Bush's Place in History.

[DuncanONeil]

Proximate cause for the commencement of action against Iraq was UN resolution 1441. On the strength of that it can be said that it was not Bush's desire to take unilateral action against Iraq.

[DuncanONeil]

There is no language in the bill that even mentions the mother. The only entity mention is the child that survives. In the language of the bill "the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
No where in the bill is the mother mentioned. That being the case how does the fact the the child is born alive and has rights affect anyones abortion decisions?

[DuncanONeil]

"All the propaganda aside even the most zealous Bush supporters are painfully aware how harshly his presidency will be judged. All the revisionist tomes wont change the fact that the more time passes the more harsh History's verdict will be. "

That remains to be seen!

[DuncanONeil]

What I resent Democrats is their lack of b****. Bill Clinton seems to be the only one among them who has any, lol.

If Bush and co. had been Democrats I doubt Republicans (guys who tried to impeach a president for lying about a BJ, with a woman) would be so forgiving. You can bet there would be an army of Kenneth Starr's at work, collapsing economy or not.

I am afraid it is the Democrats that are not forgiving!

[DuncanONeil]

If you want to know what the Establishment in Britain thinks about anything, you won't do much better than to consult The Times.

But that paper is representative of no other significant group, although it is the Establishment that has the power and the influence, so what it thinks is obviously important when considering Anglo-American matters.

Otherwise, I'm surprised Americans could give tuppence for what we thought.

(The rest of Britain probably holds a harsher opinion about Bush, btw.)

Keep the discussion on topic.

Diablo

[DuncanONeil]

I am also not going to delve into Clinton (the president who popularized being crooked and not just over a blowjob eaither btw far worse things went on and IMHO is not all that different from GW Bush two sides of the same dirty coin at any rate).

I would deffinetly suggest another thread for him too. lol

IMHO if a "Bush" was to be in the White House other than Bush Senior (who was very cualified administrativly speaking for the position in many ways that none of the men who have followed after him ever were) it should have been Jeb Bush. My father called me at work and honestly confessed to doing a WTF kind of double take and threw the F bomb around the house a few times when he heard GW was running instead of Jeb.

Later when I studdied things more closely (becuase honestly I was not all that much into politics back then unless its was somthing big deal like `despite my daddy wishing me to be) I could never understand why GW was chosen over his much more competant brother eaither.

When I voted for the first time in a presidential election (I was registered democrat back then just to spite my parents) I voted for Bush. Not to fault Gore all that much but he was boreing and wodden and I didnt like his economics, eaither way sometimes I think the patrician powers decide how its going to be before hand depite whatever we plebs decide in an election.

By the time the second presidential bid came up I was much more knowledgable about such things and I voted for Kerry as an informed desicion and not just another cog in the party wheel (despite my having changed to the republican party lol damm I am contrary). Informed in so much as I just wanted allmost anyone else to replace GW, even if I didnt like some things about the new person.

I really believe GW Bush let things slide with the economy too much as well as giving in to the masications of Chenney. I think he was manipulated to a certian degree by opportunistic advisors, elitist entitlment and his own pride. He didnt make the same kind of sacrifice his father did to obtain his office by hard work and comitment. Spoiled and petulent like most offspring of the upper crust he made many many mistakes.

The attitude prevelant in administrations such as his and Clintons before him (similar backgrounds in many ways coming from pampered elitest society) has allways been one of "I can do what ever I want becuase I am the big cheese and therefore not to be questioned" .Typical of many an Anthenian tyrant during the heydays of that fledgling democracy summed up very well in a paraphrased quote from Xenophon:

" Kill one man and you are tried as a murderer, kill a thousand and you are hailed as a victor."

In other words, I don't believe GW, his imediate predessesor, nor his replacement ever has really had anyone but his own best intrests in mind.

Not to knock your decision to vote for Kerry, it is your choice after all. But the available data, provided by Kerry himself, proved quite clearly that he was not qualified for the job.

[mkemse]

I am supposed to accept your unsupported statement that you are correct.

As for this country having plans to invade any given country, that surprises you? We have plans to invade many places. That is the nature of planning. Not to consider if the planners do not plan they become rusty at it. I would not be surprised if plans exist to invade Mexico and Canada. Does that mean we intend to invade? Try coming up with some support for your claim.

Coorect and I beie;ve Bush had ven discused invading Iran over their Nuclear Program because of their unwillingness to end it
It would neevr suprised me if we invaded any coutry, from my view point our Country (The USA) has alway seemed to have this need to install our Democratic was of life omn eveyone, without asking, do the people of that country want it
We need to stop policing the wolrd and take care of our own just my thoughts ans opinions

[DuncanONeil]

Coorect and I beie;ve Bush had ven discused invading Iran over their Nuclear Program because of their unwillingness to end it
It would neevr suprised me if we invaded any coutry, from my view point our Country (The USA) has alway seemed to have this need to install our Democratic was of life omn eveyone, without asking, do the people of that country want it
We need to stop policing the wolrd and take care of our own just my thoughts ans opinions

Ok explain to me why I must accept unsupported pronouncements as factual, just because they are said?

[Diablo]

Keep the discussion civil or it will be closed.

[mkemse]

Ok explain to me why I must accept unsupported pronouncements as factual, just because they are said?

I never said you did, it was postd on CNN.com, and there was discussion a few years back that the US considered invading Iran as a way of stoppin it's nuclear program
This the enitre article


[COLOR="DarkRed"]

The U.S. Has Plans to Invade Iran Before Bush's Term Ends
By Walter C. Uhler

09/29/05 "ICH" -- -- Bill Gertz is a right-wing national security reporter for the Rev. Sun Yung Moon's neo-fascist newspaper, The Washington Times. He's also a spigot from which flows much classified information illegally leaked by like-minded "patriots" seeking to advance their hawkish agenda in the military-industrial-congressional complex. And, frankly speaking, that's the only reason I pay any attention to him.

So I was hardly surprised when, on September 16, 2005, Gertz reported on the Bush administration's "computer slide presentation." which was aimed at persuading whoever would listen that Iran is working feverishly to build nuclear weapons.

According to Gertz, the report claims: "Iran's nuclear program is well-scaled for a weapons capability, as a comparison to [Pakistan's] nuclear weapons infrastructure shows…When one also considers Iran's concealment and deception activities, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons."

