Forums | MacLife

Oh I have a positive aspect. It's almost over.

It's good NCLB did bring attention and demand an accounting but beyond that it was a monumental failure. Also the US Government under Bush pretty much just jumped on the bandwagon after other entities started providing funding first.

The only Bush policy I can recall agreeing with didn't get through Congress so...
no.

Wasn't quite as extreme as Adolf Hitler?

So was Bush for that, as I recall?

If memory serves I didn't really care.

It got Obama elected.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

How specifically did he prevent further terrorist attacks?

The Bush Administration implemented numerous policies that worked.
I've been asked for examples and gave a slew of them before, well documented. Search the forum archives if you really don't think so.

On the other side of the ledger, the Bush administration has successfully launched the Proliferation Security Initiative.  Libya has renounced attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.  As a consequence, it was no longer possible for the Government of Pakistan to deny the existence of a nuclear supply network centered around A. Q. Khan.  Khan has been sidelined, and at least parts of the network have been rolled up.  How much of the network remain uncovered, how easily it could be replicated, and how many others in Pakistan were involved or aware of the network remain open questions.  Thanks to U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan, al Qaeda cells, which continue to seek the deadliest, indiscriminate weapons, must now do so under more difficult circumstances.  While willing recruits in the Islamic world have grown, their safe havens have shrunk.  And Saddam and Sons will not be around to seek nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons – although a subsequent Iraqi government might well choose to do so in response to Iranian programs.

Credit must be given to the Bush administration for these successes, even though we cannot judge their long-term effects.

http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=138

There's some more damper in your attempt at a circle jerk.
And that article is hardly kind to Bush - read the paragraph before what I quoted and a few after.

All I can really think of are the lulz.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

How specifically did he prevent further terrorist attacks?

The Bush Administration implemented numerous policies that worked.

There is a difference between cause & effect and coincidence. I think the jury is going to be out a long time on those.

I don't think history will vindicate him on much, tho. Usually it runs the other way as docs become declassified over ensuing decades. And he's still arguing for the wisdom of the free market and deregulation when even Alan Greenspan is shocked at its failure.

Seems he's an old dog you can't teach. Blind faith plays a part too, I think.

daemon wrote:

Even if you give him 'credit' for keeping terrorists limited to the anthrax scare, the price was a far too costly shredding of the Constitution PLUS the forever war.

Frankly, I deem it too expensive. THat doesn't make it 'good'. imvho.

//pulls a trick from schnickies bag

How specifically did he shred the Constitution?

resedit wrote:

He seems to have done a pretty good job at preventing any further terrorist attacks on US soil.

After 9/11 there was the anthrax thing. Anything after that?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

An effective reorganization of the intelligence community, tearing down some of the walls that prevented information sharing in the past.