What did a GWB Presidency look like?

[Berkut]

I think in regards to the Iraq war, close on we look at history as the actions of people pushing things. IE, we went to war with Iraq because Bush lied!

As you get a longer view, history tends to look at underlying factors, with the players (often) being seen as more the people shaping specifics rather then driving the broad strokes. I think the Arab Spring and other things have made people less interested in casting Iraq War 2.0 as some kind of evil plot by the NeoCons and more recognition that it was the outcome of larger forces at play. This was something that I said even at the time - Iraq was never "stable". It was a powder keg whose lid was held tightly down by a brutally authoritarian dictator. It was no more stable than Yugoslavia was under Tito, probably a lot less so in fact. Saddams antics that led to the second war was part of his need to keep the lid on that powder keg.

I suspect in the long run, nobody will look at the the second round of the Iraq war as something driven by some personalities anymore than people look at WW1 and say that it was started because the Kaiser did this or didn't do that. Even Saddam was playing to forces beyond his own control.

And yeah....Trump has certainly made everyone look one hell of a lot better. And the Shrubbery's second term was a lot better than his first (once he ejected the Anti-Christ from his cabinet).

[crazy canuck]

If the larger forces at play you are referring to are the lying neo cons who caused the US to go to war, then yeah, we are in agreement.

[Berkut]

If the larger forces at play you are referring to are the lying neo cons who caused the US to go to war, then yeah, we are in agreement.

I knew I could count on someone to come along and insist that no, there are no other forces at play in anything other than the designated "EVIL PERSON" you need to make sure stays satisfyingly vilified.

And I was betting with someone that it would be you first. Thanks for the $10!

[PJL]

If the larger forces at play you are referring to are the lying neo cons who caused the US to go to war, then yeah, we are in agreement.

I knew I could count on someone to come along and insist that no, there are no other forces at play in anything other than the designated "EVIL PERSON" you need to make sure stays satisfyingly vilified.

And I was betting with someone that it would be you first. Thanks for the $10!

But the neocons in the Bush admin were largely responsible for causing the second Gulf War if only because they initiated the moves towards it. The fact that Saddam feared his internal opposition more than the West in gambling it was a bluff was in retrospect due to his weaker than suspected position in Iraq (though that was a lot to do with the sanctions of course), and which caused the final trigger for war. To be honest I think Saddam had a point.

[The Brain]

I think in regards to the Iraq war, close on we look at history as the actions of people pushing things. IE, we went to war with Iraq because Bush lied!

As you get a longer view, history tends to look at underlying factors, with the players (often) being seen as more the people shaping specifics rather then driving the broad strokes. I think the Arab Spring and other things have made people less interested in casting Iraq War 2.0 as some kind of evil plot by the NeoCons and more recognition that it was the outcome of larger forces at play. This was something that I said even at the time - Iraq was never "stable". It was a powder keg whose lid was held tightly down by a brutally authoritarian dictator. It was no more stable than Yugoslavia was under Tito, probably a lot less so in fact. Saddams antics that led to the second war was part of his need to keep the lid on that powder keg.

I suspect in the long run, nobody will look at the the second round of the Iraq war as something driven by some personalities anymore than people look at WW1 and say that it was started because the Kaiser did this or didn't do that. Even Saddam was playing to forces beyond his own control.

And yeah....Trump has certainly made everyone look one hell of a lot better. And the Shrubbery's second term was a lot better than his first (once he ejected the Anti-Christ from his cabinet).

Is the argument that the US would get militarily involved in Iraq anyway after a "natural" fall of the Saddam regime?

[crazy canuck]

If the larger forces at play you are referring to are the lying neo cons who caused the US to go to war, then yeah, we are in agreement.

I knew I could count on someone to come along and insist that no, there are no other forces at play in anything other than the designated "EVIL PERSON" you need to make sure stays satisfyingly vilified.

And I was betting with someone that it would be you first. Thanks for the $10!

I call you ever time you make a post trying to downplay the US leading the world to war in the Gulf.  And yes, you can count on me to continue to call bullshit on you whenever you try to do it.

[Barrister]

Okay, time to shut down Languish.

We've finally circled back to arguing about the start of the Iraq War.

We've finally run out of topics and are repeating ourselves.

[Razgovory]

His current favorability ratings are for him as a person, not a president.  His presidency was the beginning of Trumpism.  As MM and Syt point out, he seemed even at the time to be a guy in over his head, listening to the wrong people.  He certainly had one of the worst administrations in history.

Kinda like US Grant.

I agree with this.  Bush was not an amoral man though he did do some terrible things.  He is now compared to Trump who was is a rotten human being in addition to doing terrible things.  I agree that his Presidency would herald the rise of Donald Trump, but it was a reaction to Bush's failures rather than something he was deliberately doing.  The American conservative movement basically died in 2008.

[Tonitrus]

That's why I posted the video, as the inspiring line from GWB fit very well...DG floated a rumor, and it caused CC to ask a question.  That's the trap. 

[Tonitrus]

I don't think GWB really did anything that appreciably added to the rise of Trump.  You can probably trace that all the way back to Nixon and the Southern strategy.  Rush Limbaugh probably had more influence on that than GW. 

[Sheilbh]

I don't think GWB really did anything that appreciably added to the rise of Trump.  You can probably trace that all the way back to Nixon and the Southern strategy.  Rush Limbaugh probably had more influence on that than GW.

Iraq.

[Tonitrus]

I don't think Iraq had much to do with Trump's rise at all.  I could imagine Trumpism coming around even if it never happened.

[The Minsky Moment]

Trump's rise stems from the Tea Party rise in the early Obama years and the GOP's fatal decision to ride the tail of that tiger.

[Admiral Yi]

I think the origin of Trumpism lies in the climate change debate.  The first time Republicans adopted alternate facts.

[Sheilbh]

I think the origin of Trumpism lies in the climate change debate.  The first time Republicans adopted alternate facts.

Love this.