The Bush-Obama Embarrassment
July 11th, 2014
Author: Tom Tiede
A recent survey of 1,446 voters suggests than Barack Obama is the least effective United States president since World War II, a few percentage points above his predecessor George W. Bush. Except for the order of the names, the condemnation seems spot on. The two men are historic losers, if for different reasons. Obama is a well meaning speechifier without decisive leadership skills; Bush is an arrogantly egocentric individual disinterested in human welfare.
Together they have manifestly conspired, albeit without intent, to unravel the state. In the space of their four terms in office they have presided over the economic ruin of millions of residents thrown out of work, they have sacrificed 6,700 military troops and forfeited trillions of dollars in an unwinnable “war on terrorism,” and they have turned the federal government into a repulsive device for recording everyone’s computer clicks and telephone conversations. Et cetera.
The writer has been a witness to Americana since WW-II.
In terms of mismanagement, the Bush-Obama moment is the worst I’ve known.
The war itself, certainly, was the most trying U.S. period. But the presidents in office during the struggle were competent men, and, one, Franklin Roosevelt, was among the premier leaders in the nation’s history. Also, the American people remained united during the hostilities; families were broken up, food was rationed, death was always at the door, but everything worked, including government, and the public spirit set the stage for the nation’s post-war preeminence.
Now the values created or reinforced then have largely been shaken. Many actors have contributed to the circumstances, yet it’s fair to cite the Bush-0bama administrations as the generalized villains. Not in memory have two Americans of such stature pursued so many injurious national activities and damn-well evil policies. The result has been a savaging even of their office; Bush shamed it with cowboy violence, Obama has reduced it in world influence.
It says here that Bush is most to blame because he not only dismissed U.S. advancement during his time in the White House, but set up much of the soiled turmoil which Obama would inherit and haplessly fail to redress. As what used to be called “leader of the free world,” Bush was a massive disaster. The instigator of two of the country’s longest, most useless wars, he put in motion what will eventually be the spending of $5 trillion in the effort; that works out to $100,000 for every ballot he got in his 2000 election, an election where he lost the popular vote.*
Few would question, even now, the first part of the Bush invasion of Afghanistan. The nation had absorbed a painful attack (9/11) from terrorists given haven in that state, and some sort of retaliation was all but a Washington duty. Yet Bush (and his odious vice president, Dick Cheney) would insist on institutionalizing the bloodshed by tying America to Afghanistan’s future and so bankrolling what remains today, 12 years later, a failed, corrupt, barbaric land. Even the principled beginning is now for naught; the terrorists have retaken hold in much of the country.
The wasted energy in Iraq did not so much as have a principled beginning. That nation had nothing to do with 9/11. Nor did it pose a credible threat to American interest or allies. To this day there has been no rational explanation why Bush went into Bagdad. The White House claimed then that the idea was to eliminate Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction,” but few in authority believe the nation had them (it didn’t). So it became merely a war against one man, dictator Saddam Hussein, and the grotesque result today is that his nation is poorer without him.
Meantime, as the killing continued, the U.S. economy crumbled. The cost of the wars contributed to excessive spending that fostered the euphoria that led to recession. When Bush was first elected the country had a budget surplus of $300 billion; by the time he left office the plus had turned into a $1.2 trillion deficit. Too, as that crisis mounted, and as war bitterness also began to grip the nation, Bush shifted into a retirement mode. Never a student of statecraft, or anything else involving intellect, he dropped out and in his last year became incidental to governance.
It can at least be said that, at the end, Bush was the same man he’d always been No one ever thought of him as much more than a tolerable mediocre, a political consideration only by way of his presidential father. Not so for his replacement. B. Obama flew into office on a wind of public exhilaration. He was seen as a hopeful force of energy who would re-ignite America. He said in soaring rhetoric he would end the wars, reduce the debt, cut poverty, shrink growing financial inequality, clear the Guantanamo jails, and get a grip on climate change. Et cetera II.