The report also states that "Iran's uranium ore resources are insufficient for Tehran to produce enough fuel for civilian electrical power generating reactors. 'However, Iran's uranium resources are more than sufficient to support a nuclear weapons capability.'" [U.S. Report Says Iran Seeks To Acquire Nuclear Weapons," Washington Times, 16 September 2005]

Unlike the Washington Post's article on the subject two days earlier, Gertz predictably failed to mention that the slide show "dismisses ambiguities in the evidence…and omits alternative explanations under debate among intelligence analysts." He also failed to mention that several diplomats "said the slide show reminded them of the flawed presentation on Iraq's weapons programs made by then-secretary of state Colin L. Powell to the UN Security Council in February 2003" ["US Deploys Slide Show to Press Case Against Iran," Washington Post, 14 September 2005]

Moreover, in order to serve as water boy for the Bush administration, Gertz had to ignore (or discount) the recent report from Britain's prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies, which concluded that Iran "was at least five years away from producing sufficient material for 'a single nuclear weapon,'" Instead, Gertz obediently and dutifully noted that the Bush administration "is pressing the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] to refer the issue… to the United Nations Security Council," which "could then impose economic sanctions against Iran or possibly a future authorization for the use of force." [Ibid.] Ah yes, "authorization for the use of force"—the source of many a neocon and chickenhawk wet dream.

But much more disconcerting than Gertz's piece was one written by Claude Salhani on 22 September 2005 for the same loony "Moonie" scandal sheet. Salhani shamelessly reintroduced the tactics, which proved so successful in inflaming a frightened American public about the threat posed by Iraq. He invoked the words of an Iranian dissident (today's Ahmad Chalabi), as well as former U.S. government officials (seeking to "empower resistance" inside Iran), to make the claim the Iran is, in fact, "gearing for war" with the United States.

No, notwithstanding the inflammatory title that the Moonie editors attached to Salhani's article—"Is Iran Geared For War?"—Iran is not planning to attack the United States. Instead, it is merely taking very prudent measures to defend itself against a possible illegal preventive war instigated by the "war party" in the Bush administration.

Although America's past is riddled with instances in which a "war party"—remember the "War Hawks" Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun?—within a given party or administration labored mightily to con its subjects into wars of aggression, it's America's singular misfortune today to be guided by a "war party" in and around the Bush administration, which consists of neocons and chickenhawks who seek to compensate for personal cowardice or neglect of military duty (especially during the Vietnam war) with martial rhetoric and by sending courageous soldiers to fight, kill, and perhaps die for them. Note President George W. Bush's "Bring 'em on."

But it is America's greater misfortune today to be informed by a so-called "watch dog" mainstream news media that supinely reports this war party's will to kill without insisting upon the hard evidence necessary for justifying war. Although they failed miserably in their 2002-03 coverage of Iraq, unfortunately this is not a recent phenomenon. For as John L. Harper has recently concluded: "The premises on which the United States decided to go to war in 1812, 1846, 1898, 1917, 1950, 1964–65 and 2002–03, were largely false." [John L. Harper, "Anatomy of a Habit: America's Unnecessary Wars," Survival, Summer 2005, p. 79]

But, forget the past. Just a few days ago, on September 26, 2005, The Telegraph of Calcutta, India issued an astounding report that has yet to cause a ripple within America's mainstream news media. In the fifth paragraph of the article, "Gulf factor key to PM's Iran vote decision," were the following words: "Top-ranking Americans have told equally top-ranking Indians in recent weeks that THE US HAS PLANS TO INVADE IRAN BEFORE BUSH'S TERM ENDS" (author's emphasis).

Thoughtful, decent, moral citizens of these United States: I urge you to write to the editors of your local and national news outlets to insist that they authenticate or repudiate the information reported by The Telegraph. And I further urge you to write your congressman (or congresswoman) to inquire about their knowledge concerning this assertion. Finally, I urge you to write to President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and/or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to inquire about their plans to invade Iran before they leave office.

We simply cannot permit the Bush "war party" to run roughshod over America's democracy once again.

Walter C. Uhler <waltuhler@aol.com> is an independent scholar and freelance writer whose work has been published in numerous publications, including The Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military History, the Moscow Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also is President of the Russian-American International Studies Association (RAISA).

Additionally:

Iran - Ready to attack
Dan Plesch

Published 19 February 2007



American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).

The Bush administration has made much of sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf. But it is a tiny part of the preparations. Post 9/11, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's notice. Two carriers in the region, the USS John C Stennis and the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, could quickly be joined by three more now at sea: USS Ronald Reagan, USS Harry S Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well as by USS Nimitz. Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles.

Then there are the marines, who are not tied down fighting in Iraq. Several marine forces are assembling, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and, yes, hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Today, marines have the USS Boxer and USS Bataan carrier forces in the Gulf and probably also the USS Kearsarge and USS Bonhomme Richard. Three others, the USS Peleliu, USS Wasp and USS Iwo Jima, are ready to join them. Earlier this year, HQ staff to manage these forces were moved from Virginia to Bahrain.

Vice-President Dick Cheney has had something of a love affair with the US marines, and this may reach its culmination in the fishing villages along Iran's Gulf coast. Marine generals hold the top jobs at Nato, in the Pentagon and are in charge of all nuclear weapons. No marine has held any of these posts before.

Traditionally, the top nuclear job went either to a commander of the navy's Trident submarines or of the air force's bombers and missiles. Today, all these forces follow the orders of a marine, General James Cartwright, and are integrated into a "Global Strike" plan which places strategic forces on permanent 12-hour readiness.

The only public discussion of this plan has been by the American analysts Bill Arkin and Hans Kristensen, who have focused on the possible use of atomic weapons. These concerns are justified, but ignore how forces can be used in conventional war.

Any US general planning to attack Iran can now assume that at least 10,000 targets can be hit in a single raid, with warplanes flying from the US or Diego Garcia. In the past year, unlimited funding for military technology has taken "smart bombs" to a new level.

New "bunker-busting" conventional bombs weigh only 250lb. According to Boeing, the GBU-39 small-diameter bomb "quadruples" the firepower of US warplanes, compared to those in use even as recently as 2003. A single stealth or B-52 bomber can now attack between 150 and 300 individual points to within a metre of accuracy using the global positioning system.

