Home› A Moving Train
Options

Will History Prove "W" To Be Better Than We Gave Him Credit For?

pjalive21pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
edited November 2008 in A Moving Train
thoughts?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Options
    BinFrogBinFrog MA Posts: 7,292
    I truly believe that will not be the case.
    Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
    Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
  • Options
    pjalive21pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
    BinFrog wrote:
    I truly believe that will not be the case.

    i believe his first 4 years were good, but the last 4 even left me scratching my head

    i believe he kept us safe and that im thankful for
  • Options
    decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,976
    no.
    personally, i think if anything...with time and distance..i think history will prove the opposite. i think his presidency was far more damaging than we even imagine...and we will live and feel th repercussions for a long, long time.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • Options
    AnonAnon Posts: 11,175
    Of course it will be somewhat dependent upon who's writing the history...but I tend to think not.

    One does not achieve all-time lows in recorded popularity without some justifiable cause.

    You can argue to high heaven (and some will) that the multiple tragic failings of his administration are not entirely his fault. That is probably true. However, his lack of vision and temperance, insistent practice of cronyism, father issues, and almost total absence of intellectual curiosity surely didn't help.
  • Options
    slightofjeffslightofjeff Posts: 7,757
    Guess it depends on what happens in Iraq.

    If it becomes, basically, Germany 2.0 ... I think that would help his legacy immensely.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • Options
    PJ_SalukiPJ_Saluki Posts: 1,006
    Nothing is impossible and it shouldn't be too hard given how little credit he got (earned?) while he was in the Oval Office. I guess it depends on Iraq, though who knows how things would have gone had we not invaded.
    "Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
  • Options
    aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,118
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/bush.legacy/index.html?iref=newssearch
  • Options
    Jack_C_GregoryJack_C_Gregory Posts: 540
    I would have to suggest no, at the moment. I don't think anyone that was actually alive during his reign will ever have a nice thing to write.

    However... they do always talk about how unpopular Lincoln was during his time in the White House, and if for some unexplainable reason the invasion of Iraq did lead to democracy and peace in the middle east I could see where down the road he might get some credit with taking the initiative to getting that done. In which case he would probably be praised, the way Lincoln is praised for saving the Union all these years later. ( I really doubt this though. It is just a LONG shot in my opinion.)
  • Options
    g under pg under p Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,122
    decides2dream wrote:
    no.
    personally, i think if anything...with time and distance..i think history will prove the opposite. i think his presidency was far more damaging than we even imagine...and we will live and feel th repercussions for a long, long time.

    More along these lines for sure. However comedians had a field day, 8 years of CONSTANT material.

    Peace
    *We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti

    *MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
    .....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti

    *The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)


  • Options
    MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 11,611
    I would say no. But nobody can say for sure. I think it will be clearer in a shorter term though than usual. It wont take more than 4 years to a decade to see what history will make of Bush II.
  • Options
    decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,976
    g under p wrote:
    More along these lines for sure. However comedians had a field day, 8 years of CONSTANT material.

    Peace




    seriously, our first truly pre-emptive war, us being the agressors...and for what? and does it set a precident for future actions? it cannot be undone. for that alone he should go down as one of the worst presidents. ever. imo of course.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • Options
    slightofjeffslightofjeff Posts: 7,757
    decides2dream wrote:
    seriously, our first truly pre-emptive war, us being the agressors...and for what? and does it set a precident for future actions? it cannot be undone. for that alone he should go down as one of the worst presidents. ever. imo of course.

    I don't mean to compare the two ... but, just consider this food for thought:

    What if invading Germany in 1939 would have ousted Hitler, prevented the Holocaust and avoided WWII? Would that pre-emptive war have been worth it?
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • Options
    Strangest TribeStrangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    I think we can use the world's response to the outcome of this election as a great measure of the reflection of the policies and short-commings of the George W Bush years.
    It will be hard to paint W in any light but that of a below avg President.
    He sucked balls bigtime and unless the history books are written for evangelical private schools the history concerning the Bush II will only reflect the controversy of the Iraq war and the poor economy.
    The events of 9/11 could save him some grace and keep him from being the worst president ever but any serious study of this time will only show how the American people and the world were "manipulated" for many years with false flags by those in power.
    the Minions
  • Options
    mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    The only way I can see Bush's legacy being redeemed is if Iraq become a democratic utopia where wide spread reform flows from in the Middle East. If say 10, 20, 30 years from now the Middle East is a peaceful democratic region then Bush's will have a positive legacy.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Options
    OpenOpen Posts: 792
    I think he will be seen more as a Ayatollah Khomeini rather than a Lincoln. The parallels are there...
  • Options
    jbalicki10jbalicki10 Posts: 517
    The downfall of Bush began when he began to reach in being a non-partisian president. He tried to reach both the right and the left and he failed miserably because both sides would not meet in the middle. When he first took office he was strictly right and he was effective.

