Originally Posted by oo87
I don't think Bush was qualified to have been in power for as long as he was. Several of the problems we are now facing would not have happened, because it was on the authority of Bush and his Administration that certain misinformation was released and actions were taken.
However, however much I dislike the man, whatever negativity I feel towards his abilities as a President, and whatever I do think is his fault, I don't feel it all necessarily is. For instance, the economy is not a Bush issue, and I don't think that the war has anything to do with it. The deficit, yes, the stock market, no.
We were headed this way a long time ago, and no one took steps to prevent it, and for whatever warnings certain politicians gave (Biden, Clinton, McCain, ect.), they never made a major push to fix things while there was still time. The housing market is a good example. More steps should have been taken during and after the Clinton administration to assure that multitude of houses that were built during that time would be filled, and on mortgages people could keep.
In any case, I don't think there is any reason to defend Bush. His greed has been apparent for years, and his reasons for entering Iraq were not about getting rid of Saddam Hussein for the sake of anyone else, US or Iraqi. After all, look at Cheney's continued involvement with foreign oil, and Bush's families relationship with prominent families in the same line. Not to mention his past positions working for oil companies.
I think we can all see the motivation, and pretending it was a good move for the sake of Democracy is turning into something noble when it clearly wasn't. He doesn't deserve the credit of "meaning well".
|