Videos

Who is better at handling wars and natural disasters? Bush or Obama?

8 Comments

Here’s the poll from Louisiana voters described in the leftist LA Times.

Excerpt:

Former President George W. Bush showed more leadership in dealing with the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina than President Obama has shown in handling the oil calamity in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a poll of Louisianans released Friday.

Obama, who will make his 10th trip to the gulf when he travels to New Orleans on Sunday, will seek to reassure residents that he remains committed to rebuilding a region still feeling the effects from Katrina’s deadly landfall and flooding. Obama will also reassert his administration’s commitment to the cleanup from the BP oil well leak, the nation’s worst oil environmental disaster.

But a poll of Louisianans by Public Policy Polling shows those reassurances may have a hard time. Just 32% give Obama good marks for his actions in the aftermath of the spill, while 61% disapprove.

By contrast, those polled said that Bush’s leadership on Katrina was better than Obama’s on the spill. A majority,  54%, said that Bush did the better job of helping Louisiana through the hurricane crisis compared to the 33% who chose Obama, PPP said on Friday.

That 21-point spread was more than when PPP asked the same question in June and found Bush ahead by 15 points.

Louisiana is a purple state – half red and half blue. They’ve been trending red lately under the governance of the highly competent Bobby Jindal, but they still have a ton of Democrats in high positions.

Who was right about Iraq? Bush or Obama?

Here’s a video that shows who wanted the surge, and who opposed the surge. (H/T Hot Air)

The surge worked. We won. Our troops are coming home. The total cost for both wars (about 700 billion) was far less than the 3 trillion dollars in deficits that Obama has run up since he was elected. And remember, Obama spent that money on studying Chinese prostitutes and on building tunnels for turtles, and similar projects to reward the people who voted for him. That’s why unemployment is still so high.

My previous post showing (with videos) who was responsible for the housing bubble recession, and who tried to stop the recession.

Who’s really extreme?

I found this video at Peter Sean Bradley’s blog.

Remember in November!

UPDATE: Gallup poll finds that more Iraqis approved of US leadership under Bush than under Obama.

UPDATE: More fatalities in Afghanistan under two years of Obama than under eight years of Bush.

8 thoughts on “Who is better at handling wars and natural disasters? Bush or Obama?”

  1. Rhetoric doesn’t get the job done. Bush wasn’t as talented at rhetoric. But he was practical. Obama majors in rhetoric, but is impractical. Eventually, it shows. This is why people should vote according to wise policies and demonstrated ability, not according to vacuous promises of ephemeral concepts such as “hope” or according to flattering statements such as “yes, we can”. Substance over window dressing makes a lasting difference.

    Bobby Jindal for president! (And it’s not even my country…) If your lot doesn’t choose him, can we have him please? :D

    Like

    Reply

  2. Who is right about Iraq? How come no one talks about the wrongheaded conclusions of Bush and Company that got us into Iraq in the first place? The man started a long war based on information (that Hussein was going to use WMD in concert with Al Qaeda). As we know, both proved to be wrong.

    Other problems with the early Bush approach in Iraq: The early strategy did not differentiate between Sunni and Shiite. It included firing the Iraqi army and replacing them with Americans and American allies. A bunch of Iraqi guys, used to fighting, with no jobs, still armed, with no one to fight but…the invading Americans. Gee.

    So there’s your culprit right there. And no Obama in sight. That was all GWB and company.

    Now we can skip over all of that and focus on the surge. But there would have been no surge had Bush not erred and gotten us fighting in Iraq in the first place. Obama was against the war to begin with and now he is getting us out, as he promised. I’m not saying the man’s perfect, but you assign to him all the blame and that’s just…well, it’s impractical chiefly because it’s untrue. The lion’s share of blame goes to the people who got us in. But I don’t suppose you’d acknowledge that.

    And Mary, I appreciate so much of what you say here in this blog, but “Yes We Can,” while perhaps annoying to many, doesn’t quite rank up with declaring “”Mission Accomplished,” which was designed to drum up false hope, and was completely untrue. Obama’s statement was a campaign promise. Bush’s was a misguided PR strategy. Perhaps trying to give people “hope” isn’t practical, but neither is declaring victory, especially when you have none to show.

    Regarding natural disasters, the oil spill doesn’t qualify. The Army Corp of Engineers is squarely responsible for the damage done in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, and as far as the oil spill is concerned, the early damage is the result of corporate greed (BP using cheaper equipment), cutting corners, proceeding despite many warnings, cheap cement from Halliburton (Dick CHeney’s old employer) and no oversight from regulators. Louisiana relies on oil for its economy and the risk of that is that you suffer when the gravy train blows up, sinks in thousands of feet of water, kills 11 people and befowls the Gulf.

    Citizens of that state are rightly concerned with how to right the economy, and are of course wanting to start deep water drilling right away. But it’s like an addict. Can’t live with it, can’t live without it.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Who is right about Iraq? How come no one talks about the wrongheaded conclusions of Bush and Company that got us into Iraq in the first place? The man started a long war based on information (that Hussein was going to use WMD in concert with Al Qaeda). As we know, both proved to be wrong.

      No one talks about why “we” (I say we even though my own country was too cowardly to participate) invaded because it happened and there’s little we can do about it. We ahve to move forward.

      But even so, your comment is a bit off. Certainly, WMD was the catchphrase around the case for war, but there were many other factors involved. Do you remember that the MSM (yes, the MSM) reported when the inspectors arrived back in Iraq that they found missiles that were in breach of the ceasfire? After 12 years, Saddam was *still* not keeping his side of the agreement.

      Then there’s the sanctions. The people of Iraq were dying because Saddam was using the sanctions to kill them. The status quo was unacceptable, something had to be done.

      Like

      Reply

  3. While it didn’t seem Obama was interested in spending much time addressing the oil spill disaster, I’m glad to see the perpetual campaigner running down to a site, and commemorating an event, that has become synonymous with trashing Bush, which, come to think of it, seems to be what he does best.

    Funny, history is already clearing things up for us. That was fast!

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Wintery Knight Cancel reply