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

13»

Comments

  • nothinghead
    nothinghead Posts: 270
    His presidency = I'm sure history will look on him more fondly then his we have the last two years, but that still might not be much to brag about.

    The man = it's quite possible.

    He's still fairly young compared to a lot of leaders who have left office and depending on what he does post-presidency, history may look on him favorably.

    Then again, look at Presidents like Andrew Jackson. Despite his, err, shortcomings, he's on our currency--a wonderful example of irony. A lot of early Presidents were highly divisive and are now revered.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    It has to.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    nathanastin wrote:
    I admire him sticking to his guns a la Lincoln, who was also ridiculed. Americans should be ashamed for the disrespect and vitriol that was spewn his way in the public and the media. The office deserves more respect. I hope Obama gets some of this just to show how ridiculous it is. But once right thinking people say anything, they will be lambasted as racist.

    The strong difference between Lincoln and Bush is that President Bush was constantly given examples and opportunities of why one of his policies was wrong, why he needn't to change his mindset, and he refused to do so because he felt it was more principled to 'stay decisive.' The Iraq war is a particularly good example of this trait. It is enormously principled to remain decisive against big problems to see them through. It is enormously stupid to continue to do something wrong in an attempt to look strong.

    I think President Bush's presidency will not be looked back upon fondly. Under his watch, the federal government failed to act in New Orleans, was unable to catch Osama bin Laden, did not forward the search for alternative energy sources in any significant manner, and sent this nation to war upon false pretense, the most telling sign of a commander-in-chief's incompetence.
  • acutejam
    acutejam Posts: 1,433
    Sir Geldof himself wrote in Time magazine that W has simply been the best U.S. president for Africa ... ever, even combining prez's before him you can't reach the magnitude of aid he dumped into Africa.

    Stories like that went under-reported -- and there's lots of them.

    He had a hostile media, and was hostile to it, almost his entire presidency so the good stories about his presidency just never really came to light.

    Admittedly, his good points are overshadowed by some incredible gaffs and wrongheadedness -- but yeah, if we're looking at a completely democratic Middle East 50 years from now, easy to spot where it started.

    I'm hoping history (and by that, the future) vindicates him.
    [sic] happens
  • Smellyman2
    Smellyman2 Posts: 689
    nathanastin wrote:
    I actually think it may; however, it's usually liberal college professors that get most of the historical say. He has kept us safe after 9/11, which lands more in Clinton's lap. His failures are not changing economic policies put in place by Clinton (i.e. forcing banks to loan money to people who really couldn't afford a house), No Child Left Behind, big government spending.

    kept you safe since 911....you perhaps could say that. Innocents in Iraq and our military....not so much.



    Remember before Bush was President......the attacks on the US were daily. There was 94 that killed nobody and................
  • The Champ
    The Champ Posts: 4,063
    I don't know, but the critics didn't give 'W.' a lot of credit:
    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/w_2008/?critic=creamcrop
    'I want to hurry home to you
    put on a slow, dumb show for you
    and crack you up
    so you can put a blue ribbon on my brain
    god I'm very, very frightening
    and I'll overdo it'
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    Time has a way of revealing truth.
    I think Bush will be remembered as the one who got us into Iraq... and someone else will take the credit or the blame for getting us out... based upon the outcome of our withdrawal.
    And the Iraqis will play a large role in that outcome... whether they decide to live in peace with their differing religious sects.. or use those sects to create a war amongst themselves. Remember, based upon their mindset, they are tribal first... then, Sunni, Shi'ia or Kurdish... and finally, Iraqi.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Fighting Hellfish
    Fighting Hellfish Posts: 3,175
    No.
  • Brain of J.Lo
    Brain of J.Lo Posts: 3,259
    pjalive21 wrote:
    i believe he kept us safe and that im thankful for

    AFTER he ignored the information that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US. After Bin Laden attacked us on his watch. That's when he started "keeping us safe".

    I don't think he gets the credit for keeping us safe. And I think time will show that he did far more harm than good, and probably more harm than we even realize yet.

Categories