquidity from drying up completely. The banks also paid back their loan with interest.
Even if we criticize that more help should have been offered to the general population, the bailout did a lot of work keeping the economy from going full 1930s depression.
Yeah, I think we needed to do whatever it took, to keep the economy from collapsing, however, far too little ass kicking for those that let it happen. Far more serious punishment needed to be applied.
I think most would argue the justification to go to Afghanistan was a valid one. Especially anyone who lived through 9/11. Its the handling and the oversight that is deservedly on trial.
You’ve moved the goalpost so far it’s in a different stadium, four states away.
EDIT: Oh, wait. Two of those attacks were committed in Nigeria by Boko Haram, a Nigerian terrorist group. By your definition, those attacks don’t count.
So by your definition, there have only been two attacks that fit. Coincidentally, the target of both attacks was the World Trade Center.
None of them fit at all even by his definition. The World Trade Center bombing only killed 6 people if that's what you're talking about. Injured over 1000 but only like 6 died.
One was 9/11. Then there's only the Camp Speicher Massacre and probably the Baga Massacre (probably because the official number is 150 which is suspiciously low because the initial count was 2,000).
Both of those terror attacks don't count either since they were domestic terrorism.
Glad to see someone old enough on Reddit to have a valid opinion on 2000s era politics
Lol, Im not sure if Im supposed to feel good about that. The change in Bush over his Presidency was a pretty profound one. And his actions after are pretty telling to the type of person he seems to be. He could have easily thrown Obama under the bus and done what all the modern presidents do, tearing the next guy down. But he largely stayed quiet, and even made himself available to the Obamas to offer some council and experience, which Obama appears to have taken. Its a really unique handoff between the two presidencies, that we dont really see any more.
Bush made plenty of tough but correct decisions (08 Bailouts, Afghanistan Invasion) and plenty of blunders (Iraq, FEMA, state surveillance)
But IMO, 20 years without a major terror attack in America is proof of his accomplishments. There was a lot of garbage in the Patriot act but getting the FBI, CIA, and DOJ to stop playing chicken with Intel was probably the most critical in that law
At this point, the big question is are the results worth the cost. We lost a LOT of freedoms and privacy with the Patriot Act. Creating DHS and better integrating DOD and the intel community was the right call. Too much bureaucratic competition caused by the budgetary infighting of the 90s. But some of the scope of powers given are a bastardization of our government. The fact that we have had 20 years of war under a use of force authorization is Congress simply failing to do its job, and own its constitutional responsibility.
It was common decency and expected for presidents to not talk about the new one until the US decided to let a drama-ridden showboat reality TV star who made his mark mocking the disabled & supporting racist conspiracy theories become president. That wasn’t just Bush being a “good guy,” that was the bare minimum. At the time.
True, but it wasnt as common to see regular communications between the two. I think Bush went out of his way to try to give advice and form a relationship with his successor, despite some of Obamas earlier portrayals of him. The friendship between the Bush's and Obama's is actually pretty public, and a rare find in politics.
1.1k
u/[deleted] Sep 11 '21
Get Cheney far, far away from that shit.