No presidential candidate has ever made so many promises, thus no candidate reaching the office has ever broken so many. He took three years to pull troops from Iraq, and a U.S. force will remain in Afghanistan until (at least) the end of his presidency. He has not reduced the debt, but is on track to double it (it was $10.6 trillion when he took power, and is now $17.5 trillion). Also: prisoners remain at Guantanamo, inequality has risen to levels not seen in near a century, poverty numbers are the highest in 50 years, and action on climate change is, well, what do you think?
Even the one major promise he has kept, expanded health insurance, has turned into a weight around the nation’s neck. He spent all of his political capital on an issue that has served in the main to increase the country’s philosophical divide. Polls say that only four in ten Americans support Obamacare; conservatives (and not just the nuts) believe it will increase medical costs by $600 billion in its first 10 years (a rate of $7,000 for every family of four); and progressives groan that, after it’s fully implemented, 30 million people will still be without adequate insurance.
Perhaps even worse than all this, Obama has in a matter of fewer than six years contributed mightily to the erosion of the international U.S. influence that the nation carried out of WW-II. It’s true that Bush started it, by alienating both the good and bad sides of the Arab world, but Obama has now added many traditional allies to the mix. Unless he can shoot a drone at someone, he is a man who has yet to find a common cause to fight for (Syria, Ukraine). Europe has been humiliated by his loud-voice “pivot” to Asian interests, and Asians shrug that they see no real sign of it. Even U.S. government reports say the country’s place on the planet is declining.
The decline, alas, is physically obvious. The Bush-Obama Incompetence Team has done little if anything to prevent the 51 states from rotting within. One estimate is that $2 trillion is immediately needed to repair the nation’s infrastructure (bridges, roads, public transport). Police agencies have become so unseasonably armed that they constitute one of the largest unofficial militas on the globe. Congress is paralyzed by ideological fanaticism, environmental neglect has developed into a serious threat to human health, and government and the people share a burgeoning distrust for one another. The legacy, then, of the two men most responsible for this shameful state of affairs, is this: polling numbers imply that every other American presently thinks the nation is less important and muscular that it was before G. Bush and B. Obama butted in.
* True confessions: the writer voted for him, an error that should send him to hell.
July 11th, 2014
Author: Tom Tiede
A recent survey of 1,446 voters suggests than Barack Obama is the least effective United States president since World War II, a few percentage points above his predecessor George W. Bush. Except for the order of the names, the condemnation seems spot on. The two men are historic losers, if for different reasons. Obama is a well meaning speechifier without decisive leadership skills; Bush is an arrogantly egocentric individual disinterested in human welfare.
Together they have manifestly conspired, albeit without intent, to unravel the state. In the space of their four terms in office they have presided over the economic ruin of millions of residents thrown out of work, they have sacrificed 6,700 military troops and forfeited trillions of dollars in an unwinnable “war on terrorism,” and they have turned the federal government into a repulsive device for recording everyone’s computer clicks and telephone conversations. Et cetera.
The writer has been a witness to Americana since WW-II.
In terms of mismanagement, the Bush-Obama moment is the worst I’ve known.
The war itself, certainly, was the most trying U.S. period. But the presidents in office during the struggle were competent men, and, one, Franklin Roosevelt, was among the premier leaders in the nation’s history. Also, the American people remained united during the hostilities; families were broken up, food was rationed, death was always at the door, but everything worked, including government, and the public spirit set the stage for the nation’s post-war preeminence.
Now the values created or reinforced then have largely been shaken. Many actors have contributed to the circumstances, yet it’s fair to cite the Bush-0bama administrations as the generalized villains. Not in memory have two Americans of such stature pursued so many injurious national activities and damn-well evil policies. The result has been a savaging even of their office; Bush shamed it with cowboy violence, Obama has reduced it in world influence.
