Bush's Place in History.

[GearJammer]

post removed by poster

[mkemse]

According to polls I have Read Including Teagan Woodards Poll taken in September of 2008 was 19%

[fetishdj]

I agree with Thorne.... this is current events rather than history and it is likely that historians of the future will judge things completely differently. Everyone (even and possibly especially non Americans) alive today has an opinion on Bush and all the other presidents mentioned. This is not good for objectivity.

[mkemse]

If nothing else on Bush, his legacy could very well boli down to his failed foreign policies

[Thorne]

If nothing else on Bush, his legacy could very well boli down to his failed foreign policies

Again, you're assuming that they have, indeed failed. While it's true that they may appear to have failed over the short term, the long term effects of his presidency have yet to be known.

Abraham Lincoln was considered a terrible president at the time. His significance to history wasn't realized until long afterwards.

Not to say that Bush can be compared to Lincoln. No one would be more surprised than I if he were seen to be anything other than a poor, if not downright bad, president.

[mkemse]

Again, you're assuming that they have, indeed failed. While it's true that they may appear to have failed over the short term, the long term effects of his presidency have yet to be known.

Abraham Lincoln was considered a terrible president at the time. His significance to history wasn't realized until long afterwards.

Not to say that Bush can be compared to Lincoln. No one would be more surprised than I if he were seen to be anything other than a poor, if not downright bad, president.

More so Iraq, when he annouced we were going in he said we would be in and out in 90 days, that was almost 8 years ago, we needed to focus on Afganistan not over through Iraq, Bin Laden and the Taliban are/were in the Tora Bora Mountain, not in Iraq, we had no reason to go into Iraq, they has nothing to do with 911 we should have placed all our forces and efforts in Afghanistan
Even if Iraq had connecion to 911 which Bush addmitted they did not, Bin Ladin was never there, he is who we are after

CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, during a discussion of President Bush’s recent trip to the Middle East on Monday’s "American Morning," cited her discussion with unnamed "analysts and experts," and concluded " it's hard to discern any evidence of any success on this trip whatsoever." "American Morning" substitute co-host Kyra Phillips, following-up to Amanpour’s analysis, remarked, "Well, critics have come forward and said, okay, whether it's his policies in Iraq, Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he's failed everywhere."
The three-minute segment, which was the last in the 6 am Eastern hour of the CNN program, came after a report by CNN correspondent Aneesh Raman, which summarized the President’s trip. Amanpour, in response to Phillips’ "failed everywhere" statement, gave a more nuanced take on President Bush’s foreign policy track record. "Well, events have moved beyond anybody's expectations and control.... If you look in Lebanon, the elected U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is not in control. Hamas is in control because it has a superiority -- rather Hezbollah, in terms of weapons. So the U.S.-backed allies there are not in control, basically, only in name only and de facto."

In her final question to Amanpour, Phillips continued her dour take on the Bush record. "And so is it him, is it his advisors? I mean, a lot of people are saying, he's got to do something for his legacy. He's got this Iraq war that's just tarnished his image and the Republican Party, but he continues to come home empty-handed. So can he even win?"

Amanpour replied, "Well, it's about policy, many of the analysts are saying. Policy is being pursued that has not paid off, in terms of the ends that presumably were imagined." She then concluded by going back to the issue of Lebanon, specifically, talking about the recent flare-up between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah.

The full transcript of the Amanpour/Phillips segment from Monday’s "American Morning:"

KYRA PHILLIPS: CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour joining us now. Did he [President Bush] achieve anything on this five-day tour?