With little military effort, the US air force can hit the last-known position of Iranian military units, political leaders and supposed sites of weapons of mass destruction. One can be sure that, if war comes, George Bush will not want to stand accused of using too little force and allowing Iran to fight back.

"Global Strike" means that, without any obvious signal, what was done to Serbia and Lebanon can be done overnight to the whole of Iran. We, and probably the Iranians, would not know about it until after the bombs fell. Forces that hide will suffer the fate of Saddam's armies, once their positions are known.

The whole of Iran is now less than an hour's flying time from some American base or carrier. Sources in the region as well as trade journals confirm that the US has built three bases in Azerbaijan that could be transit points for troops and with facilities equal to its best in Europe.

Most of the Iranian army is positioned along the border with Iraq, facing US army missiles that can reach 150km over the border. But it is in the flat, sandy oilfields east and south of Basra where the temptation will be to launch a tank attack and hope that a disaffected population will be grateful.

The regime in Tehran has already complained of US- and UK-inspired terror attacks in several Iranian regions where the population opposes the ayatollahs' fanatical policies. Such reports corroborate the American journalist Seymour Hersh's claim that the US military is already engaged in a low-level war with Iran. The fighting is most intense in the Kurdish north where Iran has been firing artillery into Iraq. The US and Iran are already engaged in a low-level proxy war across the Iran-Iraq border.

And, once again, the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute have a plan for a peaceful settlement: this time it is for a federal Iran. Officially, Michael Ledeen, the AEI plan's sponsor, has been ostracised by the White House. However, two years ago, the Congress of Iranian Nationalities for a Federal Iran had its inaugural meeting in London.

We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran.

[DuncanONeil]

Keep the discussion on topic.

Diablo

Why is this attributed to me?

[DuncanONeil]

"it was postd on CNN.com, and there was discussion a few years back that the US considered invading Iran as a way of stoppin it's nuclear program
This the enitre article"

You simply do not understand the process of military planning! It is a constant daily exercise covering many ideas that would probably surpirse the heck out of you.

[mkemse]

"it was postd on CNN.com, and there was discussion a few years back that the US considered invading Iran as a way of stoppin it's nuclear program
This the enitre article"

You simply do not understand the process of military planning! It is a constant daily exercise covering many ideas that would probably surpirse the heck out of you.

You asked for documenttion, so i posted what I found that The US was resdy to invaeIraw a few posts back, simply replying to your request for doumentation

Bush's Legacy will be his Lack of timely response to Katrinam 3 years later they are not alot better off then they are now, His failure in Somolia, his "need" to Invade Iraq rather then concenrtate of Bin Lafen in Afghistan after 911, his search for non exsistant WMD in Iraq which never existed as Colin Powel even addmitted prior to leaing his postion in the Adm. He lack of any type of support for Soviet Georgia beyond telling Russia to leave, his inability to deal with the Palastine, he was supporting a pouppet goverment that did not control anything, Hamas did andstill does
he left office with one of the lowest approval ratings of any President and even lower then Nixon's prior to leaving office the polled 109 Poitical Historian 45% said he was the worst President in US jhistoiry, 35% said his is among the top 10 qorst pPresident in history

This will be his legacy his failued Foreighn Policies:

Bush Foreign Policy – How Deep is the Failure?

By G. John Ikenberry - December 1, 2006, 8:53AM
Bush’s war in Iraq has been repudiated, the midterm elections did this. There is now wide open intellectual space to debate America’s next foreign policy. Jackson Diehl made this point in his commentary on the Princeton Project in Monday’s Washington Post.

The debate now is really over how deeply flawed Bush foreign policy is. Is Bush failure primarily about Iraq or is it rooted more deeply in philosophy and grand strategy? And if the failure is about philosophy and grand strategy, is this an indictment only of neo-conservative ideas or of liberal internationalism itself?

Two groups are narrowing the critique. First, neo-conservatives are arguing that Bush failure is, well, because of Bush – incompetence and the failure to fully push their ideas. The debacle of today’s foreign policy does not discredit neo-conservatism – the ideas were never fully implemented. This is Bill Kristol's view, expressed last May: “Much of the U.S. government no longer believes in, and is no longer acting to enforce, the Bush doctrine. . . the United States of America is in retreat.” Soon it will be the weak-kneed Democratic congress that will also be implicated in Bush failure. Second, some liberal hawks who supported the war are also making a very limited critique. To be sure, the war itself is now seen as a mistake – certainly its conduct – but the general Bush orientation toward terrorism and the use of force is taken as essentially valid. Indeed, these liberals would say that the primary challenge for Democrats is to convince voters that they can “do national security” like Republicans can. This political imperative makes a thorough-going critique of Bush failure difficult -- and unwise.

But the flaws run deep.

Now is the time for an honest post mortem of Bush foreign policy. Bush foreign policy has failed not just because of incompetence or bad luck in Iraq. The entire intellectual edifice of Bush foreign policy – such as it is – is deeply flawed. And let’s be clear. The Bush administration’s grand strategy is not simply a variation on earlier postwar liberal internationalist grand strategies – as some conservatives and liberals suggest. It was a radical departure from America’s postwar liberal hegemonic orientation – and the world has bitten back.

Martin Wolf makes this point in a column in Wednesday’s Financial Times, drawing on the arguments that Charles Kupchan and I made in a 2004 article in The National Interest.

“The signal feature of this administration has not been merely its incompetence, but its rejection of the principles on which U.S. foreign policy was built after the Second World War. The administration's strategy has been based, instead, upon four ideas: the primacy of force; the preservation of a unipolar order; the unbridled exercise of U.S. power; and the right to initiate preventive war in the absence of immediate threats.

"The response to the terrorist outrage of September 11, 2001, reinforced the hold of all these principles. The notion of an indefinite and unlimited ‘war on terror’ became the fulcrum of U.S. foreign policy. It led to the idea of an "axis of evil" connecting Saddam Hussein's Iraq to theocratic Iran and Kim Jong-il's North Korea. It brought about the justified invasion of Afghanistan, but also the diversion into Iraq. Not least, the idea of the war on terror led to the indefinite imprisonment of alleged enemy combatants without judicial oversight, toleration of torture, "extraordinary rendition" of suspects, the extra-territorial prison at Guantánamo Bay, and, by indirect means, the abuses at Abu Ghraib. All this has been bad enough.