It says here that Bush is most to blame because he not only dismissed U.S. advancement during his time in the White House, but set up much of the soiled turmoil which Obama would inherit and haplessly fail to redress. As what used to be called “leader of the free world,” Bush was a massive disaster. The instigator of two of the country’s longest, most useless wars, he put in motion what will eventually be the spending of $5 trillion in the effort; that works out to $100,000 for every ballot he got in his 2000 election, an election where he lost the popular vote.*
Few would question, even now, the first part of the Bush invasion of Afghanistan. The nation had absorbed a painful attack (9/11) from terrorists given haven in that state, and some sort of retaliation was all but a Washington duty. Yet Bush (and his odious vice president, Dick Cheney) would insist on institutionalizing the bloodshed by tying America to Afghanistan’s future and so bankrolling what remains today, 12 years later, a failed, corrupt, barbaric land. Even the principled beginning is now for naught; the terrorists have retaken hold in much of the country.
The wasted energy in Iraq did not so much as have a principled beginning. That nation had nothing to do with 9/11. Nor did it pose a credible threat to American interest or allies. To this day there has been no rational explanation why Bush went into Bagdad. The White House claimed then that the idea was to eliminate Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction,” but few in authority believe the nation had them (it didn’t). So it became merely a war against one man, dictator Saddam Hussein, and the grotesque result today is that his nation is poorer without him.
Meantime, as the killing continued, the U.S. economy crumbled. The cost of the wars contributed to excessive spending that fostered the euphoria that led to recession. When Bush was first elected the country had a budget surplus of $300 billion; by the time he left office the plus had turned into a $1.2 trillion deficit. Too, as that crisis mounted, and as war bitterness also began to grip the nation, Bush shifted into a retirement mode. Never a student of statecraft, or anything else involving intellect, he dropped out and in his last year became incidental to governance.
It can at least be said that, at the end, Bush was the same man he’d always been No one ever thought of him as much more than a tolerable mediocre, a political consideration only by way of his presidential father. Not so for his replacement. B. Obama flew into office on a wind of public exhilaration. He was seen as a hopeful force of energy who would re-ignite America. He said in soaring rhetoric he would end the wars, reduce the debt, cut poverty, shrink growing financial inequality, clear the Guantanamo jails, and get a grip on climate change. Et cetera II.
No presidential candidate has ever made so many promises, thus no candidate reaching the office has ever broken so many. He took three years to pull troops from Iraq, and a U.S. force will remain in Afghanistan until (at least) the end of his presidency. He has not reduced the debt, but is on track to double it (it was $10.6 trillion when he took power, and is now $17.5 trillion). Also: prisoners remain at Guantanamo, inequality has risen to levels not seen in near a century, poverty numbers are the highest in 50 years, and action on climate change is, well, what do you think?
Even the one major promise he has kept, expanded health insurance, has turned into a weight around the nation’s neck. He spent all of his political capital on an issue that has served in the main to increase the country’s philosophical divide. Polls say that only four in ten Americans support Obamacare; conservatives (and not just the nuts) believe it will increase medical costs by $600 billion in its first 10 years (a rate of $7,000 for every family of four); and progressives groan that, after it’s fully implemented, 30 million people will still be without adequate insurance.
Perhaps even worse than all this, Obama has in a matter of fewer than six years contributed mightily to the erosion of the international U.S. influence that the nation carried out of WW-II. It’s true that Bush started it, by alienating both the good and bad sides of the Arab world, but Obama has now added many traditional allies to the mix. Unless he can shoot a drone at someone, he is a man who has yet to find a common cause to fight for (Syria, Ukraine). Europe has been humiliated by his loud-voice “pivot” to Asian interests, and Asians shrug that they see no real sign of it. Even U.S. government reports say the country’s place on the planet is declining.
The decline, alas, is physically obvious. The Bush-Obama Incompetence Team has done little if anything to prevent the 51 states from rotting within. One estimate is that $2 trillion is immediately needed to repair the nation’s infrastructure (bridges, roads, public transport). Police agencies have become so unseasonably armed that they constitute one of the largest unofficial militas on the globe. Congress is paralyzed by ideological fanaticism, environmental neglect has developed into a serious threat to human health, and government and the people share a burgeoning distrust for one another. The legacy, then, of the two men most responsible for this shameful state of affairs, is this: polling numbers imply that every other American presently thinks the nation is less important and muscular that it was before G. Bush and B. Obama butted in.
* True confessions: the writer voted for him, an error that should send him to hell.