The Obama Legacy

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, "strong leaders" tend to "do the right thing." Unless you're trying to insinuate poor leaders tend to do the right thing, too?

 

 

So giving $150 billion to Iran to get hostages was the right thing? Considering that money is being used directly to fund terrorism?...

 

Other countries like Obama because he's a pushover to them. He has consistently in his tenure bad-mouthed his own country. I wouldn't consider that being a strong leader whatsoever.

 

See knapplc's post.

[HuskerNation1]

 

Obama has basically done just the opposite, and has taken a weak approach toward fighting terrorism, and because of his failure to lead the fight abroad, ISIS has grown by 4400% under his watch. These are pure facts. The threat of terrorism is far greater now than when he took office.

 

 

How many Americans have died at the hands of terrorists under Obama compared to Bush?

 

 

Unless I am mistaken, there were no terror attacks on American soil post 9/11 under Bush. Also, terror attacks abroad post 9/11 under Bush were a far less occurrence than we've seen the past 7 years.

 

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/over-his-7-years-in-office-obama-has-had-7-major-islamic-terrorist-attacks/

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/terrorism-deaths-quadruple-obama/

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/bush-stopped-domestic-terrorist-attacks-obama-doesnt-opinion-165641/

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

I think Presidents in general get way too much credit or blame for the economy. The economic collapse under Bush had much more to do with 9-11, the housing bubble and by being seen through the distorted lens of following some years that were perceived to be good economically but actually were just laying a house of cards foundation. Congress appropriates the funds and spends the money and has more impact on the economy than Presidents do but even they have relatively little impact compared to greater market forces. Presidents and congress simply win or lose based on circumstances largely out of their control.

 

Likewise the Obama economy suffered in much the same way as the Bush economy with the addition of a belligerent congress to work with. It started out poorly, gained a little momentum and has basically treaded water. All in all probably as well as could be expected with all the turmoil in the Mideast, international markets, austerity measures in other countries etc.

 

The Clinton and Reagan years are typically looked upon as being economically good but even those "good" years were not necessarily the result of who was President. About the most credit you can give them for the economy is that people generally were more confident and felt better about things and that positive outlook helped the economy.

 

As far as Obama's legacy, I think he will be looked back upon as a pretty average President. The economy probably did just about as well as it could've. I think Obamacare will be proven to be a failure but you gotta give him at least a little bit of credit for attempting something to fix our failing healthcare system, even if they did focus on the wrong problem of covering more people rather than controlling out of control costs. As far as dealing with terrorism and international issues he didn't totally screw the pooch and that is probably a slight win considering what all has transpired these last 8 years. Not sure anyone else would've done much better even if I think he should've some things better. But, I think history will see him most favorably for advances on equal right issues for LGBT people. Change has come pretty quick in those areas and may not be perceived favorably by many right now but years down the road I think that will be looked at as an area where he helped make advancements. I'd give him a C+.

 

My Summary

Whoever is next D- (unless it isn't Hillary or Trump)

Obama C+

GW Bush C+

Clinton C+

GH Bush B-

Reagan B+

Carter D-

 

I'm sure most will take issue with some of these but I think they're pretty fair based on what each one inherited, the factors that were out of their control, and what they had to deal with while in office.

 

Interesting assessment. I am not quite as harsh of a grader I guess, but here are my rankings:

 

Carter: D-

Reagan: A

Bush 41: B-

Clinton: B+

Bush 43: B-

Obama: C-

 

As I've said before, I believe Bill Clinton is scum, but in terms of his job performance, I am giving him the second highest grade behind Reagan. Also, from my perspective, the primary job of the federal government is national security and putting in policies to keep our country safe, and since the world has had the wake-up call to terrorism on 9/11, Bush 43 gets a full grade higher than Obama. In 2 weeks time we have seen ISIS strike in Orlando, Turkey, and Bangladesh, and their movement is growing despite some claiming they have lost territory. They do not fear a US-led coalition to root out terrorism like we had in Bush's term, and they are emboldened and will continue to strike until we have a new leader of the free world that is ready to take them on.

 

The Orlando shooter pledged himself to ISIS, but he did not receive any operational support (at least them I'm aware of) to carry out the attacks, so giving ISIS the full credit is inaccurate.