"It is made worse by what John Ikenberry of Princeton University and Charles Kupchan of Georgetown aptly describe as the ‘sloppy intelligence, faulty judgment, and ideological zealotry’ that marked implementation, above all in Iraq. Yet the poor implementation is not an accident. A belief in the primacy of the military naturally led to the transfer of responsibility to the Department of Defense; a belief in the efficacy of force created the conviction that victory meant peace and a swift transition to democracy; and disdain for allies guaranteed the absence of co-operation in postwar occupation.

"The U.S. must now start again. It must design a foreign policy for the current age. In doing so, it should discard almost everything the Bush administration has proclaimed.“

Additionaly:

U.S.: Bush Foreign Policy Legacy Widely Seen as Disastrous
Analysis by Jim Lobe*

WASHINGTON, Jan 13, 2009 (IPS) - While in a farewell press conference Monday George W. Bush once again expressed the belief that his eight-year presidency, particularly his foreign-policy record, will be vindicated by history, the portents are not particularly good.

Already last spring, nearly two thirds of 109 professional historians polled by the 'History News Network' rated Bush the worst president in the nation's history, while another 35 percent said he was among the ten worst of the 42 who preceded him.

And that was six months before the mid-September financial crisis that most economists agree will turn out to be the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930's!

Bush leaves office next Tuesday with the lowest sustained approval ratings of any modern president.

With the exception of hard-line neo-conservatives and other far-right hawks who ruled the roost in Bush's first term, the overwhelming consensus of veteran analysts here is that his "global war on terror" - for which he is likely to be most remembered - has inflicted unprecedented and possibly permanent damage on Washington's image abroad.

The latter problem may not matter to those who, like Vice President Dick Cheney and the "neo-cons", have long disdained diplomacy and other forms of "soft power".

But the unexpected difficulties confronted by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq - as well as the transparent failure of "hard power" to have the desired effect in other "terror-war" theatres, such as Somalia and Pakistan (or Lebanon, in Israel's case) - have exposed the limits of a U.S.-dominated "unipolar world", and the ability of the U.S. armed forces to enforce it on their own.

"The elementary truth that seems to elude the experts again and again - Gulf War, Afghan war, next war - is that power is its own reward," chortled the ‘Washington Post’s’ neo-conservative columnist and champion of "unipolarity", Charles Krauthammer, after U.S.-backed forces chased the Taliban and al Qaeda out of Afghanistan in late 2001 in a concise - and now highly ironic - statement of the administration’s first-term worldview and strategic intent. "...The psychology in the region is now one of fear and deep respect for American power."

Particularly destructive to Washington's image, of course, were the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the use of "aggressive interrogation techniques" - which most human-rights experts call torture - against terrorist suspects at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and secret U.S.- controlled prisons around the world.

Uncritical backing for Israel, even when it waged a series of military campaigns, most recently in Gaza, that appeared to give scant regard to the welfare of the civilian population, were also damaging.

"The Bush administration has left you (the U.S.) a disgusting legacy and a reckless position towards the massacres and bloodshed of innocents in Gaza...," declared no less a friend than former Saudi ambassador and intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal, in a speech last week that created quite a sensation among experts here.

"Neither Israel nor the U.S. can gain from a war that produces this reaction from one of the wisest and most moderate voices in the Arab world," remarked Anthony Cordesman, a highly regarded Middle East specialist at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) last week, who once called Bush’s hopes of democratising the Arab world by invading Iraq as "cross(ing) the line between neo-conservative and neo-crazy."

In fairness, the unilateralism and militarism that dominated most of Bush's first term, when Cheney, then-Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and their neo-conservative advisers were in the saddle, softened considerably in his second.

This softenign was due to both the discrediting of pre-war assumptions about Iraq and the ascendancy of administration realists led initially by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and, after Rumsfeld's resignation in November 2006, his successor, Robert Gates.

While the hawks strongly opposed any engagement with the surviving members of the "Axis of Evil", North Korea and Iran, the realists successfully persuaded Bush that pressure, isolation and military threats had actually proven counter-productive to U.S. interests.

The realists also convinced him that diplomatic engagement would have the benefit of demonstrating to the rest of the world that Washington was prepared to exhaust at least some diplomatic remedies before resorting to war.

In fact, the second term witnessed a notable softening - hawks would say "appeasement" - in Washington's position in a number of areas, including, remarkably, limited co-operation with the previously-despised International Criminal Court (ICC), a more forthcoming rhetoric - if not actual policy - on global warming, and even deference to Washington's European allies in dealing with a resurgent Russia, notably during last August's conflict in Georgia.

With the military bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, multilateralism and diplomacy ceased to be dirty words.

Indeed, the administration spent considerable effort in its second term patching up ties with what Rumsfeld had once contemptuously referred to as "Old Europe" - that part of the globe that had been most alienated by the neo-imperialist trajectory of the first term.

This is apart from the Arab and Islamic worlds and, to a lesser extent, Latin America, where old resentments flared over Washington's endorsement of, if not complicity with, a failed military coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2002.

Judging by opinion polls and expert opinion here, Bush fared considerably better in Asia, where, to the disappointment of Rumsfeld and Cheney, he built on the progress made by his father and Bill Clinton in deepening ties with China, and did so without alienating Washington’s closest regional ally, Japan.

In addition, Bush's courtship of India, capped by the controversial nuclear-energy accord ratified by Congress last summer, is considered by many analysts here as his greatest foreign-policy achievement.

Bush’s five-year, 15-billion-dollar AIDS initiative - launched in part to highlight his "compassionate conservatism" on the eve of the Iraq invasion - also helps explain his not-insignificant popularity in sub-Saharan Africa (although 15 billion dollars is currently what his administration is spending each month on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

He is also given credit for his role in ending the long-standing civil war between Khartoum and the insurgency in south Sudan, although that diplomatic success, however fragile, stands in rather stunning contrast to failures in Darfur, eastern Congo, and Somalia where, if anything, the U.S. efforts to keep Islamist forces from gaining power have been little short of disastrous.

To his defenders, Bush’s finest moment – and one on which he appears to pin the greatest hope for his legacy - came two years ago when, despite the unprecedented popular disapproval of the Iraq war and the advice of foreign-policy establishment, he "surged" some 30,000 more U.S. troops into Iraq as part of a new counter-insurgency strategy designed to halt the country’s precipitous slide into all-out sectarian civil war.