He Samolia Policy FAiled, his Policy on Soviet Georgia Fail, his Policy with the Palastinians failed, their President has NO control there, the Palastianes are controlled by Hama not by
their President
you look in Lebanon, the elected U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is not in control. Hamas is in control because it has a superiority -- rather Hezbollah, in terms of weapons. So the U.S.-backed allies there are not in control, basically, only in name only and de facto
Mahmoud Abbas was elected to lead the Palastinian, yet Hama controls everthin,g anotherfailed US Bush Policy, he was backed bythe Bush Adminstration and chosen by the people of Palastine

[DuncanONeil]

More so Iraq, when he annouced we were going in he said we would be in and out in 90 days, that was almost 8 years ago, we needed to focus on Afganistan not over through Iraq, Bin Laden and the Taliban are/were in the Tora Bora Mountain, not in Iraq, we had no reason to go into Iraq, they has nothing to do with 911 we should have placed all our forces and efforts in Afghanistan
Even if Iraq had connecion to 911 which Bush addmitted they did not, Bin Ladin was never there, he is who we are after

CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, during a discussion of President Bush’s recent trip to the Middle East on Monday’s "American Morning," cited her discussion with unnamed "analysts and experts," and concluded " it's hard to discern any evidence of any success on this trip whatsoever." "American Morning" substitute co-host Kyra Phillips, following-up to Amanpour’s analysis, remarked, "Well, critics have come forward and said, okay, whether it's his policies in Iraq, Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he's failed everywhere."
The three-minute segment, which was the last in the 6 am Eastern hour of the CNN program, came after a report by CNN correspondent Aneesh Raman, which summarized the President’s trip. Amanpour, in response to Phillips’ "failed everywhere" statement, gave a more nuanced take on President Bush’s foreign policy track record. "Well, events have moved beyond anybody's expectations and control.... If you look in Lebanon, the elected U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is not in control. Hamas is in control because it has a superiority -- rather Hezbollah, in terms of weapons. So the U.S.-backed allies there are not in control, basically, only in name only and de facto."

In her final question to Amanpour, Phillips continued her dour take on the Bush record. "And so is it him, is it his advisors? I mean, a lot of people are saying, he's got to do something for his legacy. He's got this Iraq war that's just tarnished his image and the Republican Party, but he continues to come home empty-handed. So can he even win?"

Amanpour replied, "Well, it's about policy, many of the analysts are saying. Policy is being pursued that has not paid off, in terms of the ends that presumably were imagined." She then concluded by going back to the issue of Lebanon, specifically, talking about the recent flare-up between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah.

The full transcript of the Amanpour/Phillips segment from Monday’s "American Morning:"

KYRA PHILLIPS: CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour joining us now. Did he [President Bush] achieve anything on this five-day tour?

He Samolia Policy FAiled, his Policy on Soviet Georgia Fail, his Policy with the Palastinians failed, their President has NO control there, the Palastianes are controlled by Hama not by
their President
you look in Lebanon, the elected U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is not in control. Hamas is in control because it has a superiority -- rather Hezbollah, in terms of weapons. So the U.S.-backed allies there are not in control, basically, only in name only and de facto
Mahmoud Abbas was elected to lead the Palastinian, yet Hama controls everthin,g anotherfailed US Bush Policy, he was backed bythe Bush Adminstration and chosen by the people of Palastine

Where did he say in and out in 90 days?
Al Quaida also was seen and likely operating in Iraq, but that is not the reason for going into Iraq. UN resolution 1440 was the proximate reason.

The quotes you use from CNN are disjointed and make no sense.

[Belgarold]

Where did he say in and out in 90 days?
Al Quaida also was seen and likely operating in Iraq, but that is not the reason for going into Iraq. UN resolution 1440 was the proximate reason.

The quotes you use from CNN are disjointed and make no sense.

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.

[mkemse]

Where did he say in and out in 90 days?
Al Quaida also was seen and likely operating in Iraq, but that is not the reason for going into Iraq. UN resolution 1440 was the proximate reason.

The quotes you use from CNN are disjointed and make no sense.

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

[Belgarold]

I think Stealth hit the nail on the head. It was Bush's attitude and secrecy and arrogance that will be his legacy. He valued loyalty over competence and did not like to hear "defeatist" talk even when it was the truth.

Reagan is judged one of the 10 best mainly because of a concerted legacy project in the 1990s. I lived through Reagan's presidency, his was not a great presidency. I feel Bush is waiting for the same type of whitewashing of his administration. He was a bad president and for my money his legacy is our current situation in Irag, the economy and the partisan nature of Washington. LOL< and the fact that the Republicans cannot even utter his name most of the time.

