That George W. Bush would not have done?

This is not about the rhetorical content of speeches - I mean actual actions. I'm genuinely considering this question, and have only come up with a precious few, and small, examples.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 7:36 PM. Reason : Specifying I mean George. W...]

10/9/2009 7:36:26 PM

Bush would've probably given in to Russia too regarding Polish missile defense...cause Putin is his good buddy...Bush probably wouldn't have flown to Denmark to lobby for the Olympics...unless the city in question wasn't Chicago, but instead Crawford, Texas...thats all I got for now

10/9/2009 7:39:23 PM

Well, to reverse things a bit, Bush liberated about 50 million Muslims--Obama hasn't done this and wouldn't do it.

10/9/2009 7:59:03 PM

Sarah H. Palin, Bush did not liberate anyone.

10/9/2009 8:11:21 PM

Saddam was a murderous tyrant, did Bush (with help from Congress of course) not liberate the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant?

10/9/2009 8:16:10 PM

They have not been liberated. Their country has been thrown into ruin and are clawing their way back. Liberation of the Iraqi people is the obligation of the Iraqi people, not an invading foreign power.

10/9/2009 8:21:57 PM

It's debatable, and someone had to facilitate the Iraqi people, you can't overthrow a murderous tyrant on a whim

But we're starting to get off topic

10/9/2009 8:26:20 PM

Why did someone have to do that?

10/9/2009 8:28:30 PM

doesn't really matter

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 8:41 PM. Reason : (assuming you're talking about why did someone have to get off topic)]

10/9/2009 8:41:05 PM

changed perceptions.

hopefully with more talking and diplomacy we'll begin to see more international cooperation on a myriad of issues, particularly the fight against muslim extremists.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 8:58 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2009 8:57:44 PM

^That's what I meant this thread to be about.

Changed perceptions only last so long if the actions are not substantively different. And, right now, they're not. So I'm asking where they are different.

10/9/2009 9:01:05 PM

north korea, iran, russia, muslim world. we're actually TALKING (an action), which is different and the first step.

give it time and let's all cross our fingers that shit starts to get worked out. it won't happen over night, or even over 8 months.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 9:41 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2009 9:40:37 PM

we were talking to North Korea off and on throughout the GWB administration. It was NK who broke the talks off. If you don't think we're holding talks with Iran in private you don't know anything about foreign policy. Our relations with Russia haven't changed much. Reset button and whathaveyou aside, the Russians appreciate strength do not respond to a politician who cannot control a friendly congress. As far as the Muslim world is concerned, much improvement could be had, but at the moment Obama has not demonstrated that he has the political savvy to pull off any tricky deals. He'll develop it eventually, no doubt, but he is still rather naive and amateurish right now.


Bush foreign policy wasn't as horrible as it is made out to be. Unfortunately the unimaginable incompetence with which the war in Iraq was handled rightly overshadows anything else he might have done.

Speaking of incompetence, the very solution for Afghanistan that Joe Biden suggests is the one which failed so horribly in Iraq from 2004 to the surge in 2007.

Quote :

"Liberation of the Iraqi people is the obligation of the Iraqi people, not an invading foreign power."

When you get down to brass tacks, this is the inevitable case.

10/9/2009 11:20:52 PM

IT DEPENDS ON IF YOU MEAN FIRST-TERM BUSH OR SECOND-TERM BUSH.

I DON'T THINK BUSH SHOULD GET CREDIT FOR COMING TO HIS SENSE AFTER FUCKING UP FOR 8 YEARS.

BUT THATS JUST ME!

10/10/2009 12:36:02 AM

I agree about Iraq. I cannot stand when people give him credit for the surge, since that was the policy GEN Shinseki recommended back in 2002 and which was dismissed by Donald Rumsfeld. However, most analyses of his south-east Asian policy and his African policy give him moderately high marks, actually. Iraq rightly overshadows this and set him up for his unpopularity in Europe.

On the other hand, as far as actual changes, Barack Obama has (thus far) not significantly changed the Africa policy, not significantly changed the Iraqi policy, not significantly changed the Afghani policy, given a few speeches in Europe, given the Russians a reset button and worsened our relationship with China.

10/10/2009 8:51:58 AM

i'd say that nixing the missile defense stuff in eastern europe such that russia might work with us more on possible iran sanctions is a concrete step. also beginning to normalize our relations with cuba. and we'll have to see about afghanistan. we should know about that in the next few weeks. also i don't know that we'd have a concrete timeline for drawing down troops in iraq had obama (and others) not pushed for it so hard in '08. and so far at least they are sticking by that (even though the actual timeline is pretty weak because it's only for "combat troops")

10/10/2009 9:03:34 AM

There may be some small changes, but nothing substantial. What happened to the anti-war left? What happened to bringing the troops home? The only group I really hear speaking out against these overseas wars are libertarians, and as always, no one with any political sway cares.

10/10/2009 10:18:50 AM

don't forget, he closed gitmo!

btw, I don't call giving Iran more time to enrich uranium by insisting on "talks" a "positive step."

10/10/2009 2:32:50 PM

^ iran hasn’t started to enrich uranium in the new facility yet.

But, what would be the course of action on Iran that you would be satisfied with, out of curiosity?

10/10/2009 2:59:38 PM

yes. in the NEW facility. That facility is a red-fucking-herring. And everyone knows it

10/10/2009 3:04:56 PM

Quote :

"But, what would be the course of action on Iran that you would be satisfied with, out of curiosity? "

10/10/2009 3:27:52 PM

something other than long, drawn-out talks which serve only to give them more time to do what we don't fucking want them to do. It seems to me that if you don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, then the LAST thing you do is let them stall for time so they can, you know, make a nuclear weapon. durr

10/10/2009 3:36:47 PM

So what you’re saying is that you think we should bomb Iran’s known nuclear facilities right now?

10/10/2009 3:42:39 PM

I think we should put a hell of a lot more pressure on them than we currently are. Something a little more than "please play nice, ok? that makes us sad "

10/10/2009 3:47:25 PM

you're being ridiculously vague. it was a simple question...

10/10/2009 4:49:32 PM

i just wanna know why you switched from sucking W's dick to sucking BHO's dick. Do you just suck whatever dick is currently in the Oval Office?

10/10/2009 5:38:22 PM

me?

clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

10/10/2009 6:23:29 PM

That wasn't already clear?

10/10/2009 6:41:34 PM

How about this: stop fucking enriching uranium. OR WE WILL STOP IT FOR YOU. You have 2 days.

10/10/2009 7:08:51 PM

that sounds prudent. you should be in charge!

10/10/2009 8:38:51 PM

^ it’s sure to work too!

10/10/2009 9:12:14 PM