    Obama should learn from this. He should stay left and stay clear of non-partisian politics. It just doesnt work...
  • Options
    mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    jbalicki10 wrote:
    The downfall of Bush began when he began to reach in being a non-partisian president. He tried to reach both the right and the left and he failed miserably because both sides would not meet in the middle. When he first took office he was strictly right and he was effective.

    Obama should learn from this. He should stay left and stay clear of non-partisian politics. It just doesnt work...

    I would have to say that it is the complete opposite. What made Bush such a bad president was his inability or unwillingness to work with the other side.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Options
    pjalive21pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
    great feedback everyone!

    i think the Lincoln comparison is plausible if things in Iraq turn out peaceful

    other than that he was an average to below average president over 8 years, the last 4 hurting him the most
  • Options
    jbalicki10jbalicki10 Posts: 517
    mammasan wrote:
    I would have to say that it is the complete opposite. What made Bush such a bad president was his inability or unwillingness to work with the other side.

    Nope, Remember the bailout? He voted with the Democrats. Remember the Stimulous package? He help change the bill for Non-Tax payers to get the money as well... I could go on and on...
  • Options
    Ms. HaikuMs. Haiku Washington DC Posts: 7,250
    No.

    The delayed response to Katrina
    The astronomical cost of the Iraq War
    Guantanomo Bay staff treatment of prisoners
    Decreased respectability towards US from other countries. We are still a power, but not the exclusive superpower in my opinion. I have a feeling outside of the US we are seen as predatory simple mind folk. Posturing towards North Korea and Iran. It was embarrassing as an USer to read about his threatening other nations when we can't even finish a war.
    Was there better education for children? (I don't know.)
    Was there better access to health care? (I don't know.)
    Worst economic crisis since the Depression

    On his shift I saw more media advances for a common person's opinion ie. blogs/podcasts etc, but it seems that fewer entities own the airwaves or internet waves.
    There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous
    The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
  • Options
    DerrickDerrick Posts: 475
    The Sarbanes-Oxley regulations have made my life a living hell. Of course, this was brought on by the crooks at Enron, whom I'm sure Bush/Cheney had ties to in the first place.
  • Options
    jimed14jimed14 Posts: 9,488
    his legacy as a president will continue to be molded even after he's out of office ...

    Look at Clinton ... hell, he was up for impeechment. As much as Bush has been a bad president, the whole scene with Lewinsky was such a humiliation for this country. But, with his post presidential work with the Clinton Initiative, a little "remarketing", now .... he's seemingly beloved.

    Bush is an affable guy ... as long as he doesn't have the tag "President of the United States of America" on him, I could see him, possibly continuing his work to aid Africa and looking like a champ ... which will bleed into his presidency. Won't put him in Lincoln territory ... but, it'll improve people's perception of his presidency.
    "You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91

    "I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
  • Options
    mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    jbalicki10 wrote:
    Nope, Remember the bailout? He voted with the Democrats. Remember the Stimulous package? He help change the bill for Non-Tax payers to get the money as well... I could go on and on...

    I don't think the stimulus package or the bail out are even close to being his worst moments.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Options
    beachdwellerbeachdweller Posts: 1,532
    my opinion is no. who claimed to be the decider, the uniter, and he divided the country through negativity and exclusion, and made terrible decisions in the people he surrounded himself with. He never really showed humility. I can't ever see being found of these days except in the fact that they lead to today.
    "Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)

    Stop by:
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
  • Options
    beachdwellerbeachdweller Posts: 1,532
    Maya Angelou just said it best on MSNBC, "President George W Bush was my President, I didn't vote for him, but he was my President the last eight years, the problem is he didn't know he was suppose to be my President."

    it's that attitude the Bush administration took that was one of their major problems. He made decisions with the same process and intent as he campaigned. You can't run a country on Rove's rules. That's one of the reasons why 43% of whites voted for an African-American for President, that and the fact he's smarter and more competent, IMO, than anyone that's held the job in a few generations.
    "Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)

    Stop by:
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
  • Options
    i shit and i stinki shit and i stink Posts: 1,122
    Anyone here likening Saddam to Hitler needs to test their head. Hitler was leader of a major nation which was clearly gearing up for war for several years and had the resources, manpower and weak neighbours to launch a crippling offensive at any time. Saddam was just a guy sitting on a lot of oil who was probably no worse than Mugabe, Kim Jong Ill or other tyrants around the world.