While favourable trends within the Sunni community were already well underway at the time as former insurgents, backed by U.S. funding and weapons, had turned against al Qaeda in Iraq, the Surge clearly helped reduce the violence in Baghdad.

But whether the Surge has set the stage for its strategic goal of national reconciliation, or even the kind of democratic state that Bush had hoped would become a model for export to its Arab neighbours and Iran, remains far from certain.

If it has, Bush may yet be hailed as a 21st century Harry Truman, whose low approval ratings at the time of his departure from the White House in 1953 nearly rivals Bush’s but whose sponsorship of NATO and the Marshall Plan, among other early Cold-War initiatives, are now recognised as significant achievements.

If, on the other hand, Iraq falls back into chaos or splits apart or evolves into a new dictatorship or becomes even more closely tied to Iran than it already is, then Bush’s fate as the worst U.S. president would almost certainly be sealed. History will have to decide.

[wmrs2]

I am not suprised, the also left office with the lowest approval rating of any President in History, including Nixon

Of course you are not surprised! Bush left office at a time in history when the judging press was 93% liberal, communistic, socialistic, and far left in their interpretation of things. Jesus Christ had the same liberals judging him and look what his approval rating was. Following generations and more fair judges will rate G.W. Bush very favorable.

Jesus Christ and Bush received the same treatment. Jesus saved the world and Bush saved the USA from more 9/11 attacks. Neither person was given credit for what they did by the contemporary judges of historical accomplishments. Only a fool would expect today's press wound rate Bush at the top but his day will come and the hard hearted liberals of today will be judged in the same light as Jesus Christ's judges. History is not interpreted by any panel of contemprary judges assembled at this time. The interpretation of history is left to future generations who will be more fair than the Bush haters of today.
I am back, wmrs2

[wmrs2]

I never said you did, it was postd on CNN.com, and there was discussion a few years back that the US considered invading Iran as a way of stoppin it's nuclear program
This the enitre article


[COLOR="DarkRed"]

The U.S. Has Plans to Invade Iran Before Bush's Term Ends
By Walter C. Uhler

09/29/05 "ICH" -- -- Bill Gertz is a right-wing national security reporter for the Rev. Sun Yung Moon's neo-fascist newspaper, The Washington Times. He's also a spigot from which flows much classified information illegally leaked by like-minded "patriots" seeking to advance their hawkish agenda in the military-industrial-congressional complex. And, frankly speaking, that's the only reason I pay any attention to him.

So I was hardly surprised when, on September 16, 2005, Gertz reported on the Bush administration's "computer slide presentation." which was aimed at persuading whoever would listen that Iran is working feverishly to build nuclear weapons.

According to Gertz, the report claims: "Iran's nuclear program is well-scaled for a weapons capability, as a comparison to [Pakistan's] nuclear weapons infrastructure shows…When one also considers Iran's concealment and deception activities, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons."

The report also states that "Iran's uranium ore resources are insufficient for Tehran to produce enough fuel for civilian electrical power generating reactors. 'However, Iran's uranium resources are more than sufficient to support a nuclear weapons capability.'" [U.S. Report Says Iran Seeks To Acquire Nuclear Weapons," Washington Times, 16 September 2005]

Unlike the Washington Post's article on the subject two days earlier, Gertz predictably failed to mention that the slide show "dismisses ambiguities in the evidence…and omits alternative explanations under debate among intelligence analysts." He also failed to mention that several diplomats "said the slide show reminded them of the flawed presentation on Iraq's weapons programs made by then-secretary of state Colin L. Powell to the UN Security Council in February 2003" ["US Deploys Slide Show to Press Case Against Iran," Washington Post, 14 September 2005]

Moreover, in order to serve as water boy for the Bush administration, Gertz had to ignore (or discount) the recent report from Britain's prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies, which concluded that Iran "was at least five years away from producing sufficient material for 'a single nuclear weapon,'" Instead, Gertz obediently and dutifully noted that the Bush administration "is pressing the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] to refer the issue… to the United Nations Security Council," which "could then impose economic sanctions against Iran or possibly a future authorization for the use of force." [Ibid.] Ah yes, "authorization for the use of force"—the source of many a neocon and chickenhawk wet dream.

But much more disconcerting than Gertz's piece was one written by Claude Salhani on 22 September 2005 for the same loony "Moonie" scandal sheet. Salhani shamelessly reintroduced the tactics, which proved so successful in inflaming a frightened American public about the threat posed by Iraq. He invoked the words of an Iranian dissident (today's Ahmad Chalabi), as well as former U.S. government officials (seeking to "empower resistance" inside Iran), to make the claim the Iran is, in fact, "gearing for war" with the United States.

No, notwithstanding the inflammatory title that the Moonie editors attached to Salhani's article—"Is Iran Geared For War?"—Iran is not planning to attack the United States. Instead, it is merely taking very prudent measures to defend itself against a possible illegal preventive war instigated by the "war party" in the Bush administration.

Although America's past is riddled with instances in which a "war party"—remember the "War Hawks" Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun?—within a given party or administration labored mightily to con its subjects into wars of aggression, it's America's singular misfortune today to be guided by a "war party" in and around the Bush administration, which consists of neocons and chickenhawks who seek to compensate for personal cowardice or neglect of military duty (especially during the Vietnam war) with martial rhetoric and by sending courageous soldiers to fight, kill, and perhaps die for them. Note President George W. Bush's "Bring 'em on."

But it is America's greater misfortune today to be informed by a so-called "watch dog" mainstream news media that supinely reports this war party's will to kill without insisting upon the hard evidence necessary for justifying war. Although they failed miserably in their 2002-03 coverage of Iraq, unfortunately this is not a recent phenomenon. For as John L. Harper has recently concluded: "The premises on which the United States decided to go to war in 1812, 1846, 1898, 1917, 1950, 1964–65 and 2002–03, were largely false." [John L. Harper, "Anatomy of a Habit: America's Unnecessary Wars," Survival, Summer 2005, p. 79]

But, forget the past. Just a few days ago, on September 26, 2005, The Telegraph of Calcutta, India issued an astounding report that has yet to cause a ripple within America's mainstream news media. In the fifth paragraph of the article, "Gulf factor key to PM's Iran vote decision," were the following words: "Top-ranking Americans have told equally top-ranking Indians in recent weeks that THE US HAS PLANS TO INVADE IRAN BEFORE BUSH'S TERM ENDS" (author's emphasis).