 

Second, you're making it sound like Bush's War on Terror made terrorists tremble in their boots. His presidency's policies split Afghanistan in two and helped breed a jihadist training ground. And instead of doing what probably should have been done in Afghanistan, he diverted billions of dollars in resources to go to Iraq, a decision that has helped create deep hatred for the U.S. in the Muslim world. Two costly and ineffective wars. Bush holds a substantial amount of culpability for the problems we see in the world today.

 

And there's also the mountain of evidence out there showing Bush's administration basically earmuffed themselves to the concerns of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda prior to 2001.

 

Insinuating or suggesting Bush was a successful international diplomat is in poor taste.

 

 

As I've said before, 9/11 was a wake-up call for not just the U.S but the entire world. We know that Bill Clinton had a chance to take out Bin Laden in the late 1990s and he chose not to. I don't buy into the Michael Moore conspiracy theories that some on the left like to push. With 9/11 being a wake-up call, most Americans were looking for the POTUS to put in policies to keep our country safe and to take the fight to terrorists abroad. That is exactly what Bush did. We can argue all day about the Iraq war and the intelligence that led Bush and other prominent politicians like Hillary Clinton to vote in favor of going to war, and in hindsight we should not have gone in, but that's what it is...hindsight. Despite the Iraq move, Bush maintained a broad assault on terrorists throughout the middle east, beefed up our intelligence gather tools, and remained strong and steadfast in the fight, and because of that, he kept this country safe. Obama has basically done just the opposite, and has taken a weak approach toward fighting terrorism, and because of his failure to lead the fight abroad, ISIS has grown by 4400% under his watch. These are pure facts. The threat of terrorism is far greater now than when he took office.

 

So are the things I posted about Bush, which makes it disingenuous to suggest - once again - that he was a successful international diplomat.

 

He wasn't, and many of the decisions he made cost American lives.

 

But, you're right - thanks to the benefit of hindsight, we can now see that many of Bush's choices were wrong, and they directly contributed to the world we live in today. The threat of terrorism exists today due, in large part, to Bush. He helped plant the seeds. However, he made mistakes that we also don't need hindsight to know that they were mistakes.

[Landlord]

 

 

Obama has basically done just the opposite, and has taken a weak approach toward fighting terrorism, and because of his failure to lead the fight abroad, ISIS has grown by 4400% under his watch. These are pure facts. The threat of terrorism is far greater now than when he took office.

 

 

How many Americans have died at the hands of terrorists under Obama compared to Bush?

 

 

Unless I am mistaken, there were no terror attacks on American soil post 9/11 under Bush. Also, terror attacks abroad post 9/11 under Bush were a far less occurrence than we've seen the past 7 years.

 

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/over-his-7-years-in-office-obama-has-had-7-major-islamic-terrorist-attacks/

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/terrorism-deaths-quadruple-obama/

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/bush-stopped-domestic-terrorist-attacks-obama-doesnt-opinion-165641/

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but 9/11 counts towards Bush. You don't get to just ignore it. Here's the respective numbers of U.S. citizen deaths at the hands of terrorism over the last 15 years (2016 withstanding):

 

 

 

2000: 36

2001: 2910

2002: 29

2003: 17

2004: 5

2005: 3

2006: 4

2007: 1

2008: 14

2009: 19

2010: 6

2011: 3

2012: 12

2013: 13

2014: 32

2015: 19

[TAKODA]

And? Iran is always going to test missiles. They are always going to continue to upgrade their nuclear program, and at some point they'll be a nuclear power. No president, not even Reagan himself, is going to prevent that.

 

The treaty opened avenues of dialog between the two countries that haven't existed in 40 years.

 

Obama's never submitted the Iranian nuclear deal for ratification. He knew it would have no chance of passing in Congress. Instead it will go down in American history as one of the most counterproductive diplomatic efforts by any American administration.

 

 

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-01-21/obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-is-a-bad-deal-off-to-a-worse-start

[knapplc]

Mort Zuckerman's opinion notwithstanding, ratification of the deal has nothing to do with diplomatic discourse.

 

http://warontherocks.com/2015/09/u-s-iranian-relations-after-the-nuclear-deal-from-detente-to-rapprochement/

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/warming-to-iran/383512/

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/07/01/484284777/more-than-airplanes-are-riding-on-boeings-deal-with-iran

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

Obama has basically done just the opposite, and has taken a weak approach toward fighting terrorism, and because of his failure to lead the fight abroad, ISIS has grown by 4400% under his watch. These are pure facts. The threat of terrorism is far greater now than when he took office.

