Switch the presidential terms of Bush and Obama...

Hugh Freaking Dillon

In light of all the recent Bush and Obama bashing going on around here from both sides, I thought it would be interesting to see how both sides would see the other's president reacting to their situations. In understanding them, I think it's important to put them in each other's shoes.

If Bush and Obama had their presidential terms at each other's times, how would the US (and the world) be different?

-how would Obama have reacted to 9/11? Would the US have attacked Iraq, and subsequently allowed the death of Saddam? If not, would the US have the same international standing in the world, positive or negative?

-how would Bush have dealt or not dealt with the financial crisis left by Obama in the wake of the war(s)?

cincybearcat

A great question, I wish we could run a realistic simulator to see what would have really happened. It's easy to say what should or shouldn't be done when you don't have to actually make the choices.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

and I think it's an important question for anyone who has criticized either of them (myself included).

cincybearcat wrote:

A great question, I wish we could run a realistic simulator to see what would have really happened. It's easy to say what should or shouldn't be done when you don't have to actually make the choices.

gimmesometruth27

this all depends, was obama appointed to the presidency by the supreme court, and was his brother the governor of florida? because if those things did not happen bush would have never happened to this country in the first place..

Hugh Freaking Dillon

oh, gimme, you are taking it a little further than I was going for. Just quick and dirty, if Obama was president during Bush's term, how do you think he would have reacted to 9/11? do you think he would have gone to war with Iraq? I know it's tough to speculate, but based on his current policies, what do you think? And what do you think Bush would have done with the economy had he inherited his own mess?

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this all depends, was obama appointed to the presidency by the supreme court, and was his brother the governor of florida? because if those things did not happen bush would have never happened to this country in the first place..

VINNY GOOMBA

Assuming Bush's deciscions about invading Iraq came from (bad) intelligence about the WMDs, I believe Obama would have reacted the same, if he trusts his intelligence reporting, which I believe he does. Had Iraq not been such a terrible disaster, I believe Bush would have also invaded Iran. I also believe that better results in Iraq would have either Bush or Obama invading Iran.

Since THE FED is above all to blame for the economy being in shambles, Bush's solutions to the economy would have been more bad Keynesian policies-- more "regulation" of businesses, more inflation, more regulators, AND NO REGULATION OF THE REGULATORS.

Bush and Obama work for the same people, and that is not the American public.

BrianG

No way would obama have gone to war in Iraq. He probably would have pulled a clinton when we would get attacked during his administration. He might have lobbed a few missiles into a pharmaceutical factory as clinton did. the clinton administration allowed continuing escalation of attacks against us to go largely without a response. Obama would have apologized for us being such a dastardly nation that invited such an attack upon us and tried to make friends with our enemies.

As for Bush handling of the economy we have right now, well i can promise his focus would not have been to pass a healthcare bill which was not read by those who voted for it that has had the effect of causing business to significantly pull back any potential hiring due to the hostile attitude toward business that currently exists in the white house. I feel safe in saying he would have focused on the economy and creating an environment to get people back to work and he would not have ignored that to focus on his ideological agenda at the expense of the american people. but hey, we do have 99 weeks of unemployment coverage so that really encourages people to try hard to find a job i know.......why try to start a business on your own with all the red tape and regulation required especially when you can get paid to do nothing for two years.....

ahh, but my biases all show through here.......the only good thing about this president is that Ed no longer feels the need to talk about how terrible the president is during the shows. stick to the music, which is why i fell in love with the band in the first place......so that has been a nice side effect of a failed presidency to date...

cheers! here is to the upcoming 2011 tour and all the good times to be had which will make all the political bull sh.. fade into the distance.

Jeanwah

.

Godfather.

Paul David wrote:

In light of all the recent Bush and Obama bashing going on around here from both sides, I thought it would be interesting to see how both sides would see the other's president reacting to their situations. In understanding them, I think it's important to put them in each other's shoes.

If Bush and Obama had their presidential terms at each other's times, how would the US (and the world) be different?

-how would Obama have reacted to 9/11? Would the US have attacked Iraq, and subsequently allowed the death of Saddam? If not, would the US have the same international standing in the world, positive or negative?

-how would Bush have dealt or not dealt with the financial crisis left by Obama in the wake of the war(s)?