    Attempting to suggest that the war in Iraq in any way added to the 'safety' of America or anyone else in the world is unthinkable. Saddam couldn't have launched an offensive against an average sized lych gang, let alone the world's biggest superpower. All that war has done is piss off people all over the Middle East... imagine the Pakistani army invading to secure peace in Yugoslavia ten years ago, do you think Europeans would have applauded that magnanimous and self-effecing act?! (Oh, I forgot, there is bugger all in Yugoslavia except land mines and nice beaches, so nobody would bother liberating those people, would they?)

    And whoever said, "he kept us safe" must have forgotten what happened 7 years and one month ago.

    Bush was a prat and always will be, however, I agree that he will be remembered more fondly than he is now, as he currently has a minus rating, so even if he gets back to zero it's an achievement.
    we're all going to the same place...
  • Options
    jbalicki10jbalicki10 Posts: 517
    mammasan wrote:
    I don't think the stimulus package or the bail out are even close to being his worst moments.

    Doesn't matter, I am just giving recent examples when Bush and Co. tried to do bi-partisianship. It just doesn't work and you get ridiculed by both parties for even trying to find even ground. It's really sad. Obama needs to stay left or he will get eaten alive by both democrats and republicans. Just as if Mccain won, he would have to stay completely right or get eaten alive.
  • Options
    beachdwellerbeachdweller Posts: 1,532
    timmyshee wrote:
    Anyone here likening Saddam to Hitler needs to test their head. Hitler was leader of a major nation which was clearly gearing up for war for several years and had the resources, manpower and weak neighbours to launch a crippling offensive at any time. Saddam was just a guy sitting on a lot of oil who was probably no worse than Mugabe, Kim Jong Ill or other tyrants around the world.

    Attempting to suggest that the war in Iraq in any way added to the 'safety' of America or anyone else in the world is unthinkable. Saddam couldn't have launched an offensive against an average sized lych gang, let alone the world's biggest superpower. All that war has done is piss off people all over the Middle East... imagine the Pakistani army invading to secure peace in Yugoslavia ten years ago, do you think Europeans would have applauded that magnanimous and self-effecing act?! (Oh, I forgot, there is bugger all in Yugoslavia except land mines and nice beaches, so nobody would bother liberating those people, would they?)

    And whoever said, "he kept us safe" must have forgotten what happened 7 years and one month ago.

    Bush was a prat and always will be, however, I agree that he will be remembered more fondly than he is now, as he currently has a minus rating, so even if he gets back to zero it's an achievement.

    well said, Saddam wasn't a threat to us, but he did play a role in keeping Iran in check.
    "Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)

    Stop by:
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
  • Options
    NYbenbenNYbenben Posts: 1,020
    i really dont think so...

    then again, when Carter left office, he wasnt thought of very highly, but he really wasnt that bad afterall...

    Bush? Yes... that bad afterall...
    4/12/92, 8/11/92, 9/28/96, 9/11/98, 8/23/00, 8/24/00, 7/9/03, 4/30/03, 10/1/04, 10/3/05, 12/9/05, 5/12/06, 5/17/06, 5/28/06, 6/3/06, 12/9/06, EV LA 4/12-4/13/08, 6/12/08, 6,19,08, 6,20,08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 7/1/08

    and still jonesing for another show....
    "the waiting drove me mad..."
  • Options
    mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    jbalicki10 wrote:
    Doesn't matter, I am just giving recent examples when Bush and Co. tried to do bi-partisianship. It just doesn't work and you get ridiculed by both parties for even trying to find even ground. It's really sad. Obama needs to stay left or he will get eaten alive by both democrats and republicans. Just as if Mccain won, he would have to stay completely right or get eaten alive.

    It was Bush's divisiveness and refusal to work with the other party that divided this country. He created an environment of hyper-partisanship that they few times he did try to reach across the aisle the partisanship he created helped defeat those efforts. All you have to do is look back to the Clinton presidency. his success came from working with the other party, not by working against them.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Sign In or Register to comment.