 

 

How many Americans have died at the hands of terrorists under Obama compared to Bush?

Unless I am mistaken, there were no terror attacks on American soil post 9/11 under Bush. Also, terror attacks abroad post 9/11 under Bush were a far less occurrence than we've seen the past 7 years.

 

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/over-his-7-years-in-office-obama-has-had-7-major-islamic-terrorist-attacks/

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/terrorism-deaths-quadruple-obama/

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/bush-stopped-domestic-terrorist-attacks-obama-doesnt-opinion-165641/

 

 

Sorry, but 9/11 counts towards Bush. You don't get to just ignore it. Here's the respective numbers of U.S. citizen deaths at the hands of terrorism over the last 15 years (2016 withstanding):

 

 

 

2000: 36

2001: 2910

2002: 29

2003: 17

2004: 5

2005: 3

2006: 4

2007: 1

2008: 14

2009: 19

2010: 6

2011: 3

2012: 12

2013: 13

2014: 32

2015: 19

Oh sure, as long as it fits your narrative, why not count the events of 9-11 against Bush. You may choose to ignore that the events of that day were unprecedented and you can also choose to ignore that Bin Laden wouldn't have been around to mastermind it if only Clinton had pulled the trigger when he had the opportunity. smh

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

Obama has basically done just the opposite, and has taken a weak approach toward fighting terrorism, and because of his failure to lead the fight abroad, ISIS has grown by 4400% under his watch. These are pure facts. The threat of terrorism is far greater now than when he took office.

 

How many Americans have died at the hands of terrorists under Obama compared to Bush?

Unless I am mistaken, there were no terror attacks on American soil post 9/11 under Bush. Also, terror attacks abroad post 9/11 under Bush were a far less occurrence than we've seen the past 7 years.

 

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/over-his-7-years-in-office-obama-has-had-7-major-islamic-terrorist-attacks/

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/terrorism-deaths-quadruple-obama/

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/bush-stopped-domestic-terrorist-attacks-obama-doesnt-opinion-165641/

 

 

Sorry, but 9/11 counts towards Bush. You don't get to just ignore it. Here's the respective numbers of U.S. citizen deaths at the hands of terrorism over the last 15 years (2016 withstanding):

 

 

 

2000: 36

2001: 2910

2002: 29

2003: 17

2004: 5

2005: 3

2006: 4

2007: 1

2008: 14

2009: 19

2010: 6

2011: 3

2012: 12

2013: 13

2014: 32

2015: 19

Oh sure, as long as it fits your narrative, why not count the events of 9-11 against Bush. You may choose to ignore that the events of that day were unprecedented and you can also choose to ignore that Bin Laden wouldn't have been around to mastermind it if only Clinton had pulled the trigger when he had the opportunity. smh

 

 

Spot on JJ...Landlord can't seem to accept that a big part of Obama's legacy will be his failure in fighting terrorism. Most on here with common sense will recognize that 9/11 was a wake up call and the expectations for our federal government to keep our safety at the forefront began then. The bigger reality is that terrorists are striking at a much more frequent pace under Obama, and they are emboldened. A parallel to what Landlord is trying to do would be to attribute all the job losses in 2009 after Obama took office to Obama without offering any context of what he walked into. Similarly, Bush walked into a recession, Enron, and 9/11 in which the economy collapsed significantly and the markets tanked even further, so assessing job lost under his first couple years in office as his fault doesn't make sense without the proper context.

[Landlord]

Oh sure, as long as it fits your narrative, why not count the events of 9-11 against Bush. You may choose to ignore that the events of that day were unprecedented and you can also choose to ignore that Bin Laden wouldn't have been around to mastermind it if only Clinton had pulled the trigger when he had the opportunity. smh

 

 

Do you really think that if ISIS succeeded in killing thousands of people tomorrow, that Fox News and plenty of people in our country wouldn't be blaming Obama? It could be the most unprecedented and unexpected event in human history, the cries of him having the blood on his hands would still be loud and frequent.