Thoughtful, decent, moral citizens of these United States: I urge you to write to the editors of your local and national news outlets to insist that they authenticate or repudiate the information reported by The Telegraph. And I further urge you to write your congressman (or congresswoman) to inquire about their knowledge concerning this assertion. Finally, I urge you to write to President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and/or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to inquire about their plans to invade Iran before they leave office.

We simply cannot permit the Bush "war party" to run roughshod over America's democracy once again.

Walter C. Uhler <waltuhler@aol.com> is an independent scholar and freelance writer whose work has been published in numerous publications, including The Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military History, the Moscow Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also is President of the Russian-American International Studies Association (RAISA).

Additionally:

Iran - Ready to attack
Dan Plesch

Published 19 February 2007



American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).

The Bush administration has made much of sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf. But it is a tiny part of the preparations. Post 9/11, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's notice. Two carriers in the region, the USS John C Stennis and the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, could quickly be joined by three more now at sea: USS Ronald Reagan, USS Harry S Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well as by USS Nimitz. Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles.

Then there are the marines, who are not tied down fighting in Iraq. Several marine forces are assembling, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and, yes, hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Today, marines have the USS Boxer and USS Bataan carrier forces in the Gulf and probably also the USS Kearsarge and USS Bonhomme Richard. Three others, the USS Peleliu, USS Wasp and USS Iwo Jima, are ready to join them. Earlier this year, HQ staff to manage these forces were moved from Virginia to Bahrain.

Vice-President Dick Cheney has had something of a love affair with the US marines, and this may reach its culmination in the fishing villages along Iran's Gulf coast. Marine generals hold the top jobs at Nato, in the Pentagon and are in charge of all nuclear weapons. No marine has held any of these posts before.

Traditionally, the top nuclear job went either to a commander of the navy's Trident submarines or of the air force's bombers and missiles. Today, all these forces follow the orders of a marine, General James Cartwright, and are integrated into a "Global Strike" plan which places strategic forces on permanent 12-hour readiness.

The only public discussion of this plan has been by the American analysts Bill Arkin and Hans Kristensen, who have focused on the possible use of atomic weapons. These concerns are justified, but ignore how forces can be used in conventional war.

Any US general planning to attack Iran can now assume that at least 10,000 targets can be hit in a single raid, with warplanes flying from the US or Diego Garcia. In the past year, unlimited funding for military technology has taken "smart bombs" to a new level.

New "bunker-busting" conventional bombs weigh only 250lb. According to Boeing, the GBU-39 small-diameter bomb "quadruples" the firepower of US warplanes, compared to those in use even as recently as 2003. A single stealth or B-52 bomber can now attack between 150 and 300 individual points to within a metre of accuracy using the global positioning system.

With little military effort, the US air force can hit the last-known position of Iranian military units, political leaders and supposed sites of weapons of mass destruction. One can be sure that, if war comes, George Bush will not want to stand accused of using too little force and allowing Iran to fight back.

"Global Strike" means that, without any obvious signal, what was done to Serbia and Lebanon can be done overnight to the whole of Iran. We, and probably the Iranians, would not know about it until after the bombs fell. Forces that hide will suffer the fate of Saddam's armies, once their positions are known.

The whole of Iran is now less than an hour's flying time from some American base or carrier. Sources in the region as well as trade journals confirm that the US has built three bases in Azerbaijan that could be transit points for troops and with facilities equal to its best in Europe.

Most of the Iranian army is positioned along the border with Iraq, facing US army missiles that can reach 150km over the border. But it is in the flat, sandy oilfields east and south of Basra where the temptation will be to launch a tank attack and hope that a disaffected population will be grateful.

The regime in Tehran has already complained of US- and UK-inspired terror attacks in several Iranian regions where the population opposes the ayatollahs' fanatical policies. Such reports corroborate the American journalist Seymour Hersh's claim that the US military is already engaged in a low-level war with Iran. The fighting is most intense in the Kurdish north where Iran has been firing artillery into Iraq. The US and Iran are already engaged in a low-level proxy war across the Iran-Iraq border.

And, once again, the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute have a plan for a peaceful settlement: this time it is for a federal Iran. Officially, Michael Ledeen, the AEI plan's sponsor, has been ostracised by the White House. However, two years ago, the Congress of Iranian Nationalities for a Federal Iran had its inaugural meeting in London.

We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran.

It just did not happen. This is proof that you listen too much to the condemning left wing press, is it not? Try thinking middle of the road interpretation of facts by moderate writers.

[mkemse]

Of course you are not surprised! Bush left office at a time in history when the judging press was 93% liberal, communistic, socialistic, and far left in their interpretation of things. Jesus Christ had the same liberals judging him and look what his approval rating was. Following generations and more fair judges will rate G.W. Bush very favorable.

Jesus Christ and Bush received the same treatment. Jesus saved the world and Bush saved the USA from more 9/11 attacks. Neither person was given credit for what they did by the contemporary judges of historical accomplishments. Only a fool would expect today's press wound rate Bush at the top but his day will come and the hard hearted liberals of today will be judged in the same light as Jesus Christ's judges. History is not interpreted by any panel of contemprary judges assembled at this time. The interpretation of history is left to future generations who will be more fair than the Bush haters of today.
I am back, wmrs2

True, but his saving us from more 911 attacks does not change his Failures on Foreign Policy
The Poll taken was among BOTH Neo Conservatives and Liberals, even Fox News rated him at less then a 21% approval rating and I certainly do not comsider Fox News a Liberal Network


True fair Judgement on Bush as you said will take a few years, I assume (based on age) neither of us will be around when that happens
Thereality still is that his total Foreign Policy failers are big as they were will over shadow his saving us from more attacks, and for the most part his policies have cause most countries on theworld to have GREAT distain towards the United STates, we havevery few allies now, far fewer then when he took office, I also have issue with a President be they Democratic or Repbilcn that are NOT transpartent to those who supported and voted forthem, I saw NO transpareny in the Bush Adm.