[DuncanONeil]

I think Stealth hit the nail on the head. It was Bush's attitude and secrecy and arrogance that will be his legacy. He valued loyalty over competence and did not like to hear "defeatist" talk even when it was the truth.

Reagan is judged one of the 10 best mainly because of a concerted legacy project in the 1990s. I lived through Reagan's presidency, his was not a great presidency. I feel Bush is waiting for the same type of whitewashing of his administration. He was a bad president and for my money his legacy is our current situation in Irag, the economy and the partisan nature of Washington. LOL< and the fact that the Republicans cannot even utter his name most of the time.

I take it winning the Cold War counts for nothing?

[Belgarold]

I take it winning the Cold War counts for nothing?

Reagan did not WIN the cold war. He happened to be President when Gorbachev and powers within Russia brought down the SOviet Union. He made a speech that probably hastened the bringing down of the Berlin Wall.

But, this is one incident and ignores the economical issues that helped to begin the destruction of the middle class. He destroyed government programs that put many homeless on the streets and many of the mentally ill on the streets as well. This served to make our country less safe.

So, No, 'winning' the Cold War does not count for that much.

I have just been informed by a great friend that Bush, Sr. was president during the fall of the Soviet Union. So we are both wrong there. SO how COULD Reagan have WON the Cold War?

[DuncanONeil]

Reagan did not WIN the cold war. He happened to be President when Gorbachev and powers within Russia brought down the SOviet Union. He made a speech that probably hastened the bringing down of the Berlin Wall.

But, this is one incident and ignores the economical issues that helped to begin the destruction of the middle class. He destroyed government programs that put many homeless on the streets and many of the mentally ill on the streets as well. This served to make our country less safe.

So, No, 'winning' the Cold War does not count for that much.

Sorry but the proximate cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union was their inability to maintain a parity with the defense programs of the west, driven by the research of this country. Said research was driven by the administration to President Regan!

The Cold War is not much unless it was part of your life. And it is merely one issue.

[Belgarold]

Sorry but the proximate cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union was their inability to maintain a parity with the defense programs of the west, driven by the research of this country. Said research was driven by the administration to President Regan!

The Cold War is not much unless it was part of your life. And it is merely one issue.

I would really be interested in where your information comes from. The cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union had little or no relationship with the defense programs of the West or any research we were doing.

Internal forces brought about the fall of the Soviet Union and Gorbachev had more a hand in it than anything that was done in the West.

[moosehunter]

As bad as Bush's ratings were the congress and senate's ratings were lower. President Obama's Ratings are falling. I think the main reason Our latest politians are rated so low is that we know what they do almost before they do it and judge them before what they did has had a chance to work. Look at the stimulas bill. the congrssional budget office has judged it a bad bill with little or no chance to fix the economy. Let's hope there're wrong.

[DuncanONeil]

As bad as Bush's ratings were the congress and senate's ratings were lower. President Obama's Ratings are falling. I think the main reason Our latest politians are rated so low is that we know what they do almost before they do it and judge them before what they did has had a chance to work. Look at the stimulas bill. the congrssional budget office has judged it a bad bill with little or no chance to fix the economy. Let's hope there're wrong.

Nothing in the Spending bill is designed to stimulate anything. In fact of the 40% claimed to be tax relief at least half of that is going to be spent on things that have their own category in the "plan". Not to mention the fact that the plans call for states that accept money from the Feds must undo Welfare Reform as a result!

[Belgarold]

Nothing in the Spending bill is designed to stimulate anything. In fact of the 40% claimed to be tax relief at least half of that is going to be spent on things that have their own category in the "plan". Not to mention the fact that the plans call for states that accept money from the Feds must undo Welfare Reform as a result!

This may be your opinion but it is far from any sort of fact.

[DuncanONeil]

This may be your opinion but it is far from any sort of fact.

Sorry not opinion but actual fact. The revelation of the tax relief not being tax relieve comes from "Recovery.gov". In case you do not have the desire to check here is what it says. "Tax Relief - includes $15 B for Infrastructure and Science, $61 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $25 B for Education and Training and $22 B for Energy. Leaving only $165 B for tax relief. I was only guessing at 40% and in that you can say I was wrong as the reduction in relief is 42.7% not 40%.