 

 

I don't actually count 9-11 against Bush, or towards him, or anything towards/away from Obama. This sh#t is complex with a million variables and weak correlations turned into baseless accusations of causation. I'm not interested in that, but I am interested in a consistent perspective.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Oh sure, as long as it fits your narrative, why not count the events of 9-11 against Bush. You may choose to ignore that the events of that day were unprecedented and you can also choose to ignore that Bin Laden wouldn't have been around to mastermind it if only Clinton had pulled the trigger when he had the opportunity. smh

 

 

Do you really think that if ISIS succeeded in killing thousands of people tomorrow, that Fox News and plenty of people in our country wouldn't be blaming Obama? It could be the most unprecedented and unexpected event in human history, the cries of him having the blood on his hands would still be loud and frequent.

 

 

I don't actually count 9-11 against Bush, or towards him, or anything towards/away from Obama. This sh#t is complex with a million variables and weak correlations turned into baseless accusations of causation. I'm not interested in that, but I am interested in a consistent perspective.

 

The issue is that however you look at it, you need to be consistent.

 

If you are simply going to look at the statistics of how many died from terrorism under a President then there can't be any exceptions of well...this situation was different.

 

Truth is, every situation has events that lead up to it over years.

 

• 9/11 was planned well before Bush took office. Clinton could have taken him out if he would have pulled the trigger.
• ISIS didn't just come to existence and grow because of Obama. Those events started building years ago when a couple countries decided to go in and start taking out Middle East leaders under false pretense

These things don't just happen because one guy is sitting in Washington on a certain day.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

Oh sure, as long as it fits your narrative, why not count the events of 9-11 against Bush. You may choose to ignore that the events of that day were unprecedented and you can also choose to ignore that Bin Laden wouldn't have been around to mastermind it if only Clinton had pulled the trigger when he had the opportunity. smh

 

 

Do you really think that if ISIS succeeded in killing thousands of people tomorrow, that Fox News and plenty of people in our country wouldn't be blaming Obama? It could be the most unprecedented and unexpected event in human history, the cries of him having the blood on his hands would still be loud and frequent.

 

 

I don't actually count 9-11 against Bush, or towards him, or anything towards/away from Obama. This sh#t is complex with a million variables and weak correlations turned into baseless accusations of causation. I'm not interested in that, but I am interested in a consistent perspective.

 

The issue is that however you look at it, you need to be consistent.

 

If you are simply going to look at the statistics of how many died from terrorism under a President then there can't be any exceptions of well...this situation was different.

 

Truth is, every situation has events that lead up to it over years.

 

• 9/11 was planned well before Bush took office. Clinton could have taken him out if he would have pulled the trigger.
• ISIS didn't just come to existence and grow because of Obama. Those events started building years ago when a couple countries decided to go in and start taking out Middle East leaders under false pretense

These things don't just happen because one guy is sitting in Washington on a certain day.

 

I agree with this.

 

Possibly I missed the context in which LOMS replied. I haven't read every post leading up to it.

I just happened to see it and it didn't seem quite right.

[JJ Husker]

Is it worth discussing Obama's legacy as it pertains to current race relations in this country?

 

I think he has said many of the right things after this recent incident in Dallas but, I also recall him fanning the flames on numerous past occasions such as Ferguson and Baltimore. For someone who was purported to be a "great uniter", I sure haven't seen it and I think the BLM movement and unprecedented occurrences between the black community and police is evidence that race relations have worsened significantly during his tenure.

[JJ Husker]

On a side note, who comes up with and makes available the little emoticons on HB?

I would really like one kind of like this guy but standing over a pot and stirring it with a big stick.

Not that I would ever do that....

[Moiraine]

Is it worth discussing Obama's legacy as it pertains to current race relations in this country?

 

It will be discussed but I don't think it's worth discussing. It has been WAY overblown. We have problems. Bringing them to light isn't what causes those problems. They existed already. Obama is between a rock and a hard place here. He literally can't say anything when these types of things happened without it looking like he's just looking out for his fellow Black people. On the other hand if he says nothing, lots of Blacks might think he's a traitor.

 

One thing that I have wondered about before is whether a Black person becoming President made people more confident to try to make changes where Blacks are concerned.

[Lil' Red]

Is it worth discussing Obama's legacy as it pertains to current race relations in this country?

 

I think he has said many of the right things after this recent incident in Dallas but, I also recall him fanning the flames on numerous past occasions such as Ferguson and Baltimore. For someone who was purported to be a "great uniter", I sure haven't seen it and I think the BLM movement and unprecedented occurrences between the black community and police is evidence that race relations have worsened significantly during his tenure.

I think the rise of social media and smartphones have shed light on an existing issue. I don't think race relations have really gotten worse under Obama.