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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

mammasan wrote:

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.

Please list an example or two of when Bush refused to work with both democrats and republicans.

jeffbr wrote:

Carter was that bad after all. His presidency is still looked at as a failure. But what he did post-presidency has certainly elevated peoples' opinion of him as a man and he often takes the role of elder statesman.

Bush's presidency will always been seen as a failure. As the ushering in of chaos. Losing superpower status. Losing international respect. Failing domestically. Failing in conflicts. Creating unprecedented government growth and spending. Whittling away civil rights. No matter what he does post-presidency, that won't be erased. He'll go on to be baseball commissioner or something, and people will think he's a fun guy, but I don't believe his presidency will ever be look upon as anything but abject failure.

1) Carter did a good job after his presidency. In fact he even won a nobel peace prize which was well deserved. Carter was just in over his head. He had good intentions with bad results.

2) Now it is true that Bush spent way more. However, he did not lose America as a Superpower. He did strain some allies with the US, but the US is still looked as THE POWER in the world. I think it will be more than likely that Bush will vanish like Nixon did. Just completely fed up with how people treated him in general.

timmyshee wrote:

Do you see his dad getting out there and helping underprivelidged kids around the world? .

Yes.

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.

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.

nathanastin wrote:

This is laughable; Clinton has spent most of his time earning tons of money making speeches and writing books; way more than any other past president.

I didn't say anything about his money making, just that he really seems to care about AIDS and has made a sterling effort in countries such as Brazil to fight it.