The statement about "Welfare Reform" was from a news report. I am sure that a careful reading of the plans for the states will reveal the actual wording.

If there is anything I am it is not accepting of everything I hear. I am much more comfortable in reading the original material.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Presidential Approval Ratings, Since 1950
Below are the highest and lowest approval ratings ever received by a president in a national opinion poll throughout his presidency.

President Highest - Lowest
Harry Truman - 87% - 23%
Dwight Eisenhower - 79% - 48%
John F. Kennedy 83% - 56%
Lyndon Johnson 79% - 35%
Richard Nixon 67% - 24%
Gerald Ford 71% - 37%
Jimmy Carter 75% - 28%
Ronald Reagan 68% - 35%
George H.W. Bush 89% - 29%
Bill Clinton 73% - 37%
George W. Bush 90% - 25% (ABC- 23%, Fox-25%, NBC-27%, Gallup-25%)

Sources: Can West News Service; CNN; "The Ups and Downs of Presidential Popularity," Ron Faucheux, Campaigns and Elections magazine. Rateit.com

I think this reflects the variances the public feels during a presidency and shows the need for time (decades at least) to evaluate and even then its going to be biased since there's no real metric to measure "best". I think I, or anyone else for that matter, could make as good a case for Lincoln being among the worst or conversely make just as good a case for him being among the best. Its all in how you evaluate those facts.

[denuseri]

Its not so much what Bush senior wasnt able to do so much as what he was advised NOT to do by the chairman of the joint chiefs.

Full scale invasion and occupation was something which Cheney was allways pushing for and was completely in disagrement of his boss's desicion. (he was in Bush senior's administration under donald rumsfield at the time).

Many people (most of the public not aware of the stategic situation) didnt understand Bush seniors decison at the time and still dont in many instances.

Powell and many advisors pointed out that if an invasion was carried out it had to start with an overthrow from within to secure popular support (hence why the kurds and others were initially being urged to rebel) and that it would ultimately destabilize the region for decades making a power vaccum that Iran would try to fill, unless the US was prepared for a another long term occupation like those in Germany and Japan.

GW along with Chenny (holding more power and influence than any VP ever had before) apparantly decided to go with a long term stratagy. I am certian Chenney had a lot to do with the decison. He has allways had an axe to grind in this area. He went round and round with the CIA on the intellegence and insited several times despite thier disclosure of lacking proper information on pressing the issue. No surprise there for any student of history.

Regan's stratagy for the cold war is a little more off topic and should probably have it's own thread.

[damyanti]

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.

[mkemse]

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.

Bush himselfwas never EVIL, he had very poor choices for VP. Attorney Genenral and he was neevr complete transparent with the Americna People on any Major issue, the always claim "Excutive Privledge" all the time

Not to mention he took more vacation time then any President in History and had more people in his ADM convicted of crimes then any other President and this includes Nixon, by nature I am sure he is a very nice person, his descions on Cabinet Positions and VP were terrible

[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!

[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.

[Thorne]

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

If you want to see something he did for our country, and the world, just look at how you are able to communicate these ideas and discussions with people all over the world from the comfort of your own home. The basic technology which led to the personal computer, cell phones, medical technology, etc., etc., etc. all have their bases in the space program. It was Kennedy who propelled NASA from a sideline of the Defense Dept. to one of the most successful government agencies in history. If for no other reason, that makes Kennedy's presidency a success.

[wmrs2]

If you want to see something he did for our country, and the world, just look at how you are able to communicate these ideas and discussions with people all over the world from the comfort of your own home. The basic technology which led to the personal computer, cell phones, medical technology, etc., etc., etc. all have their bases in the space program. It was Kennedy who propelled NASA from a sideline of the Defense Dept. to one of the most successful government agencies in history. If for no other reason, that makes Kennedy's presidency a success.

Thank you. I do agree, this is an example of success. That goes to show that we can find something good about everybody if we are willing to look. There is a lot of good about Pres. Bush too.

[damyanti]

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.

[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!

[Stealth694]

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.

[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.