And aside from the Mardi Gra this year and Lat, 3 years after the fact, New Prleans is not much better off now then they were then a Demestic Policy Failure
It is hard to support ANY President regardless of Party who is not honest with the voters of this country
Yes I am a LIberal, but I hadrly consider myself either a Communist or a Socialist, you cab be a Lerbal Democrat and not be a Communist or Socialist
And Micheal Steele the new RNC chairman sais 1 week ago, don't blame the DEmocrats for the mess we are in now, it is current and was NOT there there doing and if we want to attract our base bac we need to chage the image of our Party now orwe will continue to loose election we have to broade our base of supporters and platform (he did not give specifics on thechanges in the platform they ned to change only that changes had to be madefor the RNC to go anywhere now, as he put it the 2006 & 2008 elections were a clear mandate for change, Domesticly and Foreign

,

[wmrs2]

Again I respectfully submit you are wrong, way wrong. Al Quaida was NOT in Iraq, Never in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Hussein's Iraq was very secular and Al Quaida CLAIMS to be a religious organization. Al Quaida became part of Iraq only because we invaded. THESE are the facts.

Bush and Cheney were planning to invade Iraq before 9/11. Our national tragedy was USED by the Bush administration to justify their folly of a War.

Your observation is correct about Al Quaida not being in Iraq. Your conclusions miss the point that Al Quaida is a world enemy of the USA. Wherever the presence of the USA is, that is where Al Quaida will attack us. That is the way it has always been with Al Quaida. When Al Quaida attacks us again, I hope the liberal press and anti war liberals will give Obama more support than they gave Bush. He will need our support to protect the country and keep it free.
wmrs2

[mkemse]

The easiest way to take Al Quaida out, and most ( Tee Leader Of Pakastan ect) feel Bib Laden is hiding in the Tora Bora Mountains is send in bombers and Flatten that whole region, distroy the mountains and surrounding area and as far as those who say "We can't there will be too much Colleteral Damage" yes there will be, but there tremous collateral Dameage on 911
In any war their will be civilian deaths no way to avoid that, if you level that mountain area it won't take Al Quaida out 100% but it will certain severly hamper theirr efforts

[wmrs2]

LOL. Well, I see that when you can't justify your 'facts' you turn to personal attacks. And I don't get all my news from Fox News, with their partisan viewpoints.

And it has been proven (unless you are Dick Cheney, who believes what he wants to believe, and damn the facts) that Hussein and Al Quaida hated one another.

AND Bush wanted war with Iraq and, what is more important, CHENEY wanted war with Iraq.

It is a good idea to not damn the facts but it is pure prejudice speculation that Cheney and Bush wanted war with Iraq. Hussein and Al Quaida hated each other, no doubt about it. But they both hated the USA more and both called for the destruction of the USA. Iraq would be a great enemy of the USA if we had not taken them down. That is a reason we should not allow Al Quaida to take over Iraq with an oppositional attitude to the USA.

Obama will be forced to eventually take the middle of the road approach like Bush did if he is going to protect us from a world wide attack on our global interest, don't you think?

[wmrs2]

That was all CNN posted it was listed as the complete interview
When Bush annouced our plans to invade IRaq with "Shock and Awe" I belived he said he planned for troops to be in there for about 90 days or so, but no long term stay there:", in an interview a few days before he left office, he said "Yes the war has gone on much, much longer then we had planned, we did not realize how many terrorists we would be dealing with, how many insurents"

Well it would seem to me that if our country to War, you would make it a point to know the size of your enemy and know you are dealing with say 200,000 insurents and knowwhatthey are using to weapons ect

Evertime someone too him to task on this he always seemd to say "Our Inteligence was based on Fault Information" how can you go to war based on Faulty Interligence, you look at what you have, verify it make sure sll the info you have is a current as is avaiialbe at that time and check and if need be recheck it, you don't just go in then 3 years or 5 years later say "Well, we had no idea how many enemy we would be fighting" that makes no sense makes no sense

Counties going to war rarely have the true picture of their enemy. Evil dictators go to war when their intelligence tells them they will win. The USA goes to war over principles of freedom and justice no matter what the odds are. That is the way our country has survived and will survive if Obama does the same as Bush did, don't you think? We must decide if we are going to act on principle like Bush did or only defend freedom when we have enough money or power like the liberals do today. It comes down to a way of thinking, doesn't it?

[wmrs2]

On June 16, 2004 the 911 Commission reported that it had not found any "collaborative connection" between Hussein's government and Al Qaeda. There was NO complicity between those two.

Yes, this might be true but does that mean that neither was a threat to the UBA? The attack of 9/11 proves this false and the dancing in the streets in Iraq showed which side Iraq was on. Your statement of no complicity has less meaning when view from this perspective, is that not true?

[wmrs2]

The Security Council did agree to one resolution, UNSC Resolution 1441, that called on Iraq to disarm its weapons of mass destruction and cooperate with UN inspectors, but did not include an authorization for the use of force against Iraq. In Resolution 1441, the Security Council indicated that it would remain 'seized' of the matter, meaning that it continued to assert its authority as the final international arbiter of the use of force in the matter.

When the US went back to the Security Council for a second and follow-up resolution to 1441, this one to provide authorization to proceed to war against Iraq, the Security Council refused to comply with the US demand for such authorization on the grounds that it wanted to give the UN inspectors more time to finish their work.

We did not go into Iraq under UN authority.



Cite: May/June 2003 Issue of "Foreign Affairs" magazine article by Dr. Michael Glennon.
"On October 25... After intensive, behind-the-scenes haggling, the council responded to Bush's challenge on November 7 by unanimously adopting Resolution 1441, which found Iraq in 'material breach' of prior resolutions, set up a new inspections regime, and warned once again of 'serious consequences' if Iraq again failed to disarm. The resolution did not explicitly authorize force, however, and Washington pledged to return to the council for another discussion before resorting to arms.

It comes down to this, do we only go to war under UN authority or do we go to war in defense of democratic principle when our interest are in danger?

[wmrs2]

Unfortunately, faulty intelligence is one of the hazards of war. There's no way to determine, with absolute certainty, that your intelligence is accurate until you actually have troops on the ground. By then it's too late. That's what is referred to as "the fog of war." Modern intelligence gathering methods may reduce that fog to a heavy mist, but there are still no guarantees.

I think the biggest problem we had in going to war with Iraq was our own leaders' arrogance in believing that such a small country could actually defy the United States. And as for the true reasons for the war, I'm firmly convinced that a major role was played by Bush's attempting to placate those people who felt his father had "chickened out" by not invading Iraq during the first Gulf War. Public opinion may have had more to do with the fall of Sadam than anything else.