I think I would rather have Clinton in Obamas time slot only because things were great when we had slick Willy in office,I honestly couldn't say why or if he help create a good economy it just was though.

hard call to make on the Bush time slot but Obama has done his thing carrying over into the Afghan war so who really knows how obama would have handled that issue but one things for sure ,,Obama will never be the same man he was before his presidency.

also with all the craziness that is politics ya gotta wonder at what level is Bush still involved I mean as far as this war we can't seem to get out of.

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27

bush like all former presidents is able to get a copy of the daily intelligence briefings, the same ones that the current president gets every day. so all former presidents are involved at some level if they receive those and if they choose to be. i am not sure if gw bush gets them, but his dad was the first one to choose to get them every day...i guess he never could leave CIA mode...even if gwb gets them every day, if they missed "bin laden determined to strike buildings in the united states", i doubt that there is anything else he would read further into either.

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

bush like all former presidents is able to get a copy of the daily intelligence briefings, the same ones that the current president gets every day. so all former presidents are involved at some level if they receive those and if they choose to be. i am not sure if gw bush gets them, but his dad was the first one to choose to get them every day...i guess he never could leave CIA mode...even if gwb gets them every day, if they missed "bin laden determined to strike buildings in the united states", i doubt that there is anything else he would read further into either.

the reason I ask is because of all the secrete society stuff like the skull and bones that a lot of the presidents were/are connected to also the free masons,I mean is it possible that Reagan was shot caller up till his mental collapse and is it possible that Bush is still in some way calling the shots at some level ? nothing surprises me anymore but it sure would be interesting to know things like this.

Godfather.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I think Bush's admin has received a lot of flack for the "warnings" of the imminent threat before 9/11, but don't they get intelligence like that on a nearly hourly basis that all turn out to be false? how could they have known that was actually going to happen?

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

bush like all former presidents is able to get a copy of the daily intelligence briefings, the same ones that the current president gets every day. so all former presidents are involved at some level if they receive those and if they choose to be. i am not sure if gw bush gets them, but his dad was the first one to choose to get them every day...i guess he never could leave CIA mode...even if gwb gets them every day, if they missed "bin laden determined to strike buildings in the united states", i doubt that there is anything else he would read further into either.

catefrances

they couldnt know it was actually going to happen and thats why they shouldve done more than they did because they couldnt categorically know it wouldnt.

saying 'we didnt know' or 'we werent sure' after the fact shows no balls whatsoever. it shows a dangerous complacency when it comes to the safety of the people of the united states of america.

Paul David wrote:

I think Bush's admin has received a lot of flack for the "warnings" of the imminent threat
before 9/11, but don't they get intelligence like that on a nearly hourly basis that all turn out to be false? how could they have known that was actually going to happen?

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

bush like all former presidents is able to get a copy of the daily intelligence briefings, the same ones that the current president gets every day. so all former presidents are involved at some level if they receive those and if they choose to be. i am not sure if gw bush gets them, but his dad was the first one to choose to get them every day...i guess he never could leave CIA mode...even if gwb gets them every day, if they missed "bin laden determined to strike buildings in the united states", i doubt that there is anything else he would read further into either.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

but, realistically, with all what we know now of possible targets (a fed building in the US) and how difficult it would have been to screen at airports, not knowing who they'd be looking for, without causing public alarm or major human rights issues, it would have been like finding a needle in a haystack. I don't think anyone showed complacency at all.

Believe me, I rarely give GWB the benefit of the doubt. I just really have no clue how this could have been prevented.

catefrances wrote:

they couldnt know it was actually going to happen and thats why they shouldve done more than they did because they couldnt categorically know it wouldnt.

saying 'we didnt know' or 'we werent sure' after the fact shows no balls whatsoever. it shows a dangerous complacency when it comes to the safety of the people of the united states of america.

catefrances

how difficult to screen at airports?? i cant even take a nail file onto a plane nowadays. if they can screen for that after the fact considering it a potential danger, then screening for knives before, under threat (no matter how critical) of a hijack, shouldnt have been such a chore.

Paul David wrote:

but, realistically, with all what we know now of possible targets (a fed building in the US) and how difficult it would have been to screen at airports, not knowing who they'd be looking for, without causing public alarm or major human rights issues, it would have been like finding a needle in a haystack. I don't think anyone showed complacency at all.