Admittedly a lot of people think like you. But these are your opinions of Bush's arrogance. Even if true, these are your opinions. Father Bush had pledged to the UN and allied nations that he would not invade Baghdad. He was honor bound to stop and did not "chickened out" as you call it. Think how the liberal press would have crucified Father Bush had he finished the job in 1991. It seems to me that liberal thinkers are going to damn a Bush no matter what direction is taken. Do you agree that there is truth in what I say?

[wmrs2]

Ok I understand that, but I also believe that Bush's real reason for gfoing intoIraq was NOT alleged WMD but rather to save face and cover and make up for his Father faiire in The Golf War, iI believe and this is only my opnion, that Iraq was done to finish what Bush Senior was not able to
Asfar as Sadam's fall, that may have been an excuse to go in, but Bush was even convinced apparently at 1 time that Sadamwas heavily involed in the 911 attackm but ion what I have read, Sadam and Bin Laden did not care much for each much less be co horts in 911, i just can't see that and I neverday or heard anything indcating that Iraq had anything to so wth the attack except for "What The White House FELT" do you invade a country on fellings or on Intelligence??

It is a fact that the USA was 100% successful in the Golf War in that the USA accomplished what it set out to do. So to criticize Bush for doing what he said he was not going to do is not fair. You do want to be fair, don't you?

[wmrs2]

All the propaganda aside even the most zealous Bush supporters are painfully aware how harshly his presidency will be judged. All the revisionist tomes wont change the fact that the more time passes the more harsh History's verdict will be.

However a very intersting question comes to mind....How much different Bush presidency would have been if he had the backbone to pick another VP?

Bush never striked me as a particularly evil person, a spoiled rich brat- yes, juvenile, rude, irresponsible, lacking intelligence and utterly incompetent- omg, Yes.

But can you imagine him without Cheney or Rove?

Then again without Rove there never would have been president
G.W.

It comes across to me that you do not like Republicans. That's ok and fair. I don't like Democrats and I think Jack Kennedy was the most corrupt president of all time and he was a complet failure. I can not think of one thing he did for our country and I believe his own party participate in his death to protect the country from his evil influence. I admit that I have no proof of this at all. It is just my opinion but it is as fair as your opinion of Rove and Cheney.

[wmrs2]

Bush was more Cheney's puppet than President... Cheney is screaming how Obama is destryoying Bush's ( read Cheney's) Legacy. Personally I would have a mixed committee investigate Cheney, Bush, and Rove. That should prove very interesting.

An investigation of Bush, Cheney, and Rove would take the pressure historically off B. Clayton, JFK, and the rest of the the over sexed politicians but it would do nothing to promote the country. Demonstrates have 4 years to save the country from the Bush influence. They need all the support they can muster up so why don't you do the responsible thing and forget about revenge. The Democrats did lose to Bush in 1990 and 1994. did they not? It is over. Democrats need to get over it too.

[mkemse]

I do not recall which one it was right off hand, but one of our Presidents back in the 180''s wasrankedas the worst ever, I believei t was Harding not sure
You are coorect, Buah was a puppet to Cheney and Rove, cheeny made decisons not Bush
But I still feel Bush's legacy will be genenrations down the road and will be based on his Foriegn Policy Failures
And remember, Bush was NOT elected to but 1 term his first trerm was gievn to him by the Supremem Court not by voters, and to the best of my knowledged and feel free to correct me ifi am wrong, he won hissecond term becuase no President I recall in History was ever voted out while we were at War
Interstingly enough someone asked me the other Day how I now compare Obama to Bush, simple "Bush was in office for 8 years, Obama just barely 1 month, way, way to early to judge Obama

[wmrs2]

True, but his saving us from more 911 attacks does not change his Failures on Foreign Policy
The Poll taken was among BOTH Neo Conservatives and Liberals, even Fox News rated him at less then a 21% approval rating and I certainly do not comsider Fox News a Liberal Network


True fair Judgement on Bush as you said will take a few years, I assume (based on age) neither of us will be around when that happens
Thereality still is that his total Foreign Policy failers are big as they were will over shadow his saving us from more attacks, and for the most part his policies have cause most countries on theworld to have GREAT distain towards the United STates, we havevery few allies now, far fewer then when he took office, I also have issue with a President be they Democratic or Repbilcn that are NOT transpartent to those who supported and voted forthem, I saw NO transpareny in the Bush Adm.

And aside from the Mardi Gra this year and Lat, 3 years after the fact, New Prleans is not much better off now then they were then a Demestic Policy Failure
It is hard to support ANY President regardless of Party who is not honest with the voters of this country
Yes I am a LIberal, but I hadrly consider myself either a Communist or a Socialist, you cab be a Lerbal Democrat and not be a Communist or Socialist
And Micheal Steele the new RNC chairman sais 1 week ago, don't blame the DEmocrats for the mess we are in now, it is current and was NOT there there doing and if we want to attract our base bac we need to chage the image of our Party now orwe will continue to loose election we have to broade our base of supporters and platform (he did not give specifics on thechanges in the platform they ned to change only that changes had to be madefor the RNC to go anywhere now, as he put it the 2006 & 2008 elections were a clear mandate for change, Domesticly and Foreign

,

What foreign failures? It still comes down to your opinion which I think is very flawed by liberal interpretations. The USA is still a free country and many foreigners have lost many more freedoms than we have. Bush has been more successful in foreign affairs than his predecessors in my opinion. But again, it comes down to opinion. I happen to like the way I think than the way you think.

[mkemse]

Question, if Bush's Legacy was Great and is Considered by Some to have been a Great Prsident, and John McCain was going to follow in his footsteps Policy wise on most, not all but most issues, then why was McCain trounced last November in the elction? the elction was not even close

[wmrs2]

Question, if Bush's Legacy was Great and is Considered by Some to have been a Great Prsident, and John McCain was going to follow in his footsteps Policy wise on most, not all but most issues, then why was McCain trounced last November in the elction? the elction was not even close

The answer is simple. But, it will not make you feel better. The liberal press elected Obama and the bad economy hurt the Republicans too. These facts do not make either candidate better but the liberals are now on the scales of judgment. Let's see if they can deliver better than their last representatives have delivered. Don't forget Congress is Democratic and has a historically low approval rating. Tell me, how are you fellers going to improve this image and legacy?