Believe me, I rarely give GWB the benefit of the doubt. I just really have no clue how this could have been prevented.

catefrances wrote:

they couldnt know it was actually going to happen and thats why they shouldve done more than they did because they couldnt categorically know it wouldnt.

saying 'we didnt know' or 'we werent sure' after the fact shows no balls whatsoever. it shows a dangerous complacency when it comes to the safety of the people of the united states of america.

blackredyellow

catefrances wrote:

how difficult to screen at airports?? i cant even take a nail file onto a plane nowadays. if they can screen for that after the fact considering it a potential danger, then screening for knives before, under threat (no matter how critical) of a hijack, shouldnt have been such a chore.

Here's the thing though... to get tot the level of screening at airports we are at now, it cost A LOT of money and took a lot of created bureaucracy...

If the Bush administration and Congress got that briefing in August of 2001 that Al Qaeda was determined to attack the US, they'd have to figure out that it was going to be by commercial airliner, and even then there would be no realistic way to ramp up airport security that quickly, and no way that congress would have acted quickly enough to fund it. Remember, before 9/11, airport security was made up of private security companies that bid on and were awarded contracts at each airport.

BinauralJam

catefrances wrote:

how difficult to screen at airports?? i cant even take a nail file onto a plane nowadays. if they can screen for that after the fact considering it a potential danger, then screening for knives before, under threat (no matter how critical) of a hijack, shouldnt have been such a chore.


Last time i got on a plane was two years ago, of out Lagaudia, which i believe was one of the airports the hijackers came from, what struck me as funny was ALL of the security guards and i do mean ALL of them were Middle Eastern. I don't know what they were back in 2001, but disconcerning to say the least.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

BinauralJam wrote:

Last time i got on a plane was two years ago, of out Lagaudia, which i believe was one of the airports the hijackers came from, what struck me as funny was ALL of the security guards and i do mean ALL of them were Middle Eastern. I don't know what they were back in 2001, but disconcerning to say the least.

I'd say the content of your post is disconserting, not the nationality of the security.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

it's not.............NOW. they didn't have a clue what they were even looking for, or where. Can you imagine the job it would have been to make sure all airport security all over the country were up to speed on new measures that they didn't know how to implement?

keep in mind the mindset of your average north american prior to 9/11. NONE OF US, citizen, government official, military, ever thought something like that would happen. So part of it was ignorant arrogance on all our parts.

catefrances wrote:

how difficult to screen at airports?? i cant even take a nail file onto a plane nowadays. if they can screen for that after the fact considering it a potential danger, then screening for knives before, under threat (no matter how critical) of a hijack, shouldnt have been such a chore.

Paul David wrote:

but, realistically, with all what we know now of possible targets (a fed building in the US) and how difficult it would have been to screen at airports, not knowing who they'd be looking for, without causing public alarm or major human rights issues, it would have been like finding a needle in a haystack. I don't think anyone showed complacency at all.

Believe me, I rarely give GWB the benefit of the doubt. I just really have no clue how this could have been prevented.

catefrances wrote:

they couldnt know it was actually going to happen and thats why they shouldve done more than they did because they couldnt categorically know it wouldnt.

saying 'we didnt know' or 'we werent sure' after the fact shows no balls whatsoever. it shows a dangerous complacency when it comes to the safety of the people of the united states of america.

TriumphantAngel

BinauralJam wrote:

Last time i got on a plane was two years ago, of out Lagaudia, which i believe was one of the airports the hijackers came from, what struck me as funny was ALL of the security guards and i do mean ALL of them were Middle Eastern. I don't know what they were back in 2001, but disconcerning to say the least.

why is that funny and why would it be disconcerting?

g under p

BinauralJam wrote:

Last time i got on a plane was two years ago, of out Lagaudia, which i believe was one of the airports the hijackers came from, what struck me as funny was ALL of the security guards and i do mean ALL of them were Middle Eastern. I don't know what they were back in 2001, but disconcerning to say the least.

The last person you would need to worry about is the nationality of the airport security. They more than any others would and should be checked out as whether they would bring harm to any of us.

What should be disconcerning to you while at the airport is whether or not you are carrying anything on the plane you shouldn't. They will do their jobs just fine as long as you are doing yours.

Peace